Cathy McLeod

[Business of Supply, June 10th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am very delighted to join the debate here this afternoon. I have to start by looking at the motion that was put before us. I think there is a flaw in that very first sentence. The first sentence says, “That, in the opinion of the House, the drastic increase in income inequality...” and it went on to talk about recent governments.

I was on the finance committee. We did a pretty extensive study and we had a lot of complicated testimony. The motion starts off with a very flawed premise. I need to look at some of the statistics. I will be speaking to some of the statistics from StatsCan.

I heard the speech from the member for Toronto Centre, but I think she left that issue off in the mid-1990s and was not reflecting what has been happening more recently. Again, we have some data that is very important that we need to consider.

First, the share of the population in Canada below the low-income tax cut-off phase in 1995 was over 15% and more recently, around 2008, we are under 9%. Significant numbers of people were taken off the tax rolls. Indeed one million people, including over 300,000 seniors, have now been removed from the tax rolls.

Another statistic is on median family income, including government transfers. It was steadily worse before 1998 and it has become steadily better ever since then.

We can go into hourly average wages by gender. I know we still have some work to do in this area, but again, if we look at the graph starting in 1985 where there was a huge and significant difference, we see those graphs coming together where there is a lot less inequity in terms of wages by gender.

An important thing is the share of market income by quintile. Again there was a noticeable increase in the share going to the top 20% before 1998, but there has been very little change since then. That is an important measure.

On share of income after tax transfers, again, there are relative income gains by quintile. We had another person who talked to us about mobility, the ability for Canadians born in low-income families to move into other income opportunities. Canada has very strong measures in terms. If one is born in poverty, one does not necessarily stay there for one's whole life.

These are all measured by StatsCan. Income share of the top 1% again reflects some pretty important numbers. It was at an all-time high in the 1930s and is significantly down. There was a bit of a burst, but now we are stabilizing.

I think we have to start by looking at the premise of the question. Income inequality is an important issue, absolutely, but it is wrong to suggest that this is a situation that we all have to be fearful about. The numbers show that since the 1990s we have had some pretty good measures.

I would hasten to add that we should look at who has been in government for the last number of years. It has a large part to do with some of the policies implemented by the Conservative government. Again, one million people off the tax rolls is a hugely important number. There have been 180 tax reductions.

What the opposition members have not talked about is the report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer who said in total the cumulative changes have reduced federal taxes by $30 billion, or 12%. The low- and middle-income earners have benefited more in relative terms than the higher income earners. That is really important information.

We can look at what the NDP policies would be. The members went to the United States on an anti-trade mission to talk down our ability for the Keystone pipeline. We hear them argue against every trade agreement that comes before the House. They are anti-trade and anti-jobs. I could go on and on about the carbon tax they want to implement and the higher corporate rate for taxes. We would not have a problem with inequality if they were ever to make government, what we would have a problem with is everyone being in the low-income area because there would be no opportunities in Canada, so there would be no opportunity for inequality.

The other thing I found a bit disturbing is some of the talk I have heard today about women. I am really surprised that it is coming from the NDP.

We have choices in Canada. When my children were young, I took on a part-time job by choice. It was not that I was being suppressed; it was the fact that I truly wanted that time and opportunity to be with my children, so I took a wage reduction and went into part-time work. At that time, my husband worked a little harder to see us through. We were not rich by any means. Certainly, I did not see that it impacted my ability to be fulfilled or my career opportunities. I made a choice in terms of my children at that time.

Men make these choices also. There are times when it is women physicians, surgeons, dentists, businessmen, and women in the trades. Increasingly, this is a choice that parents will make, and it could just as well be the husband who is staying home; and increasingly it is the husband. Therefore, it is absolute nonsense for the NDP opposition to suggest that this is something that is taking us back to the Leave it to Beaver times and that it denigrates women. Whether it is the male or the female, this provides the family unit the opportunity to decide how it will work and combine careers, because as we all know, it is tough when two parents are working. It is very busy, and if there is any opportunity to help the parents in terms of what they are doing and how they are doing it, we are a government that is proud to do that.

