Robert Aubin

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his highly relevant speech. Obviously, I support all of his remarks on personal finances.

However, I would like additional clarification on this policy, or how the Conservatives make policy. They never consult anyone. Once again, with this measure, they are getting ready to transfer $2 billion in additional expenditures to the provinces without seeking their opinion on the matter.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Bourassa for his speech.

I have to say that I do not really understand why he thinks our motion was badly written because his entire argument sounds a whole lot like ours and his conclusion is the same.

However, I have one burning question. Maybe we do not know how to write, but does his leader have some trouble saying what he means? I ask because it seems like the Liberals are staunchly opposed to this, but their leader said that income splitting is a good idea.

I am having a hard time squaring those two positions, unless of course there are divisions in the Liberal ranks. If that is the case, can the member clarify?

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I was elected in the riding of Trois-Rivières to work as a federal politician, so I feel perfectly comfortable answering questions about federal matters and letting provincial politicians handle their own affairs.

However, what I do know is that in 2015, the Liberals and the Conservatives will have the opportunity to see and hear what the public has to say as it chooses to direct Canada toward a more inclusive vision, where no one is left behind. Only one party is making clear proposals of that sort, and that is the New Democratic Party, which I am pleased to represent in one riding, just like many of my colleagues. I predict, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there will be even more of us in 2015.

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is music to my ears to hear my colleague opposite say that once the budget is balanced, they will give the money back to the people it belongs to. Am I to understand that the Conservative government is finally telling us that it will stop dipping into the employment insurance fund to reduce its deficit and pay for the initiatives it wants to put forward and, as of next year, the employment insurance contributions of employers and workers will be used for workers who have lost their job and those people they are directly intended for?

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is one of those rare opportunities when the House can take preventive action.

Since I and many of my colleagues were elected, we have often stood up in the House to criticize bills that have been introduced. However, today's motion has come at a time when we are expecting a balanced budget to be announced in 2015. We know that our budget is nearly balanced right now. If we compare the provisions accumulated with the deficit announced, we are essentially breaking even.

For once, we have the opportunity to tell the government in advance that a policy it is trying to implement does not make sense, even if the idea of it initially sounded good. For the benefit of those watching us a few hours or days later on CPAC or in the media, I want to quote the motion we are discussing today:

That, in the opinion of the House, the drastic increase in income inequality under recent Liberal and Conservative governments harms Canadian society; and that the House express its opposition to the Conservative income splitting proposal which will make this problem worse and provide no benefit to 86% of Canadians.

Everyone here seems to understand what income splitting for tax purposes means because we have been talking about this bill and thinking about this issue for weeks and months. However, for the average person in my riding and many others, who often struggles to do his or her own taxes, this notion might be somewhat abstract. I will therefore put my teacher's hat back on for a few minutes and try to give a simpler explanation of what income splitting is, so that everyone can follow the debate.

Income splitting is a very simple accounting procedure that would allow spouses to transfer up to $50,000 between them for tax purposes. If this little shell game were adopted, one member of the couple would pay less taxes because he or she would be in a lower tax bracket.

What is the purpose of this? It is to reduce the amount of taxes a couple or family pays. On paper, there seems to be little to criticize about this measure, since this tax arrangement would benefit families. However, it would not benefit all families, and that is where things start to go wrong.

This is what I would refer to as one of the Conservatives' so-called good ideas. Why is that? This idea is a promise that the Conservatives made in 2011, but that has still not been implemented, as I was saying earlier. It seems it will be in the next budget bill.

Given how quick the government is to impose its ideology and force the House to quickly accept tax measures with little or no debate, the reason income splitting has not yet taken effect is probably that the Conservatives themselves are beginning to doubt that it is appropriate and effective and the Conservative caucus is far from unanimous on this issue.

Let us remember that the former finance minister—whose memory is honoured by many Canadians—had serious concerns about this proposal and suggested that members not support it.

