Guy Caron

[Finance, December 7th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is now admitting its tax plan does not add up. It will have to make changes. The new government's plan gives maximum benefit to wealthy Canadians while giving nothing to nearly 70%. The NDP has proposed constructive change to ensure benefits go to 90% of Canadians.

Will the minister work with us to help millions more by fixing the government's plan and making the tax system more fair?

[42nd General Election, June 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, these are finally the last days of the Conservative government, and Canadians are ready for a change. Our record is clear: while the Conservatives have chosen to give the wealthy billions of dollars in tax credits and spend public money on polls and partisan advertising, the NDP has presented a solid plan to help families make ends meet, which includes our national plan for affordable day care and our tax cuts to support SME job creation.

We have taken practical steps to make life more affordable such as putting an end to the tax on feminine hygiene products and successfully fighting the banks' and telecommunications companies' pay-to-pay fees. The winds of change are blowing, and on October 19 Canadians will finally be able to vote for a party that will defend their interests through good times and bad. That party is the NDP.

[Committees of the House, June 18th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, I have the honour to present the official opposition's supplementary opinion on the future of forestry. Over the course of 10 or 11 very full meetings, we heard some high-quality testimony that showed us how important the forestry industry is and shed light on the obstacles the industry will have to overcome to achieve greater success. Although the report does reflect the quality of the testimony, I have to say that we were disappointed in the committee's recommendations. The testimony is included in the report; that is why we supported it. However, in response to that testimony, we are pleased to present 39 official opposition recommendations about the future of forestry.

I will close by wishing the committee chair, the member for Vegreville—Wainwright, all the best because he will not be running again. The committee was run well and functioned very efficiently. I would like to thank him for his work and wish him good luck in his retirement.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, June 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple. The member just has to look at how we voted at the Standing Committee on Finance to see that we actually supported the enhancement to the universal child care benefit.

Obviously, we cannot support this budget, which includes far too many measures, some of which are clearly unconstitutional. We are strongly opposed to income splitting, for example. As for TFSAs, which we support in principle, we do not oppose a $5,000 limit, but raising it to $10,000 is another thing altogether.

These two measures will do nothing to improve our economic performance or make life better for the middle class and low income families. They will be detrimental to the public purse and the flexibility to reinvest in this enhancement of the UCCB and create more child care spaces, in order to allow people outside Quebec—since Quebec already has a child care system—to benefit from Quebec's example and increase women's participation in the workforce.

As my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley pointed out, we have the lowest female participation rate in the workforce since 2002. The measure that we want to introduce would allow us to improve that record and make it easier for women to access the workforce.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, June 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord for his excellent question. Many of the issues that matter to people in the lower St. Lawrence region are similar to those that matter to people in my colleague's region, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

The really striking thing is that the government keeps going on and on about balancing the budget, but it does not talk about how it was done. That is something people often talk to me about when I am in my riding.

The government cut public services drastically and closed regional service offices, but the main reason it achieved a balanced budget is that it once again pilfered money from the employment insurance fund surplus.

Next year, the employment insurance fund will have a surplus of $1.8 billion. The government has announced a surplus of $1.4 billion. Clearly, the government is putting the employment insurance fund surplus into general revenues to make itself look like a good, responsible manager, but it is all just political smoke and mirrors.

Everyone knows that the fund should be truly independent. That is an NDP promise that we will make good on in October 2015. We will ensure that the fund is managed by the people who pay into it—workers and employers. The government's job will be to help them to that.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, June 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, before question period I spoke at length about the fact that the Conservatives have once again included provisions in their bill that are probably unconstitutional. I was referring to the provisions concerning a retroactive amendment to the Access to Information Act, which would affect the gun registry and block an Ontario Provincial Police investigation. I was also referring to the fact that the government wants to include a provision that would force the pre-emptive resolution of the public sector sick leave issue. This violates the freedom to negotiate that has been recognized by various courts, including the Supreme Court. These two measures are unconstitutional and could be challenged in the Supreme Court. That has already happened with measures such as the retroactive amendments to the rules for Supreme Court appointments of Quebec justices, which was an attempt to avoid the fiasco of Justice Nadon's appointment.

