Raymond Côté

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. As I said, Beauport—Limoilou has many low-income families and individuals.

Since we are specifically talking about problems that affect low-income individuals, I would like to know whether my colleague is as concerned as I am about his own constituents.

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for her heartfelt speech on this important issue.

I had the opportunity to ask one of my Conservative colleagues a question about the regressive nature of the hike in customs charges that will be imposed by the Conservative budget. Clearly, my Conservative colleague just does not get it. For the benefit of all my colleagues—who should be listening to the interpretation in order to ensure that they understand correctly—a regressive tax is one that hits those with low incomes much harder than it does those with higher incomes.

That means the middle class, as well as small and medium-sized businesses, will be hit particularly hard by the changes to the tariffs, as established. I would like my colleague to comment and give her opinion on this situation.

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of working with the member for York Centre on the Standing Committee on Finance. We have had some differences of opinion on his overly literal interpretation of the works of Adam Smith. I would just like to mention in passing to him that man never hung around with dinosaurs.

Mr. Mike Moffatt, professor of business, economics and public policy at Western University's Richard Ivey School of Business, told The Globe and Mail that these tariff increases could be a regressive tax.

That is important. Would my colleague like to comment on that?

[Health, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we just learned from a press conference that nickel dust in Limoilou has been coming from a single source: the port of Quebec City.

Since last November, I have been asking the Minister of Transport about this, but he refuses to take it seriously. More importantly, he is shirking his responsibilities in this matter. To justify his failure to act, he said that we were simply fearmongering. Meanwhile, people were being affected by nickel dust contamination. He should apologize.

When did the minister learn that it was his responsibility?

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from New Westminster—Coquitlam for his question. I am surprised that there have been no questions about the GST from my Conservative colleagues. That is clearly because our answer was too good and it would have been useless to ask the question again. Therefore, I hope we will not waste any time on that.

I will nevertheless comment on this matter because it is important. With regard to the GST and the health transfers I talked about, if an NDP government were to come to power, it would take the time, unlike the current government, to consult the provinces before taking action on these and other issues. That is something the government refuses to do.

That message was loud and clear.

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his question. In my opinion, he can speak to this better than I can because he has been a member of the Standing Committee on Finance longer than I have.

It would be really extraordinary if we could have an honest and frank debate with this government, either in this place or at committee. We cannot criticize the government for picking its battles, but we can criticize it for refusing to inform Canadians and the major players in our economy about a number of its policies. It is truly deplorable, it is downright dishonest and, as some of my colleagues have already mentioned, it is pure hypocrisy.

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Winnipeg North for his question.

The government is likely suffering from selective memory, no doubt caused by its communications department, which has such a negative influence. That is my hypothesis. I cannot say for sure that that is the precise explanation in response to my colleague's question.

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure and honour to speak to this issue on this opposition day, particularly since my speech follows those of three of my colleagues with whom I have the great pleasure of working on the Standing Committee on Finance. I would like to thank the hon. member for Victoria for bringing this issue before the House of Commons, because it is very important.

I am also pleased that my three colleagues from the Standing Committee on Finance have played fair by leaving a few factors for me to address. Given their considerable expertise, I might not have had much to offer the House. Fortunately, I can address some very specific issues related to the budget.

I am well aware that some, if not most, Conservative government members like living in the past. However, at some point, they need to get with the times and adopt measures that are relevant to Canada's current conditions.

I certainly agree with some government members who claim that the general preferential tariff or GPT regime needed to be modernized. Unfortunately, these changes are too late for some countries. In fact, one could easily say that the changes are 20 years too late for some of them.

What is more, the government is applying the new regime to a wide range of countries, some of which still need the GPT. This is a really unfortunate aspect of the budget and is symptomatic of the government's complete unwillingness to consider any insight that could help it to implement measures that would assist Canadian families and companies. Perhaps the government is naive or just ignorant in its very narrow perspective, its blindness as to what is going on with the economy. We will continue to work, to keep an eye on the issue and to demonstrate the government's ignorance.

When I say that this measure is 20 years too late, I am thinking about certain specific countries and the overall erosion of Canada's industrial sector. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were very quickly lost under this Conservative government.

Unfortunately, the current Conservative government, already very worn out by its mandate, is not the only one to have abandoned our industry and allowed the destruction of entire sectors of the Canadian economy, thereby forcing thousands, if not millions, of families into temporary or even permanent poverty in some regions of Canada. This measure will only exacerbate the problem. Indeed, especially considering the product categories that will be affected, the proposed regime can even be compared to a flat tax that will hit the middle class and our small and medium-sized businesses most of all.

I say this because, as the member for Beauport—Limoilou, I know very well which sectors and segments of the population will be directly affected and hit hard by this in their daily lives.