Let us now think about who would benefit from this so-called good idea I was talking about. It would definitely not benefit all Canadians since its implementation would cost the federal government $3 billion and the provinces nearly $2 billion.

For years we have seen this government's incredible ability to offload expenditures onto the provinces in an attempt to help balance the budget. Once again, this so-called good idea does nothing for Canadians and it will upset any balanced budgets on the provincial side of things. It is hard to imagine that that is a good idea.

The question is very simple. How will the Minister of Finance come up with an additional $3 billion? Will he take it from the employment insurance surplus or will he make more cuts to public services?

The question remains. We have already seen the damage this government's fiscal policy has caused. It would be quite sad to see the government make even more cuts to public services and misuse funds that have been earmarked for other purposes.

Who will benefit from this so-called good idea? Families, perhaps? Not even. Families with the greatest need are probably not the ones who will get the money. According to some reports, nearly 90% of families with children under 18 will not benefit significantly from income splitting. None of them. That is basically what that is saying. It means that this measure, while flashy and impressive, is missing the mark. It is counterproductive to make a law or policy that misses the mark, especially a fiscal one. A 2011 report by the C.D. Howe Institute, which is not known for being particularly leftist, made the exact same observations.

Could this measure help or benefit women? We in the NDP often analyze a legal or a budget provision through that prism, the prism of gender equality. With this income splitting measure, will women be able to move closer to pay equality? Well, no, it does not seem that the measure has hit the jackpot in that category either. Income splitting will also have undesirable consequences by discouraging women from entering, returning to, or even remaining in the labour force. The Conservatives' proposal will result in a major increase in the effective marginal tax rate for the spouse generating the lower income.

The measure therefore will not benefit women and it will not benefit Canadians. We wonder whether perhaps it will benefit the regions. We recall the Conservatives' wonderful slogan, “Our region in power”. Do we have a measure that meets the needs of the regions? No, we do not. Mission unaccomplished, yet again.

The ink is hardly dry on a report from the Broadbent Institute that sheds some very interesting light on the matter. I would describe that light as having more to do with partisan politics than with the economy and taxes. The report points out that this proposed measure would do much less for some provinces and somewhat less for others. I will let my colleagues guess the picture it paints, but for the benefit of those who are watching, I will say that among families with children under 18 years of age at home—the Conservatives' main target group, by the way—those living in Alberta would benefit most from income splitting. What a coincidence. They would save an average of $1,359 in taxes, while those in Saskatchewan would save about $1,070. As we all know full well, there are 42 federal constituencies in those two provinces and they elected 40 Conservative members in 2011. Again, just a coincidence.

In the face of the Conservatives' so-called good ideas about taxes, the proper instinct is always to ask who benefits. As it turns out, it is Conservative Party voters once again. At the other end of the scale, families in Prince Edward Island and Quebec will save very little, if anything at all. In those provinces, as we know, nary a Conservative is to be seen.

We have a government that was elected with a minority of 39% of the votes and puts forward ideas for another minority of the population. We really are light years away from a government that governs for all Canadians.

Who will benefit from this measure? The only answer, which I do not have the time to expand upon, is families that are already rich and do not need this incentive.

To conclude, this measure is a so-called good idea from the Conservatives, as I said, and we hope that it will be quickly abandoned. It is unfair, in the truest sense of the word, because it increases the inequalities between Canadians. It would not be the first time, because the policies of Conservative and Liberal governments have already helped increase income inequality. In fact, in the past 35 years, 94% of the increase in income inequality occurred under Liberal and Conservative governments. Please, let us not add to it.

In addition, there have been billions of dollars in Liberal and Conservative cuts to social transfers, which have made things worse by reducing low-income Canadians' access to social programs.

Instead of this so-called good idea, the NDP is proposing thoughtful solutions to give Canadian families a break. In 2015, Canadians across the country will have the choice to vote for a government that offers them a vision where no one is left behind.

