Guy Caron

[Canada-Korea Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, September 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the speech by my colleague from Calgary Northeast.

He mentioned the urgent need to ratify the agreement, as did his colleague from Winnipeg South Centre. However, the need would not have been so urgent if the government had been more serious about the negotiations, instead of focusing on countries such as Honduras that have less strategic value. If the government had focused on this agreement, we probably could have signed it sooner and devoted the necessary resources to it. I am not the only one to say so. In fact, this was also mentioned in an internal memo at the international trade department.

I would like to know what my colleague has to say about that. Why did the government spend so much time negotiating agreements with much less strategic value, as it did with Honduras and Panama, instead of devoting all its resources to more significant agreements such as the one with South Korea?

[Lincoln Alexander Day Act, September 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will be making my comments in English, which is unusual for me, but I want my message to be properly understood and for people to see that what I am about to say comes from the heart.

I am sure many members in the House will actually wonder what a little guy from Rimouski can say about Lincoln Alexander.

They have to understand that after finishing graduate school in Montreal, I had a chance to work at the Canadian Race Relations Foundation in Toronto in 2001. I was working as a media relations officer on the French side. At the time, the chair of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation was Lincoln Alexander, so I had the chance to actually work with him. I worked more closely with him in a couple of instances when we had annual general meetings, where I served as his personal press attaché. I had a chance to know him and meet with him, although not to the extent that some members of this House did. I had a chance to have personal contact with him.

Members will know that I was obviously coming from Quebec, and my first year in Toronto working for this organization was with him.

Given my height, I do not have to raise my eyes too often to look at people's eyes, but in this case I had to. Notwithstanding his personal and physical height, even if he had been 5'6” or 5'7”, I would still have had to raise my eyes to meet his gaze. Such was his stature and such was his gravitas.

I was not intimidated: he was somebody who was able to put people at ease very easily. Even though he commanded respect, he was somebody who was able to make people feel that he was genuinely, truly interested in what they had to say.

I remember conversations I had with him in which he wondered about my experience as a Quebecker working in Ontario. We did not really talk about politics, but he was interested in knowing about my previous life in the student movement.

I remember working with him. I was his press attaché, so I was doing media relations with him, and I remember how demanding he was of me and of my colleague, who was also doing media relations on the English side. I did the work with pleasure, because I also had the pleasure of seeing, in those instances, how demanding he was of himself.

We have to remember that I spoke of 2001. I was hired to work at the Canadian Race Relations Foundation shortly after 9/11, and tensions were very high at the time. Race relations was an issue that was at the forefront. It was a very sensitive issue.

His past experience and his knowledge of communities made it so that even though those were very difficult times, very sensitive times, he was able to work toward bridging race relations at a time when such relations were in jeopardy. That speaks a lot to his ability to unite people, to create a consensus around him, to speak from a higher authority, his own authority as somebody who had to live through a time when race relations were really not what they are today.

We heard from many hon. members about the difficulties he had in his youth and the efforts he had to make to build his place in this world and make his mark, not only as a member of Parliament and the first black member of Parliament but as the first black member of cabinet as well.

He was able to bring a golden touch to everything he touched, everything he put his mind to, in the sense that he was very successful in bringing the attention of the people around him to those issues with the level of attention that those issues required.

I feel fortunate to have been able to stand side by side with this great human being, this great member of the Canadian community, even if for a short amount of time. In that sense, I want to bring this personal touch to the debate. I believe I might be the only speaker on this issue who is not from Ontario, so I am glad to have been able to bring that broader perspective to it. I have been personally touched by his humanity and his ability to create a consensus around him.

At the time I started working with him, I did not know much about Lincoln Alexander, because when I had been growing up in Quebec I had been too young when he was a member of Parliament, and even a member of cabinet, but I had a chance to learn about his past when I was working for him.

I am grateful and appreciate the opportunity to read about his life and his accomplishments. In that sense, I hope that the House will unanimously support this bill to make January 21 Lincoln Alexander day, which I believe will be the case. It is an homage we are paying to this great man, which is probably not sufficient when compared to his contributions to politics, to race relations, and to society as a whole, but it is the least we can do. Therefore, I appreciate the effort on all sides of the House, including the member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale and our member for Hamilton Mountain, to bring this forth and make it a reality.

[The Environment, September 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. Fisheries and Oceans Canada did not provide a scientific opinion. There were opinions for seismic surveys, but not for drilling.

The judge was clear: none of the officials involved in reviewing the file had any expertise on marine mammals. She also noted that Quebec never obtained scientific opinions from Fisheries and Oceans Canada's science branch.

Does the minister realize that by keeping those scientists quiet and allowing drilling at Cacouna to begin prematurely, she is responsible for this whole mess and she failed to meet her environmental obligations?

