Guy Caron

[National Defence, November 21st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, a number of countries have already indicated they no longer want the F-35s, but this government seems determined to procure them.

Some U.S. senators have expressed concern over the cost of these planes, but this government does not even want to tell us how much they will cost. In fact, all we know is that the cost keeps going up as more and more countries withdraw from the program. We also know that these planes are not compatible with the nature of the Canadian landscape and they will not operate well in the Arctic.

The Associate Minister of National Defence said that he has a plan B for the F-35s. Since plan A has failed, can he tell us more about plan B?

[National Flag of Canada Act, November 18th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to discuss Bill C-288. I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for Don Valley West for his speech and for what seems to be a commendable intention. I congratulate him. His speech was very respectful, unlike some other speeches I have heard recently in the House.

I would, however, like to talk about the flaws in the bill. We cannot really attack the intent of the bill, which is commendable. However, this is a bill that will add another clause to the Criminal Code. It is therefore a relatively serious issue and it deserves to be addressed.

The bill lists three main conditions with regard to the Canadian flag: that it be displayed in a manner befitting this national symbol, that it not be displayed for an improper purpose or use, and that it not be subjected to desecration. These are three important conditions for allowing a person to display a flag.

One of the main flaws is that there is absolutely no definition of what constitutes a manner befitting this national symbol. And what does it mean to display a flag for an improper purpose or use? Even the definition of desecration seems complex. I think we can all agree, but knowing the limits of the definition of desecration is not so obvious.

For example, much is being said about condos and homeowners' associations. We can also talk about people living in condos or rented houses who want to use a flag as a curtain. Is that an improper use of a flag? I think that if we are talking about a flag as a symbol that should be treated with respect, some people might take issue with that use. If a flag is used as a door or a curtain between two rooms, is that a proper use of the flag? Some reasonable people might not think so.

I think this bill is quite flawed in terms of how the use of the flag is defined. Although the hon. member for Don Valley West wants to ensure that this bill contributes positively to the discussion, I think it might complicate the discussion between members of homeowners' associations and condo associations.

Another aspect of this bill—making the offence in question a crime—has already been raised in this chamber. Once again, I definitely understand that the member for Don Valley West wants to improve dialogue and discussion about this matter. However, criminalizing something and taking sides in a dispute can cause problems. By passing this bill, the Government of Canada would be taking sides in any dispute involving a Canadian flag, and that would tip the balance in favour of one party over the other party, which might have legitimate objections in a dispute.

For that reason, I fully support the arguments of my colleague from Jeanne-Le Ber, who said that this type of discussion should probably take place at the municipal level, where matters pertaining to residences and property are handled. The discussion would be much more appropriate at that level. Discussions could also take place at the provincial level. However, at the federal level, we are talking about criminalizing a dispute involving a national symbol. The dispute is also about how land or property is divided, and the rules that are agreed to and applied by property owners.

I believe that the bill goes much too far by introducing criminalization and that it does not achieve the purpose intended by the member for Don Valley West, who wants to create a dialogue. In the end, it may prevent dialogue and polarize any dispute that could arise in similar cases.

I would also like to say, and this has been mentioned, that there is no flag crisis at the moment. There are isolated and regrettable incidents because the parties in a dispute about displaying the flag cannot come to an agreement. However, introducing a private member's bill that would increase criminalization or add another article to the Criminal Code is probably excessive in the circumstances.

Another one of the issues that was raised by the hon. member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor is the double standard.

We know full well that, based on the rules of the House, the Board of Internal Economy has already decided that flags cannot be flown in the windows of Parliament Hill offices. However, this issue was raised by a media outlet, which mentioned the existence of a double standard: one for ordinary Canadians and one for Parliament Hill.

The member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor has already pointed this out but, if we had to resolve a dispute or make a decision in this regard—as one of your predecessors did—I would surely not like to see you be given a prison sentence of two years for a ruling contrary to the essence or intent of a bill, even though I know that members of the House benefit from parliamentary privilege.

The fundamental issue here is that there is a double standard. We cannot impose on the House what we want to impose on Canadians, specifically members of homeowners associations and condomiiuim associations.

