Guy Caron

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, February 17th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hamilton Centre for a very relevant intervention. When we debated the bill in the last Parliament, when it was Bill C-40, we actually opposed the bill. I am not sure, but I think the Liberals might have opposed it as well. It was because there were insufficient protections, such as the ecological integrity aspect, in the bill.

The member actually made relevant comments in terms of the composition of the House. We know that we are under first past the post. The Conservatives did not need to come to the NDP or to the Liberals to actually have it passed. It passed, even though all the other parties were opposed to it.

Now we have a bill, which I believe is a demonstration that consensus can actually take place in the House among the various parties on a specific issue. The bill was drafted in a way that we could support it, but with a proportional system, it would be more mandatory to actually get that type of consensus for a bill to pass. I want to give the member a chance to make that correlation between the voting system we are under and the type of legislation, such as this, that can get a large consensus in the House.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, February 17th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her speech and for this initiative, which we will definitely be supporting. I would like to ask her a specific question, which comes from the committee.

Generally speaking, in committee, there was a consensus among the witnesses. However, one of the witnesses, Alan Latourelle, was not in agreement on ecological integrity. I would like to give the minister the opportunity to respond to these concerns. This is what he said:

I would suggest that the ecological integrity standard will be impossible to achieve at the broad urban park level over the next 25 years because of the fragmented land masses...and because of development pressures outside of the park.

If Mr. Latourelle were speaking to the minister, what would her response be?

[Veterans, February 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the communities of Madawaska and Témiscouata are reeling from the tragic death of Carl Jason Dunphy.

This former Canadian Armed Forces artilleryman valiantly served his country during three tours in Afghanistan. I want to offer my sincere condolences to his family and friends.

Just a few hours before he died, he posted the following message about Veterans Affairs Canada on his Facebook page: “It’s eating away at my resources and my strength. It’s not up to friends and spouses to deal with this because a government organization doesn’t act”.

What will the minister do to prevent this kind of thing from happening again? Will the department follow up internally?

[Job Losses in the Energy Sector, February 8th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, a lot of people are surprised when I tell them which province has the most wind farms in Canada. Most believe it is Quebec, but it is actually Alberta.

My colleague from Edmonton Strathcona spoke about the need to transition and diversify the economy.

Could the member for Outremont talk about current efforts to bring about this diversification? Also, does he see a future for Alberta as the Canadian leader in renewable energy?

[Taxation, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in each of our ridings there are small business owners, farmers, and fishers who want to retire and sell their business to the next generation. The problem is that a farmer who wants to sell his farm to his children must pay hundreds of thousands of dollars more in taxes than if he sold it to a stranger.

My bill, Bill C-274, would level the playing field while minimizing tax avoidance opportunities. Amendments could be made to minimize them even more, but instead of working with me, the government will clearly whip the vote to defeat this bill without even proposing an alternative. Why will the Liberals not allow a free vote?

[Statistics Act, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there have been debates and arguments that the independence of Statistics Canada cannot be achieved when the government is trying to impose on it an information technology system through Shared Services Canada. On the one hand, Statistics Canada is asked to collect important data and to do it in a way that would be the most efficient, according to its own standards, but on the other hand, we are telling Stats Canada to do it while imposing on it methodology and technology that would impede this ability.

I would like to hear the comments and views of my colleague on this seemingly difference of opinion, and difference in perception on the independence of Statistics Canada.

[Statistics Act, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, they break promises. It is as simple as that.

My colleague is right. If we look at the election campaign and the big promises such as democratic reform, promises that everyone knew about, such as being against Bill C-51 and pledging to amend it, which, as far as I know, has not yet been brought up in the House, it sure seems as though the government is coasting on the fact that the difference between it and the Conservatives is that it is not Conservative. Considering everything the Conservatives did in the 41st Parliament and the fact that the Liberals seem to be sticking to that playbook, we have reason to be worried. People will figure it out sooner or later.

This government is basically following in its predecessor's footsteps. It says those measures are progressive. It signed a free trade agreement that the Conservatives negotiated with Europe, which is fine, apparently, because it is supposedly a progressive agreement. The government is on board with the Conservatives' climate change targets, which it says are progressive targets. One of these days, the illusion will shatter and people will see what is really going on.

[Statistics Act, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have acknowledged that this is a step forward. That is why we will be voting in favour of the bill at second reading. My speech was more about the fact that this is only a half measure compared to what the Liberal Party promised.

