Guy Caron

[Finance, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, special legislation that forces Canada Post employees back to work is a great gift for Canada Post, which never felt the need to negotiate in good faith.

It is also a great gift for eBay and Amazon, which never stopped lobbying the government to put an end to the strike. The government slavishly listened.

Now, we have a mini budget of $14 billion in gifts for the private sector and nothing but crumbs for Canadians. The former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, said that this economic update is ratcheting up the deficit to fund the private sector.

What will the government do now? Is it going to help Bell, Telus and Rogers?

[Finance, November 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this week the Liberals outdid themselves in sucking up to big business. First there is this back-to-work legislation, which was drafted as a big gift to Canada Post executives and to please the eBays and Amazons of this world, while throwing workers under the bus.

Then we have an economic update, with $14 billion for the private sector and crumbs for Canadians. No wonder former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, said that the Liberal fiscal update was “deficit-financing the corporate sector”.

What is the next step for the Liberals? Coming to the rescue of poor little Walmart?

[Canada Post Corporation, November 21st, 2018]

Tough words, Mr. Speaker, and he says them without laughing.

If I were a progressive Liberal, I would seriously begin to wonder how I could support a special law that would take away any leverage workers have, that is currently allowing Canada Post to not negotiate in good faith because it knows full well that the government will come and help it out of this mess, and that shows that the government is prepared to do anything to please web giants such as Amazon and eBay.

Where are the Prime Minister's fine words when the time comes to defend free collective bargaining?

Where is the Prime Minister's backbone when it comes to compelling Canada Post to negotiate in good faith?

[Canada Post Corporation, November 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, here is a quote from 2015: “the Harper Conservatives have rolled back many fundamental labour rights that affect workers’ ability to organize freely, bargain collectively in good faith, and work in a safe environment.”

That was said by none other than the Prime Minister during the campaign back in 2015, the same Prime Minister whose government is now musing about legislating workers back to work. Why does he not realize that his actions are the ones that are emboldening Canada Post executives not to bargain in good faith?

[Canada Revenue Agency, November 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General said there is no way to figure out where that $500 million went.

The problem with the Canada Revenue Agency is that Canadians who are not rich are presumed guilty until they can prove they are innocent, but wealthy Canadians or those who are part of corporate Canada are innocent until the CRA can prove their guilt. Because that is way more difficult to do than to go after people who cannot defend themselves, the wealthy get off scot-free. As a result, in the last five years, Canada has forgone $16 billion in unpaid taxes.

I am asking the Prime Minister again, when will the Liberals put an end to this unacceptable double-standard in CRA operations?

[Canada Revenue Agency, November 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, for months, we have been talking about how the Canada Revenue Agency persecutes ordinary Canadians and gives the ultra-rich and corporations the kid glove treatment at tax time. Who else agrees with us? The Auditor General. The Canada Revenue Agency has no compunction about persecuting single moms in Saskatchewan, and the Auditor General's report confirms that the agency gives corporations and the wealthy a lot more time and preferential treatment than ordinary individuals.

Here, again, is my question for the Prime Minister: When will Canada drop this double standard?

[The Economy, November 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Minister of Finance thought it was a good question, but I would have liked an answer.

The federal tax rate for large corporations has fallen from 28% to 15% since 2000. The amount of dead money, meaning assets and cash held by those corporations, increased dramatically beginning in 2000. On the whole, corporate tax cuts have not helped create jobs, and that money has not been invested. It has been channelled into financial speculation and massive corporate executive paycheques.

Here, again, is my question for the Minister of Finance. Will he refrain from cutting corporate taxes in his Wednesday update?

[The Economy, November 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing some rather concerning rumours about the economic and fiscal update.

The Minister of Finance seems to be under pressure from Bay Street to lower corporate taxes, on the grounds that he should keep step with the United States. The problem is that the tax cuts in the U.S. did not create jobs. They largely served to boost senior executives' salaries. Furthermore, the United States is on track to post a $1-trillion deficit.

Will the Minister of Finance confirm right here that he will not be announcing corporate tax cuts?

[Business of Supply, November 19th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I thought I was very clear on that. It is not a matter of investing too much in the infrastructure bank. It is that the government announced during the election that it would have deficits to allow for infrastructure investments, which is, by the way, what we were also saying in our platform back in 2015. However, the fact is that the Liberals are not investing that much more in infrastructure. They have decided to create this bank, which they never announced during the election, 80% to 90% of which will be funded by the private sector. They will want to claim that it is the government investing in infrastructure when it is not.

It is one thing for the government to actually invest in infrastructure that it will keep control of afterwards, and another thing to have an independent, arm's-length body investing on the condition of giving a rate of return to those private companies from that public infrastructure, such as when building a bridge. If it were a road, it would be a toll road, and that money would go back to pay these companies their rate of return. That is very different from the government, which is funded by Canadians, building infrastructure that will remain in Canadians' hands. There is a massive difference between government investing in infrastructure and the government allowing the private sector to invest in infrastructure with a rate of return and where that sector would be calling the shots.

[Business of Supply, November 19th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I cannot answer that last question and tell the member when the Liberals will balance the budget, but I will respond to the first part of his comments.

Yes, the Conservative government actually invested at a time when there was a significant economic downturn. My beef is not about that, as I will be the first to admit from this side of the House that we made that request of them. My beef is with the way the Conservatives acted when they sought to return to a balanced budget, when they did so at all costs before the last election. That led to things like selling the shares of GM at a loss to ensure that the government had justification to claim there was a balanced budget. We saw massive cuts in accessibility to EI, massive cuts to other social programs that people relied on, and attempts to modify a series of programs in a way that affected the middle class and working people. Therefore, the problem was not the investment, but the forced return to a balanced budget that was actually hurtful to Canadian families.