Guy Caron

[Parliamentary Budget Officer, September 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The NDP agrees that the cost of private members' bills should be calculated, but the government is tying the Parliamentary Budget Officer's hands. It has slashed his budget and is refusing to provide his office with the resources he needs to do his job. It makes us wonder whether the Conservatives really want the cost of private members' bills to be calculated or whether this is one of their political manoeuvres to overload him and prevent him from examining public finances.

Will the government give the Parliamentary Budget Officer the means to do his job?

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very relevant question.

I feel as though we are in Groundhog Day today. This situation reminds us of what we went through before 2008, when the federal government was hiding and denying that we were about to enter an economic recession. Today, the same government is still blind to the fact that we are about to enter a recession. It is not the NDP saying this. The majority of financial and economic institutions are saying that we are in danger of soon heading into a recession and that immediate, concrete measures to stimulate the economy are necessary.

The Minister of Finance seems to have his head in the sand and, as he did during the previous recession, he is denying that there are problems that require solutions other than slogans or mantras. Some facts are even substantiated by his own department, so it appears that he does not read the documents.

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer this question because what she said is true. It is not just the NDP that has said so. Most serious Canadian economists have shown that if stimulus and economic recovery were the goal, lowering the GST was probably one of the least effective ways of achieving it.

The Conservatives should have lowered income taxes, but we did not have that debate. Cutting taxes would have been a much more effective recovery measure. Decreasing the GST from 7% to 5% reduced federal tax revenues. This contributed in great part to the fact that, between 2006 and 2011, we slipped into the red: the federal government went from a $13 billion surplus to a deficit even before the recession.

Cutting the GST was probably the worst measure that this government could have adopted. It was a purely political move that did nothing to stimulate the economy or promote recovery.

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to mention that I will share my time with my colleague from York South—Weston. You will no doubt be happy to know that I will not be reading from a newspaper today, so I should not have any problems with this speech.

I know that this debate has to do with the economy and job creation. I am going to assume that our colleagues on the government side are interested in creating jobs. We are as well. However, what we hear a lot from the government is rhetoric, slogans or mantras claiming that there is a direct correlation between tax cuts—particularly corporate tax cuts—and job creation.

Let us be clear. There are a number of ways to create jobs. There are a number of ways for the government to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Tax cuts may be one way, but there are also other ways, such as investing in infrastructure, redistributing wealth or making direct investments to benefit low-income households or the unemployed. All of these measures will have very different effects on economic recovery and economic stimulus. These are effects that can be assessed, and this has been done by the Department of Finance, so by a government department.

A few of these measures were evaluated based on their multiplying effect on the economy. For example, the Department of Finance determined that for each dollar of corporate tax cuts, approximately 30 extra cents would be added to the GDP. That is the least effective measure of the six evaluated by Revenue Canada. One of the most effective measures involves direct help for the poorest households or the unemployed; for each dollar invested this way, $1.70 is added to the GDP. In terms of infrastructure investments, $1.60 is added to the GDP for each dollar invested.

And for measures related to housing investments, $1.50 in economic growth is generated for each dollar invested. These measures have very different effects. Some are more successful and promising than others. Corporate tax cuts are the least promising and successful.

This is easy to understand. Direct measures to help low-income families and the unemployed generate so much economic growth because the money is immediately invested in the economy. Households need this money to invest directly because they have no money to save. It is invested directly into the economy. Investing in infrastructure or housing is just as easy to understand. It creates direct jobs and allows private businesses to benefit from infrastructure to make the economy work.

These three measures have direct, positive impacts on the economy. When it comes to reducing income tax, the impact is extremely weak. Can corporate tax cuts help the economy? In certain cases, yes. Take, for example, a private business that does not have the cash needed to make investments. It wants to invest in the economy but does not have the money to do so. At that point, income tax and corporate tax cuts will generate the money it needs to be able to invest.

However, that is not the current reality. The liquid assets the private sector currently has available, in dividends, investments or funds set aside, have increased, going from $157 billion in 2001 to $477 billion today. Let me be clear: Canadian companies are currently sitting on a mountain of $477 billion. That is money they could be investing. It is an increase of $320 billion in 10 years. Of that $320 billion, I would like to specify that roughly $120 billion comes, once again, from the Canadian public purse through the corporate tax cuts enacted by the previous Liberal and Conservative governments.

What are the corporations doing with this $477 billion? They are not investing it right now. Why not? There are a number of reasons that we will not necessarily get into at this time, but the economic context is such that they have decided not to invest.

What impact will corporate tax cuts have on the Canadian private sector? They will not lead to more investment. If the profitable corporations are currently not investing, if they find the current context not suitable for investing the $477 billion they have today, not to mention the additional revenue they will earn, then they will see no additional reasons to invest.

That is why corporate tax cuts are not the best approach in the current Canadian economic context. However, it is the only significant way the government has found, with what it calls the low tax agenda, to stimulate the Canadian economy. The Department of Finance has clearly stated that corporate tax cuts have no impact on job creation. The proof is in budget 2009, budget 2010, but not in budget 2011. We can presume that the government was too embarrassed to add those cuts in budget 2011. Budgets 2009 and 2010 clearly show that corporate tax cuts have no impact on job creation. I repeat: they have no impact on job creation. And the government has no proof that a single job has been created as a result of its corporate tax cut initiative.

