Paul Calandra

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 1321.

[Government Response to Petitions, June 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you might bring the member opposite under control for me. That would be very helpful.

We finally in the last speech heard that the one policy the New Democrats did have with respect to fiscal responsibility, bringing back the budget into balance, was the elimination of the Senate, which, according to them, would save $90 million, and I think they are right. I know we have heard all night how difficult it is when we put too much before the New Democrats. They cannot quite analyze it. Therefore, I want to drill down specifically then on the Senate because they have said that it is very important.

I wonder if the member could share with me what policies, bills and amendments the New Democrats have brought forward to the finance committee with respect to the elimination of the Senate and how they intend to deal with the objections of many of the provinces to the elimination of the Senate. If he could just follow up also with how they intend to deal with the NDP leader's current bill, which would give more powers to the Senate. If he could just zone in specifically on those items with respect to the Senate because that is their only fiscal plank with respect to reducing spending.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting all night for some indication from the New Democrats with respect to their fiscal responsibility. In the last speech we finally heard—

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

I'll accept the member from British Columbia screaming that they would eliminate the Senate. Okay, I will take their $90 million, but they still have a long way to go. So where are they going to do this and what piece of legislation have they brought forward with respect to the Senate, because I have not seen any of it?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite an interesting speech in the sense that the member talked about the 100 or so pages of the budget being too long but then started listing a number of items that we wants to see in the budget. So what has become clear is that it is only too long because he does not actually approve of some of the items that are in there, but if we did have the things he approves of, then maybe it would not be too long.

Opposition members talk a lot about the process of the bill and I have been waiting all night and have asked constantly this same question. Can the NDP members point out what they would do? They keep talking about the fiscal responsibility, but what would they specifically do to bring the budget into balance, especially in light of the fact that they have said they would not cut spending? This leads me to believe the only way they could balance the budget would be through increasing taxes. However, they have the opportunity. They talk about limiting debate, yet not one speech tonight has given one concrete example of what they would do to cut and to balance the budget—

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member might comment a bit further. The NDP member for Laval earlier said that he thought a number of the items in Canada's economic action plans were actually very good ideas and were needed in the economy at the time. I wonder if there is a bit of disagreement within the NDP with respect to the value of the economic action plans.

Also, I wonder if he might comment on specifics, because again, the member for Laval said that the NDP's position would be to balance the budget without making cuts. However, I have not heard any specifics on how it would do that. Are the New Democrats specifically talking about increasing taxes to do that? Where would they be increasing taxes? If they are talking about cutting programs, what specific programs are they talking about cutting? What income levels could Canadians expect tax increases on? Are they talking also about increasing the GST, or will it just be a carbon tax? Could he focus his points on whether they are talking about tax increases, and if they have identified those programs they are going to cut, what are they?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick questions. I know that the hon. member is from Quebec. He spent a lot of time talking specifically about Quebec. I am wondering if that is the start of a trend we are hearing from the Liberal Party. It is speaking about Quebec and somehow separating it from the rest of Canada, thereby pitting one region against the other. Is that something it will continue to do?

Because the member comes from Quebec, I wonder if he might also elaborate a bit on the attitude of Quebeckers with respect to reducing taxes for families and businesses. Do they feel as we do in the rest of our ridings and my riding that it helps actual job creation? At committee, we heard from an industry that is very important to the province of Quebec, the video gaming industry, about how important the tax cuts were to stimulating the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs in that industry.

I am wondering if tax cuts are important to the people of Quebec. Are they helping to invest in and create jobs in this economy? Will we continue to see this pitting of one region of the country against another by the Liberals?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in debate, the member for Laval mentioned the NDP approach to balancing the budget, which did not include tax cuts. I can only assume that it is code for increasing taxes to do that.

The hon. member talked a lot about how important cutting taxes for Canadian families and businesses was, and has been, to the economic growth we have seen in this country. I wonder if he might expand a bit on his thoughts with respect to dramatic increases in taxes on Canadians, how that might impact our job growth going forward and how that would impact Canadian families.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the member's speech, he said that Canada's economic action plan was probably a good thing a couple of years ago. That is what he specifically said.

I recall that he went on to say later in his speech that opposition members filibustered the passage of the bill, which I could not quite understand, because on the one hand he said it was a good thing but then later in his speech mentioned how he and his party filibustered the bill to delay what he called a good thing.

He also then talked about balancing the budget without making cuts. I am wondering if the hon. member might help me understand the formula that he and the NDP intend to use with respect to balancing the budget without making cuts. Because New Democrats have apparently studied this a great deal, I wonder if he could present to us what specific areas they would change or address in the budget, such as where, if there are cuts, they would come from, what the corresponding savings would be, and where the increased expenditures would come from in the changes that he is proposing. He has not given details. I wonder if he could be a bit more specific.