I do not have much time left. I could probably talk for two or three days, but I will give my colleagues a chance to debate the aspects of Bill C-59 that affect them. This government is clearly tired and worn out, as the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley just said. The government's economic measures are doing nothing to stimulate growth or job creation, despite the fancy numbers it has been throwing at us since the great recession. The numbers that have been released on economic growth have been clear: we are stagnating. The Conservatives have no solution.

Since the budget was tabled and we have been debating this bill, we have talked quite a bit about income splitting, which this government decided to call the “family tax cut” because it is aware of the public backlash against this measure, which will benefit just 15% of Canada's wealthiest families. It is obvious, though, that this is income splitting, an unfair measure that, at the end of the day, left us in a deficit in the last fiscal year, since this measure applies to current tax returns. We have also talked at length about the increase in the TFSA limit. That is yet another measure that will only benefit the wealthiest taxpayers.

These measures ultimately do nothing to address the problems with economic growth. They only help the families with the highest incomes and leave middle-class and low-income families out in the cold, with no guarantee that the money that ends up in the wealthiest taxpayers' pockets will eventually be reinvested in the economy.

The government also enhanced the universal child care benefit. Notwithstanding the fact that this measure is still called the universal child care benefit, it will be extended to include children ages 6 to 17, even though 17-year-olds can hardly be called children. Of course, we are not opposed to this measure. However, the fact remains that the funding for it mainly comes from the elimination of another tax credit, the child tax credit. The Conservatives do not talk about it very often. They did away with the child tax credit, took that money and reinvested it to enhance the universal child care benefit, and then they boast about doing something for families. However, when it comes right down to it, the impact of this measure will not be as great as it would have been had the government decided to support the NDP's proposal to create a pan-Canadian child care program like Quebec's.

Quebec's program has been very successful. I will end by talking a little bit about that because I am running out of time. Between 1996, when low-cost child care was introduced in Quebec, and 2008, 69,700 mothers joined the workforce. The employment rate for mothers with children under the age of six increased by 22%. The number of single mothers on social assistance was reduced by more than half, from 99,000 to 45,000 women. The after-tax median income of single mothers rose by 81%, and the relative poverty rates for single-parent families headed by women declined from 36% to 22%, that is, from more than a third to less than a quarter.

During that period, the GDP rose by $5.1 billion, or 1.7%.

We are proposing measures that will not only provide direct assistance to Canadian families but also contribute directly to economic growth. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are turning a deaf ear, and they will feel the effects of their inaction when they are kicked out of office on October 19 and replaced by an NDP government that listens to these families.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, June 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the member for Burlington did not really answer the question I asked him. I asked him why the Conservatives included measures such as cutting the small business tax rate from 11% to 9% and extending the accelerated capital cost allowance. Those two measures were in the opposition motion that we moved, that the Conservatives opposed, and that they voted against.

I am going to talk about Bill C-59. I will be splitting my time with the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

I spoke to this bill at second reading. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Finance for three years. That was my first love. Not much has changed with Bill C-59. It is yet another random collection of laws being amended, abolished and even created by an omnibus bill, and it makes no sense. Many of these measures have nothing to do with the budget. Like many of the previous omnibus budget bills, this one contains measures that I would call unconstitutional and that will not survive a Supreme Court challenge.

That has happened before. I clearly remember when the Conservatives introduced a bill two years ago to retroactively amend the rules for appointing Quebec judges to the Supreme Court in an attempt to extricate themselves from the mess they made when they tried to appoint Justice Nadon. This latest bill contains two measures that will most likely be deemed unconstitutional and overturned by the Supreme Court.

The first measure amends the provisions dealing with the gun registry. We are not talking about the registry itself but access to the data it contained. The Ontario Provincial Police is currently conducting an investigation into the RCMP's failure to comply with the provisions of the Access to Information Act on the gun registry. I am not accusing the RCMP of anything at this time. We do not know what happened. An investigation is under way. However, this budget bill attempts—and I have never seen such a thing before—to retroactively amend provisions of the act to exonerate the RCMP and put an end to the investigation. That goes against all of the rules of law that we have in this country. The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves for resorting to such a measure, which, if it is passed and not overturned by the Supreme Court, will certainly set an extremely dangerous precedent for our country's legislative process.

