Guy Caron

[The Environment, November 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, if the Liberals are so serious about this, why are they still using the inadequate targets established by Stephen Harper's Conservatives, targets they have no chance of meeting?

These failures have consequences. Over the past 25 years, the Earth's oceans have absorbed 60% more heat than scientists previously thought. That means global warming is happening faster than we thought. One consequence is that the Pine Island glacier in Antarctica lost a 300-square-kilometre chunk of ice this week, which is an area five times the size of Manhattan.

My question again is this: Why are the Liberals refusing to change their game plan, which is clearly not good enough?

[The Environment, November 1st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to fighting climate change, the Liberal government is all talk and little action, so little action, in fact, that a group of Quebec's legal experts is considering bringing the government to court to force it to respect its own commitments. This recourse is seen as plausible, because it has been used elsewhere, namely in the Netherlands. In a court ruling, the Dutch government is now under obligation to implement a GHG reduction plan.

Will the Liberals stop producing so much hot air about climate change, or will they wait for legal experts to force them to do it?

[Taxation, October 31st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I think that he did not understand the question. I was talking about taxing web giants. He is not taxing web giants, but that is no surprise because the government's tax policy is illogical and hard to follow.

The Canada Revenue Agency has audited the files of 332,000 Canadians who receive benefits, but it is incapable of processing the 3,000 files of people involved in the Panama papers.

Yesterday, in his disjointed answer, the Prime Minister said that they had spent $1 billion to carry out investigations. That billion dollars was spent to investigate Canadians who are not wealthy enough to defend themselves. It is obvious that we have a two-tiered tax system.

Once again, what will the minister do?

[Taxation, October 31st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals twiddle their thumbs about taxing web giants, other countries are taking action.

The United Kingdom announced yesterday that it is introducing a 2% digital services tax. Spain unveiled its own 3% digital services tax 10 days ago. The European Commission is considering a 3% tax on web giants' revenues.

Canada, however, cannot even be bothered to impose a simple sales tax like the one our own companies are subject to.

Speaking on the red carpet at the ADISQ gala, the Prime Minister said he had heard the culture sector's cry for help.

Hearing is all well and good, but when is he going to do something?

[Canada Revenue Agency, October 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem right there. They are not going to provide benefits; they are going to take them out of people's pockets.

This kind of reminds me of how the Liberals promised to stop subjecting charities to gratuitous audits. It was even included in the minister's mandate letter. Furthermore, this summer, Ontario's Superior Court told them to stop.

Are the Liberals going to stop? No, they are planning to appeal the decision.

Are they going to stop going after Canadians who receive benefits? No, because these Canadians are too easy a target.

Are they going to go after the wealthy individuals named in the Panama papers? They have not done it so far, so why would they start now?

I will repeat my question. Why maintain this two-tier tax system?

[Canada Revenue Agency, October 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Revenue Agency continues to be the talk of the town for all the wrong reasons. It dawdles endlessly when it comes to the wealthy KPMG clients and other names cited in the Panama papers yet ruthlessly attacks Canadians who receive government benefits but do not have the means to defend themselves. The CRA has recouped more than $1 billion in five years from audits of 332,000 files, yet it is incapable of processing the 3,000 files on Canadians implicated in the Panama papers a year ago.

Why are the Liberals condoning this double standard on tax justice?

[By-Elections, October 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the riding of Outremont has been without an MP for over two months, and the ridings of Burnaby South and York—Simcoe have gone without representation in the House for over one month.

The Prime Minister, however, has called just one by-election, in Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, but only because he had no choice.

This is only the second time in 20 years that a prime minister has called one by-election while leaving other ridings vacant.

What are the political motives behind the Prime Minister's decision to leave more than 300,000 Canadians across the country without representation in the House?

[Public Safety, October 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Saturday's shooting at Pittsburgh's Tree of Life synagogue was an appalling act of anti-Semitism. The hearts and prayers of all New Democrats go to the victims, their families and to Pittsburgh's Jewish community. However, this senseless attack is merely the latest episode in a series of crimes inspired by hate and prejudice, such as anti-Semitism, of course, but also Islamophobia and homophobia. Canadians are rightly concerned by the rise of violence and bigotry.

Could the Prime Minister inform this House of the measures his government intends to implement to tackle all of these forms of extremism?

[Foreign Affairs, October 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, is that seriously all they have to say?

After turning a deaf ear to appeals from Germany and our allies to at least suspend the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, the Prime Minister clearly stated on Tuesday that cancelling this contract would cost $1 billion.

Where does this figure come from? From his imagination, apparently, because the next day, his office said that it was just a figure of speech. A figure of speech means saying something like “this is not rocket science” or “this is not brain surgery”. It does not mean snatching a number out of thin air in response to a question that called for a specific figure.

Why is the Prime Minister inventing numbers like this? Is he trying to avoid having to cancel the contract?

[Foreign Affairs, October 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in a Tuesday interview with the CBC, the Prime Minister said, “I do not want to leave Canadians holding a billion dollar bill”. However, yesterday, the Prime Minister's Office backtracked on that number and said this supposed $1-billion penalty for cancelling the Saudi arms deal was an “expression”. I am not kidding. He said it was an “expression”.

Canadians know this deal must be cancelled and have the right to know why the Prime Minister is using this as an excuse. Why is the Prime Minister making up numbers? Is it so that he does not have to cancel the arms deal with Saudi Arabia?