Alexandre Boulerice

[Taxation, May 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, societies work best when everyone contributes. When individuals and companies pay their fair share of taxes, we can pool our resources and pay for public services, including things like education, health care, roads, and support for seniors and persons with disabilities.

Unfortunately, tax evasion and the use of tax havens undermine the entire system. Some large corporations and millionaires like to hide their money in tax havens, and then laugh at the rest of us. Meanwhile, we, here, do not find that funny. We are losing out on at least $7 billion a year.

With all that lost revenue, we could be paying tuition for every university student in this country. We could hire 34,000 family physicians, or we could fill 50 million potholes. In Montreal, that would make a huge difference.

We in the NDP know which side we are on.

When are the Liberals going to take this scandal seriously and challenge the agreements we have with tax havens like Barbados and the Cayman Islands, which are costing us a fortune?

[Canada Labour Code, May 5th, 2017]

How about that, Madam Speaker? The Conservative Party is back with its latest attack on unions. It has been a while since we have heard that kind of thing, and it is kind of ironic to hear Conservatives posing as champions of working people. I doubt any of them have ever been part of a union organizing drive in a factory or a company.

We know that a secret ballot reduces the likelihood of success significantly and makes it much easier for employers to make threats and promises. Membership cards are the fairest, most effective way to organize workers so they can stand up for their rights and improve their working conditions.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very clear and coherent speech, although we do not exactly share her political point of view. That is normal, however, and we respect that.

I wonder if she could talk a little more about the infrastructure bank that is being created. The Liberals said during the election campaign, and are still repeating today, that interest rates are low, so it is a good time to borrow to invest, and that we need new infrastructure.

Now we are suddenly learning that about 90% of the money for the infrastructure bank will come from the private sector, which will expect to make money and see a return on investment. This means more tolls and user fees. Once again, it will be Canadian taxpayers, people in my riding and in the member's riding, who will have to pay for it.

What does the member think of the Liberals' plan regarding the infrastructure bank?

[Government Spending, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, a few years ago, an opposition member asked the parliamentary budget officer to have a look at the true cost of the F-35s, and did we ever learn a lot. Who was it who had asked? It was the current Minister of Fisheries.

Unfortunately, under the changes his government wants to make, the PBO would no longer be able to study such things. The minister wants to prevent us from having the same opportunities that he himself had. He also wants to prevent the parliamentary budget officer from undertaking any studies that were not already planned at the beginning of the year.

Why do the Liberals want to put the government spending watchdog in a straitjacket?

[Ethics, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that we sometimes cannot hear everything a member has to say.

Last fall, after being caught red-handed, the Liberals decided to press pause on their cash for access fundraisers, but as we might have guessed, they decided to press play again. This evening, the Prime Minister will be in Montreal rubbing shoulders with some of the Liberal Party's generous donors. The Liberals seem to think that no one will notice, however. It is though they are trying to play a Jedi mind trick on us by waving their hand and saying, “This is not a cash for access fundraiser”.

Honestly, do the Liberals not realize that Canadians can see right through them?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

Indeed, being a politician is about making choices. Unfortunately, this Liberal budget contains bad choices, unrealistic choices. The Liberals claim to be doing things, but they will have no impact in the end.

The issue of social and affordable housing is an excellent example. The member put it very well. The Liberals can brag about investing $11 billion, but when you realize that this investment will be spread out over 11 years and that, this year, they will spend only 1% of the money promised in the budget, we soon realize that this will not make much difference in our communities. We could maybe build four or five small low-cost housing units in Canada, and then we would have to wait for next year, because the money will be gone.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very pertinent and legitimate question.

We should not believe everything the government says about the $11 billion for affordable housing or the $23 billion for public transit, because the majority of these investments will only be made after the 2019 and 2023 elections. It is very unlikely that people will see any investments in the short term. There will be many governments and many budgets before then.

I am well aware of the difference between refundable tax credits and non-refundable tax credits. I always prefer refundable tax credits, which are more progressive and help the disadvantaged most in terms of taxes.

In my experience, low-income seniors and workers who pay a little bit of tax could benefit from this tax credit even if it were non-refundable. Sometimes it is the only means they have to try to reduce their taxes every year. It was not perfect, but it really helped people in our communities. I do not understand why the Liberals are eliminating it.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Many things in this bill could be changed.

