Guy Caron

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member actually sees the irony in the question he has just asked. He said that we should be governing for the many and not the few. That is exactly what I said in my speech. I said that the changes to employment insurance, especially the five-week extension, should apply to all regions where there are high levels of unemployment, as was the case before. The Liberal government chose to select 12 regions across the country, without knowing why these specific regions and not others. It does not make sense.

The Liberals, during the campaign, promised so much to everyone, especially Atlantic Canada. Why would they choose to reopen, which we welcome, the Coast Guard station in Kitsilano and not say anything about St. John's? Why do the members who come from Atlantic Canada not promote, as was promised, the reopening of the station in St. John's?

Because there are so many promises that have not been delivered on by the Liberal government after the election, I do not know where to start.

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. It was about time they did that.

What did we see in the budget? The Liberals broke that promise. They reneged on the formal commitment that was made and put SMEs in an extremely difficult situation because they had planned around that decision, given that the three parties had reached a consensus. By freezing taxes at 10.5%, the government put many SMEs in a tight spot and is taking away their power to invest and hire, which is what they were previously proposing to do.

Another promise that the Liberals broke in this budget was their promise to eliminate the tax loophole for stock options as a method of compensation. This loophole mainly benefits the wealthiest members of our society, particularly CEOs and board members of major corporations.

Ninety per cent of this tax credit is used to finance stock options that are given to these people as compensation or income. However, that compensation is not subject to the Income Tax Act. Instead, it is subject to capital gains taxes when the shares are sold.

The negative impact of this measure is twofold. First, it costs the Canadian treasury nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars a year and, of course, it mainly benefits the wealthy. Second, this measure creates a perverse incentive for companies to take short-term measures to increase the value of their shares and thus allow CEOs, decision-makers, and managers to sell their shares at a higher price.

This negative and unintended consequence is widely recognized by economists and business analysts. The Liberal government followed the NDP's lead and promised to eliminate it, but there is no sign of that in the budget.

Other elements are conspicuously absent, such as credit card transaction fees, a major obstacle to growth and investment in business, particularly small business. A measure to address that would have cost the federal government nothing. Canada has some of the highest fees in the OECD, and businesses have to absorb that cost. The Liberal government has done nothing to address that.

Other countries in the world have actually addressed this question. We have seen movement by different means in Australia and in the European Union on this issue: in Australia the rate is regulated by the central bank, while in the European Union, it is set by regulation. They have recognized that credit card fees are a hindrance for the expansion of businesses, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses. There is nothing on this in the budget.

Try as we might, we will not find anything about forestry in this budget. We have major problems right now in forestry. We do not know where our relationship with the United States will go in terms of softwood lumber. We are at the end of the agreement, and there is lots of uncertainty right now.

We have a problem that is akin to the pine beetle in Quebec and in New Brunswick, a parasite that is creating or threatening to create lots of major losses for the industry. There is nothing in this budget for that.

The government is deaf to the demands and needs of this sector, as it has been for the aerospace industry.

During the election campaign, we put forward a concrete strategy to help not just one struggling company but an entire sector that is critical to Canada's economy. The Liberal Party had nothing to say about it during the campaign. Now it is trying to clean up the mess with piecemeal measures for urgent situations like Bombardier's. The government's decisions will be bad for a lot of people, such as Aveos workers, who thought they were being protected but who were suddenly thrown under the bus by the Liberal government for political reasons and incentives.

There is nothing for agriculture either even though there are some major problems right now, such as protecting supply management. We will see what the Liberals do during negotiations. Dairy and cheese producers were promised compensation in connection with the EU treaty, which is not yet in force, as well as the trans-Pacific partnership, the TPP. There is nothing about that in this budget, no mention of the compensation that was promised and that is vital to helping producers adapt to the new normal if the agreement is ratified.

There is also nothing in the budget on diafiltered milk, a serious situation that currently affects all dairy producers and farmers. There is absolutely nothing. The budget is far more than just a series of fiscal measures. This becomes clear when you really look at the entire document. It is also a statement of priorities, similar to a throne speech. The fact that there is no mention of some current issues that are crucial to the future of Canada's agricultural sector is extremely troubling.

