Guy Caron

[The Budget, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right about much of what he said. That was the gist of my speech to the House.

The Conservative government's measures, not only in this budget but also in previous ones, do the opposite of what the Conservatives say they will. I remember a budget from two or three years ago that made a huge deal out of cutting tariffs on certain products, but when we looked at the specifics in the budget, tariffs went up overall because the preferential tariff was eliminated.

There is a yawning chasm between what the Conservatives say in this budget and what it will really mean for the middle class, workers and families.

I know for a fact that the government should pay attention to what we know about economics and fiscal and economic multipliers. The best investments we can make are in infrastructure, social housing and help for families with low incomes or in difficult situations. Instead, the government is using this budget to give money away, but most of that money will go to the wealthiest families. That is the opposite of what we will do when the leader of the official opposition, the member for Outremont, becomes the Prime Minister of Canada in 2015.

[The Budget, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when I started my speech, I started by saying that it was actually very telling that the first Conservative speech after the Minister of Finance was by the Minister of State for Agriculture, who is also the minister responsible for small and medium-sized businesses and the member for Beauce, the same one who advocates economic policies that could actually be called crank economic policies, such as zero inflation and a return to the gold standard. Those are obviously policies that make no sense in modern economics and yet that same member, who advocated those policies, gave the first speech, saying that the budget would be good for the economy.

This is not an economic budget; it is a political budget. I started talking about that yesterday, and I want to have a chance to talk about some other aspects in the few minutes that I have left.

Yesterday I talked about the fact that the budget was balanced in an extremely artificial manner, first by dipping into the contingency fund, and then by selling—at a loss—the government's shares in GM as well as dipping into the EI fund surplus, which is projected to be $1.8 billion next year. What a coincidence—the projected budget surplus is $1.4 billion. However, in 2013, then finance minister Jim Flaherty specified that a Conservative government would never use a surplus in the EI fund to create a surplus in the consolidated revenue fund. He pointed out that that is what the Liberals did, and said the Conservatives would never do that. This, then, contradicts the policy of the Conservatives' former finance minister, and yet they clearly do not feel any shame about taking that approach.

What is more, the EI surplus has been moved over to the consolidated revenue fund. This was done at the expense of its accessibility and to the detriment of seasonal workers, even though some regions, like eastern Quebec and the Maritimes, still rely heavily on such workers. We are reducing access to EI and creating a surplus in the EI fund, just so the Conservative government can use it however it wants.

I also talked about income splitting. The Conservatives talk about ending a discriminatory treatment. There is no discriminatory treatment. A couple in which one person earns $100,000 while the other, quite often a woman, stays at home, is not living the same reality as a couple where one person earns $50,0000 or even $30,000 and the other person is forced to go to work so that they can make ends meet. There is no comparison between a couple where one person earns $100,000 and the other person stays home, and a couple with two, three, or four children where one person earns $50,000 and the other is forced to work. That couple also has to pay for child care in order to be able to join the workforce and provide for the family.

Not only do the Conservatives' analogies not hold water, but yesterday in the media we learned that the then clerk of the Privy Council advised the Prime Minister at the time not to announce the measure before it was presented to Parliament. The Prime Minister and his cabinet ignored that advice, completely disregarding parliamentary institutions and members of the House. Those are not my words. A former legislative clerk of the House was quoted as saying that in the media.

I spoke about many of these things yesterday. I want to finish my speech by talking about other aspects of the budget, in particular the increase in the contribution limit for TFSAs from $5,500 to $10,000. Once again, I heard my colleague from Beauce say that there are 10 million people who have TFSAs and that increasing the limit will benefit these 10 million people. That is absurd. Yes, there may be 10 million people who have opened a TFSA. That shows how the TFSA may be a useful tool. However, only 15% of the people who contribute to a TFSA put in the maximum amount of $5,500. Most Canadian families do not have $60,000 at the end of six years to put in a TFSA. However, the $10,000 ceiling will ensure that this tool is no longer used solely as a savings vehicle, but will become a tax shelter for the rich. There are certainly exceptions, like people who save a lot and who may be able to save 15%, 20% or 25% of their income, especially, as my colleague mentioned, after the sale of a house. Those are exceptions. Honestly, the current ceiling of $5,500 is adequate. Once again, increasing it to $10,000 is simply going to benefit those people who are fortunate or wealthy.

