Guy Caron

[Taxation, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are making cuts left, right, and centre, yet they are letting $29 billion slip away without a fight.

After the NDP pointed out the error in the 2013 budget, the Conservatives got rid of their tax on hockey helmets. However, the budget is still increasing taxes by $7.8 billion.

Now that spring has sprung, Canadians will be shocked to learn that they will have to pay more to garden.

Will the government cancel these outrageous taxes and let Canadians enjoy the fine weather?

[Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act, April 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the matter we are discussing today in connection with Bill C-54 is very sensitive, in light of all the issues raised in the House.

We are clearly talking about crimes committed. We are also talking about the criminal responsibility of people ultimately deemed to be not criminally responsible.

We have already said that we will vote in favour of this bill at second reading, because we believe that it deserves to be reviewed in committee. However, I heard a few questions from government members, and I am concerned about how this issue is being dealt with.

Of course, it is a sensitive issue and it has to be handled with great tact. However, I really feel that the government is behaving as if it wants to make the issue much more political than it ought to be, especially if we truly want to examine it with cool heads. The government has addressed the issue twice at news conferences, announcing the bill to the media and the public.

I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say about the need for careful, reasoned and rational consideration of this issue.

[Parliamentary Budget Officer, April 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians get it, the courts get it and the Parliamentary Budget Officer gets it. Only the Conservatives do not get it.

As Justice Harrington said:

...the Parliamentary Budget Officer [must] be answerable to [Parliament] and to its committees, but also to every backbencher irrespective of political stripe.

The government cannot simply ignore its own laws and the decisions of the courts. The court ruled that it could intervene if the government refuses to give the Parliamentary Budget Officer the information that she is entitled to.

Will the government commit here and now to abide by the court's decision and its own law?

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague touched on this issue during his speech. I wonder if he could elaborate on the constitutionality of the bill, considering what we learned recently about a lawyer from the Department of Justice who was suspended without pay for saying that the Conservative government had lowered down to 5% the degree of certainty that its legislation complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the past, the Department of Justice would try to be at least 90% or 95% sure that a proposed piece of legislation was constitutional and would pass the test of compliance with the charter. Currently, that degree of certainty is somewhere between 5% and 10%.

I would like to hear the hon. member on this issue and on the possibility that Bill S-7 may not comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[International Trade, April 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, here is another example of the Conservatives' amateurism.

There is a huge difference between good and bad trade agreements with emerging countries. However, the Conservatives do not understand that. The Canada-China agreement will tie the hands of provincial and municipal governments for 30 years. It will allow Chinese corporations to challenge our environmental laws and drag Canada before secret tribunals.

When will the Conservatives, who are supported by the Liberals, start defending the interests of Canadians instead of encouraging foreign interests to take control of our natural resources?

[Taxation, April 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it does not appear as though the offensive charade I spoke about is going to end any time soon.

The Minister of Finance even felt the need to explain himself in an op-ed piece that appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail. In the piece, he denied the existence of a new tax on iPods. This flies in the face of everything that economists' investigations have shown to date. It has gotten to the point where the Reform Party is turning over in its grave. Now even that will be more expensive because of the new tax on coffins.

Why do the Conservatives want to impose a tax on death?

[Taxation, April 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the number of products whose prices are going to increase because of new taxes introduced by the Conservatives in budget 2013 is staggering.

Over 1,200 everyday products will be more expensive. This money will go directly from taxpayers' pockets into the coffers of the Conservative government, which will use it to pay for ads to say that everything is fine.

Will the Conservatives put an end to this offensive charade and admit what everyone already knows—that tariff increases are the same as a hike on import taxes? When will they finally tell Canadians the truth?

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct, and that is why I am perplexed by the comments from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade. This morning, in his first question to our critic, he said that this agreement is no different from previous foreign investment protection agreements. On the contrary, there are some very different and extremely worrisome provisions in this agreement.

Hypothetically, we may have to face a secret administrative tribunal at the request of one of the two partners. That measure does not currently exist in any treaty or accord. The protection given to current investors is different from that given to future investors—those who will invest after this treaty is ratified—and that is one element that differs from past measures. We do not agree with those measures.

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the same myth is still floating around.

First, we have supported the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement in the past. Second, to give the hon. member a direct answer, we do in fact support trade agreements.

Having a document labelled “trade agreement” is not the same thing as examining the content of trade agreements. If some provisions in trade agreements are not in Canada's best interests and shortchange Canadians, it is our duty to stand up and point it out.

In this case, I have pointed out a number of issues, including the issue of whether both countries will be able to keep their non-conforming measures. China may keep a myriad of non-conforming measures, measures that Canada no longer has because they were eliminated. Actually, this lack of reciprocity is extremely problematic.

I would therefore ask the hon. member to review the trade agreements that he wants to support before he brings in his agreement.

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary quite understood what I was saying.

The investor she is referring to, the one who has just set up shop in China, will be protected under the agreement, because he set up his business in China before the agreement was ratified. However, if the same person wants to invest after the agreement is signed, he will not be protected in the same way he is right now.

Contrary to what the member is claiming, it is not true that the agreement will protect future investments and increase trade opportunities that will protect Canadian investors. That is simply not the case.