I would like to point out another issue, namely, that of freedom of expression. The goal is to allow people to express themselves more freely or to give them the opportunity to express their patriotism by flying the Canadian flag without anyone preventing them from doing so. It is important to realize that freedom of expression is currently protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Any dispute that may occur about the flying of the flag—and these are usually arguments between two or three individuals or among small groups of people—can be resolved by the mechanisms in place to ensure that the provisions of the Charter are upheld. Once again, although the intent of the bill may be commendable and although no one in this House wants to attack this intent in any way, the fact remains that the bill seeks to remedy a situation that is already covered by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Fourth—and this will be my last point—I mentioned that there was a problem with the definitions and the way in which some of the conditions set out in the bill are defined. The fact that the bill is so vague and yet so broad could result in unpredictable situations that may be a little bit embarrassing. The bill tries to cover almost any controversy that could arise, even though most of these controversies seem to pertain to very similar situations. For example, associations of homeowners or condominium owners.

I will give an example that has been brought up by the media. The current member for Vaughan on the government side was formerly the Ontario Provincial Police commissioner. Six years ago, while carrying out his duties during the incidents in Caledonia, he arrested a protester, or rather a counter-protester. This person was arrested for flying a Canadian flag during the counter-protest. According to this clause, would the member for Vaughan, while exercising his duties as Ontario Provincial Police commissioner, have been subject to punishment? Once again, I do not think that was the intent of this bill, but the way it is currently written could lead to embarrassing and unpredictable situations that could cause a lot of problems for law enforcement that the member for Don Valley West did not intend.

Honestly, if I examine the merits rather than the intent of this bill, I see that the bill as drafted is much too vague and imprecise. It tries to resolve a problem that arises only in very isolated and often similar situations— disputes among two, three or four individuals. These could be resolved amicably or through mediation, without such heavy-handed measures as a fine or prison sentence under the Criminal Code.

I would like to ask the member if he would withdraw the bill to try to improve it, as has been mentioned. Because opportunities to make amendments in committee are limited, it would be appreciated if he would withdraw the bill and improve it by taking into account the problems mentioned.

It is difficult to support the bill in its current form.

[Small Business, November 17th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, today we have more evidence that this government has no credible plan to help small business and that the so-called plans they have, such as the Canada small business financing program, are working poorly, if at all.

It is outrageous that Industry Canada had no comment to make on allegations that funds have been diverted from the program. The minister absolutely must fix this program to ensure that it can fulfill its role and truly help small businesses.

Can the minister tell us today how much money Industry Canada has lost in this program by paying down loans for businesses that declared bankruptcy because they did not receive any really effective help?

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, that question is excellent. A sense of proportion is also needed. This measure is worth $27 million. The Conservatives have spent over $60 million on advertising for the economic action plan. It is not a question of cuts here, but rather the fact that the Conservatives have an excellent fundraising machine that has been put to the test. They do not need a political party financing system. They want to use this to weaken the opposition. If it were simply a budget measure, we would not be having the democratic debate that we are having here today and that we should be having.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in the comments that were made, I did not hear any reference from Quebec, but a reference from an Alberta newspaper about Quebec. That is quite different.

The question she asked has to do with a simple mathematical and budgetary question. But the issue is much more fundamental that that. I am sure that she remembers very well the political party financing measure that was adopted along with some fundamental changes, reforms to the way things operated. This was to provide assistance to the different parties and to allow the expression of a democratic vote.

It is true that this can distort things. The current system can distort things. The Conservative government has a majority with less than 40% of the votes . It would make sense to see some reforms to the parliamentary system. That is just part of it. This could also have the negative effect of preventing the expression of diverse voices, like the voice of our colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands, whose presence and party largely depend on these subsidies or financing.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher. We have been discussing a budget for several weeks now. A budget often contains dozens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of measures. There are some that are positive, on which we might agree, and others that we oppose. Among the others, there are the subsidies or the funding given to political parties that my colleague mentioned. This is a fundamental issue, because it directly affects the practice of Canadian democracy. We had very little time to debate this because it was one measure among the many in the budget.