These measures will cause a lot of problems for the Canadian treasury, while the measures we want to put in place across the country, such as the $15 child care program, will directly benefit these people, in particular the middle class. For example, two spouses who each earn $30,000 or $40,000 will not be able to take advantage of income splitting.

They will be able to take advantage of the universal child care benefit, and we are obviously not opposed to this improvement. However, we must put things in context. This is not a gift from the Conservative government to families. Improvements to the universal child care benefit were largely funded by the elimination of the child tax credit. Canadians filed their tax returns, and parents of young children were probably surprised to learn that this line no longer existed. Billions of dollars were given back to families through this child tax credit, which the government used to make this improvement. I do not want to hear the Conservatives tell us that this is a gift for families. It came, in large part, from the elimination of another tax credit.

I would like to take the last few minutes of my speech to talk about job creation because the budget does in fact contain measures that promote job creation. However, it is interesting that the measures that the government adopted are NDP measures. I know that the members on the other side of the House will not like hearing what I am about to say.

On February 6, 2015, the NDP moved an opposition motion in the House. I am going to read it again because it is very educational. It says:

That the House call on the government to take immediate action to build a balanced economy, support the middle class and encourage manufacturing and small business job creation by: (a) extending the accelerated capital cost allowance by two years; (b) reducing the small business income tax rate from 11% to 10% immediately, and then to 9% when finances permit; and (c) introducing an Innovation Tax Credit to support investment in machinery, equipment and property to further innovation and increase productivity.

The Conservatives voted against the NDP's motion that opposition day, but now these measures are included in the budget. They told us that we did not understand the economy; yet, now these measures are in the budget.

Once again, this budget is about politics, not economics. It is a pre-election budget that does not in any way take into account the reality of Canadian families, a reality that the NDP recognizes by proposing such measures as raising the minimum wage to $15 for employees of companies under federal jurisdiction and negotiating a pan-Canadian child care program that would cost families a maximum of $15 a day and would give Quebec the right to opt out with compensation, since it already has its own system. The Conservatives changed the retirement age to 67, but we want to reinstate the retirement age of 65.

The Conservatives' policies were harmful to the economy and Canadian families. When the New Democrats take office in 2015, we will change that and really work for Canadian families, the middle class and workers.

[The Budget, April 22nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to talk about the budget that was tabled yesterday by the Minister of Finance. I am pleased because this will give me an opportunity to respond to many of the issues raised yesterday by our Conservative friends, particularly the minister of state who just gave a speech himself. These are issues that we regularly hear about in the media but that are not based on truth.

With regard to the budget, Canadians should see the way the Conservatives are boasting about balancing the budget and creating tools like TFSAs. We are not opposed to TFSAs. The principle is excellent. That is why the argument that the minister of state is making that many Canadians and Quebeckers are investing in TFSAs is true. The Conservatives did not create the TFSA in this budget; rather, they increased the contribution limit to $10,000.

This is just one example of many that I am going to try to talk about in my speech. These examples clearly show that the Conservatives are not serious about the economy, that they have no economic credibility and that the budget is about politics rather than economics.

Let us take, for example, the statement that with this budget, the government has finally balanced the budget. Good job. The Conservatives are boasting about the sacrifices that had to be made, but they are not the ones who had to make them. Quebeckers and Canadians are the ones who have suffered as a result of the many cuts made over the past five years. These cuts did not get rid of fat in the system. They got rid of some meat and bones. By that I mean that Environment Canada's budget was cut by 50% at a time when we are talking about the importance of combatting climate change and on the eve of the Paris conference.

The balanced budget was also achieved thanks in large part to major cuts to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, rail transportation inspection and the Canadian Coast Guard. All of these cuts have hurt Canadians. We have seen recent examples of how Canadians have been affected, such as the listeriosis crisis and the recent spill off the coast of Vancouver that the Canadian Coast Guard was unable to respond to properly. The Kitsilano base had been closed to save a few bucks. The same thing was supposed to happen to the maritime search and rescue centre in Quebec City, which the Conservatives threatened to close to save $1 million. That $1 million keeps boaters in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the estuary safe. Those boaters, particularly francophone ones, would have been in jeopardy.

With respect to cuts that were really to the bone, funding for scientific institutions was slashed and institutions were closed. There is a perfect example of that in my part of the country: the Maurice Lamontagne Institute. This world-class institute suffered huge cuts that are now preventing it from doing proper monitoring of the quality of the St. Lawrence River and research on the species there and how they live.

