Guy Caron

[The Budget, May 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first Conservatives shut down debate in the House on their omnibus budget bill. Now they have refused to allow for a proper study at committees. From meddling in collective bargaining to raising taxes on small businesses, the bill is full of damaging measures. It is no wonder the Conservatives are trying to avoid proper scrutiny.

Why are they forcing through this sham committee study? Why will the Conservatives not allow for a proper study of each and every component of the bill?

[Discover Your Canada Act, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is truly based on good intentions, to encourage tourism in Canada by Canadians. Of course, taxpayers are in favour of more tax credits, especially when this would enable them to reduce the cost of their family vacations by a considerable amount.

However, before saying that this deduction would be good for both families and businesses, we should look closely and weigh several factors, including the cost of the bill itself, and thus its consequences for the government's revenue, Canadians' expected participation rate, the real effects of such a deduction on Canada's tourism industry and the additional complexity of the tax system.

The cost of this bill was estimated by the former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page. He responded to a request by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance for an estimate of the lost revenue to the government if such subsidies were granted. His conclusions were not really surprising.

Since no revenue source was proposed to counterbalance the expenditures related to this bill, Bill C-463 would result in reduced tax revenue.

Thus, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the net impact of Bill C-463 on federal tax revenue would be between $90 million and $120 million in 2017, in constant 2013 dollars.

Yet the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel claims confidently that the economic spinoffs from this bill would be sufficient to cover the cost of these deductions or, in the worst case, would be revenue-neutral for the government.

It is undeniable that such a bill would generate economic spinoffs. How big will they be? That is the question. If the hon. member has some calculations or more information on this, it could be interesting to hear about them, because even the Parliamentary Budget Officer was not able to establish an estimate.

We must determine how much use the taxpayers would make of this tax credit and what impact it would have on tourism. Will there really be new travel? Will people simply change their means of transportation or decide to go across one more provincial border in order to claim the tax credit? If they lengthen a planned trip in order to cross three provinces instead of two, only one part of the trip should be counted.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer added that he made his calculations based on the assumption that the proposed deductions would not cause carriers to increase prices, since if that were the case, a corresponding decline in induced demand could be expected.

It is a matter of aligning complex calculations with behavioural factors that are rather subjective. As it stands, we do not really have any credible figures, except those from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Those are the figures we will use to make a decision.

It is not enough to simply bring in this measure. The public must know that it exists to be able to take advantage of it.

The costing of the bill is based on the assumption that all those who are eligible will use the tax credit. We know that is not true, but we have no choice but to take that into consideration. However, that assumption skews the figures in favour of the proposal.

On the one hand, travellers who do not use the tax credit will save the government money by not claiming the money they are owed. On the other hand, their travel cannot be included in the statistics used for costing Bill C-463, since they would have travelled anyway.

Something really bothers me about my colleague's logic. He claims that the bill is meant to encourage Canadians to explore, appreciate and discover their country, to meet other Canadians and experience culture. He said the following when he introduced the bill:

We should remove some of the financial barriers that stop them from exploring this great land and tell them to go out and discover your Canada...

With all due respect, I do not see how families with financial struggles would prioritize travel across the country. They may want to, but times are tough for many people.

My NDP colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue also questioned why the member chose the rule of crossing at least three different provincial boundaries, and she did so very eloquently. I agree that if we want Canadians to travel more within the country, they should be able to choose their destination. In her example, she explained that someone who crosses three provincial boundaries does not necessarily travel further than someone who goes from the far north of the Northwest Territories to southern Saskatchewan.

Acknowledging the limitations of his bill, the member said that the main reason for his bill was as follows:

Canadians have to start getting to know one another and discovering Canada. The only way to do that is to get them to travel as far as possible in the regions. When I talk about the regions, I am not talking about going from an urban area to a rural area. I am talking about travelling to eastern, western and central Canada. That is how people can get to know one another.