I do not understand why the Investment Canada Act is being changed to provide for a study, a net benefit test when foreign interests take control of a Canadian company. The magic acquisition number used to be $600 million, but that number has increased to $1 billion. Now many Canadian companies could be bought by foreign investors and companies without the acquisition triggering a net benefit test for Canada.

The bill makes parental leave more flexible. This may seem like a good idea. Parents can now choose to take parental leave for 18 months instead of 12 months. However, the caveat is that instead of receiving 55% of their salary for 12 months, they will receive 33% of their salary for 18 months. Flexibility is nice, but who can afford to live on one-third of their salary? Only the wealthiest can. This type of measure does not help the middle class. It is smoke and mirrors. I would really like to know which constituents of Liberal ridings are able to live on one-third of their income. There is a lot that could be done. The Liberals could keep their promise of giving a pension for life to veterans wounded in combat. There are all kinds of things we could change in the bill.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Obviously, some measures and some decisions have helped some people, particularly the guaranteed income supplement—even though the government could have done more—and the Canada child benefit.

However, the problem I have with the assistance offered to families with children is that the Liberal Party has been promising a national child care program since Jean Chrétien was in office in 1993, but we still do not have one. That would be the most effective way of helping families with children to reduce their child care costs. In some cities, like Toronto and Vancouver, child care can cost up to $70 or $80 a day per child.

Quebec's approach to child care clearly demonstrates that a national child care program is the best way to fight poverty, help families, and help women get back into the workforce.

If they want access to more revenue to pay for social programs and help our constituents, then the Liberals should have kept their promise to close the tax loophole for stock options worth $800 million. They could put an end to the bilateral agreements with tax havens, which cost us $5 billion to $8 billion annually. They could stop subsidizing the oil companies and giving tax credits and tax cuts to the big Canadian banks. These are things that could truly help Canada's middle class.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 3rd, 2017]

The member is right, Madam Speaker. It is shameful. It is going to hurt poor people. I really do not get it. I will be quite glad to get back to my riding to tell that story to my constituents.

The Liberal government is also have in the BIA new legislation that will create the infrastructure investment bank. We are really worried about that move. Why?

During the election campaign, the Liberals were saying that we were experiencing a deficit in infrastructure in our country, and we agreed. They said that the interest rates were so low that this was time for the government to get some money from the market at 2% interest, which is a really low rate, and to take the opportunity to invest in our communities and build new infrastructure. It looks good and seems logical.

However, the big player in this bank will be the private sector, which is there to make profits, to make money, not to serve the public. Instead of borrowing at 2%, we will have private investors asking for profits of 7%, 8%, 9% per year. It will be the taxpayers who will pay for that. Infrastructure will cost more at the end. Also, during that time, we can expect a lot of new fees in order to drive on a highway, or to go to the airport, or to cross a bridge, if the airports are still public, which we are not quite sure of right now. The government will probably sell the airports to start its bank.

One aspect of this budget implementation bill that worries us is the creation of the infrastructure investment bank. During the election campaign, the Liberals talked about an infrastructure deficit and said that investments were needed. We agreed. Interest rates were low, so it was a good time to borrow and it would not be too costly for the government. It seemed logical, but surprise, the Liberals never told us that most of the investments in this bank would come from private investments, investment funds whose purpose would be to earn a return, to make a profit. Based on models we have seen in the provinces and other areas, the Liberals already knew that their investors would be asking for a rate of return of 7%, 8%, or 9% on their investment.

Why did they tell us that they were going to borrow at 2%, that it would be cheap, and now suddenly they have decided to take money from the private sector and they are going put between 7% and 9% back into their investors' pockets in profits? Our infrastructure is going to be more expensive, it will be privatized, and we will have to pay many new user fees for our highways, airports, and bridges.

For all these reasons, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, be amended by removing the following clauses : (a) clauses 128 to 191, related to the parliamentary budget officer; (b) clauses 403 to 406, related to the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act; that the clauses mentioned in section (a) of this motion do compose Bill C-48; that Bill C-48 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates; that the clauses mentioned in section (b) of this motion do compose Bill C-49; that Bill C-49 be deemed read a first time and printed; that the order for second reading of the said bill provide for the referral to the Standing Committee on Finance; that Bill C-44 retain the status on the Order Paper that it had prior to the adoption of this order; that Bill C-44 be reprinted as amended; and that the law clerk and parliamentary counsel be authorized to make any technical changes or corrections as may be necessary to give effect to this motion.