Ideally, if the government wanted to be more effective and have the support of the opposition for this measure, it could present a budget piece by piece. That would provide a better idea of the philosophical differences or similarities between the parties.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-13, Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, because this may be the last opportunity I have to talk about the 2011 budget. I would like to take this opportunity to speak more broadly about the differences between the Conservative government’s approach and the New Democrats’ approach to the economy, which is partially addressed by this bill and has also been addressed in other budget implementation bills.

The difference in approach involves macroeconomics. On the Conservative side, in general, they applaud tax cuts, particularly the ones that benefit corporations. We think this approach is ineffective from the standpoint of investment. The reason given by the Conservatives when they promise these tax cuts may be reflected in the mantra they constantly repeat: that the NDP wants to raise taxes by $10 billion. I think the people at home should know that this simply means going back to the 2009 corporate tax rate. It does amount to nearly $10 billion. But that money is not being stolen from anyone’s pocket and is not just going to sit there and do nothing. It is for investing in infrastructure. That is the big difference between our approach and the Conservatives’.

There is at least one situation where corporate tax cuts are legitimate, and that is when a private enterprise needs cash in order to invest. In that case, a tax cut will, in fact, enable the corporation to free up the cash that is needed so it can invest and thus create jobs. However, we have to be very aware of what the present situation is. In 2001, Canadian corporations were sitting on $157 billion in cash. That $157 billion was lying dormant in the banks, in bank accounts, and not being invested.

That $157 billion, already a sizeable amount in 2001, grew to $477 billion in 2011. Nearly $500 billion is currently unused, sitting in accounts, and not being invested. Corporations may have various reasons for not investing. They are understandable. However, a tax cut like the one the Conservative government wants to push ahead with—a tax cut that would lower the tax rate to 15%—hands cash to companies that very often do not need it, because the cash they already have is not even being invested.

So when they say cutting taxes on corporations is going to create the jobs we need today and it is part of a grand economic action plan, that is entirely incorrect.

In the present situation, where the country has a major infrastructure deficit, it is crucial, in a real economic action plan—and I am not claiming that what the government is currently doing is a real economic action plan—that we look at what the needs are. In this case, we have an infrastructure deficit that is often estimated at over $500 billion. This is a problem we have to start solving before we move on to completely general measures that often miss their mark, precisely because they are general. These measures have to be targeted.

In 2001, the federal corporate tax rate was 28%. That is going to be reduced to 15%. When we went from 28% to 15%, we should note, that cut did not generate any improvement or increase in real investment. That is additional evidence that tax cuts do not necessarily produce an increase in investment or in the number of jobs.

It is worrisome to see the direction the government is choosing to take with its big economic action measure, which is in fact an ideological measure to cut taxes at all costs, because it believes that this is going to magically create jobs, even if it is not invested. It is funny how the government often laughs at the observations and suggestions made by the official opposition, which places more emphasis on infrastructure investments.

I would also like to point out, and this is a crucial point in the debate we are having, that even the Department of Finance, in the 2009-2010 budget, acknowledged the repercussions of various measures and acknowledged that the corporate tax cut was the least effective measure for creating jobs and economic growth.

For every $1 in corporate tax cuts, about 30¢ in economic growth is generated. However, if we take that same dollar and, instead of giving corporations a tax cut, we decide to invest it directly in infrastructure, we create $1.50 in economic growth for each dollar invested. If we take that dollar and we decide to help low-income families or the unemployed directly—and again this is the Department of Finance saying this, we get $1.60 in economic growth for each dollar invested.

We are talking about measures that are five times more effective than corporate taxes. Nonetheless, the Conservative government is running off in a direction that has us simply giving away $2 billion or $3 billion or $4 billion in tax room to companies that very often do not need that money because they have no opportunities to invest it.

