Guy Caron

[Business of Supply, November 19th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with one of my colleagues. I would like to respond to what the parliamentary secretary said in his speech about what Paul Martin did.

Paul Martin did work to limit banking deregulation. He also balanced the budget in the 1990s. However, we must not forget that he did so mainly on the backs of the provinces by making major cuts to health, post-secondary education and social assistance transfers. It is important to point that out for any Canadians who might be watching at home.

The major issue that we should be focusing on right now is whether the Liberals will keep their promise and eliminate their so-called small deficits by 2019. Of course, the Conservatives are opposed to deficits and they are particularly upset about the fact that the deficits in question are bigger than expected. Meanwhile, the Liberals are saying that they ran those deficits as an investment. Both parties are wrong. Here is why.

The Liberals did indeed promise to run small deficits of $3 billion per year. There is no question about that. They also said that they would pay off those deficits by 2019, but they will not be able to do so. The Conservatives are right about that. Where the Conservatives are mistaken is in saying that balancing the budget is the fundamental issue on which Canada's economy completely depends.

I spoke about the work the Liberals did to balance the budget in the 1990s. It came at a great cost, but the price was paid and the budget was balanced. Then, the Conservatives took office and accumulated deficits for seven or eight years before finally eliminating them prior to the 2015 election, so I do not think that the Conservatives are in any position to lecture the Liberals about balancing the budget. When they are in opposition, the Conservatives say that deficits are the worst thing a government can do, but then when they are in office, they say it is completely acceptable to run a deficit as long as there is a good reason for doing so.

This is very similar to what is happening in the U.S. Let us go back to the 1990s when the Democrats were in power under Bill Clinton. What happened? They balanced the budget in a way that made vulnerable people suffer more, which we can debate at length. However, the result was achieved; they balanced the budget.

What happened after that? George Bush was elected. The Republicans dominated the executive in the House for eight years and budget deficits ballooned. At that point, I remember Dick Cheney, who was vice-president, being asked a question about the importance of deficits, and he said that it was not important at all.

Therefore, on both sides of the border, when the Conservatives are in government, they do not care about deficits. They will find any justification to go into deficit. However, when they are in opposition, they blame the government for having deficits. It makes no sense or it makes sense in the political game.

Deficits can be a good thing for the economy if we are able to ensure that we get a good rate of return for these deficits, the same way as a business will contract a loan to invest and grow. That is acceptable.

We wonder what the Liberal government is doing with these deficits. Taking a Keynesian perspective, as governments often do, deficits are accumulated to grow the economy, but only to the extent that the government can eventually balance the budget. We believe that a government should be able to balance the budget over an economic cycle. In other words, if the economy is doing well, the government takes the opportunity to reduce public debt somewhat. If the economy is not doing well, the government will have leeway to invest.

The problem is that that is not what the government is doing. It is accumulating deficits of $10 billion, $15 billion and $20 billion at a time when the economy is doing well. The economy is doing well, but not because of the deficits that have been incurred or investments that have been made. My constituents tell me that they are seeing $15-billion deficits, but no investments for the middle class. Most importantly, they are not seeing investments in infrastructure, because there is not much more being invested than there was five, six or seven years ago.

People can see the difference. The money is going to places that are not that productive.

We can see through what the Liberals are doing. Instead of investing directly in infrastructure the way they used to do, they decided to create the infrastructure bank, where they put some cash and some guarantees and then asked the private sector to invest, which is fine. I like the private sector to invest and I like the government to invest as well.

We were told that the government placed $35 billion in the infrastructure bank, about $15 billion of which are actually money and the rest are guarantees. We have asked the private sector to invest $185 billion. We can be sure that the private sector will want a return on its investment. We can also be sure that the private sector will be calling the shots, not the government.

The Liberal solution is to invest in infrastructure, but we have seen very little of it. Since the bank was developed, since people were put in place, since a bureaucracy was put in place to make those investments, the only thing the government has been able to do so far is to provide a loan to Caisse de dépôt et placement for the light train project in Montreal. That is all.

