Guy Caron

[Employment, February 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, today's news reports on employment are not good. The unemployment rate is up, and 1.3 million Canadians are unemployed.

What is the government doing? It is stalling on its election promises and telling people that many of those promises will have to wait. The Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour herself said that most of the changes to EI would be made in 2017.

Albertans who are out of work and all Canadians need help now. Canadians elected this government thinking that it would do things differently.

When will this government get to work on reassuring Canadians and following through on its commitments?

[150th Anniversary of Saint-Mathieu-de-Rioux, February 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, next week in my riding we will be celebrating the 150th anniversary of beautiful Saint-Mathieu-de-Rioux in the RCM of Les Basques.

Saint-Mathieu-de-Rioux is a little gem in the riding that I have the honour of representing. Lake Saint Mathieu is magnificent and one of Quebec's best-kept secrets. The Lower St. Lawrence KOA is the only five-star campground in eastern Quebec.

Saint-Mathieu-de-Rioux is equally lively in the winter. The Mont Saint Mathieu ski hill is one of the most modern and most visited hills in the region. The municipality even has a vineyard, the Domaine du lac.

In fact, despite the economic challenges facing the region, Saint-Mathieu-de-Rioux is one of the rare municipalities whose population is growing and rejuvenating.

On Saturday, February 13, I will be attending the opening night of this special year of celebration. Throughout the year, 36 events will be held, including dinners, dances, exhibits, guided tours, and a parade.

It is my pleasure to invite all my colleagues to experience the hospitality of the people of Saint-Mathieu-de-Rioux during this very special year.

[Canada Labour Code, February 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I was very active in the debate surrounding Bill C-377 and Bill C-525, which were a direct attack on how unions operate.

When we debated the issue, the Conservative government of the day argued that it had the right to interfere in this matter because union dues were tax deductible and therefore some degree of accountability was needed. I also recall that professional associations, which also collect dues that are tax deductible, were not included in the bill.

It was therefore abundantly clear to me that this was a direct attack on how unions operate, particularly regarding the issue of unions having to show their accounting records. Obviously, this gives negotiators on the management side an advantage, since they would then be familiar with the financial position of the unions with which they are negotiating.

Why will the Conservative members not just admit that those two bills were a deliberate attack on unions in order to undermine their ability to stand up to the government, which was extremely harmful over the past four years?

[Employment Insurance, February 4th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I was very pleased to hear my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso. Our ridings are indeed quite similar.

I am pleased to hear him talk about commitments, especially the commitment to reverse the EI changes, which were so devastating to eastern Quebec and eastern Canada. I just hope that the government will move very quickly, because the situation is critical. The regions have been hit hard.

There is increased accessibility in Alberta, since unemployment has gone up as a result of the economic situation. Many employees who have lost their jobs are now trying to make ends meet with temporary jobs. When workers take on a temporary job and then get laid off or reach the end of their contract, they become frequent claimants. They are then forced to accept a lower-paying job.

I sincerely hope that the government will quickly address this situation.

[Employment Insurance, February 4th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, in a question I asked during question period, I denounced two situations and questioned the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour about it.

First, the pre-budget consultations that were held by the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary and, by extension, the consultation that was held by the government on its website, were largely used to collect personal data that might be used by the Liberal Party for future fundraising purposes. That is problematic.

For those who did not know, there will be intensive and accelerated pre-budget consultations at the Standing Committee on Finance. However, the fact remains that the government said for weeks that what really mattered was the consultations carried out by the government.

The government is conducting its own budget consultations. This is nothing new, since previous governments have done the same thing. It is not necessarily bad, except that the process that we follow at the Standing Committee on Finance is absolutely essential, since it allows for a broader range of opinions in preparation for the upcoming budget.

That is why we are happy to have an official, formal pre-budget consultation process at the Standing Committee on Finance. However, the fact remains that the behaviour of the Liberal Party members in the consultation process is problematic. That was one of the angles of the question I put to the government.

The second angle is the one I want to ask the government about here today. It has to do with including the changes to the employment insurance system that were proposed and promised. In 2012, the Conservative government completely reformed the employment insurance system, and those reforms were devastating, especially for the regions, which still depend a great deal on seasonal employment. It is not the workers who are seasonal, but rather the jobs. For instance, eastern Quebec still relies heavily on the fishery, agriculture, forestry, and tourism.

In that sense, the objective of the reform was to force workers to find a job within 100 km of their residence. If there are no highways, that is quite far and a long way to travel. This led to reduced access to employment insurance, not only in eastern Quebec and eastern Canada, but also across the country. Today, only 38% of the people who pay employment insurance premiums receive benefits when they have difficulties.

In addition to reversing this reform that was implemented in 2012 by the Conservative government, the Liberal election campaign promises included more specific measures, such as setting a 360-hour eligibility threshold for employment insurance benefits.

Some provinces, such as Alberta, Saskatchewan and even Newfoundland and Labrador, are going through tough economic times. Increasing access to employment insurance would provide immediate assistance to people who are currently struggling and need it.