We have talked about veterans plenty of times. Not only that, but we have also seen another one of the Conservative government's tactics, which involves not spending a significant amount of the money Parliament allocated. In the case of veterans, that amount was over $1 billion. My colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, who is also the NDP critic for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec, mentioned that the same thing happened with money that Canada Economic Development was supposed to invest in Quebec: the money was not invested. In 2010 and 2011 alone, $132 million was not invested. The regions of Quebec, regions like the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspé, Abitibi-Témiscamingue and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, desperately need that money.

The Conservative ministers did not make any sacrifices. Given how they laugh at what we say, they were more than happy to see their responsibilities diminish. They were happy to be able to wash their hands of the consequences of their actions. In the end, those sacrifices seriously affected all Canadians, especially workers and the middle class.

Let us come back to balancing the budget. Yes, the Conservatives did it. The budget projects a $1.4 billion surplus for next year. The Conservatives had to jump through hoops to achieve that. They would not have been able to do it without dipping into the contingency fund, which is $2 billion, and without the sale of the government's GM shares, which it sold just to be able to balance the budget. The shares sold for roughly $3 billion.

Nonetheless, when Peter Mansbridge was talking about the budget with the Minister of Finance last night on television, he told the minister that if the Canadian government had waited to sell its shares, then in just one week it could have made an extra $100 million. The federal government is losing an estimated $3.5 billion on its investment in the automotive industry. The Conservatives were so anxious to achieve a superficially balanced budget that they sold these shares even though it meant giving up $3.5 billion and the extra $100 million we would have made if they had just waited until now.

That is not all. They also dipped into the EI fund surplus in order to balance their budget. The projected surplus for the employment insurance fund is $1.8 billion. The projected budget surplus is $1.4 billion. As I mentioned in my question to the minister of state, in December 2013, the hon. Jim Flaherty, who was the Minister of Finance at the time, made a solemn promise in front of the media. He said:

“We do not take EI funds and use them to balance the budget. That's what the Liberals did”.

Those were the words of the finance minister at the time. However, that is exactly what the current Minister of Finance is doing with employment insurance, and he is using it to claim a balanced budget for next year.

I see this budget as an intellectual exercise that is a little flexible when it comes to honesty. According to the Conservatives' arguments, they are giving money back to everyone. However, upon analyzing these measures, such as income splitting and the increased TFSA limit, we can clearly see that the wealthy are the ones who will benefit.

The comparisons made by the Conservatives and the claims that they are eliminating discrimination make no sense. Take the example of spouses who earn $30,000 each. That is a total of $60,000. They each earn that much, but not necessarily because they want to. However, it is hard to raise one, two, three or four children with a single income of $30,000. Obviously, they will both have to work in order to make ends meet.

However, here is what they will do. They will ensure that one spouse earns $60,000 while the other spouse—often a woman these days—stays at home. This couple will benefit from income splitting, while the spouses who can barely make ends meet earning $30,000 each and have to send their kids to day care so that both spouses can work will not get anything. The measure significantly benefits couples that have higher incomes. I would even go further. This is a clear incentive on the part of the Conservatives to encourage women to stay at home, which I do not find surprising in light of their ideology and what we have seen from some Conservative members.

It has been proven in Quebec that a public child care program not only increases productivity and provides access to the labour market, but can also stimulate the economy because of the investments made in the communities where these child care centres are located. This has been proven by economists, not Americans, whom my hon. colleague was criticizing, but Quebec economists who have studied the impact of a Quebec child care program on the Quebec economy. That is one of the reasons why we want to export that model. We want all of Canada to benefit. It is also one of the reasons why we are insisting on negotiating with the provinces in order to establish this national child care program charging a maximum of $15 a day.

This model has worked well in Quebec, and could work well in the rest of Canada. According to the principles of asymmetrical federalism, given that Quebec already has a program, it would of course have the right to opt out with compensation.

I will have the opportunity to finish my speech tomorrow. However, it is clear that the Conservative government did not table a budget that helps the middle class and workers and ensures that the government is doing its part to have a sound economy.

On the contrary, this budget is simply a political pamphlet in advance of the next election. I will be able to show why this pamphlet does not match the realities of Canadian and Quebec families and workers. We will have plenty of time before the next election to show that with this budget and their actions over the past four years, the Conservatives are leading us toward a dead end.