Part of the Beauport—Limoilou riding is located in downtown Quebec City. I am referring specifically to Limoilou. It is a very dense urban area that has been experiencing quite a baby boom. Many young families are coming to settle down in Limoilou. To put it simply, and to paint a clear picture, strollers are practically taking over the streets.

When we look at the list of products that will be affected by the tariffs, it includes things like strollers, tricycles and, probably the most shocking, plastic school supplies.

I am so glad to still be a young man, at barely 46 years old. Nevertheless, it has been quite a while since I finished my studies. Still, I do remember the good old days, when I was in elementary and then high school. For instance, at the time, I had to buy a geometry kit, and it was marked “Made in Canada”.

Clearly, everyone agrees that the various sectors of our economy are operating under conditions that are forcing them to adapt. Certain changes have taken place that have forced some companies to shut down, while still others have had to cut back their operations. However, the reprehensible abandonment of many industry sectors in the face of justifiable and inevitable globalization—for which the government should have positioned itself so as to be able to adapt—is almost criminal. This has driven many people in a number of our large communities into an abyss that they just cannot get out of.

I do not know who, on the government side, could answer the legitimate questions that young families in Limoilou, people in their 20s and 30s, are asking. These families have chosen to live downtown, near their workplace, and they have chosen to stand up for a good quality of life. However, they are going to have to deal with tariff hikes, which are a type of forced tax that the government is applying improperly. We should not be surprised by what this government is doing. This is exactly the type of unilateral measure that the Conservatives implement, just like those they imposed on the provinces with regard to health transfers.

The government does not consult Canadians and does not even examine the issues. The measures that it implements seem to be the result of the sort of misguided inspiration that comes from too little sleep. It is really shameful.

As I had the opportunity to mention today, I have the great privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, and I have also had the opportunity to serve on the Standing Committee on International Trade. On many occasions, I took the time to speak out against the government's shameful naivety when it comes to international trade. Our country is suffering a great deal as a result of this government's extremely simplistic views and policies.

Take China, for example. It is one of the countries that is being targeted by the changes to the tariff regime. A country's place in the economy deserves to be debated in order to determine the role it must play. However, when the government lets things go, does not react and does not take into account the conditions that exist in other countries of the world, it should not be surprised when it gets results as poor as those we are currently getting.

I would like to talk about China since this country's success is in large part due to the fact that it is an extremely interventionist country. It is therefore rather ironic that the government is trying to teach everyone a lesson without even taking into account the objective conditions of the world economic order. I am not necessarily asking the government to be protectionist, but it must be aware that it has to do something when other countries fail to engage in fair play. This is the kind of thing that the NDP will not just put up with. On the contrary, when countries seek to attack Canada, the NDP will react and respond.

In conclusion, I would like to say that China has taken a very interventionist approach when it comes to currency. It has kept the value of its currency very low. It has taken a very interventionist approach to job and business creation and has paid out massive subsidies in the guise of loans to companies by Chinese banks that did not even require repayment.

Now our core industry has been ravaged. This measure comes too late, is completely useless and places an unnecessary burden on our small and medium-sized businesses as well as our families.

Why is the government increasing taxes like this?

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Malpeque for his speech. I had the pleasure of serving with him on the Standing Committee on International Trade, and I would like to thank him for contributing to the debate on the issue that has been raised so suddenly in the House of Commons.

The only unfortunate aspect is that the Liberals were very slow to react to this specific issue. Therefore, I am very pleased to see them following our lead. However, I would like to know why it took them so long to react. Were they distracted by the leadership race?

This might also concern the type of measures adopted by this government, which might have been appropriate for various products in a certain era and with respect to certain countries, but which are no longer appropriate because our industrial fabric has been destroyed.

I will let my colleague respond.

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Saint Boniface for her speech, but I found parts of it to be somewhat naive, which is too bad. She and her colleagues are rather naive when it comes to the economy. When it comes to the market, the NDP knows the score and we take the time to understand things before we open our mouths. Everyone knows that an unregulated market leads to corporate concentration and even monopolies. Nineteenth-century oil tycoon, John D. Rockefeller, is a prime example of someone who used vertical and horizontal integration to create a monopoly.

Let us move on to something else because the list of products affected by the tax hikes is quite long. I see that the cost of diesel-electric locomotives is affected by increases of 5% to 9.5%. Just over a year ago, the last diesel-electric locomotive manufacturing plant closed in London—Fanshawe. I mean London. My thoughts were with my colleague from London—Fanshawe.

I would like the hon. member opposite to explain the logic in this. I fail to see any logic in this unless the government is trying to encourage Caterpillar to reopen a plant and pay workers minimum wage. I wonder.