I would like a clear answer from the government: will the election promise of a 360-hour eligibility threshold be honoured and included in the next budget?

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, our election platform also included significant infrastructure investments because we recognize that there is a serious infrastructure deficit in this country. This is recognized by all municipalities, in Quebec and elsewhere in the country, and also by the general public.

The difference between the two programs is that ours provided for more investments in the second, third, and fourth years so that the municipalities could plan their projects. It provided $5 billion for the current new building Canada plan. Doubling this amount in the first year does not mean that there will be enough worthwhile and shovel-ready projects to invest in.

We would have preferred that there be more money for the second, third, and fourth years, but the fact that there will be major investments is important in itself.

However, this should not become an excuse for wasting money by investing for the sake of investing. We must ensure that the investments are productive and that they boost the economy and Canadian productivity.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2016]

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

It gives me the opportunity to clarify that we were not against the purchase of shares to bail out the automotive sector. I think this approach should have been considered for bailing out other sectors, such as the forestry industry, for example, which faced similar challenges, but was ignored by the Conservative government at the time.

We were not against the purchase of shares to help out the automotive industry, but we have some concerns over how those shares were sold and the reporting that General Motors was required to do.

The hon. member just admitted that the sale of the shares was responsible for the surplus reported in the “Fiscal Monitor”. It says as much in that report.

I am not the only one to say so, and it is not about having a crystal ball. There are 24 financial analysts on Bay Street who follow General Motors. Only two of those 24 analysts said it was the right time to sell, while the other 22 said it was not. In fact, 14 of the analysts said it was a good time to buy GM shares.

When we make decisions based on facts, we have to listen to experts in the field. They are not perfect, but at least their information is better than the information the government wanted to use just to achieve a balanced budget on the eve of the 2015 election campaign.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh.

We are debating a Conservative opposition motion, which I am pleased to comment on given my role as the NDP's finance critic.

The motion states:

That the House: (a) thank the independent non-partisan officials from the Department of Finance for their hard work and evidence-based analysis;

We totally agree with that.

The motion continues as follows:

[That the House:] (b) acknowledge their most recent Fiscal Monitor which informed Members and Canadians that, for the period from April to November 2015 of the 2015-2016 fiscal year, the previous government posted a budgetary surplus of $1.0 billion; and

We agree with that. That is what the “Fiscal Monitor” says. We could even add our congratulations to the team at the “Fiscal Monitor” for all the work it has accomplished, and not just for the most recent issue.

Finally, the rest of the motion states:

[That the House:] (c) concur in its conclusions and express its confidence in the Deputy Minister and his team.

We have no problem with that either because that is what the “Fiscal Monitor” says. The report is prepared by the Department of Finance, and we have no trouble believing that in November 2015, there was a surplus of $1 billion.

I might as well propose an amendment asking the House to recognize that the sun is yellow, the grass is green, and the sky is blue, because those are facts one would be hard-pressed to deny.

I feel like we are kind of wasting the House's time today by talking about something that we all agree on. We have missed a good opportunity to debate issues that really matter to Canadians on their behalf.

However, since I have speaking time, I would like to talk about how the Conservatives got that number. There may have been a $1-billion surplus in November 2015, but there is no guarantee that there will still be a surplus at the end of the 2015-16 fiscal year. Actually, knowing whether we will have a surplus or a deficit at that point is pretty important.

We should also remember that the government posted a surplus in November 2011 because it sold at a loss the shares in General Motors that it had purchased in order to help save the auto industry. We spoke out against this sale at the time.

The government in power at the time sold 73.4 million shares for $3.3 billion. A portion of that was obviously recorded in each part of the fiscal year. It was recorded as income from the sale of shares, and only the sale of shares, putting the Conservative government not in the red, but in the black, and it was solely this exercise that made it possible.

We could add that the government continued to dip into the employment insurance fund, which was supposed to be used to help unemployed workers who needed it. It was also included in the final report on the government's consolidated revenue fund. The employment insurance surplus was used to put the government in an overall surplus.

Notwithstanding the issue of employment insurance, the sale of GM shares is the one and only reason why there is, or at least there was in November 2015, a budget surplus on the books.

However, the shares were sold at a loss. The sale was condemned not only by the opposition parties, but also by a number of financial analysts for being made at the wrong time.

I am referring to comments by financial analysts such as John Stephenson, who was the president and CEO of Stephenson & Company Capital Management.

He said:

If you look at GM, it’s grossly undervalued relative to other global automakers.... I think you could easily squeeze out another $6 to $7 per share in the next 12 months or so, so you’re leaving a fair bit of money on the table if you believe that.

In its rush to claim a balanced budget for 2015-16, the government at the time sold our GM shares at a loss, even though it had apparently been advised to wait, hold on to these shares, and sell them at a book value that was beneficial to the government.