If I look at the Liberal platform from the last election, on page 37, it says, “We will make Statistics Canada fully independent”.

Fully independent also means ensuring that the process of selecting the chief statistician is actually an independent process. It also means that if there are some problems, such as the intrusion of Shared Services Canada into the ways of collecting data within the system Statistics Canada deems essential for its work, the government will actually not go in that direction. Neither of those measures is in the bill. Shared Services Canada is of primary concern, especially since StatsCan is saying that it will impede its ability to do its work currently.

If the Liberals really wanted to respect the independence of Statistics Canada, as they promised, they would have listened to the chief statistician. They did not, and he had to resign in protest. That is why Bill C-36 is a step forward. That is why we will vote for it at second reading, but it is far from fulfilling the commitment made during the election.

[Statistics Act, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as an economist by training, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-36, which deals with amendments to the Statistics Act and of course pertains to the operations of Statistics Canada.

This House will recall that, when the Conservatives were in power, the decision to eliminate the long-form census provoked quite a public outcry, which came from nearly every sector of civil society. The scientific community was particularly vocal, including social scientists and economists in general.

Eliminating the long-form census created problems with respect to the analysis of demographic data. Even though the long-form census is being restored, the disruption means that, ultimately, vital information will not be available to study societal changes.

Just as we had done during the election campaign, the Liberals also promised to bring back the long-form census. We have to credit them for that. They have done so, and we must thank them for that, at least. The scientific community is also very grateful.

However, this bill is not about the long-form census as such. According to the Liberal government, this bill seeks to strengthen the independence of Statistics Canada, and make changes and modernize it. We will not oppose the measures that are included in the bill. They are good. Unfortunately, they do only half of what was promised during the election campaign. Hon. members will certainly remember that during the election campaign the Liberal Party promised to give Statistics Canada full independence.

When the then Conservative government cancelled the long-form census, the chief statistician resigned in protest of this interference. In September, many Canadians were surprised to see his successor, Wayne Smith, also resign, this time over the Liberal government's decision to force Statistics Canada to use Shared Services Canada's information technology services.

The government did not waver despite the fact that for three months there were intense discussions between the government, Shared Services, and Statistics Canada. During those discussions, Statistics Canada clearly demonstrated that being forced to use the agency's IT services would compromise not only its independence, but also the efficiency of data collection.

Although the bill makes public the cabinet decisions or ministerial orders that the statistician is opposed to and removes the possibility of imprisonment for those who refuse to fill out the mandatory survey, it still falls short. It does not make Statistics Canada independent, particularly when it comes to the process for selecting the chief statistician. In that regard, I would like to point out the work that has been done by my colleague from Windsor West, who introduced a bill to address that issue.

The bill also does not make it mandatory to complete the long-form census; does not make it possible to modernize the Statistics Act so that information can be better disseminated to the public; and does not, as I mentioned, do anything to prevent the interference of Shared Services Canada, which compromises Statistics Canada's independence and is the reason why Wayne Smith resigned.

In September 2016, La Presse published an interview with the chief statistician, which clearly demonstrates the importance of this issue. The article states that:

In a June report [so three months before the chief statistician resigned] obtained by the Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, the [National Statistics] Council wrote that the Liberals' intent to have Statistics Canada find new ways of collecting, analyzing, and disseminating data was inconsistent with their insistence that the federal agency use the new centralized platform...

On one hand, the Liberal government is asking Statistics Canada to do a better job of collecting the data it needs to better inform the public, as well as the federal and provincial governments, on what measures ought to be taken. On the other hand, the Liberal government is trying to force Statistics Canada to use the Shared Services Canada computer system, which will prevent Statistics Canada from doing what the government asked it to do in the first place.

If there is one element that needs to be included in Bill C-36, it is independence and the ability of Statistics Canada to make its own decisions, because it knows best what it actually needs, in terms of data collection, to report and to inform the population better, and not only the population, but all levels of government.

Did the government actually listen to the chief statistician? Of course not. That is why he resigned.

We have, at this point, a process to replace him. He was actually replaced by his assistant, but to fully replace him, we have a process that still involves the government, so it is still not independent and autonomous. This means, by extension, that the process remains politicized.

Given all the upheaval that Statistics Canada has gone through since 2011 or 2012, the government should have addressed directly the serious promise it made during the election campaign. It was to make Statistics Canada fully and not just partly independent, give it a few more powers, and provide direction for the rest.