We believe that the most effective approach to raising the incomes of Canadians and their families is to grow the economy through reducing taxes, increasing support for hard-working Canadians, promoting trade and investment, supporting key economic sectors, making education accessible and affordable, reducing barriers to labour market participation, and being strong fiscal managers. The motion that the NDP has put forward is just plain wrong and ill-conceived. As a result of our government's approach, Canadians enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world. The low income rate in Canada has been declining and now sits at an all-time low. We talked about how that changed. We can look at the graphs. Those are not made-up numbers; they are available from Statistics Canada because they are important numbers. Because of these facts, Canada's economy has demonstrated a remarkable capacity to create jobs, setting the conditions for Canadians and their families to be successful.

We often talk about our labour market performance in the G7, with more than a million net new jobs created since the recession. We still have a way to go. We recognize that we have a fragile economy and we have to watch what is happening, but we believe that families are the building blocks of our society and are critical to Canada and our long-term prosperity.

Since 2006, we have provided significant tax relief for Canadian families, and economic action plan 2014 continues on that track by keeping taxes low. These tax reductions give parents greater flexibility to make the choices that are right for them and help build a solid foundation for future economic growth, more jobs, and a higher standard of living for them and their children. Canadians at all levels of income are benefiting from the tax relief measures introduced.

The New York Times recently wrote that Canadian median incomes are the highest in the world. Middle income Canadians receive proportionately greater relief than the one million low income Canadians who have been removed from the tax rolls.

There are many things that we have done, whether it is the Canada child tax benefit, the national child benefit supplement, the disability benefit, or the child tax credit. Of these investments, two-thirds go to the low income and modest income families with children.

Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to share with the opposition all the measures that create fabrics, such as the working income tax disability. They are a basket of tax measures that are targeted, that help different groups in our society in Canada to be the prosperous families and communities in the prosperous Canada that we so truly enjoy.

[Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, June 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have found it a little unusual tonight, in terms of some of the comments that members of the NDP have been making throughout their speeches. On the one hand, we often hear from them how they do not have enough time to debate. We are giving them plenty of opportunity to put up speakers to put their views forward, yet they are complaining because we are not using some of our time. I think it is very bizarre that on the one hand they complain about not having enough time to debate, and then on the other hand are saying that they should not have to speak so often.

Having said that, we heard the member talk about his parents who came here, raised a family, and stayed here. They made a very strong commitment to this country, and it sounds like they took great pride in their decision to become Canadian citizens. Does the member not believe that four years provides the opportunity for a permanent resident to come here, to understand the country and make that very important decision? Is four years a good time in terms of making those important decisions about how they are going to spend their lives and where they want their citizenship to be?

[Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, June 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my hon. colleague is aware, but currently many permanent residents wait for four years to make a decision. I have met many people at citizenship ceremonies for whom it was 20 or 30 years before they made that decision. Choosing to become a citizen of Canada is a very important decision and people learn to feel an attachment to the country.

Does the hon. member really believe that people with little or no connection to Canada, who have spent very little time in Canada, should really be handed Canadian citizenship? Sometimes it is through fraudulent means. Is he objecting to having some time limits around people getting to know us before they make those decisions?

[Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act, June 9th, 2014]

You complained and complained and now we do not speak.

[Canada Pension Plan, June 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to stand to speak to the private member's bill from my colleague from Chatham-Kent—Essex. It is always a treat when we get to bring forward private members' bills and introduce them in the House. I congratulate him on having his first one here today.

The bill he has put forward is important and excellent. It sounds like all sides of the House will support the bill, so I congratulate him on that.

I would like to focus on a few of the changes the bill would bring.

For the first part, the bill aligns with the commitments the government made in the 2013 Speech from the Throne, which focuses on victims of crime and to strengthen our justice system.

The bill would also ensure that victims' rights would be placed ahead of those of convicted murderers. The bill is based on the well-established common-law principle that an individual should not benefit from his or her crime.

By legislating the principle that an individual shall not benefit from his or her crimes by becoming eligible for CPP or OAS benefits as a result of committing murder, Parliament would provide clear legal authority to prevent murderers from receiving pensions.