I would like to get back to the matter at hand and whether the House should demand that the Liberal government tell us when the budget will be balanced. It would be interesting to know what the Liberals have in mind, because they are refusing to answer the question. I have to say I am concerned about that. It would also be nice if the Liberals explained how their investments are growing the Canadian economy. How can they justify investing more while things are going well economically, when they should be taking advantage of this opportunity to prepare for an economic downturn when things will be harder? That would probably be more productive and show greater foresight.

My Conservative friends are demanding that the government say when it will balance the budget. I would like to know how they can justify saying one thing when they are the opposition and the exact opposite when they are the government. For eight years, they kept telling us that having a deficit was fine, that the government had to save the auto industry, that it had to invest to save jobs. Now the Liberals are saying the same thing, but that is not sitting well with the Conservatives.

The issue we are debating today is more political than economic. It is a political issue because we have two sides playing a political game. From an economic standpoint, I think it would be interesting that Conservatives understand the need for deficits, which are not evil as such if the money is well invested.

In a similar way, income tax reductions are not the panacea which will cure everything, including the common cold. It is more a matter of common sense than dogma. That is what we are asking for on this side of the House. When Conservatives are in government, they immediately cut taxes, no matter what the financial situation is.

In fact, a large part of the accumulated deficit even before the recession came from the GST and corporate income tax cuts. We went from a balanced budget to a deficit, which was already quite large before the financial crisis and which was amplified by it. Do these tax cuts really create jobs? Do they really increase productivity? While corporations benefited from a massive reduction in income tax, their assets grew substantially. Their dead money in the bank increased exponentially, at about the same rate as the money was coming in thanks to these tax cuts.

I totally agree that we must debate the economy in this House. I want to have a debate on the economy here, but let us do it in a way that really addresses the concerns of the population. People increasingly have a hard time making ends meet each month. They have a hard time seeing any point to the government or to the programs it is implementing. We must address these concerns before debating zero deficit as if it was a fundamental goal to be reached no matter what, before any other goal.

On that note, I will be happy to answer questions from my colleagues.

[National Local Food Day Act, November 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Malpeque almost stole my question, but I will ask it anyway.

I heard a story that might be apocryphal, but in Spain and France there were two trucks that actually had a head-on collision. One was bringing tomatoes from France into Spain, and the other was bringing tomatoes from Spain into France. It shows the absurdity of the situation.

I would like to ask the member for his comments on this very unusual situation.

[Employment, November 8th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this morning Bombardier announced that it is cutting 2,500 jobs in Quebec, and the company's executives gave us the same old line: it is a cost-cutting measure.

However, in 2017, the company's six executives got a 50% pay raise, for a total of $42 million. They got hundreds of millions of dollars in public money, lined their pockets with it, then fired thousands of workers. That is unacceptable.

How much longer will the government keep letting those executives fatten their bank accounts instead of standing up for workers?

[Apology to Jewish Refugees, November 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, on June 7, 1939, Canada said no to Jewish refugees. Today, Canada is apologizing and expressing its regrets.

Let me begin by acknowledging all the survivors who are here with us.

Shalom, you are welcome in the House and your presence carries a world of meaning considering our past actions. Your presence here today is important, as Canada apologizes to the Jewish community for saying no to a number of their fellow Jews who were fleeing horrible persecution in Europe to find peace here on the eve of the Second World War.

The story of the MS St. Louis is part of a very long series of unfortunate events that shaped anti-Semitism around the world in the 1930s, and which still resonates today. What happened to the passengers of the MS St. Louis is a stain on Canadian history.

The MS St. Louis left the Port of Hamburg, Germany, on May 13, 1939. It carried 937 people, nearly all of them of Jewish, who were fleeing the growing violence and anti-Semitism in Europe and in Nazi Germany, where Adolf Hitler had already been in power for six years.