The Liberals promised to make Statistics Canada fully independent. Bill C-36 does not do that and the government has not yet indicated that it is willing to do it after this bill is passed.

I would like the various Liberal members to tell us, in their speeches, what the government intends to do with Statistics Canada. This is a fundamental issue that affects the fabric of our society.

As I said before, I would like to commend the member for Windsor West, who has presented a bill that would address the issue of the selection of the chief statistician at Statistics Canada. The reason he did so is that he felt there was reluctance by the government to abandon some of the powers it currently has over a service that is traditionally viewed as independent and whose services are critical for the elaboration and analysis of the policies government puts forth. It is also of use to provincial and municipal governments, because they need to have information on the composition of their societies and the evolution of their societies and communities.

The member for Windsor West saw this very important element that was, once again, promised by the Liberals. He felt that the government was not going in that direction.

I have the feeling that other members on this side of the House will actually do the exact same thing on other commitments regarding Statistics Canada, and general commitments made by the government, on which it does not seem to be willing to deliver.

The issue of the long-form census received a lot more public attention, but the independence of Statistics Canada is also deemed important by scientific communities.

I believe that this type of half measure brought forward by the government not only fuels the cynicism of Canadians, but also the cynicism of the people whose work relies on these government organizations.

Statistics Canada has gone through all the decisions.

Considering all the turmoil that Statistics Canada has been through, we would have expected the government to address this issue immediately, but it refuses to do so.

We will be voting in favour of this bill at second reading. In committee, of course, we will try to ensure that the commitments dealing with Statistics Canada that the Liberals made during the election campaign are included in the bill. That would be an improvement and, in that sense, we could help the government meet the commitments it made during the election campaign.

[Income Tax Act, February 6th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to conclude this debate on my private member’s bill, Bill C-274.

In each of our ridings, there are small and medium-sized business owners, farmers and fishers. At present, these people do not belong to the wealthiest class, in spite of what the government is trying to say. They are the very definition of middle-class, and people who start up a small business are often people who aspire to join the middle class.

I am extremely disappointed that the government is opposing this bill. I believe they are opposing it for reasons I think are absurd, and I will explain why.

First, the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary believe the bill will cost between $300 million and $1.2 billion. I worked with tax experts on this bill to make sure it will not be too costly for the government. We estimated that, in terms of lost revenue, it will cost between $75 million and $100 million. Is that excessive? The goal is to level the playing field.

In Montreal, the owner of a small window and door business who wanted to transfer his business to his child had to pay over $110,000 more in taxes than if he sold it to a stranger, a person who was not family.

Obviously, there will be costs in terms of lost revenue, but the goal is to level the playing field and allow these businesses to stay within the family for a second or third generation. The figures the government is suggesting can and must therefore be disputed. They should be examined in committee.

That is why I am asking the government and all members of the House to adopt the bill at second reading, so that we can analyze these figures and compare the analyses I have done with various tax experts and the figures from the Library of Parliament, the Union des producteurs agricole, and Raymond Chabot Grant Thornton and other accounting firms, with the government’s figures.

Another argument that the government has made against the bill is the fact that at present, parents may transfer their business to their children and receive a capital gain. That is true, if the child is not incorporated. However, children increasingly are incorporated, since incorporation carries several advantages, including lower interest rates when they borrow and less tax on the amount to be paid to the parents.

I know there are extremely complex issues and tax policy is complex. Nonetheless, Bill C-274, which I have brought forward, is an appropriate response to the injustice that is an incentive for owners of small businesses, family farms and fishing boats to sell their businesses to strangers rather than to their children. They do not do that because they will get rich; they sell their business so they can retire.

I would like to reassure the government that my intention is not for the bill to be too costly. The intent is to bring the bill to committee so it can actually be studied and if needed, if it is really too costly, to be amended. I can guarantee every member in this House that with the numbers the government is putting forth, if the bill will be as costly as it is saying, I will volunteer to actually withdraw it from consideration. I am saying that because I am sure it will not be.

In conclusion, I encourage all members of the House to consider how this bill will affect their constituents. I have the support of more than 150 organizations across the country in Quebec, Ontario, the west and the Maritimes, organizations such as chambers of commerce, municipalities, and organizations that represent farmers and fishers.

If this bill dies before going to committee for an in-depth study of the costs and impacts, those people will be extremely disappointed. They are not likely to have forgotten this by the time the next election rolls around.

I therefore urge all members of the House to vote for this bill at second reading so we can study it in committee.