House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2006, with 17% of the vote.
Petitions December 3rd, 1997
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of the citizens of Manitoba, asking that Bill C-2 be rescinded.
It imposes massive CPP premium hikes while reducing benefits, changes the CPP financial arrangement to provide a payoff for Bay Street brokers and bankers, ultimately sends Canadian investment dollars out the country, and reduces employment.
Pay Equity December 1st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the government is getting a much deserved reputation for changing the rules and lowering its standards.
Will the President of the Treasury Board settle this dispute fairly, once and for all, or is he going to signal to the public that pay equity is dead?
Pay Equity December 1st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. For 13 years the government has used stall tactics to deny justice to tens of thousands of its employees seeking pay equity.
We have a former Liberal senator basking in the Mexican sun. Since 1990 he has been paid $500,000 and $80,000 in tax free expenses and only sat in the Senate 12 times.
If this is the government's idea of equal pay for work of equal value, these employees deserve more than they are owed.
Is this the government's idea of pay equity?
Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1997 November 28th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I want to speak at third reading on C-10 that implements the treaty from tax conventions with a number of countries such as Sweden, Lithuania, Denmark and Kazakhstan. It amends tax treaties or conventions with the United States and the Netherlands.
Primarily a housekeeping bill, but a very lengthy and detailed one, it prevents double taxation in many cases and it works to prevent fiscal evasion by citizens. For the most part, we support the direction of the bill.
However, we have major concern with part VII of the bill. It is the amendment with the United States and it concerns over 80,000 people who receive social security benefits from the U.S. but who reside in Canada.
What is happening to them is unfair because it is done retroactively. These problems resulted from Bill S-9 in the last Parliament. Bill C-9 was layered with different taxation items.
The main thrust of our efforts in attacking the bill focused on the tax loopholes for wealthy individuals and corporations. However, many seniors were taken off guard when they experienced a drastic and unanticipated reduction in their social security benefits.
Before 1996, as a Canadian citizen living in Canada and receiving U.S. social security benefits, they had to report all these benefits on their Canadian tax return. Fifty per cent of these benefits were then deducted. Therefore one ended up paying Canadian taxes on the other 50%. The benefits however were not subject to any U.S. income tax.
Since Bill S-9 was ratified, U.S. social security benefits were no longer subject to Canadian tax. One still had to report these benefits as income on their Canadian tax returns, but could deduct the entire amount under “other deductions”.
This convoluted calculation is done because the government still needs to include benefits in total income for purposes of calculating the GST credit, child tax benefit and the provincial tax credits.
What was bad news for pensioners was that their U.S. benefits were now subject to U.S. tax. The tax was taken right off the top at 25.6% of the total benefit. This tax could not be recovered because it is treated as non-resident withholding tax.
There was a lot of legitimate protest after the passage of the bill because it unfairly attacked the incomes of some 80,000 Canadians who had done their retirement planning and had based their livelihood on a set of rules in place when they were working in the United States.
The protest continued for a fair amount of time. Last April the government made the announcement that there would be change. Indeed, that change has been made in the bill which is before the House today.
Now, instead of the United States taking off the withholding tax of 25.5%, the government and the country where the citizen resides will be taxing the citizen on the social security payment, the Canadian government in this case.
On the flip side of the coin, the American government will tax American citizens receiving the Canada pension plan or the Quebec pension plan.
What this government did not do was go back to the pre-1995 taxation level which was 50% of the social security payments. Instead, the government will be taxing 85% of the social security benefits, 85% instead of the previous 50%.
One could make the argument that in many cases this is better than it was a year or so ago but is still not nearly as good as it was prior to 1995. This is very unfair. This was done without properly consulting the people who were affected.
An organization called the Canadian Association of Social Security Seeking Equality is involved in this issue. It lobbied on this issue, and it was an important one, particularly in the Windsor area, for the election of June 2.
These citizens were not properly consulted. They certainly did not approve the change. For these people, the change is not good. They did their planning based on the rules and then the rules change.
Why is it that this government and its twin in the official opposition only push for tax reform that will benefit the very wealthy. For this reason, for the reason that the bill does not go far enough, we will be opposing Bill C-10.
Reform Party Of Canada November 28th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, it has been quite a week in parliament. Reform members supported record bank profits made from the service charges paid by Canadians.
Reform told Canadians that despite mounting evidence Canada need not join the rest of the world to fight global warming.
Reform showed no respect for working men and women or for the collective bargaining process.
Perhaps most disappointing, Reform spoiled its motion on the future of Canada and the process of reaching a national consensus through the Calgary declaration, a process we in the New Democratic Party support, especially the idea of Canadians finding common ground on unity, by moving an amendment that could be interpreted to stand in the way of aboriginal treaty rights and self-government.
The New Democratic Party supports the process which began in Calgary. Shame on the official opposition.
Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act November 27th, 1997
Madam Speaker, as someone who is not quite at the age where I am thinking about getting on to the Canada pension plan, I have to admit that in the last few months I have become very much aware of the seriousness of this legislation and the consequences to the people of Canada. The amendment our caucus is supporting is a clause that has been part of the Canada pension plan since its inception in 1966.
When I listen to the comments of the member from the far right on this being a devastating affect, putting the Canada pension plan way under, that people of Canada want to see their money invested strictly for profit, I suggest that the provinces being able to access the Canada pension fund for investment to ensure they can continue is an investment and is profitable. It might not be a buck we can hand back and forth, run to the store with or down the street, whatever our little hearts desire, but it is profitable. It is an investment in the people of Canada.