What impact will this have on the Canadian treasury? We are talking about a loss of $4 billion to $6 billion this year. That is a loss of approximately $10 billion to the Canadian treasury over two years. That $10 billion was not invested; rather, it has helped to build the mountain of cash on which private companies are now sitting. In the past 10 years, we are talking about a net loss of $120 billion to the Canadian treasury. This money could have been invested in infrastructure rather than transferred to companies where it is not doing any good.

We are currently talking about an infrastructure deficit of approximately $100 billion. The hon. members for Quebec know that there are striking examples in Montreal. We need to invest to replace the Champlain Bridge. This summer, we saw the news about the Ville-Marie tunnel; this is symptomatic of the state of our infrastructure. This type of problem exists in the larger centres and in my riding of Rimouski—Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basque, where I spent the summer meeting with municipal councils. I have 39 municipalities in my riding and most of them need infrastructure, whether it be recreation centres, new municipal offices, road infrastructure or water systems. There are pressing needs. We are talking about $100 billion for Canada.

According to Revenue Canada's figures, the money that is currently being given to companies so that they can add it to their mountain of cash—the money that is not being used for anything—could be invested in a more beneficial manner.

Let us be clear. If companies want to invest, they can do so. They are currently in a position to invest but they choose not to do so. They are not going to choose to invest more and create jobs if they are given tax breaks such as the ones the federal government gave them in previous plans.

According to the Department of Finance's figures, the NDP's program is much more effective in terms of stimulating the economy and creating jobs. We are talking about investing in infrastructure and providing direct support to low-income households and unemployed workers. These are measures that will help to increase employment. The direction that the Conservatives are taking and their failure to act are putting us in an increasingly perilous situation, as demonstrated by the warnings from financial firms, banks and the International Monetary Fund, among other things.

By adopting the NDP's plan, we would be going in the right direction; we would be creating employment and stimulating the economy. I would like to invite the government to go in this direction, specifically by voting in favour of the motion put forward by my colleague, the finance critic.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 27th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech and ask him a question.

I am aware of the work that he did previously as the president of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. One of my biggest concerns about Bill C-10 is the fact that we do not know how much it will cost the provinces. We do know that the bill will cost the federal and provincial governments a significant amount of money, particularly because of minimum sentences.

Can the hon. member give us an idea of how much will be covered by the provinces and how much will be covered by the federal government, and can he tell me what he thinks of a government that cannot give us an answer in this regard?

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member asked me this question, since this is an issue in which I was very involved during the years I spent at youth centres.

In order to help victims overcome the effects of a crime, it is important to show them that there is justice in their case. However, they also need to be able to confront the person who committed the crime, as the hon. member suggested. We are not necessarily talking about extremely serious crimes, but such may be the case. I have seen certain cases where people who were the victims of a break and enter or an assault were able, under supervision of course, to speak with the offender in order to understand why the offender committed the crime and to be more at peace with what happened. To see the justice system deal with the situation in this manner is much more meaningful for victims and helps them to cope better than if they were not involved in the process and the offender were punished using only coercive justice.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I do see this as a step in that direction. I do not think we need to look any further than the statements made this morning by the Minister of Public Safety, who was making comparisons and defending some of the provisions in the bill based on what has been done in the United States. It is clear that this bill was inspired by the American approach. If we look at the facts and at what happened in the United States after several of these measures were adopted, for instance, minimum sentences, it is clear that it has been a completely unmanageable burden for several states, including Texas, which is paying the price today. Once again, it has had very little, if any, impact on crime rates.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her question.

There is absolutely no proof of this, be it from criminologists, sociologists, academics or anyone else who is concerned with this topic. There is not a single study, Canadian or American, that demonstrates the validity of the approach this government is currently favouring. No studies demonstrate that tougher minimum sentences create a deterrent. It has been seen in the United States in particular, but also is true for Canada. We have no concrete idea of how much this approach will cost, but we know it will be a lot. And there will be absolutely no impact on reducing crime and the associated costs for victims. That is why this bill is unacceptable.

If the government had been responsible, it would have split this bill. That would have allowed the opposition to support certain positive elements in a consensus, as happened with the mega-trials bill in June. But that is impossible in this case.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, we have an initial indication of what this could cost—there is talk of $2.7 billion over five years. And that is likely a very conservative estimate if we look at other estimates we have been given, such as the one for another crime bill, which went from $90 million to $5 billion. If that trend continues, we will be looking at far more than $2.7 billion over five years.

And yes, the government is refusing to answer this question. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that he does not have the information he requires to be able to make a useful and valid evaluation. I would like to use this question to send a message to the government and say that if it wishes to govern in a transparent way that respects the principles of good governance, they should give us these numbers and costs, not only for the federal government, but also for the provincial governments. And these amounts should also be evaluated by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

[Safe Streets and Communities Act, September 22nd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very relevant question.

The Canadian Paediatric Society report, for one, is very clear on this subject. Prevention is absolutely crucial when it comes to dealing with crime and youth crime, and crime which has an impact on youth.

As it stands, this bill make absolutely no mention of prevention, rehabilitation or restorative justice for victims. It just hammers away at one particular aspect—coercion or incarceration. This bill is completely unbalanced. My hon. colleague has every reason to raise this particular point because it demonstrates one of the major weaknesses of Bill C-10, which we should be opposing.