Guy Caron

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, December 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it seems I have the honour of being the last speaker on the very important question of Bill C-10.

If there is one thing the debate on Bill C-10 has shown us, it is that this Parliament is dysfunctional. In a democracy like ours, particularly in a majority government situation, we have to make sure that the best legislation is presented and passed in the House, which is comprised of all elected members from everywhere in Canada. Given that the government is obviously in favour of this bill, it must hear the arguments put forward by the opposition, from whatever party it may be, in order to improve it. To do that, it must be able to swallow its pride and admit that it does not have a monopoly on the truth and that the opposition’s arguments may be valid and may prevent mistakes that would otherwise be made in a totalitarian government.

In this case, we have seen the problems and the aberrations of a dysfunctional Parliament. The government is proposing nine bills dealing with the Criminal Code and putting them all together. Some of them might have been supported by the opposition parties, whether the NDP or the three other parties represented in the House, and passed quickly. I am referring, for example, to the bill dealing with sexual offences against children. We are all reasonable people. We can understand that there is a strong consensus among Canadians that there should be longer sentences for that. But the government refused and then blames us for supporting the criminals who commit those heinous crimes.

Certain other bills had fairly major structural problems, which were raised on multiple occasions. The government refuses to address the structural problems raised by the opposition, claiming that the arguments have been heard and we can now move on to the vote, which will probably be held on Monday. The arguments may have been heard, but they were not understood, or they were dismissed out of hand without any further analysis.

I would like to talk about one problem in particular. It has been said that the government refuses to work with the opposition parties, including the NDP. I would like to note the excellent work done by our two justice critics, including the member for Gatineau, who is the deputy critic. They have done phenomenal work, as have the critics for the other opposition parties.

If the government refuses to work with the opposition parties, it should at least work with the provinces. We know that a majority of provinces, including Quebec, have serious reservations about several parts of this omnibus bill. Manitoba, one of the rare provinces the government relied on to give its bill some credibility, has also stated serious reservations about several parts of it. Most of the provinces do not agree with the way the bill is presented.

I am proud to say that we have worked with the provinces, particularly with Quebec, to amend some much more critical parts of this bill, including the part about young offenders that we were just discussing.

One of the changes suggested by the Minister of Justice of Quebec, with whom we have worked during this process, relates to the concept of the long-term protection of the public that the Conservatives want to remove. The concept of the long-term protection of the public was in the previous young offenders legislation. The Conservatives are removing it and refuse to include the concept of the long-term protection of the public.

In a previous life, I worked for a youth centre, Ressources alternatives Rive-Sud, in Longueuil. I saw the work that was done on rehabilitating young offenders and raising their awareness. This bill is concerned with young persons who have committed more serious crimes, fine. But the solution proposed for this will send these young persons to crime school, and there will be no hope of providing long-term protection for the public.

A second point in the bill would make the rule that bans the publication of any information that would identify a young offender who has committed violent crimes less stringent.

At present, that limitation exists for serious crimes for which, for example, a young offender will be referred to adult court. But by making it possible for these young offenders’ identity to be disclosed in relation to investigations of violent crimes, whatever they are, it is systematically stigmatizing those young people and creating one more barrier to their potential rehabilitation and reintegration. Quebec, most of the provinces and the opposition parties did their homework. The only ones who did not do it are the federal government. The provinces are going to pay and the public is going to pay.

[Employment, December 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, approximately 19,000 jobs were lost in Canada last month. This is the third drop in four months. Clearly, this government wants to take all the credit when jobs are created, but it refuses to take responsibility when jobs are lost. The unemployment rate, which was less than 6% in 2007, has now climbed to 7.4%, the highest it has been in five months. These figures are still more sad evidence that the labour market is in crisis.

What is this government waiting for to help Canadian families who lose their livelihoods find other employment more quickly and easily? What is this government's plan to create jobs?

[Employment, December 2nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, another 19,000 jobs were lost last month because of the government's inaction. For the second month in a row, job losses continue to mount for Canadian families. Our jobless rate is at its highest point in five months.

Canadians do not want excuses, they want action. Will the government sleepwalk into another crisis as it did in 2008, or will it act right now to create jobs?

[December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to that.