Let us talk about employment insurance. Of course, the NDP has traditionally led the charge. I clearly remember my colleague Yvon Godin, who was well known as one of the greatest critics of Liberal and Conservative measures that restricted access to employment insurance. We promised to reverse the misguided reform brought in by the Conservative government in 2012.

The Liberals later realized that that might be a good idea and they said the same thing. In fact, when the Prime Minister was leader of the Liberal Party, during the election campaign, he was quoted in New Brunswick as saying that a Liberal government would reverse the unfair changes the Conservatives had made to the employment insurance system. The Liberals said they believed that the irresponsible changes made to EI punished workers and unfairly targeted seasonal workers.

I agree completely. That is exactly what we have been saying since 2012. What happened, then, in this budget? It contains only half-measures. Of course, certain elements have been reversed, and obviously we agree with that. One such measure forced unemployed workers to accept a job that paid only 70% of what they were earning before, regardless of their qualifications, and finally, we welcome the elimination of the obligation for unemployed workers to accept a job that is up to 100 km away from their home. These measures undermined and reduced accessibility and did a great disservice to rural regions, which obviously have suffered a demographic shock. If there is no work where they live, these people will have to move to where the jobs are.

That is pretty much everything.

One of the main measures in the budget, beside this one, is that 12 regions in the country will be given the possibility of an extension of five weeks in EI benefits. However, this measure existed prior to 2011. It was a pilot project that, depending on the rate of unemployment, allowed workers to have a five-week extension.

This closed what was called, in Quebec especially, the black hole, the period of time between the end of employment insurance benefits and a return to work, which is quite often the case for seasonal workers. Why is the government targeting 12 regions when this program, which was clearly part of the Conservatives' EI reform, was not applied to the whole country?

Atlantic Canada was shafted by this measure; there is no other word.

Quebec was also hurt by this measure. It applies only to northern Ontario and a few specific regions. There are even people in Alberta and Saskatchewan, depending on the community they live in, who are suffering the impact of the economic crisis. They are also being ignored and neglected.

I cannot conclude my speech without talking quickly about first nations.

The Liberals fall short of many of their financial promises to first nations. For education, they spread $2.6 billion over five years instead of what they promised, which was over four years. This means $800 million less for education among first nations. For child welfare, and as Cindy Blackstock has said, the budget is $130 million short of meeting the legal commitment set out by the human rights tribunal ruling that this program racially discriminated against indigenous children. There is a lack of money compared to the promises for post-secondary education.

Therefore, this budget, by and large, falls short of what the Liberals promised during the campaign.

That is why I am moving, seconded by the hon. member for Hochelaga, the following subamendment:

That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the words “because it:” and substituting the following:

“chooses to keep tax loopholes for CEOs and giveaways to profitable corporations over providing immediate help to struggling Canadians, fails to honour the government’s promises to invest in health care, seniors, youth, and First Nations children, does not meaningfully improve access to Employment Insurance or close the black hole for seasonal workers, and lacks transparency; and is of the opinion that the Minister of Finance should amend his budgetary policy so that it actually delivers on the government’s promises, and addresses income inequality in this country.”

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the NDP to begin the debate on the budget recently tabled by the new Liberal government.

The budget always turns out to be a huge document. We can support some of the measures it contains, because many of the commitments the Liberals made during the election campaign were poached from the NDP's platforms in 2015, 2011, and 2008. Obviously, we can only support those measures.

It also includes other measures, or half-measures, that do not live up to the commitments made during the election campaign or do not meet the needs expressed during and after the election campaign. In that respect, the government should have listened more closely, but it did the opposite. Contrary to what the government members may believe, many aspects of this budget are far from positive.

Let us begin with the good, the positive elements that, for the most part, were taken from our platform. Let us start by talking about income splitting. When the previous Conservative government announced the measure, we immediately pointed out that it was extremely inequitable and would primarily benefit the wealthiest Canadians. In addition, it would decrease women's participation in the workforce. It would effectively be a tax incentive encouraging them to stay at home rather than contribute to society and participate in the workforce. We promised to immediately abolish this measure, and so did the Liberals. This is included here, so we applaud this initiative.