The CPP benefits we are talking about are the monthly survivor pension paid to the spouse or common-law partner or the deceased contributor, the monthly children's benefit for dependant children up to the age of 18 or to the age of 25, if they are full-time students, and a lump sum death benefit usually paid to the contributor's estate.

For a common-law child to be eligible for the Canada pension plan survivor benefit, the deceased contributor must have made sufficient contributions to the Canada pension plan to generate such a benefit. The bill would also apply to the OAS program allowance for the survivor provided to low-income survivors aged 60-64.

Here is again how the bill would work. If the survivor of the deceased individual would normally be eligible to receive them, survivor benefits could initially be paid to an individual charged with murdering a spouse, common-law partner or parent. This eligibility would immediately be revoked when Employment and Social Development Canada was informed that the claimant survivor had been convicted of murdering the person in whose name the benefit would be paid. At this point, the claimant would be determined to have never been eligible for the benefit.

An overpayment would then be established for all CPP or OAS benefits the individual received as the result of the death and steps would be taken immediately to recover the overpayment.

In cases where the person would be convicted of murder but was subsequently found to be not guilty, for example as a result of an appeal, then the person would be entitled to the full benefit once the Department of Employment and Social Development was notified. This would include payments retroactive to the first day of eligibility resulting from the death of a spouse, common-law partner or parent.

With respect to the CPP, in cases where a person under the age of 18 is convicted of murdering a parent, the surviving child benefit can be paid until the child reaches the age of 18. That is because when a child is under 18, the children's benefit is not paid to the child, but to the parent or guardian to help with the costs of caring for the child.

We do not want to create a scenario where the surviving parent of the child convicted of murdering the other parent is forced to repay the children's benefits they receive. This would be punishing a victim who had committed no crime.

The Canada pension plan would be amended to ensure that under no circumstances could individuals known by the minister to have been convicted of murdering their spouse, common-law partner or parent be eligible for the CPP death benefit resulting from that death. This does not affect the estate of the person who has been murdered. The Canada pension plan death benefit could still be paid to the estate of the deceased.

Again, the bill is entirely consistent with, among others, the policy of the United States Social Security Administration, which makes individuals convicted of felonious and intentional homicide in the death of an insured wage earner ineligible for survivor benefits.

The United Kingdom also has legislation to prevent an individual who has unlawfully killed a spouse or partner to receive benefits resulting from the death.

To better enforce these new legislative provisions, the government would engage directly with victims, advocacy and stakeholder groups so they could easily notify the department when someone had been convicted of murder and the death of the victim would normally entitle the convicted person to the benefit. These amendments underscore and emphasize our government's commitment to maintaining a key principle of justice, namely, that a person convicted of a crime should not profit from that crime. It has been made crystal clear that the murderer of a spouse, partner or parent will not benefit from a crime by gaining CPP or old age security benefits.

It is clear that our Conservative government continues to stand up for the rights of victims and that Canadians can count on us to deliver results. I would also like to note, as I said at the start, we have heard from the New Democrats, the Liberals and the member who introduced the private member's bill that this is an important, common-sense piece of legislation that all members of the House can get behind. I truly think that most Canadians, if they knew that someone could murder a spouse or a wife and be eligible for government survivor benefits, they would be absolutely appalled.

What we have is legislation that is inherently sensible. I am appreciative that all members in the House will support it. It is the right thing to do and it sounds like we do have support from all members of the House.

Again, for the member for Chatham-Kent—Essex, congratulations on important legislation, and we look forward to moving it through the process and seeing this into law.

[Public Safety, June 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the CoSA sites, which have had agreements for some years now with Correctional Service of Canada, have had their full funding reinstated. That was at the request of the Minister of Public Safety .

In addition, through a five-year agreement under the national crime prevention strategy, Public Safety Canada has been provided with additional funding. The funds include resources for a national evaluation of the CoSA to determine its effectiveness.