In order to break even on the purchase and sale of the GM shares, the government would have had to sell the shares for $4 billion in total, in Canadian dollars, of course.

The sale totalled $3.3 billion. At the end of the day, the government ended up with a net loss. The shares were sold at a loss, and the whole thing was nothing but an attempt to balance the budget in their last year for purely political reasons. The budget was balanced in November 2015, but it may not remain balanced at the end of the fiscal year in March 2016.

In addition, the Auditor General issued a report in November 2014 regarding the sale of the GM shares and, especially, the GM bailout. He said that the government was lax in requiring accountability for how the amounts were spent and how the money was used to bail out GM and also Chrysler. I will not go over the entire report, but there was one thing in particular that blew me away at the time and still does. I am talking about the $4 billion that the federal government gave GM to save or strengthen the GM pension plan. GM used $1 billion to save or strengthen the U.S. pension plan. This means that $1 billion of Canadian money went straight to the United States. There was no oversight at all by the government, no call for accountability.

As a result, the Conservatives are trying to win political points with a motion like this one. It is ill-advised, but we cannot help but agree with it, since it sets out some fairly obvious facts. The truth is that the motion is an attempt to draw attention away from the government's mismanagement of the GM and Chrysler bailout, its failure to require accountability, and the political decision it made later to quickly sell shares in order to artificially balance the budget, as we can still see on the books today.

Does that mean that the current Liberal government is off the hook? Not really, because the Liberals will have a serious challenge to face with the upcoming budget. During the 2015 election campaign, the Liberals promised to run deficits. Many Canadians think that those deficits will be incurred only for infrastructure, but that is not the case.

The Liberals promised deficits of approximately $25 billion over the next four years, with a return to a balanced budget in the fourth year. That is completely unrealistic, given the way things are now, the economic and fiscal update, and particularly the parliamentary budget officer's December 2015 report. When we take those things into account, the Liberal government is currently facing an accumulated deficit of $55 billion at the end of four years, including an $11-billion deficit in the fourth year, because of the promises it made and the current economic climate. That could happen if the Liberals keep their election promises, and it reflects the fiscal framework they presented during the election campaign.

I want to say that during the election campaign, the Liberals themselves probably promised too much in relation to Canada's fiscal capacity. At that time, we were extremely cautious with our forecasts, because we knew that the Canadian economy might be facing a struggle. That is why we wanted to be careful about what we promised. That is not what the Liberals did during the election campaign. They were elected based on all the changes they promised to Canadians, so now Canadians want to see some results, including the reversal of the Conservative reforms to employment insurance, as promised, or the reopening of certain things that were closed by the Conservatives. One example would be the marine radio communications centres. The Minister of National Revenue, who is also the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, promised to reopen the marine communications and traffic services centre in Rivière-au-Renard, which does not appear to be one of her government's priorities.

We are taking notes. Obviously, we are going to be watching closely and we will carefully study the Liberal government's upcoming budget. We will be here to make sure that the government keeps the promises on which it was elected, because many of those promises were similar to promises and commitments that we had also made. I can assure the House that we will be here to hold the Liberals to account when the promises that got them here are not honoured.

[Income Tax Act, January 29th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Honoré-Mercier for his speech.

I find it interesting that the Liberals keep saying that we must give back to those in need. They are alluding to the TFSA, among other things, but also the tax cut they promised for the middle class. I have been trying since this morning to figure out what exactly the Liberals mean by the middle class.

We know that people earning $45,000 a year will not get a cent from this tax cut and that people earning $210,000 a year will get a $283 tax cut. In fact, as my colleague from Timmins—James Bay said, a parliamentary secretary will get the full tax cut, but a hairdresser or office employee will get nothing.

The Liberals respond by talking about their child tax benefit, which will benefit only families with children and not single people or seniors.

I will repeat my question: what is the Liberals' definition of middle class?

[Income Tax Act, January 29th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his question.

I hope that the Liberals will give us an answer to that question. I think that most Canadians will be very disappointed when they file their income tax return because they will not get any of the money promised to them during the election campaign.

Does the government really think that the average voter who heard about a tax cut for the middle class during the election campaign understood that that tax cut would apply only to families that earn $45,000 a year and would be most beneficial to families that earn $89,000 a year? No. Voters thought that there would be a tax cut for the middle class. Many Canadians who consider themselves to be and are in fact part of the middle class are excluded from the measure proposed by the Liberals.

When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons asked me his question, I answered that only the richest 20% of Canadians would benefit.

When looking at how this would affect couples, Luc Godbout, an eminent tax expert in Quebec, determined that if a couple had an estimated or combined income of $250,000 a year, they could receive a tax break of up to $1,120. However, a couple with a combined income of $75,000 a year, who are arguably part of the middle class, would receive an average of zero to four dollars.

I do not think that the Liberals defined middle class properly. I hope that they will consider the arguments that we have already made and that we will continue to make, as well as the arguments presented by the parliamentary budget officer, so that they can really address the concerns of the middle class.