However, some of these measures cause consternation. We support the measures, but the government did not follow through with them to the extent it promised. I am talking about the tax credit for labour-sponsored funds. This has been an ongoing battle ever since the Conservatives announced the phasing out of this tax credit, which is extremely important for labour-sponsored funds, one of the country's biggest sources of venture capital.

This issue is especially important in Quebec, where the FTQ's Fonds de solidarité and the CSN's Fondaction work closely with private venture capital organizations to help businesses that would otherwise be left behind, ignored, or neglected by traditional funding bodies, such as banks. Their work has been recognized. Because of it, Quebec, which is mainly where this happens, ranks third behind Israel and the United States among OECD countries with the highest level of participation in venture capital.

When this tax credit was eliminated in Ontario, there was a significant drop in venture capital investments in Ontario, such that Quebec, which has a smaller population, now has roughly the same level of investment as Ontario when it comes to venture capital.

We promised to keep this tax credit and I personally fought to make it happen. The Liberals then made the same promise, but immediately after being elected, they promised to get rid of the tax credit. As a result, the tax credit is now down to 5%, when it was originally 15%. According to the definition of the word “immediately”, a 15% tax credit should have been in effect during the 2015 fiscal year. However, that 15% credit does not come into effect until 2017. We see that as a step backward. At a time when people were deciding where to put their savings, this created a lot of uncertainty.

Another thing that seems positive to me has to do with recreational and cultural infrastructure. This was an NDP proposal because we could not understand why the infrastructure budgets in the building Canada program did not include projects that not only stir communities into action, but also help stimulate the economies of those very communities.

After completing required upgrades to its waste and water systems and roads, a municipality that made it a priority to improve its citizens' quality of life and strengthen the community through its sports, recreation, and cultural infrastructure could not secure federal government funds because its requests were specifically excluded from the building Canada program.

Municipalities know best what they need and what their priorities are. In our opinion, it makes no sense for the federal government to establish their priorities, as was the case with the former Conservative government.

We support the initiative that will allow municipalities to secure federal funding for sports and cultural infrastructure.

However, there are several other elements to consider. Yes, there are investments for youth, but the amount is half of what was promised during the election campaign.

Yes, there are investments in public transport, and we agree with that. That was also part of our election platform. However, it falls short of what the new Liberal government promised during the election campaign and, again, it could make it difficult for municipalities to meet public transit needs, because a good part of this money is back-ended.

Now, let us get to the bad. I asked the opposition leader about one of the worst broken promises in this Liberal budget: reducing the tax rate on small and medium-sized businesses from 11% to 9%.

Back in 2008, the NDP recognized that SMEs are job creators and an important driver. We realized this and proposed reducing the tax rate from 11% to 9%. Other NDP governments, such as the Alberta government, have gone even further and completely eliminated taxes on SMEs, bringing the rate to 0%.

The Conservatives ignored this policy for a long time, but finally adopted it in their last budget in 2015. We welcomed this measure, although it was one of the rare times we could agree. We welcomed this initiative and were pleased that they had taken the NDP's idea.

This decrease from 11% to 9% was meant to be gradual, and the rate was set at 10.5% for 2015-16. Once the Liberals finally realized that the NDP and the Conservatives were right, they committed to lowering the SME tax rate from 11% to 9%.

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for her speech. Much of it I do not agree with, especially the assertion that government does not create jobs, that only the private sector does. I think we can all agree that the private sector plays a central role in job creation. This information would come as a surprise to all the teachers of the country, our civil service, of course, social workers, and all of the social help that this country is receiving. They would be surprised to know that they are not actually employed and receiving help from government.

Speaking of job creation, there is something on which we can agree, and it is the central role of small and medium-sized businesses in creating jobs. The NDP recognized that back in 2008 and proposed a reduction of the tax rate on small and medium-sized businesses from 11% to 9%. The Conservatives, to their credit, implemented that in the last budget. Now we have the Liberals who promised the same thing in the last campaign, and they decided to break their promise and keep that rate at 10.5%.

I would like to ask the Leader of the Opposition what the impact of this broken promise by the Liberals will be on small and medium-sized businesses.

[Fairness in Charitable Gifts Act, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to talk about this bill, even though I do not have much time. First, I would like to thank the member for Provencher for his candour, since he admitted in his speech that the primary purpose of the bill was to provide fiscal resources to anti-choice groups.