First, the member's answer makes it very clear that she does not understand the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. She talked about businesses that are investing. We realize that some businesses invest in Canada and we encourage that. However, in terms of real investments, there is no increase in Canada overall. But we can see that cash flow in Canada is increasing. Businesses have more and more cash to invest, but they are not investing. I am not talking about every business that invests in our ridings, but in Canada as a whole. That is a major difference compared to the response she gave.

Second, I am happy that the parliamentary secretary mentioned the GST. I am not the only one; most credible Canadian economists have criticized this tax measure as being the worst thing the government could have done. That is one of the main ways the government took the country from a $13 billion surplus to a deficit in less than two years.

This response and these comments clearly show that the Conservatives have no real interest in helping the whole country economically and that they have much more interest in promoting their own policy, which is based more on ideology than on clearly demonstrated economic credibility.

[December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise here this evening in the House to return to an issue I raised on November 4, 2011. I had asked the Minister of Finance about the economic situation, specifically about Statistics Canada's announcement that 72,000 full-time jobs had been lost in October, which was only slightly offset by the 18,000 new part-time jobs. Obviously, I did not get a satisfactory response from the government, which is why I am here this evening.

I would like to take this opportunity to compare the Conservatives' view of the economy with that of the NDP. The kind of responses we are getting is not surprising. Nor is it surprising that we vote the way we do on issues like the budget, for example. The budgets presented by the Conservatives go in exactly the wrong direction, as far back as their very first term.

When the Conservative government came to power in 2006, it had a surplus of $13 billion. In less than two years, that surplus became a deficit, and that was before the recession hit. I am amazed that the Conservatives like to boast about being the best government for fiscal management.

One of the main differences between the Conservative government's philosophy and that of the NDP has to do with their vision for the economy. The Conservatives planned on focusing their efforts on cutting corporate taxes to help with the economic recovery, a measure we clearly disagree with. We are not saying that tax cuts are never valuable, on the contrary. As an economist, I know that a tax cut can be worthwhile if it can benefit private companies that are short on liquid assets for investing.

According to current data, Canadian companies are sitting on nearly $500 billion in liquid assets. They are currently not investing. They must have reasons for not investing. Perhaps it is a lack of confidence or lack of opportunity, or fear of the economic situation. If these companies have $500 billion that they are not investing, then additional tax cuts worth $4 billion to $6 billion a year will only add to this mountain of liquid assets that still will not be invested.

Since the Conservative government came to power in 2006, our tax room has decreased by $25 billion. That money could have been reinvested in infrastructure programs, for instance. We know there is a major infrastructure problem in the country. Our tax room has decreased by $25 billion because of the gradual reduction in the corporate tax rate. Corporations are being given money they do not need because they are not investing.

The government boasts about creating jobs. We often hear them talk about the 600,000 additional jobs since the worst part of the recession. The government cannot take credit for creating those jobs. If it is going to take credit for creating 600,000 jobs, then it also has to take credit for losing 4,000 jobs at the beginning of the recession and for the rise in the unemployment rate from 6% in 2007 to 7% today.

For that reason, I am not satisfied with the answer and I would like to get some explanations on this from the government before I rise on my right of reply.

[Immigration and Refugee Board, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Immigration has so many friends that he cannot keep track. He said that only two Conservative friends sit on the Immigration and Refugee Board but the facts tell a different story.

Following the Prime Minister's example of making Senate appointments, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has now put at least 16 Conservative supporters on the Immigration and Refugee Board: defeated Conservative candidates Rose Andrachuk, Douglas Cryer, Gilles Guénette, Atam Uppal and Harriet Wolman; former Conservative employees Normand Forrest and Paul Beaudry; and at least eight Conservative donors.

Canadians are much smarter than the minister thinks. Canadians know that the Conservatives always give preferential treatment to friends of the party.

The Conservatives came here to change Ottawa, instead Ottawa changed them. Six years and sixteen IRB appointments later, they have become everything they used to oppose.

[November 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I regret the tone that was used. This debate must not be politicized. Canadians are concerned about these news stories, and Quebeckers particularly, since happened in Montreal. I understand that police intervention is a delicate subject, but it is important to remember that nine employees were suspended or dismissed as a result of the investigation. People were sentenced. Are there other employees who will be sentenced or who are currently under investigation?