To be honest, I do not see the difference. In fact, from what I understand, Canadians will prove they want to visit Canada and get to know their fellow Canadians by travelling across three provinces. That is rather ridiculous. He spoke at length about Canadian tourists who buoy up American tourism, so he should be happy simply that someone decides to travel in Canada.

After looking at the tax credit requirements, it is clear to me that the three-province rule was put in place to try and restrict accessibility and eligibility in some way. According to statistics from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 92% of trips within Canada are taken by plane, train or bus, and the vast majority of those, 88%, are not work-related and would therefore be eligible for the tax credit proposed in Bill C-463.

However, as far as the distance criterion is concerned, travellers cross at least three provinces in only 23% of travel by airplane within Canada. That being said, people who can afford to travel in three provinces are, for the most part, relatively well off. What is more, to benefit from this tax credit, a person would need a high enough income to pay taxes and for this non-refundable credit to make a difference in the taxable income. This is an important aspect of the bill that, I hope, in no way reflects what the member was getting at.

Travel, within the meaning of this bill, is considered a luxury for many Canadians. Many do not have the means to travel very far, or at least not far enough to benefit from the tax credit. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a maximum of 10% of tax deductions for travel would come out of this bill, which is equivalent to roughly $110 million out of $1.1 billion.

Is it worth the trouble? There may be less expensive and more sustainable ways of encouraging tourism and helping people to travel. I am not sure this is the best way to go about it, especially at a time when we are trying to have the government simplify the tax system and reduce economic inequality. I think it would be hypocritical to encourage a new tax credit that goes against the primary goal of the tax system, which is to distribute wealth, and makes it less progressive.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that when he said that “the benefits of tax measures proposed under Bill C-463 are anticipated to concentrate to higher income earners”. I am not necessarily talking about this credit in particular, but the direction of the tax policy in general. To be more progressive and more effective, the tax system has to remain as simple as possible.

To conclude, despite what the hon. member thinks, I believe that many trips that do not follow the three-province rule contribute just as much to helping people learn about socio-cultural differences. As a result, I do not see why they are completely disregarded. If the intent really is to have people travel and discover Canada, simply travelling from one province to another should be enough. Whether a person leaves from downtown Toronto or from Calgary to get to Chaleur Bay, the trip will be no less memorable.

With that thinking, the member is minimizing the unique character of each province and is reinforcing certain cultural stereotypes, like the idea that western Canada is all the same, regardless of the province, when that is not true. I truly hope that everyone has an opportunity to travel; not only is it pleasant, but it is also enriching. However, I am not sure that it should be a government priority, quite frankly. I think the $200 million or thereabouts could be better invested right now.

In short, I understand the member's intent, which is commendable. It is very important to encourage Canada's tourism industry. We support the intent of the bill. My riding in particular, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, depends largely on tourism, an important industry. However, the bill and its tax credit will do nothing to achieve the objectives or to help Canadians get to know each other better. This bill creates a tax credit that will benefit the wealthy more than everyone else.

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely.

The government is constantly asking Canadians to blindly trust it. We should trust the public accounts, which are very general and extensive. Generally speaking, they consist of three large volumes containing 10-digit numbers. They are extremely complex, but they make for a very interesting read. As an economist, I love these books. However, with an MP's resources, it is extremely difficult to really be able to identify how funds are used.

That is why we asked for accountability, among other things, from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who does an excellent job. He noted that what the government was saying about budgetary expenditures and accountability was not accurate when it came to the cost of our intervention in Afghanistan or the F-35s.

We need accountability. This government claims to be accountable and transparent. The Treasury Board President said that his government was one of the most transparent in Canadian history. On the contrary, it is one of the least transparent, and we are seeing more and more that it is one of the least accountable, too.

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, accountability is the reason why we are debating this motion on this NDP opposition day.

The official opposition is asking the government what happened to the $3.1 billion that the Auditor General could not find in the review he conducted of expenditures related to the fight against terrorism.

Accountability is something that is extremely important to Canadians, particularly after what happened in the mid-2000s.