The proposed measure would affect all charitable organizations that could benefit from such a tax credit, depending on their needs. As a result, although the member was being honest, it seems a little inappropriate to me to put a spin on this tax credit so that it benefits certain groups in particular. That being said, the bill targets all charitable organizations. We always analyze the issue because there may be serious repercussions.

Next, I would like to set the record straight regarding some false information in the preamble of this bill. The bill compares tax credits for charitable donations to those for political contributions, when there is no comparison to be made between the amounts of these contributions.

Right now in Canada, tax expenditures related to charitable donations exceed $2.3 billion, while tax expenditures associated with political contributions are approximately $30 million. Transferring that $30 million to charitable organizations will be nothing more than a drop in the bucket, if that is the intention here.

I know that I will likely have the opportunity to talk about this issue again in the second hour of debate, but I would like to point out that increasing tax incentives to try to increase charitable donations has a limited effect. Of course some people make charitable donations in order to receive a tax credit, but that is only one of many reasons why people give to charity. There are other factors to consider.

For example, in my riding, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, donations to Centraide Bas-Saint-Laurent have declined significantly over the past five years. This is not a case of people being less generous, but the result of massive cuts to the public service and also to such organizations as the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, which had employees who were major donors, but now has fewer of them. This economic situation was created mainly by the previous government, and this caused the decrease in donations.

I hope I will have time to debate this further during the second hour.

[The Budget, March 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, actually, I do not think he listens to the seasonal workers who come to Canada.

Budgets are about choices. The Liberals chose tax breaks for wealthy CEOs over helping Canadians. During the campaign, Liberals made a big deal about the importance of immediate spending on infrastructure. However, Tuesday's budget turned out to be a shell game: no stable practicable funding, and many investments are delayed for years. Over $3.4 billion is missing from the first two years alone.

Why are they backtracking from their signature promise of immediate investments in infrastructure?

[The Budget, March 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals missed a good opportunity to use their budget to reduce economic inequalities.

The government went back on its word and is maintaining a tax loophole for stock options that benefits the well-off. In the meantime, seasonal workers who need employment insurance get nothing.

Why did the Minister of Finance choose to help millionaires at the expense of workers in need?

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are carrying on their long tradition of using money from the EI fund for purposes other than helping the unemployed.

That is not all. They also decided to create a program, a pilot project, to give five additional weeks of benefits in regions in need. Good. We agree with this measure. However, it excludes 12 regions where the program previously existed, including in Atlantic Canada, where the pilot project had been eliminated by the Conservatives.

Why are the Liberals creating a two-tier pilot project for extended benefits?

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the budget is about choices, but as they say, the devil is often in the details, especially when we start comparing what is in the budget to what was in the election platform.

Compared to the Liberal platform promises, the budget falls short by $230 million for first nations education and by $130 million for first nations child services.

Compared to the Liberal platform promises, the budget falls short by $300 million this year and $200 million next year for seniors.

Compared to the Liberal platform promises, the budget falls short by $170 million for youth.

The budget breaks a fundamental Liberal platform promise to cut taxes for small and medium businesses to 9%. They will be freezing taxes at 10.5%.

If we look at other choices they made, it is clear that they decided to leave one measure intact: the one that allows a tax loophole for stock options, which leaves $800 million in the pockets of the rich.

How can the Liberals justify breaking so many promises to the most vulnerable members of society while letting the rich get off scot-free?

[Income Tax Act, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I agree with many of the things in the hon. member's speech, and that is quite natural because we come from the same part of the country. We have many similar problems.

In response to the Liberal member who just spoke, there has been no mention here of lower taxes for families or the family tax credit. It is not currently in the bill. We are debating a bill that will put an additional $250 in the pockets of people earning $200,000 a year. Someone earning $45,000 or less will receive nothing.

They say it goes along with the future family tax credit. That is not going to help couples with no children, single people, and seniors who do not earn $45,000 a year. The government says that this bill will help the middle class, but it is all smoke and mirrors.

I will ask my colleague a question because I could not ask the Liberal member. What is his definition of the middle class? Is it people who earn $200,000 or people who earn $35,000, $40,000, or $45,000 and who will not get a dime with these measures?