What is more, this measure is not set out in a public safety bill and was not examined by the committee that deals with the Access to Information Act. This measure is set out in a budget bill.

I sat in for one of my colleagues at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, where two RCMP officers were called as witnesses. Honestly, I felt uncomfortable for them because they were asked to appear but could say nothing. They could not comment on the precedent that it would set or on the Ontario Provincial Police investigation. In fact, they could not talk about anything, except for the question about the Access to Information Act. That issue was not included in the bill. The subject was really the process of amending legislation and they had nothing to say about that.

That clearly shows that the Conservatives are abusing the budget process. That worked well for them in the first budget bills. Everyone was offended, but no one could do anything because it was actually not illegal to do it. It simply was not ethical and, above all, it was not transparent.

I will end with the second measure, before I am allowed to resume my speech. This measure gives the government the unilateral authority to limit the health care plan and the public service sick leave benefits, and to impose changes on these two systems. Negotiations must involve two consenting parties. If the government uses its weight and legislative authority to legislate changes to a contract, which really should be negotiated, the process will be perverted.

Once again, this creates a dangerous precedent that jeopardizes the right of the public sector, as a unionized body, to conduct negotiations freely.

I will be pleased to come back to this after question period. I will have many other things to say to the House.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, June 15th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I would also like to join him in wishing the member for Edmonton—Leduc the best of luck. I had the good fortune of working with him on the Standing Committee on Finance. He is highly regarded on both sides of the committee table.

With respect to my colleague's speech, at the end, he was boasting about initiatives like lowering taxes for SMEs from 11% to 9%. This budget also contains a measure that is basically a two-year extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance for businesses in the manufacturing sector.

I have a very simple question. I would like to know why, on February 5, 2015, when we put forward an opposition day motion dealing precisely with those two issues, my colleague voted against the proposal, only to turn around and boast about including those two NDP proposed measures in the budget.

[Small and Medium-Sized Businesses, June 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak in support of the motion brought forward by my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, which is very timely. There is a lot of talk these days about standing up for consumers and small and medium-sized businesses. This issue was addressed in the government's throne speech and two most recent budgets. However, the Conservatives are a long way from walking the walk.

The motion addresses an issue that all small and medium-sized businesses in Quebec and Canada really deplore, credit card interchange fees, which are borne by businesses. These fees are extremely high in Canada. They are usually about 1.5%, but they can be as high as 4% in the case of premium credit cards, which allow cardholders to collect points that they can exchange for goods and services. People need to realize that these cards, although beneficial to the cardholder, are largely paid for by merchants themselves and by other consumers. It is basically a brilliant marketing and advertizing strategy thought up by credit card companies. However, at the end of the day, they entail additional fees that are assumed by all consumers and that contribute to price increases.

I say that because in some places outside Canada, whether it be in Australia or even the European Union, a cap has been placed on these fees. In many cases, small businesses have profit margins of 5%, 6% or 7%, which is not very much. When credit card payments eat up between 1.5% and 4% of that profit margin, it becomes very difficult for these small businesses to survive. What other choice do they have? The only other choice is to no longer accept credit cards.

We know full well that in this day and age, refusing to accept credit cards puts businesses at a huge disadvantage because many people use their credit cards for everyday purchases. Refusing to accept credit cards seems to be the only option for these companies, but it is not a realistic one, because obviously, customers who cannot use their credit card and are not in the habit of using a debit card or cash may choose to shop somewhere else.

This motion is very timely because it confirms the official opposition's intention to cap credit card interchange fees. It also confirms our intention to no longer rely solely on the voluntary code that the Conservatives seem so proud of, but to set real restrictions that will benefit all SMEs, merchants and, by extension, consumers.