[Government Appointments, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives replaced the boards of referees with the Social Security Tribunal, we told them that they were making a mistake, and now we see that we were right.

The Conservatives' management of these tribunals is worrisome. The process does not allow for a fair and quick decision. What is worse, we have learned that, one year later, 11 member positions are still vacant. These seats are sitting empty while Canadians are facing extreme delays before their cases are heard.

How does the government plan on dealing with this fiasco?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. A very small part of the infrastructure program will go directly to preparing or developing major urban centres for the 21st century. The Conservatives still have the mentality that infrastructure spending, to improve public transit infrastructure, for example, is a cost rather than an investment that will pay for itself in a few years.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as always, the greatest lost opportunity was to be clear. People are becoming more and more cynical towards politicians. The way in which our activities have been conducted in the last few days, the 70th time allocation and the umpteenth omnibus bill—there are so many of them, you will forgive me for having lost count—everything simply causes confusion and increases cynicism among all voters. There are certainly some measures that we would like to support after having discussed them more fully but, at the moment, we are completely gagged.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple: that is how this government operates.

I have had the opportunity to see that first-hand since 2011, and my colleagues who were elected before that have witnessed it for much longer. It really is how this government operates.

I represent the riding of Trois-Rivières. Obviously, I am not going to be using the Champlain Bridge every day. It is not part of my regular driving route. However, if I, the MP for Trois-Rivières, am perfectly aware of the problems with traffic on the Island of Montreal and its south shore, how is it possible that the government—which should be listening to all Canadians—is not aware? Is the government turning a deaf ear?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, June 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we have further proof today, in the House, that absurdity never killed anyone. If it did, the members of the government party would be suffocating already.

We have here before us Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures. The word “certain” usually means “some”. However, this bill is 360 pages long and is amending 60 acts. If this is the Conservative government's definition of the word “certain”, I can understand why its habit of introducing mammoth, “dinosaur”, omnibus or catch-all bills—call them what you will—is increasingly upsetting not only the members of the opposition, but also all Canadians who follow the government's business and agenda and who struggle to see themselves in it and to tell the good from the bad.

In addition, the Conservatives are in such a rush to ram this other mammoth bill through, that entire clauses could not be examined properly. What is even odder is that when we take a closer look we find clauses that are amending mistakes made by the Conservative government in a previous mammoth bill, as if the Conservatives had a hard time learning from their mistakes or, worse still, as if they thought they were immune to mistakes. However, I think that we should move as quickly as possible to start studying bills for what they are and stop using these catch-all bills.

Canadians are well aware of this trickery. Amidst a flood of measures, the government is trying to quietly pass major amendments that would not be easily accepted if they were fully transparent and especially if they led to real debates.

By cooking up omnibus bills, the Conservatives are raising the expectations of Canadians but, more importantly, filling them with disappointment. The Conservatives would have us believe that they are taking care of everything, while fundamental questions are left unanswered.

Bill C-31 proposes nothing about job creation, nothing about reversing the Conservatives' cuts to infrastructure and health care, and nothing about small communities having access to the Building Canada fund.

Canadians are getting tired of these legislative tactics. However, they can count on the New Democrats to get to the bottom of things and provide constructive criticism of the Conservative budget. It is clear that, after analyzing this budget, we are opposed to the content of the bill and the undemocratic process used by the Conservatives to expedite its passage by Parliament.

Why? I am going to expand on a number of aspects that I and millions of other Canadians find unacceptable. I have a lot to say and I will need more than the 10 minutes allotted to me for this debate, which is subject to the 70th time allocation motion. That is an unparalleled number in the history of Canada and probably the only thing Canadian voters will remember in 2015, when the time comes to vote. I am counting on you, Mr. Speaker, to interrupt me when my time is up.

First, let us talk about rail safety since rail safety, transparency and tragic events are three things that we in Quebec are particularly sensitive about. Since the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, the issue of rail safety has become a particularly sensitive subject for Canadians, especially Quebeckers. However, this would not have been such a hot issue had the Conservatives done their job.