On June 2, the ship was forced to leave Havana, where just a few passengers had managed to disembark. The ship then sailed along the coast of South and North America in the hope that authorities would welcome the 907 remaining passengers.

In spite of the pleas from Captain Gustav Schröder, American organizations and celebrities, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt turned away the refugees. The ship continued northward, hoping for a favourable response from Canadian authorities.

On June 7, when the ship was just two days at sea from Halifax Harbour, 41 prominent Torontonians called on Prime Minister Mackenzie King to grant asylum to the St. Louis refugees. An answer came from justice minister Ernest Lapointe and from Frederick Charles Blair, the Canadian government official responsible for immigration.

Mr. Blair stated that the refugees did not qualify under Canada's immigration laws at the time, which he himself had created. He said, “No country could open its doors wide enough to take in the hundreds of thousands of Jewish people who want to leave Europe: the line must be drawn somewhere.”

Sadly, in light of current events, these words still resonate today. After being turned away by Cuban, American and Canadian authorities, the 907 refugees aboard the St. Louis were forced to reverse course and travel back across the ocean to the war that was brewing in Europe with eyes filled with dashed hopes, fear in their hearts, and only a suitcase to their name.

The passengers of the MS St. Louis were dispersed through Belgium, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, but many of them were caught by the Nazis and sent to die in concentration camps. Two hundred and fifty-four of them did not survive, 254, all murdered, along with six million of their fellow Jews, victims of the Shoah. They were 254 people who had boarded the MS St. Louis in the hope of fleeing death and who could have been saved had Canada said yes.

Canada abandoned innocent people who then became victims of Hitler and his hate. The passengers of the MS St. Louis were fleeing anti-Semitism, unaware that anti-Semitism had crossed the ocean before them.

Anti-Semitism continues to claim lives today. On October 27, 11 people were shot and killed by a gunman in the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. Eleven people died and six people were injured because of their faith. It is the most serious anti-Semitic attack in North American history.

Among the victims was a 97-year-old woman who had survived the horrors of the Holocaust, taken down by a killer fired up by the same vile hatred, a man who claimed that he wanted to “kill all the Jews”.

Let us salute the incredible sense of duty of the Allegheny General Hospital personnel who treated the killer's injuries. Three of the doctors and nurses who treated him were themselves Jewish and through their acts showed the depth of humanist values found in the Jewish community. They honoured the principle that whoever saves a life saves an entire universe.

In 2016, police reported 1,409 hate crimes in Canada. That is not counting all the crimes that are not reported and whose victims suffer in silence. Of the hate crimes reported in 2016, 460 were motivated by the victims' religion, with half of those targeting the Jewish community, signalling that anti-Semitism is not a thing of the past. This past year alone, 14 synagogues in Canada received threats calling for the extermination of the Jewish community.

Verbal and physical violence, vandalism and harassment in public and online are still part of everyday life for Jews in this country. That is unacceptable.

From the MS St. Louis to the massacre in Pittsburgh, anti-Semitism continues to show its face. In fact, what we are unfortunately seeing today are past demons feeding into the fear of the other. Extremism is on the rise, and so are homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. Intolerance has no place here, yesterday, today or tomorrow.

The survivors who are with us today remind us how important it is for all countries to welcome those who take huge risks to seek asylum, who take huge risks to live in peace, who take huge risks to create a better future for their children.

Even now, the refugee situation is at the root of an abundant flow of blood and ink. Every day, thousands of women, men and children attempt to flee violence, war, famine, drought and climate change in the hope of building a better life somewhere else, somewhere safer.

Considering the tensions that arose here and elsewhere when Canada welcomed Syrian refugees, I hope that today's national apology will give pause to those who still have a hostile, anti-immigrant mindset.

While today Canada officially regrets having refused entry to Jewish refugees on board the MS St. Louis and during most of the Second World War, we are reaffirming today our commitment to denounce anti-immigrant discourse, systemic racism and hate-based violence against people, regardless of their identity.