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Etobicoke North accused me of playing political games, when in fact I am playing mathematical games.

I am asking this question for the third Liberal MP and I am certainly hoping to get an answer this time.

The Liberal proposal would give an exemption in EI premiums to businesses for each new hiring. They expect that this measure would create 176,000 net new jobs. When we talk about net jobs, we have to look at the total number of jobs created, but there are some job losses in this though. It is estimated that to get 176,000 net new jobs, 1.5 million would actually need to be created. If we look at an average of $1,000 in EI exemption for each of these new hires, the plan would cost over $1.5 billion.

I would like to know how the Liberal proposal can be estimated at only $220 million because it could cost over five times more than what they have said. It does not make sense to me.

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague's speech. I have just one question for her. I already asked the member for Malpeque, but I did not get an answer, so I wonder if this member can answer.

She said that the Liberal plan involves granting a holiday from EI premiums for every new job created. Then she said that this could create 176,000 net jobs. She must realize that this means that about 1.5 million jobs would have to be created in total to get to the actual number of 176,000 total net jobs, considering job losses. If the economy creates 1.5 million jobs, that means that for every $1,000 in premiums, on average, the plan would cost at least $1.5 billion, and not the $225 million that was announced.

Can the member help me with this math problem? The program would cost about five times more than what the Liberal Party is suggesting.

[Business of Supply, September 23rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that if the Liberal Party had kept to condemning the Conservatives' plan during its opposition day, we would have gone along. However, I have serious problems with the Liberals putting forward their own plan, which makes no sense economically. This has been mentioned a number of times. I would like to point out two things. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about these two main criticisms.

First, they say that the plan put forward would create 176,000 net jobs, but based on the trend in recent years, creating 176,000 net new jobs would require $1.5 million. Considering only the average premiums paid by employers currently, this plan would cost from $1.1 billion to $1.2 billion, while they say it would only cost us $225 million.

Then, economists, such as Kevin Milligan, said that this measure would create only one additional job per eight other jobs that would have been created anyway. They would give companies a premium holiday, while eight jobs out of nine would be jobs that would have been created anyway. It is simply a gift at an extremely high cost that will in no way be constructive.

I would like to know how my colleague can justify the economic plan proposed that, to my mind, makes no sense at all.

[Taxation, September 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is rather dishonest to pay for election promises by sticking the provinces with the bill.

The spokesperson for the Ontario Ministry of Finance stated that “If the federal government wants to reduce taxes in its own budget, it should ensure that there is not a fiscal cost as a byproduct to provinces”. Ontario stands to lose over a billion dollars as a result of this measure.

This is not the first time that the provinces have had to deal with the negative impact of Conservative decisions. Take for example the health transfers and the employment insurance reform.

Does the Conservative government intend to provide financial compensation to the provinces if it moves forward with its promise to institute income splitting?

[Taxation, September 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the income splitting policy is not very effective and will benefit only the rich. Three independent research institutions and even the former finance minister, Jim Flaherty, clearly showed that this measure is unfair. What is worse, the Conservative government intends to download part of the cost onto the provinces. The total cost is $1.7 billion as of the first year. For Quebec, that represents about $200 million. As usual, in the end, it will be Canadian families who have to pay for this tax gift to the wealthy.

Why is the Conservative government dragging the provinces into this irrational and ideological plan that will benefit only 15% of the population?

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, September 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it would be difficult to respond to that in 30 seconds. I think that is all the time I have.

There are improvements to be made to this bill, which is not perfect. A number of criticisms were not considered by the committee. I think that once the bill passes, we will have to ensure that the resources are there to enforce it. That is the most important thing once the bill passes.

[Combating Counterfeit Products Act, September 19th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Saint-Lambert raised an excellent point.

Indeed, that point was raised in committee by people such as border officers, who are on the front lines when it comes to enforcing this proposed bill. The border officers' union raised two specific problems, contrary to what the Conservative government has claimed.

The first problem is downsizing. In the coming years, we expect that border services will lose 1,000 positions as a result of cuts. The second problem has to do with training. If there is no stability within border services, meaning that border crossings are being shut down and reopened, as was the case in Niagara Falls, we lose people who were already trained and who would simply need to update their skills, especially when it comes to detecting these goods. We are losing them because they have no job security.

These people eventually turn to other fields. Not only are we losing these resources, but we are also losing the training that was invested in them. We are forced to start from scratch. Those are two extremely relevant points raised by the union that represents border officers and that the government and proponents of the bill have not addressed.

This is very unfortunate, and we have some concerns on this side of the House that do not necessarily have to do with the effectiveness of the bill—even if it does have some flaws that could potentially be fixed—but rather with the ability to implement and enforce this bill properly.