The NDP members were very active in the wake of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. We continued to criticize the Conservatives' and the Liberals' approach of deregulation, which has resulted in the industry regulating itself. We also met with people in a tour of key ridings.

Despite the disaster and the urgent need to provide satisfactory answers to Canadians, this bill allows the government to amend and repeal many rail safety regulations without having to inform the public. This could affect engineering standards, employee training, hours of work, maintenance and performance. It makes absolutely no sense. This measure alone probably warrants more time than what we have to debate the entire bill.

As a result of these amendments, Canadians will not be informed when the Conservatives weaken the safety measures, and experts will not be able to share their opinions with the minister before the amendments take effect. What a great system, if you can call it that.

I would be really curious to know the thoughts of all the people who live near the railroad tracks where the trains pass, both the long trains carrying hazardous materials that could cause new catastrophes and other trains carrying unknown cargo.

Since I am talking about transport, I would be remiss if I did not mention the way the Conservative government is handling the file of the new Champlain Bridge over the St. Lawrence. I would like to emphasize the words “new Champlain Bridge over the St. Lawrence” because we are actually talking about a replacement bridge, not a new bridge.

The NDP has continued to pressure the federal government on this issue, speaking out about how slow it has been to take action, its uncompromising attitude and its lack of willingness to work with the other levels of government. Any decision about a toll, for example, will affect the region's transportation system, which is why it is important to work with the partners involved.

Many Quebeckers are disappointed with Bill C-31, particularly when it comes to this issue. The bill exempts the Champlain Bridge from some of the key consumer protection and safety requirements in the User Fees Act and the Bridges Act. What is more, it gives the minister responsible the power to exempt this project from all federal laws, which is a modus operandi, or way of doing things, we have seen over and over again. More and more power is being given to the minister so that he can secretly do what he does not have the courage to do publicly.

Take, for example, the obligations to notify and consult people, justify the tolls, create an independent advisory panel to address complaints, reduce tolls deemed to be excessive and call on the Minister of Public Works and Government Services to verify whether the project is complete and safe. All of these obligations may not apply to the Champlain Bridge.

The NDP proposed four amendments in committee to prevent a toll from being imposed. All of the partners and almost all Montrealers are opposed to this toll. Why does the government not want to work more co-operatively with the parties involved and find real solutions for all those who use the Champlain Bridge on a daily basis and who have real difficulty getting around Montreal? The question remains, and it does not seem as though we are going to get an answer today.

This is not simply about building a bridge; it is about finding solutions to a major problem for the day-to-day life of Montrealers, for Quebec businesses and, lastly, for the Quebec and Canadian economy. This problem is public transportation.

The intellectual laziness of the Conservatives in this matter is enormous. Toronto and Montreal are facing major challenges in this area, and very little, if anything at all, has been done.

The Conservatives have also made the economic situation more difficult. I said that we were keeping a critical eye on this omnibus bill, but we are maintaining a constructive attitude, as well. We work for Canadians, and our responsibility is not only to point out the Conservative government's incompetence, but also to tell the government today what we want to see in a budget.

I would like to mention a few important facts and figures to remind us what condition our country and many Canadians are in. Generally speaking, the Canadian economy is not exactly thriving, and the Conservatives' economic policy is doing nothing to revitalize it.

Our manufacturing sector continues to struggle, and 400,000 good jobs in this industry have disappeared under the Conservative watch. Sales continue to flag, and are $14.5 billion behind what they were in 2006. There is a deficit of $61 billion on the current commercial trade balance. I could mention many other facts.

I had hoped to have the time to talk about measures that we want to put in place, and I hope that I will be able to expand on this during questions. Since I need to wrap up, this is what we would like to see in the budget.

I hope I will be able to fit everything in. This is what Canadians expect of their government. These are proposals for tomorrow, for the day when the NDP will form the government, because we have a long list of proposals and solutions for the current situation.