We need to be focused, in particular, on confronting online hate. As the recent horrifying events in Pittsburgh demonstrate, vicious anti-Semitic rhetoric online can and does lead to shocking acts of violence, including murder.

If the doors of Canada were closed to Jewish refugees on board the MS St. Louis in 1939 and during most of the Second World War, we must commit to never make the same mistake again.

These children, women and men are only asking that we open our doors to them so that they may unpack their suitcases here, so that they can continue their lives here, so that in safety and security, they can grow and accomplish their hopes and dreams, all the while contributing to Canadian society.

Because of anti-Semitism, we denied asylum to the passengers of the MS St. Louis. On behalf of my party, I wish to add my voice to the official apology made here today.

On June 7, 1939, Canada said no to Jewish refugees. Today Canada is apologizing and expresses its regret. The future must not follow in the path of past errors. We must all work collectively to fight against anti-Semitism in all its forms, wherever it takes place.

The NDP stands shoulder to shoulder with Canada's Jewish community against anti-Semitism, here in Canada and around the world. No community should face this hatred alone. Together, let us build a better story.

[The Environment, November 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, those are fine words, but we want to see them backed by actions.

Today, more than 400 prominent figures co-signed the Quebec pact for a green transition. Civil society is pledging to take meaningful action to combat climate warming. An emergency debate on the alarming IPCC report was recently held in the House. In spite of all this, the Liberal government continues to believe that words outweigh action.

Will the Prime Minister listen to Quebeckers' pleas and finally implement concrete policies for fighting climate change?

[Veterans Affairs, November 7th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I remember the previous Conservative government that for five years was unable to give a yes or no answer. The current Liberal government, though, is disappointing one community after another, and this time it is veterans.

The government has let a total of $1,037 million promised for the pension programs of our veterans to simply lapse.

Yesterday, the House unanimously approved the motion by my esteemed colleague for Courtenay—Alberni to reallocate the entirety of the funds to veterans programs, but the Liberals are refusing to do just that.

Is the Prime Minister ready to implement the motion of the NDP and finally spend the entirety of the budget promised to our veterans?

[Veterans Affairs, November 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, is that his response?

In addition to the $372 million that was left unspent, the Minister of Veterans Affairs admitted that an accounting error caused Ottawa to accidentally withhold $165 million over seven years.

The government is also going to save more than $500 million over five years by abolishing the lump sum payments made to veterans with a disability. The Liberals are refusing to commit to using this money to fill the gaps in the veteran pension system.

Is the government really working for veterans or is it saving money at their expense?

[Veterans Affairs, November 6th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this week is dedicated to the veterans who risked their lives to defend us, but the best tribute we can pay them is to take care of them when they return to Canada. However, when they call about services, our veterans have to wait hours and hours and are redirected half a dozen times before they finally get to speak to the right person.

Then the Liberals find a way not to spend $372 million after three years, despite all their promises.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to support our motion and to spend the entire budget for veterans?

[Canada Revenue Agency, November 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why the Mexican government has a backbone, but the Liberal government does not.

Today also marks a sad anniversary. One year ago the paradise papers scandal broke. Before that, we had the Panama papers, the Luxembourg leaks, the Swiss leaks and the offshore leaks. There was the scandal involving KPMG, which helped Canadians send their money away and then repatriate it tax free. In every one of these cases, the Canada Revenue Agency has seemed powerless to act, or it simply gave amnesty to the guilty parties. However, the agency is very good at going after Canadians who receive benefits.

Why the double standard? When will it take concrete action on the paradise papers?

[International Trade, November 5th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, 10 days ago, Mexico announced that it will not approve the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement unless President Trump lifts the U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum. Now that is what I call guts.

Steelworkers have come to Ottawa to demand that the Liberal government do exactly the same thing, because these tariffs could force many Canadian companies out of business, but the Liberals continue to turn a deaf ear.

My question is very simple. How come the Mexican government has a backbone but our government here in Ottawa does not?