Cathy McLeod

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have two short quotes from 1994 by Speakers of the House at that time.

Speaker Milliken in 1994 stated:

While the subject matter may be diverse, I suggest to the hon. member that given the fact they were all introduced in the budget, they form a whole, unified policy thrust which the government has put forward and which it will be defending in the course of the debate on this bill. Therefore in my submission, the bill is entirely in order.

Speaker Parent stated:

In conclusion, it is procedurally correct and common practice for a bill to amend, repeal or enact several statues. There are numerous rulings in which Speakers have declined to intervene simply because a bill was complex and permitted omnibus legislation to proceed.

I would ask the member if she believes that those Speakers' ruling in 1994 when the Liberals were in government were in fact in error.

[Canada Revenue Agency, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the way that Canadians file their taxes is changing and we are changing to meet those needs.

In-person discussions with the agency and Canadians only accounted for 2.5% of the interactions. That said, there are people who will, for a variety of reasons, still need to interact with the CRA in a different manner. Canadians can be assured that the CRA will continue to offer alternatives for taxpayers.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there were so many items that I outlined, whether it was the increase in the GIS or the ability to make a little bit more money before the GIS is clawed back.

The Liberals and NDP are perhaps forgetting what is most important. As a finance committee we held meetings in the United States and at every single meeting the people said that we were so lucky in Canada, that our economy was stable and that we were such a fortunate country.

Again, the most important thing we can do is to have a strong, stable economy so that we can continue to support our seniors in need and those around us who are most vulnerable.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, what the member is talking about generally is very important. This is someone who wants a job, has two jobs and is willing to work hard. That is why we have made a the economy and jobs and long-term prosperity a priority, because I know that the person mentioned would want to have a job available to him.

Over 770,000 net jobs since the worst part of the recession have been created and we are creating a climate for success for new businesses to open in those communities. Those are the things that this person would be very interested in and the opportunity to put in the good work that he does.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, we have people in seasonal industries across this country. In my riding we have a number of tourist industries that are very periodic, for example skiing or apple picking in the Okanagan. That is why we made some changes to support those folks on EI, letting them know about opportunities that are near them and within their job skills category and available to them.

We have taken many important measures over the last year in the budget implementation act to support the folks in those industries. Those have been very important for the communities and the economy and will really help them move forward.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House to share with members the reasons why I will not be able to support the motion by the interim leader of the Liberal Party.

Although our government really takes the issue of income inequality seriously, to be quite frank I find the motion to be vague and disconnected. It is a typical Liberal approach to these issues.

The Liberal leader said he was proposing five very practical steps, but when asked what the cost would be, he did not have any idea.

As I have listened to the debate throughout the day, I have not heard how many people the motion would help or how it would have an impact on them. It is really very nebulous. These ideas do not knit together as a comprehensive strategy. For example, what about seniors? There is nothing on that. Are seniors not important in terms of income inequality?

I am proud to be part of a Conservative government that really acts rather than wanting to do more studies.

I would like to share with the House some of the actions that we are taking as a government. I have given one example already, in saying there is nothing about seniors in the motion. However, I will share with members some of the things that we are doing to deal with this important issue.

I first want to thank seniors for the sacrifices they have made and the foundational role they have played in building our nation. They certainly deserve our gratitude and support. They are the men and women who have worked tirelessly to build a better country for future generations. They are the men and women who have served in our armed forces to keep Canada free and make the world a safer place.

This weekend I had the opportunity to go to the War Museum. As I went through the exhibits from the War of 1812 to the Boer War and World War I and II, I was struck by the personal stories of those people who made this great country what it is today. It was very touching. I encourage people to take some time to go through that particular museum if they have not been there already.

Our seniors are the men and women who worked endless hours, gave their blood, sweat and tears, to build the economy of today, be it in a business big or small or on a farm.

That is why our Conservative government has introduced a lot of initiatives since 2006 to benefit our seniors and make their golden years a bit easier.

As we have seen time and time again, when we introduce what we think are important measures, the Liberal Party has stood up and voted against them. These include many of the measures we have introduced to help some of Canada's most impoverished seniors.

Here also, when the motion talks about the registered disability plan, it is a bit disingenuous, considering that we introduced it and the Liberals voted against it.

Another example is the guaranteed income supplement or GIS top-up for the most vulnerable seniors. Since July 2011 this top-up has helped seniors with little or no income other than OAS and GIS, by giving them additional benefits of up to $600 for single seniors and up to $840 for couples. I have heard loud and clear from constituents in my riding how important that is and what a positive change it has been. This is the largest GIS increase for the lowest income seniors in a quarter century. This is an investment of $300 million per year for our seniors. This initiative will improve the financial security and wellbeing of more than 680,000 seniors right across Canada. Even the Canadian Labour Congress, which is probably not the best friend of our government, has said “This is a win for every senior living in poverty in Canada”.

What did the Liberal Party do? Liberal members voted against helping those seniors most in need.

We have done more. We made sure that seniors can earn up to $3,500 more before their GIS is reduced, so that our seniors can keep more of their hard-earned money without any reduction in their benefits. The Liberal Party voted against that too.