The Gomery commission sought to shed light on certain instances where the Liberal government at the time was not accountable for expenditures made in promoting national unity. At the time, it became clear that accountability was a priority for Canadians when electing a government. A government had to be accountable to the Canadian public and to Parliament with regard to its spending.

As a result of a finding in the Auditor General's report, which is the subject of the motion we moved and are debating today, we are calling for a justification for this missing $3.1 billion.

I would like to go back in time. I know that this has been done several times, but I would like to put things in context. From 2001 to 2009, $12.9 billion was budgeted to combat terrorism. This amount was allocated to 35 different departments. Different amounts were allocated to different departments depending on their responsibilities.

Following the events of September 11, even the Treasury Board Secretariat at the time was given $2.5 million over a period of five years to implement accountability mechanisms for these new initiatives. This would allow the Treasury Board to account for expenses and ensure that the money was well spent.

In the Auditor General's report, we learned that only $9.8 billion of the $12.9 billion allocated from 2001 to 2009 is accounted for. There is still $3.1 billion missing. I am talking about the period ending in 2009, not 2012, and I will tell you why.

Was this money spent? We do not know. Was it not spent and lost because it was not spent? We have no idea. That is the real problem here. That is what members should find worrisome, and not just opposition members either, but government members as well.

I am blown away by the fact that members, including Conservative backbenchers and members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in particular, are not curious about where the $3.1 billion has gone. It is a substantial amount.

It is worth noting that problems with anti-terrorism funding were raised in 2004, in a report by the Auditor General at the time. That 2004 report was already sounding the alarm about accountability issues regarding money spent.

I will summarize the recommendations made by the Auditor General at the time.

The government as a whole failed to achieve improvements in the ability of security information systems to communicate with each other...deficiencies in the way intelligence is managed across the government. A lack of coordination has led to gaps in intelligence coverage...gaps and inconsistencies in the watch lists used to screen visa applicants, refugee claimants, and travellers seeking to enter Canada...No one monitors delays in the entry or the quality of the data on watch lists...criminal intelligence data are not used to screen applicants for clearance to restricted areas at airports...

There were also deficiencies in funding evaluations, the reporting process, and the list goes on.

As early as 2004, just three years after the anti-terrorism measures were put in place, there were problems with how the funding for the fight against terrorism was being used.

These measures were originally adopted under a Liberal government. We know today that in the 20 months of Liberal governance and seven years of Conservative governance following the release of the Auditor General's 2004 report, the Auditor General's recommendations were not implemented and these governments also failed to keep track of the equivalent of 25% of the money allocated to anti-terrorism initiatives.

That is why we are talking about accountability. The government manages this money. It is supposed to report its expenditures to Parliament. As the President of the Treasury Board mentioned, Parliament, through its committees and the House as a whole, is responsible for considering the public accounts and then adopting them. However, it is clear that there is no way to trace the use of this $3.1 billion in the public accounts reports from 2001 to 2009. It is simply impossible.

The Auditor General tried and was unable to trace the money. That was his conclusion. If the Auditor General was unable to determine how $3.1 billion out of a $12.9 billion budget was spent, despite all the resources his office has available, members of Parliament will obviously not be able to make a decision based on the information we have.

This specific situation illustrates a major problem when it comes to accountability. However, the government's entire approach to accountability is being called into question here. That is the primary reason why we have always supported and have always tried to strengthen the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is why we need officers who have access to all the information, in order to help the House. I am not talking about just the opposition here, but the entire House.

I am sure there are Conservative supporters, people of principle who are Conservatives—if not the Conservatives here in the House—who do not understand how the government can lose track of this money and deny that there is a problem.

I can guarantee that if it were an NDP government across the way that lost $3.1 billion, that party would have a field day with this, not just in the House, but also during fundraisers in their ridings. However, since they are the ones across the way, it is no big deal.

In 2006, when Canadians elected this government for the first time, they were voting for accountability and transparency. That is what the government promised and that is what Canadians have been waiting for for seven years.