The government is saying that it has already negotiated with Visa and MasterCard, which are the two major credit card companies, to ensure that they will voluntarily agree to set a limit on interchange fees. However, that is not enough. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business and other businesses and organizations representing small businesses and the business community are still on edge and still do not know when Visa and MasterCard might change their minds and do something to violate this voluntary code.

Instead of a voluntary code, what we really need are federal regulations. We could always discuss how to apply the regulations and their parameters. However, it is clear that the government can play a role in a market such as the credit card market, which is neither free nor competitive, but is a duopoly. Visa and MasterCard control approximately 92% of the market. Even a known quantity like American Express cannot bite into the market share of Visa and Mastercard. When we are faced with a duopoly, there is an imperfect market, a failure of market forces. In that sense, the government is completely justified in intervening to protect the consumer, the industry and business.

We can look to the regulations, such as these, that have been adopted in other countries. Australia is an interesting example. I am not saying that this is what an NDP government would do, but it does deserve to be studied.

In Australia, the decision to cap interchange fees is made by the Reserve Bank of Australia. It is not up to the federal government to make that decision, which is not a bad thing, but up to the body responsible for the country's monetary policy. This is an interesting approach, and it demonstrates that such regulations or such an approach can be successfully implemented. Our interchange fees vary between 1.5% and 4%, but Australia has managed to decrease its fees significantly.

Elsewhere, the European Union has just adopted regulations that will impose a cap of 0.3% on credit card fees paid by merchants and a cap of 0.5% on debit card fees. We clearly see that there is the political will in Europe to tackle a real situation that penalizes small and medium-sized business.

The European Union just limited this rate to 0.3%, and in 2006, Australia reduced it to 0.5%. Of course, Visa, MasterCard and other credit card companies will say that this will destroy them and that they will not be able to provide efficient service if the market is disrupted like this. That is what they said in Australia to try to halt the efforts of the Australian government. They said that if the government got involved, the consequences would be disastrous.

In reality, credit card use continued to increase after 2006. There was no disruption to Australia's credit card system. The companies adapted. They lowered their costs elsewhere and adapted to their decreased revenues as a result of the Australian government's regulations.

It is clear that we need to do something. The merchants I speak to in my riding are happy with voluntary codes of conduct. However, when I speak to them about the interchange fees they have to pay for using credit cards, the reaction is overwhelming. These fees eat into their profit margin, which is often not very high.

When I speak to them about the NDP's proposal, the motion moved by my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, they see a real desire to make meaningful changes. That is the best gift we can give our artists and our merchants, who simply want to provide services in their communities and grow their businesses. However, in order to do so they must be able to set aside this profit margin for future investments, in order to have a greater presence on the domestic market within their community.

That is why they wholeheartedly welcome the NDP's proposal, which is well known. Three years ago, I worked alongside the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, who was our tourism and SME critic at the time. We launched a campaign to raise awareness among small business owners and the business community in Quebec and Canada.

At the time, it was the member for Sudbury who was leading the campaign in the rest of the country. The campaign was very popular, both among chambers of commerce and such organizations as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. That was three years ago already, but we still need to implement this measure. It was already overdue even before that campaign began, which is why we will continue to advocate for stricter regulations.

The motion brought forward by the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin is therefore most welcome. It reveals what direction the official opposition plans to take, once we form the new NDP government in October 2015, in order to help small businesses and merchants in Quebec and Canada deal with the various challenges they face by limiting credit card interchange fees.

[New Democratic Party of Canada, June 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a clear choice to make.

On one side, there are the Conservatives, members of a worn-out party that, rather than truly defending the middle class, would prefer to defend its corrupt senators and let them use taxpayers' money to pay for their golf games and vacations.

On the other side, there is the NDP, which has a clear economic plan to create jobs in our regions, a plan that includes lowering the tax rate for small businesses. The NDP also has practical solutions to help families make ends meet, such as an affordable day care system for all Canadians.

In summary, the choice between a party that wants to maintain the status quo to protect its senator friends and a party that wants to clean up the Senate is a clear one. In October, Canadian families can finally have a government that they can trust and that will stand up for their interests in good times and in bad, and that is an NDP government.