My second question is about the missing records. We recently learned that over 2,700 tax records at the Canada Revenue Agency were allegedly consulted without authorization and also went missing. What is even more serious is the fact that the Privacy Commissioner, Ms. Stoddart, was not even made aware of this situation. The fact that employees were suspended or dismissed is of interest to Canadians regardless of their political affiliation.

With regard to the disappearance of these records and the protection of privacy, I would like to know what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue intends to do to remedy this situation.

[November 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the previous question, I used to sit on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and I could easily talk about the fact that we did not obtain the documents and that the documents we have are new ones. However, that is not the question that I want to raise this evening. In fact, I asked a question on November 4 about a troubling and problematic situation at the Canada Revenue Agency.

This has been known for a while, and other revelations have added to the questions we have about the Canada Revenue Agency. This is a problem for all Canadians, not only because the Canada Revenue Agency is an essential part of the government, since it is the main agency that collects money and enables the government to function, but also because Canadians must view the agency as neutral, efficient and above reproach.

Reports we obtained from the media, for instance, show that a situation is developing in some of the agency's offices in Quebec, particularly in Montreal. We are hearing about an extortion scheme and bribes paid to rather senior CRA employees in exchange for substantial income tax reductions. In one particular case, we heard about a Montreal business that owed CRA $3,500,000. Through this bribe and extortion scheme, that company managed to reduce that amount to $50,000.

All of this was uncovered in 2007 and we know that it has been going on for about 10 years. It was uncovered during an investigation into organized crime in Montreal as part of Operation Colisée. That investigation revealed that senior CRA employees in Montreal had some questionable ties to construction companies that were suspected of having links to organized crime.

Everyone agrees that the Canada Revenue Agency has to be above reproach. Obviously, the question that was asked did not apply to all employees, or to the employees in general, but to the few people who tried to use their positions in the Canada Revenue Agency for their own personal gains and to allow their friends to end up with a clean tax record. The investigation has not come up with much so far. Only nine employees may have been suspended or dismissed and many questions remain about the integrity of the process. That is why I asked the Minister of National Revenue the question.

There is one last thing I want to emphasize and it has to do with my second question on the fact that, during the investigation into one business in particular, the file, which had been in the office when the internal auditor mandated by the Auditor General was there, disappeared. This also causes certain problems and raises suspicions about the way in which the office operates.

The question was for the Minister of National Revenue and I would like to have an answer with regard to the investigation and what the government intends to do to reassure Canadians about the integrity of the Canada Revenue Agency.

[Improving Trade Within Canada Act, November 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I come from a riding where there are a lot of farmers. This type of proposal or initiative from a region or province is completely commendable, especially in times such as these when our businesses and our agriculture industry in general, particularly family farms, are having difficulty. If we want to diversify and fine-tune our research and our methods, this type of initiative is a very good idea.

Honestly, I hope to see this type of initiative implemented more often in Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Based on the provisions of the Agreement on Internal Trade, I do not see any major problem because I do not think that this gives Ontario or the region any particular advantage in this case. According to some analyses or interpretations of the agreement, it could eventually be the subject of a frivolous lawsuit, which is a concern for us because we want to avoid this type of imbalance.

[Improving Trade Within Canada Act, November 24th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. My riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques is fairly remote and it is considered a resource region. Quebec implemented certain measures that benefit my riding, including a tax credit for resource regions. According to the terms of the agreement itself and not the bill, if a province can make the decision, it can be challenged.

However, the agreement also has some advantages. I said that we were in favour of a greater flow of goods and services and of improved labour force mobility. Domaine Acer, a company in Témiscouata, produces alcoholic beverages made of maple sugar or sap. They are quite delicious, by the way. This company would like to be able to export its products more freely outside Quebec, and that is a commendable goal.

In that sense, the bill could have positive effects by facilitating the trade of certain products. However, it could have more negative effects on my region's ability to apply the rules to develop its commercial sector differently than that of the larger centres, given its distinct character. If such is the case, according to the bill, there could be penalties imposed on Quebec in order to convince it not to go in that direction or to prevent the municipality or my region from doing so.

These are the types of questions that we want to be able to discuss in committee. That is why we are going to support this bill at second reading so that we can continue to discuss these issues in committee.