Through this new agreement, CoSA sites have been added and more sex offenders have been assisted, in fact increasing the numbers of persons enrolled by 137%. Consideration will be given to the findings of the evaluation that is due in the fall of 2014, which is expected to provide more reliable findings about the impacts of CoSA. Certainly the hon. member can acknowledge that an evaluation of any program that government does is important.

These measures, of course, should not be seen in isolation from the rest of the government's initiatives that are designed to make communities and vulnerable persons safe from crime.

[Public Safety, June 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, further to the request from the Minister of Public Safety, Correctional Service Canada has reviewed its decision and restored its full funding to previously existing agreements with the Circles of Support and Accountability, commonly known as CoSA.

When it comes to protecting the safety of our streets, communities and children, the government has adopted more measures than any previous government. Through the 2011 Safe Streets and Communities Act, we have increased the protection of children and youth from sexual predators, ended house arrest, eliminated pardons for serious crimes and have increased offender accountability.

We have talked about other legislation tonight, but we have also recently introduced legislation to strengthen the sex offender registry to prevent sexual exploitation online and to restore balance in the criminal justice system through better protection of the rights of victims.

The government has also acted decisively on measures to prevent crime. We have provided more resources to police officers, crime prevention programs through our national crime prevention strategy and to effectively coordinate in community corrections programs in order to prevent recidivism among offenders released in communities.

The hon. member for Malpeque knows that we are not cancelling effective programs. However, as a responsible government, we are always looking for the right balance to ensure that our citizens are protected from crime and that we, as a government, use our resources efficiently.

That is exactly why we provided additional funding to CoSA in 2009 through the national crime prevention strategy to find out more about the intervention's effectiveness to reduce sexual offences. Through this national demonstration project, we have provided an additional $7.5 million over five years to develop more CoSA sites that provide support to more sex offenders who have been released into communities. This additional support also enables us to commission, for the first time, a comprehensive, independent evaluation of the impacts of the intervention programs on the participants.

In addition to determining whether and to what extent CoSA reduces sexual recidivism, this evaluation will help identify the key elements of successful CoSA practices. Previous data do not provide the same level of detail and confidence that this evaluation will.

Through this additional funding, 250 new participants have entered the program so far, an increase of 137% compared the situation prior to our making this investment. I am pleased to report that 94 have completed the program and 125 are currently enrolled.

CoSA eases the stress and enhances the likelihood of successful community re-entry by providing constant support through the circles to help these offenders develop the positive pro social skills, establish positive social networks and maintain stable housing and employment.

I am convinced that Canadians appreciate that the results of the final evaluation will provide important information to all potential funders regarding the effectiveness of this investment.

It is important to understand that under current sentencing provisions, once offenders have completed their sentences in full, they are no longer under the jurisdiction of Correctional Service Canada. Investments such as these have the potential to provide needed supports that go beyond the programs offered by the CSC when individuals are in custody.

[Veterans Hiring Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate how my colleague talked about this being one piece of the puzzle and that we need a comprehensive plan. He talked about a number of elements of that comprehensive plan. It certainly sounds like we have broad agreement for this particular piece.

Something that really piqued my interest when the member was talking earlier was a recently announced service-dog pilot project we are going to be doing. For our veterans to have benefits from the job opportunities, we need to support that journey back to wellness for those who are suffering with PTSD.

I had the opportunity in my riding to meet someone who had a service dog who was feeling tremendous positive benefits from the support and from the relationship he had with the dog.

I wonder if my colleague could talk a bit more about that program and how that actually might assist the journey of our soldiers back to wellness that we all so want to see.

[Extension of Sitting Hours, May 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I was here many evenings in the last session and I did hear speeches from the NDP, but they sounded remarkably similar, speech after speech.

I really appreciate our government. We have something to say, we have a few people who debate it very effectively, and then we know it is time to move on rather than repeating and repeating.

As we would have about 80 hours extra, what would that allow us to accomplish for Canadians?

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague reiterated the parliamentary process. When a bill is proposed, it goes to committee and amendments are made.

It is also important to recognized that always before bills are presented or created, there is an upfront process where Canadians often have input from across the country as to what they see in a broad vision term. Perhaps the member could speak generally on how governments actually consult even before legislation is drafted.