I always find it odd when the government blames the opposition, any opposition party, because it does not vote for some micro-measure, even though it may often be very good for certain people or groups in our society. For example, we often talk about volunteer firefighters. These are interesting initiatives that we could conceivably support. However, we do not vote on a budget on a piecemeal basis, but on the document as a whole. And if we look at the whole budget, at the measures and the direction being taken by the government, we find that we cannot support that direction. This is why we oppose the budget. We do not oppose it because we are against volunteer firefighters—quite the contrary—or caregivers, or research and development initiatives. One must realize that, in the Conservative budget, these measures only account for a very small portion of the money invested and that portion is much less than the tax room given to large corporations which, again, will often not invest that money because they have not found any investment opportunities.

I remind hon. members—and we are not the only ones to think so—that there is a corollary to this. I am referring to the other direction that the government is taking, namely, massive spending cuts at a time of economic uncertainty. The last thing we need right now are measures that will reduce demand. Yet, these spending cuts—which are not necessarily included to improve efficiency but to take aim at what are often artificial targets—will result in lower demand, to the point where stimulus measures will be even less effective, assuming that some were. Currently, BMO Nesbitt Burns, the Conference Board of Canada and even the Bank of Canada are opposed to government spending cuts because of the decrease in demand that will follow. We must support demand in difficult times and we are going through difficult times. Generally speaking, Canada is doing well compared to other G7 members, but it should also behave appropriately when faced with risky situations. We should really look at how we can maximize economic performance in our country.

We are talking about infrastructure and I have one or two local examples. I have talked to voters, to organizations and to the 39 municipalities in my riding. There are glaring infrastructure needs. We have to move in that direction. For example, in Rimouski—Neigette, there are needs in terms of recreation centres and municipal complexes, including the Saint-Narcisse recreation centre. And yet there will be no infrastructure money for them. I am trying to find some right now. I am trying to persuade the government to move in that direction, but that is not the direction it wants to move in. There are roads that need rebuilding, for example in Témiscouata and Pohénégamook, in particular, not to mention upgrading water systems. For the tourism projects that are of crucial importance, upgrading is needed. In particular, the Trois-Pistoles—Les Escoumins ferry is at risk of ending up in permanent dry dock as we speak because there is no infrastructure investment for a major tourism project in one of the poorest RCMs in Quebec.

There are infrastructure projects. It is generally agreed that we have a major infrastructure deficit in Canada and we need to invest in that area. While the government is boasting about investing so much in infrastructure over the last two or three or four years, what must be recognized is that there would not have been so much investment if there had been no crisis. If we will recall, the government thought it was losing its grip on Parliament in 2009 and unilaterally prorogued it. Ultimately, it followed the opposition parties’ direction. That is really the direction we have to move in.

We have to stop adopting ineffective measures like overall corporate tax cuts. We have to look at what the economic and industrial needs are and think about fixing the infrastructure deficit. The federal government is in a position to work with the provinces and municipalities to do this.

[Keeping Canada's Economy and Jobs Growing Act, November 15th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the question my colleague asked. I do not think his question was answered, because I have heard the same concerns about the eco-energy retrofit program. The problem is not who created it, when it was created or whether it will be renewed. The problem is that contractors and voters in general do not know whether the program will survive for a year, two years, three, four or even five years. The program would be much more effective if people could be certain that it will be around for more years. This way, contractors and the public could plan renovations over a longer period of time.

I would like to know whether the government member could tell us whether he is satisfied or dissatisfied with the fact that these measures are decided on year by year and whether he thinks they would be more effective if they were more long-term to allow people to plan over a longer period of time.

[Canada Revenue Agency, November 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the corruption investigation started in the Montreal office and now has spread. Other Quebec offices are under investigation. The growing scope of this investigation is raising questions about the state of the CRA as a whole. Canadians expect this agency to operate with impeccable integrity.

Conservatives need to clear the air about these troubling corruption allegations. Can the government tell us if it has asked for an investigation all across Canada? What is it doing to restore the confidence of Canadians?

[Canada Revenue Agency, November 4th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the number of troubling revelations about the Canada Revenue Agency is growing. We are talking about an extortion scheme and bribes paid by entrepreneurs in exchange for substantial tax reductions. The RCMP's investigation into this corruption, which was focusing on the Montreal office, has now been expanded to include other Quebec offices.

Can the government confirm the news and tell us what measures it has taken to tighten controls at the Canada Revenue Agency?