We owe a debt of gratitude to the Auditor General for undertaking this initiative. He will have to keep going, though, because we still do not know what this $3.1 billion was used for. Regardless of the quotes taken out of context by the President of the Treasury Board, some things in the report are clear.

In this House we have the right to ask questions, and that is what we are doing right now. We are entitled to do so. The government should recognize that and agree with the NDP's request to find this $3.1 billion. What was it spent on? Where are the documents?

If the money was not spent and ended up back in the consolidated revenue fund, then they should just say so and that is where we will look for it. This morning, a member told us that it will come out in due course. That is not good enough. We want accountability right now. The best quote in the Auditor General's report is as follows:

The Secretariat also said that it would provide direction to departments and agencies on requirements for reporting to Parliament.

That was in 2004, and that has not been done. This time the Auditor General is saying that:

It is important that government knows whether the funds allocated to protect Canadians and fight terrorism are being spent to achieve the PSAT objectives.

If the Auditor General cannot figure out whether the funds were spent according to the objectives set out by the government, we have no way of knowing either.

Once again, the question is: where is the $3.1 billion that cannot be accounted for? Why is the government not making an effort to provide these reports to the House?

If that is not the case, not only must the government take the blame for this, but it must also support our motion.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-60, the one we are currently studying, will alone amend about 50 acts. Just one vote will be held in the House to pass an array of measures.

I am interested in one in particular, and I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question about the Investment Canada Act.

The bill provides that businesses controlled by WTO investors will see the level of investment in Canada increase to $1 billion in three years before a review is conducted by the Minister of Industry. The bill also provides that foreign state-owned enterprises, such as Chinese companies, will not have access to this higher level.

However, that contradicts the foreign investment protection agreements, including the Canada-China agreement, which state that any enterprise, including state-owned enterprises that have a foothold, will have the same rights as Canadian enterprises.

Why is the government moving toward an amendment to the Investment Canada Act that goes against international trade agreements it wants to sign?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 6th, 2013]

With regard to contract approval at Public Works and Government Services Canada: (a) what are the various monetary levels of contracts that can be approved, and by which level of employees can they be approved; (b) how many employees occupy each of the levels identified in (a); and (c) how many contracts at each approval level were approved between 2002 and 2013, broken down by year?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 6th, 2013]

With regard to the awarding of contracts to SNC-Lavalin by the federal government: (a) what is the financial value of the contracts that were awarded to the firm between 2003 and 2013, broken down by (i) year; (ii) type of contract; (b) what are the numbers of the contracts that were awarded to the firm between 2003 and 2013; (c) for each individual contract, who signed the contract; and (d) for each individual contract, from which budget envelope the did the contract come from?

[Pensions, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is pathetic.

CIBC sounded the alarm about pension plans being underfunded. An estimated 6 million Canadians will see their standard of living drop by 20%, and if nothing is done, today's youth will have a standard of living that is far below that of their grandparents.

The only way to offer real financial security to workers and their families is by improving public pension plans.

Canadians are asking for it. Provinces are demanding it. Pension specialists are calling for it.

Why are the Conservatives standing in the way of improving public pension plans?

[Tourism Industry, May 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that the municipality of Percé has filed a formal demand with the government. The wharf must reopen by Monday. This situation has become urgent. For years, the local authorities have been urging the government to restore the wharf. Now, as a result of the government's neglect, the wharf is closed.

Does the minister understand how urgent the situation is? Does he understand that this closure is catastrophic for the tourism industry and the fishing industry in the region? Does he understand that his neglect is running an entire region into the ground?

[Tourism Industry, May 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Percé wharf is one of the main tourist attractions in the Gaspé. It is the starting point for a number of boat tours, and the lobster fishery is very important.

As a result of the Conservatives' neglect, the Percé wharf has been closed since yesterday. Tourists will soon flock to the Gaspé to visit world-renowned Percé Rock and other attractions. Closing the wharf is a huge blow to the regional economy.

Could the minister confirm that he will release the funds necessary to reopen the wharf before the start of tourist season?