Guy Caron

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 6th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour of sitting on the finance committee with my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.

I have listened to the previous questions and I have to wonder if the child benefit is so beneficial and would lift so many people out of poverty, why are the Liberals leaving it unindexed, unchanged, for four years, thereby losing its purchasing power. If a middle-class tax cut is so important, then why does it cover only 9% of the population? Basically, it would be taking from one person on top to give to the following nine people, leaving the rest of the Canadian population, including those who are at the median income level of $31,000, unaffected by this.

I would like to understand from his perspective why the Liberals are so proud of these achievements, which in the end are not what they seem to be.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 6th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom it is my pleasure to sit on the Standing Committee on Finance.

I would like to go back to the question of consumer protection and the Bank Act. I will refute virtually the entirety of the interpretation made by my colleague. He says that this is the Liberal government’s response to the Marcotte ruling, but that is rather ironic, because if the complaint that led to the Marcotte ruling had been filed under the process proposed by these changes, there would have been no Marcotte ruling, because there would have been no possibility of bringing this sort of class action. That is clear, according to the opinion of most legal experts.

In an article in Le Soleil, a commentary by Brigitte Breton clearly demonstrates that consumers will be the losers in this change. I cannot understand how my colleague can claim that consumers will be better served, particularly since consumer protection is a provincial jurisdiction.

Can he resolve this paradox for me?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 5th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I keep hearing from the Liberal side that their budget is actually great for the middle class.

I have a very simple question, because I have never heard a single Liberal member of Parliament define it. What is the middle class? Why do we have a tax cut that only starts at $45,000, which is fully accessible once people reach $90,000? That is considered by the Liberals to be the middle class, when the median income in Canada is $31,000.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle comes from Quebec.

With Bill C-29, we are facing a situation where the government wants, unilaterally of course, to appropriate consumer protection powers, where banks and financial institutions are concerned.

The problem is that what we see in Bill C-29 is much weaker than what is now in Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act. Not only that, but it is a recognized fact that consumer protection falls under provincial jurisdiction.

I acknowledge that the Bank Act is a federal law, but we are talking about consumer protection here. What is more, if there are amendments made by Bill C-29 in connection with this issue, that is because of the Marcotte ruling, which dealt with currency conversion fees. That matter went before the Supreme Court, notably after a class action suit.

Incidentally, this Bill C-29 would no longer permit class action lawsuits against banks. I think there is a sort of contradiction here. Quebec organizations generally recognize that Bill C-29 is going to reduce the level of consumer protection.

As an MP from Quebec, why does he not rise in the House to protest this situation and to defend his riding's consumers, especially bank users?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I will not say the name of her riding, because it is one of the few whose name is longer than that of my riding.

My colleague talked about the changes being made by Bill C-29 to the Bank Act. At the Standing Committee on Finance, of which I am a member, a representative from the Public Interest Advocacy Centre said that adopting an out-of-court settlement provision or a provision to prevent class action lawsuits is prohibited under the Consumer Protection Act.

It is ironic because the government wants to make changes in response to the ruling in Marcotte, which stemmed from a class action lawsuit having to do with foreign currency conversion fees.

Contrary to what the government is saying, power is being shifted from the consumer to the banks, which, unfortunately, have no regard for Quebec's jurisdiction over consumer protection.

What does my colleague think of that?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I obviously have some differences of opinion on issues, especially economics. However, there is one thing we actually agree on, which is that the Liberals made a lot of commitments on infrastructure during the election campaign and nothing has been done that was promised during the campaign.

Yes, they talked about the infrastructure bank, but they never explained how it would work. Now we find out that about 80% of that bank will be funded by the private sector, which will obviously have a large role to play in this. It was never mentioned during the campaign. Another thing that was never mentioned was the fact that the government would consider privatizing ports and airports.

I would like my colleague to comment on what should and should not be said during electoral campaigns. It seems that Liberals are under the misguided assumption that platforms count for nothing and are only to engage citizens.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech.

I know that it focused on culture, but since we are talking about Bill C-29, I am honour bound to bring up another aspect of this bill, which is just as critical and which seems to be central to the government's plan, and that is infrastructure.

Of course, we have talked about the infrastructure bank, but right now the government is also undertaking initiatives that could potentially lead to the privatization of ports and airports. In fact, the government has already given mandates to Credit Suisse and Morgan Stanley.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the potential privatization of our ports and airports. I think he will agree with me that this infrastructure is key to our economic development. I would therefore like to know what he thinks about his government's idea to potentially privatize ports and airports.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Bay of Quinte for his speech.

I gave my speech earlier and I was surprised that I was not confronted by some Liberal members. I made some rather serious allegations about the Liberals' lack of results with respect to infrastructure and about the infrastructure bank, which my colleague just mentioned.

Does my colleague not realize that the infrastructure bank gobbled up $15 billion that the people of his riding could have used? Does he not realize that it will not be in the infrastructure bank's interest to choose and invest in his community's projects because the population density is not as high as that of other cities, like Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver? Does he also not realize that despite the urgent need for infrastructure investment, a point on which he and I agree, the infrastructure bank will only be set up in 2017, and two-thirds of the funds will not be available before 2021-22, or two elections from now?

I would like him to be able to reconcile what he said in his speech with these facts, which were brought to light in the government's economic and fiscal update.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, even a broken clock gives the right time twice a day.

The GIS increase is actually something we welcomed. However, when we are saying that the Canada child benefit will benefit more kids, that might be the case for now, but the Liberals are leaving it unindexed for four years, which will bring it back to close to what it would have been otherwise under the previous government.

I do not think the miracles that the Liberals are claiming they are doing right now are actually true and factually accurate.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, that is the thing: saying it is progressive, does not make it so; saying that the climate change targets set up by the Conservatives are progressive, does not make it so; saying that the trade agreements negotiated by the Conservatives are progressive agreements, does not make it so. Really, the varnish is starting to be removed from this whole fabrication of the Liberals.

The Liberals are saying that their budget is so progressive, that so many Canadians will benefit from their tax cuts. Well, no, actually it leaves out over 23 million Canadians and benefits merely 9% of the population. This is not progressive. It is basically taking from the rich to give to the little less rich.

Our concern is the fact that most of those earning less than $90,000 a year would benefit little, if at all. They have actually been completely abandoned by the Liberals. This is why we are objecting to the direction that the Liberals are headed. I have not even started to talk about the infrastructure commitment, which, honestly, is going nowhere at this point.