[The Budget, April 22nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Beauce and Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism, and Agriculture, for his speech, but there were so many non sequiturs in it that I hardly know where to begin.

First, I am glad that he mentioned that he is an economist because given the things he has supported in the past, when it comes to credibility, there are a few things we could discuss.

Among other things, I know that my hon. colleague has supported zero inflation and a return to the gold standard. I would like him to comment on that. I have not had time to read his blog in a while.

As for the Conservative government's policies on balancing the budget, Jim Flaherty said in 2013 that using the employment insurance surplus to balance the budget, as the Liberals had done in the past, was out of the question for the Conservative government.

What are we seeing though? We have a $1.4 billion surplus, most of which comes from the projected employment insurance surplus of $1.8 billion. Without that surplus, which is presently in the general revenue fund, the Conservatives would not have balanced the budget.

Would my colleague mind commenting on what appears to be a contradiction of the promises made by the Conservative government's former finance minister?

[The Budget, April 21st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by congratulating our former colleague, Olivia Chow, who fought for years to obtain from this government more substantial investments in public transit.

When we look at recent NDP commitments, it is easy to see that we proposed new investments in public transit. Since 2011, we have been proposing that the rate of taxation for SMEs be reduced from 11% to 9%. We proposed extending the accelerated capital cost allowance for the manufacturing industry. All these measures were proposed by the NDP and are more or less tentatively included in this budget.

Now that the Minister of Finance is implicitly admitting that the Conservative approach has been a failure to date, why does he not look to the social economy measures that the NDP is proposing, such as the establishment of a national child care program with a maximum daily rate of $15 and a $15 minimum wage for employees of federal institutions?

At the end of the day, these measures will help middle-class workers and also stimulate the economy.

[The Budget, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, choices must be made in budgets. Not only are the Conservatives' priorities clear, they are deplorable. The Conservatives are cutting seasonal workers' access to employment insurance, support for SMEs and job creation in the regions.

This government, and the previous Conservative and Liberal governments, have allowed a total of half a million jobs in the manufacturing sector to disappear.

Will the Conservatives finally invest in health and job creation, rather than continuing to cut services that the middle class need?

[Beatification of Élisabeth Turgeon, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, this Sunday at 2:30 p.m., nearly 5,000 people will gather at the Saint-Robert-Bellarmin church in Rimouski to celebrate the beatification of Élisabeth Turgeon by the Pope's legate, Cardinal Angelo Amato.

These 5,000 people will include a delegation of 150 individuals from Montreal's Lebanese community, including the member for Ahuntsic, and I will also have the privilege of representing the riding.

Élisabeth Turgeon arrived in Rimouski on April 3, 1875, and she played a key role in establishing the education system in the region. An elementary school in Rimouski, the one that I myself attended, bears her name in commemoration of her work.

Élisabeth Turgeon also founded the Sisters of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary in 1879, where the Musée régional de Rimouski is now located.

I would like to extend my congratulations to the vice-postulator of Élisabeth Turgeon's cause, Sister Rita Bérubé; to the Superior General, Sister Marie-Alma Dubé; and to the entire congregation for their historic contribution and recognition of a woman who helped shape the history of our region.

[The Environment, April 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' actions often raise more questions than answers. The National Energy Board laid off 15% of its staff, yet the number of energy projects in Canada continues to grow.

Canadians' trust in the safety of oil transportation is eroding, largely as a result of this Conservative government's cuts to environmental standards.

How can the government justify new cuts when Canadians' safety is at stake?

[Child Care, April 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, not only are the Conservatives incapable of delivering a budget, but they also seem to be unable to assess the budgetary impact of their promises.

Although the Conservatives have promised an enhanced universal child care benefit, we hear that this will be more beneficial to families with no young children. Yes, that is right; the enhancements to the universal child care benefit will be more beneficial to families that have no child care expenses

We in the NDP have a real plan to ensure that every child has a spot in day care for no more than $15 a day.

Why will the minister not model his plan on ours, in order to really and truly help Canadian families?

[The Economy, March 30th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, “atrocious” is the term used by Stephen Poloz, and that describes the government's economic record.

Canada's economy is going from bad to worse and the Governor of the Bank of Canada gave the Conservatives a clear warning. Sliding oil prices could quickly impact the economy and the labour market. The Minister of Finance is still missing in action.

When will the minister leave his ivory tower and bring in a budget for the middle class?