Guy Caron

[Income Tax Act, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will not let him off that easily. The question asked was as follows: how can the Conservatives justify and defend the doubling of the TFSA limit from $5,500 to $10,000 when only 7% of Canadians were able to make the maximum contribution when the limit was $5,500?

That measure was so expensive that the parliamentary budget officer calculated that 20 to 30 years from now it would cost the equivalent of 0.7% of GDP. The government would give up tens and almost hundreds of billions of dollars for a measure that benefits 7% of the population right now. This is not about abolishing the TFSA. Many Canadians contribute to it even with a $5,500 ceiling.

How can the Conservatives justify calling themselves good stewards and good managers of taxpayers' money when they support a measure that would be extremely irresponsible in terms of public finances and detrimental to the services funded by taxpayers' money?

[Income Tax Act, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I cross paths regularly at the Standing Committee on Finance.

I also want to thank him for explaining really clearly how the Conservative Party wants to protect the wealthiest members of our society, at the expense of the majority of Canadians. He did this twice. First of all, when he talked about taxation, of course, he almost seemed to suggest that what the Conservatives really want is a flat tax rate.

It is called a flat tax in English, which obviously would be paid by the lower-income earners and the middle class to compensate for the lower taxes paid by the richest.

I also want to come back to the issue of TFSAs. My Liberal colleague mentioned in his comments that only 7% of Canadians make the maximum TFSA contribution at the current limit. If the limit were doubled, the same 7% would be able to double their contribution. This would be very harmful to public finances in the long term, given that the parliamentary budget officer stated that this measure would cost nearly 0.7% of GDP, even though 0.7% of GDP was too much to spend on international aid.

How can he justify increasing the limit, knowing that it will place such a heavy burden on our public finances and undermine our ability to provide the high-quality services that Canadians expect?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 11th, 2016]

With regard to the Department of Finance’s 2016 pre-budget consultation sessions that took place between January 6, 2016, and January 20, 2016: (a) how many sessions were organized by the government; (b) where did these consultation sessions take place, broken down by (i) city, (ii) constituency; (c) what groups and individuals were invited to the consultation sessions; (d) what groups and individuals participated in the consultation sessions; (e) which members of Parliament attended the consultation sessions; and (f) how many online consultation sessions took place?

[Justice, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been improvising on the marijuana file from the beginning, and no one knows which way is up anymore.

The police and now judges are wondering why charges are still being laid for the personal possession of marijuana if the government intends to legalize it. The government needs to stop saying one thing and doing another. Unfortunately, the answers the parliamentary secretary has been giving are just adding to the confusion.

What are the Liberals waiting for? Why do they not act and decriminalize the simple possession of marijuana?

[Income Tax Act, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, what the member just said is totally false. It is not true that nine out of 10 people are going to benefit from the tax cut.

We just learned, and the parliamentary budget officer has confirmed this, that only 30% or so of the population will benefit from this tax credit. A person who earns $45,000 or $50,000 will get a small reduction. A person who earns less than $45,000 will get nothing at all. A person who earns $200,0000 will get the maximum $800 reduction.

How does this member define middle class? People like us, members of Parliament, will get the maximum reduction, but someone earning $40,000 or $45,000 will get absolutely nothing from the tax cut.

[Citizenship Act, March 9th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and for highlighting the questions I asked my other colleague from British Columbia. However, I would like a more specific answer.

At the time, we opposed, as did the Liberal opposition, granting such discretionary powers to ministers on such fundamental issues. That was the case for the public safety file and several bills dealing with finances.

In this case, we are dealing with immigration. Granting discretionary power to a person and their entourage by circumventing the process is fundamentally contrary to the rule of law. I would like to ask my colleague who touched on that issue for his comments.

What do he and his colleagues think of these powers that his party, during the election campaign, promised to eliminate, but that still remain in the hands of the minister and his entourage?

[Citizenship Act, March 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which I think most members appreciated.

I am very pleased that we are going to vote in favour of Bill C-6 at second reading. I was here during the previous Parliament when the House passed Bill C-24, and this bill does address a number of problems.

However, like most members of the NDP, who made up the official opposition at the time, I opposed the discretionary power that the bill gave to the minister. Bill C-24 was not the only example of this. Various other bills gave discretionary powers to the finance minister, the public safety minister and, in this case, the immigration minister. I remember quite well that, at the time, the Liberal opposition agreed with us and was opposed to giving ministers new discretionary powers that would allow them to make decisions without necessarily going through the proper channels.

I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks of the provisions that grant this sort of discretionary power and how important she thinks they are. How does she suggest we make the process fairer than just allowing the minister to make decisions at his or her discretion?

[Justice, February 26th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, that just confirms that the government has been improvising on the marijuana file from the beginning. The Prime Minister says that marijuana will be legalized in one year. The parliamentary secretary doubts that it will happen by the end of their term. In the meantime, Canadians continue to fall victim to antiquated laws, as is the case with one of my constituents, who has to serve a year in prison for growing his own cannabis.

If the government can distinguish between decriminalization and legalization, why does it not do the right thing immediately by decriminalizing the possession of cannabis for personal use?

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, this insurance policy covers very few people when they lose their employment. I saw that in my riding.

People who worked hard and paid their EI premiums through their work and ended up unemployed were denied employment insurance benefits for some reason or another. It was either because the employment insurance processing service was too harsh, and I am not blaming them because they were only following government guidelines, or for other reasons beyond the worker's control.

To top it off, when those workers want to appeal a decision, they often have to wait six, eight, or 10 months before their appeal is heard by the Social Security Tribunal of Canada, which is a total disaster. The system is just not working.

The government promised to reverse the reform and we encourage it to do so.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

Maybe I should introduce her to Yvon Godin, a former MP who was a staunch defender not only of employment insurance, but also of an independent employment insurance fund, which is something else we fought for.

She is of course referring to the ridiculous argument the Bloc Québécois made during the election campaign that we wanted to take money out of the employment insurance fund, which is totally false.

Right now, the employment insurance fund is part of the federal government's consolidated revenue fund. In our election platform, we planned for a surplus that was higher than the employment insurance fund surplus. We had no intention of using that surplus; we would have had a surplus anyway.

What the Bloc Québécois did not understand and refused to understand was that we even introduced a bill to create an independent employment insurance fund. That bill was introduced by my colleague, Robert Chisholm , who was defeated, unfortunately.

The NDP intended to have an independent employment insurance fund, and that was clear in our election platform. I should point out that the Liberals did not have that in their platform.