I am surprised at the comments coming from that member. His party left in Saskatchewan one of the most devastating results of a government that so blatantly abused its power. I am surprised that the present government did not have to borrow from this fund to secure the locks on the jails of Saskatchewan because of that situation. It was able to borrow from this fund and is very credible in its approach to getting out of the mess that government put us in.
As someone who grew up in Saskatchewan I would go back from Manitoba year after year while that government was in place and watch my home province go down and down and down. It literally tore me apart. I have such pride in seeing the results of the present government and knowing that this amendment, this proposal, was the result of being able to see that province come back life. For someone to suggest that it is not important, that it is not a profitable investment, is absolutely disgraceful.
Organized Crime November 27th, 1997
Madam Speaker, the annual statement on organized crime stems from Bill C-95, an act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal organizations), passed in the last session of Parliament.
The bill was tabled in response to biker gang violence in Quebec and involved a package of measures targeting criminal activity and organized crime. It created a new offence of participation in a criminal organization and gave law enforcement agencies new powers to combat criminal activity and to confiscate the proceeds of organized crime.
Our caucus supported passage of the bill and measures to combat organized crime in gang related activity. There is nothing new in the minister's statement. In fact, the bulk of the statement merely quotes the former solicitor general's speech in the House at the time of the introduction of Bill C-95 at second reading last April.
The statement talks about the government's commitment to provide leadership in the fight against organized crime, while in fact in at least one important area the actions of this government have had the opposite effect. It would appear that the government's privatization of our national ports and the disbandment of the Canada ports police has been a serious blow to the fight against organized crime in this country.
The government's actions have resulted in a serious setback in the efforts to control and stop organized crime activities. It is a well-known fact in the law enforcement community that organized crime and gang activity are thriving in our ports. Is it possible that the federal government's disbandment of the ports police and the privatization of the ports has been to open the doors for an increase in the very destructive activities such as drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, auto theft and liquor and tobacco smuggling that the minister referred to in his statement?
The Canada ports police were created in 1968 and represented a highly specialized and dedicated police force with skills and powers specifically designed to combat organized crime, smuggling and gang activities in the ports. Local police and private security companies have neither the resources nor the expertise to effectively combat crime in our ports. When I spoke on Bill C-9 in relation to the ports police, I expressed my disgust at the suggestion that low price security should have their lives devalued by placing them in a highly criminal and violent atmosphere.
The minister in his statement noted that Canada's police urge governments to give them the tools to do the job. It would appear that in the case of the ports police the opposite is taking place. Other jurisdictions in the United States and elsewhere which have experimented with similar privatization schemes for the ports and ports police have had to re-evaluate their actions in the face of increases in criminal activity and have reinstated specialized ports police to take back control of their ports.
The minister speculates about how one shipment of heroin landed successfully in Canada can lead to numerous deaths and human suffering in cities like Vancouver. In fact we know that the drug trade in Vancouver is flourishing and has widespread impact in that city and across Canada.
Vancouver has experienced a serious increase in crime, gang activities and increased drug trafficking in the ports which many believe is a direct result of the privatization of the ports and ports police. Numerous case files and ongoing investigations into organized crime and gang activity were halted or compromised with the removal of the Canada ports police from the Vancouver port.
On the opposite coast in Halifax, in a few weeks the ports police will be disbanded. We can be sure that organized crime is just waiting to fill the void. The Hell's Angels biker gang is known to be active in the Halifax-Dartmouth area. It is rumoured that the notorious Rock Machine bikers have recently purchased a bar in the area. It is also rumoured that a California bike gang is currently looking for property in the area and we can be sure they are not coming for the balmy weather.
With the privatization of our national ports this government has put out the welcome signs for gangs and organized crime. It is putting our communities and citizens at risk. The minister talks about creating a seamless net against organized crime. It is clear that this net has some very large holes.
The minister has indicated in the House that we should be proud of and support the workers in the justice system. Yet this minister and this government are doing the opposite. I would suggest that the minister practice what he preaches, that he work to ensure that the concerns of the ports police and the employees in the penitentiary systems are addressed.
We encourage and support this government in its fight against organized crime. Yet there appears to be contradictions in its actions.
It is our hope that when the minister reports to Parliament again there will be some concrete news of success in the fight against organized crime and that we do not once again hear the same speech from the year before.
Privilege November 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege concerning a press release issued by the member for Dauphin—Swan River, dated November 19, 1997.
Beauchesne, citations 64 through 70, make it clear that reflections on a member of Parliament that make it impossible for that member to fulfil their duties properly comprise a breach of privilege.
On November 18, at the Standing Committee on Transportation I introduced an amendment that would ensure the employees of the Canadian ports that they would not be subjected to undue hardship as a result of changes to Bill C-9.
Reform did not introduce an amendment that would protect these employees. Yet the member for Dauphin—Swan River did a press release which he inaccurately headlined “Liberals and NDP oppose protection for ports employees.”
Such misrepresentations make it impossible for me to fulfil my duties as a member of Parliament. The actions that I took at a committee of this House, actions which are a matter of record, are deliberately misrepresented to the public by a fellow member of that committee. This is not a matter for debate or question of interpretation or of nuance. It is a case where I am accused of not doing something that the records show I did.
I move that the—
Aboriginal Youth November 21st, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report recommends that the Metis people of Canada have the right to be acknowledged under section 91(21) of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Will the Liberal government acknowledge support of this recommendation?
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to correct the member. He has given the impression to the House that I was suggesting or making fun of farmers.
In actuality, I have the utmost respect—