Unfortunately, those are not the only measures the Liberal Party has voted against. It has opposed our measures reducing taxes for seniors. Our government cut taxes for seniors and pensioners by more than $2.5 billion via targeted tax relief. Specifically, our government has increased the age credit by $1,000 in 2006 and by another $1,000 in 2009. We have doubled the maximum amount of income eligible for the pension income credit to $2,000. We have introduced very popular pension income splitting. We also increased the age limit for maturing pensions and registered retirement savings plans, or RRSPs, to 71 from 69 years of age.

All of these are hugely important measures that are helping reduce the inequity for seniors.

With these combined measures, our Conservative government's low-tax record for seniors has substantially increased the income seniors can earn before they are required to pay a cent in income tax. For example, in 2012 a single senior can earn just over $19,000 and a senior couple over $39,000 before paying any federal income tax whatsoever. Even better, as a result of our government's actions, 380,000 seniors have been removed from the tax rolls altogether.

We know there is much more to be done and that is why we have done more. Seniors also benefit from our general tax cuts when we moved the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. The Liberals opposed that. When we reduced the lowest personal income tax rate to 15% from 16%, the Liberals opposed it. When we increased the basic personal amount that Canadians can earn without being subject to federal income tax, the Liberals opposed it.

I could go on. For example, when the Liberals opposed the tax-free savings account they opposed something that was really helpful for seniors because the income earned within a tax-free savings account and withdrawals from it are not taxed and do not affect eligibility for federal income-tested benefits such as old age security or the guaranteed income supplement. In the words of the respected personal finance columnist Jonathan Chevreau, “[T]here is now a way that seniors can save that rewards rather than punishes them”.

Seniors know that they have to be responsible and plan for the future and understand that one must spend responsibly to ensure that the next generation will have the services it needs. That is why as part of our economic action plan 2012, our Conservative government took important steps to ensure the future sustainability of Canada's social programs, placing key social programs on a sustainable path, ensuring that they will be there for future generations. At the same time, we recognize that many Canadian seniors who have the knowledge to share and skills to use do not want to be forced to retire before they choose to. We have given them more options to stay in the workforce if they wish, because we believe they should have the flexibility to continue to work if they so choose. That is why we eliminated mandatory forced retirement for federally regulated industries and why we will allow seniors who wish to remain in the workforce to delay or defer their OAS pensions for up to five years, allowing them to receive a higher annual pension down the road. That is why we have given massive new funding to the ThirdQuarter project to help seniors keep using their skills in the workforce. That is why we have introduced proactive enrollments into the OAS, removing the need to sign up for benefits for many seniors, a positive measure that columnist Gordon Pape, writing in the Toronto Star, applauded as “[A] welcome elimination of bureaucratic red tape that should have the effect of putting a lot more money into the hands of seniors”.

The bottom line is that we have a government that is taking action on so many fronts in a connected way for the entire population. In that regard, this motion is typical of the Liberals in being very disconnected and one that really will not accomplish what they say they want to accomplish. Again, our government takes very seriously the issue of income inequality in Canada.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to offer you congratulations on your new role.

We have a look at the facts, so I would like to look at the overall rate of low-income earners that has declined significantly under our government. It is down from 15.2% in 1996 to 9% in 2010.

When the leader of the Liberal Party gave his speech and talked about many of the measures, he was asked a very specific question about the costs. He really had no answer.

Would my hon. colleague talk about that and the fact that many of the things the Liberals talk about are measures that we have introduced and the Liberals have voted against them, such as the family caregiver tax credit?

[Business of Supply, September 20th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as a fellow British Columbian, I certainly listened to the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley with great interest. However, frankly, even the motion today was surprising to me. It seemed a very odd motion. Perhaps they have been a bit asleep at the switch.

We have acknowledged some economic concerns for a number of years. To be quite frank, all oars have been in the water. The Prime Minister has met more than 250 times, regardless of the government, with the provinces, minister to minister. I certainly know that in British Columbia, as we rolled out the economic action plan, the provinces worked in collaboration with the federal government and municipalities in an unprecedented manner. We know what has happened. We know the great outcome. We have toured the world. We know we are the envy of the world.

However, his leader has put forward a motion wanting the Prime Minister to meet, when he himself actually refused to meet with the ministers from Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, calling them simply messengers of the federal government. I actually found that very offensive.

For the NDP to put this motion forward today is very surprising.

[Health, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, for months, my constituents have been speaking out, understandably upset that bogus asylum claimants receive better health care coverage than Canadian citizens.

Our Conservative government has listened and taken action to restore fairness by making sure asylum claimants no longer receive better benefits than Canadian taxpayers.

Unfortunately, the NDP opposes these sensible changes. It wants Canadian taxpayers to provide braces, glasses and prescriptions, even for failed asylum claimants who refuse to follow our laws and leave Canada.

As we all know, Canadian taxpayers do not get these same health benefits paid for themselves or their families.

I urge all Canadians to write to the NDP leader and make their voices heard. Tell the NDP it is wrong for opposing these important changes.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I sat in the finance committee and listened to officials explain in very great depth and detail each of the clauses and why they are common sense changes. We are not going to have a giant, red tape, up-front process. Anyone who has a contract with the government will need to have an equity plan as part of the contract. We are trying to reduce red tape and the burden on businesses, but in absolutely no way impacting the important issues around employment equity.