Cathy McLeod

[The Budget, April 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the member on his election and his first speech in this House.

There are a few areas on which I would like to hear him speak a bit further.

He talked about this budget delivering what the Liberals promised. When he was on the campaign trail, did he tell his constituents that it was going to be a $10-billion deficit? Did he tell his constituents that this was going to be a short-term deficit and they were going to get back to a balanced budget? Did he tell his constituents that the middle class was in desperate straits but not allude to the fact that between 2005 to the current day the middle class is actually doing much better than it has done throughout Canadian history?

He talks about the credibility of politicians, but I have to ask him, did he tell his constituents that those were the commitments of his party? How is he going to explain to his constituents now how the Liberal Party broke so many important fiscal promises?

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member's constituents voted for him, they did so by secret ballot in exercising their democratic right. Moreover, when unions choose a leader, they do it by secret ballot. When unions make decisions on whether or not to go on strike, they do it by secret ballot.

I find it very unusual that the Liberal government basically said in Bill C-525 and the current bill that secret ballots do not matter, even though these ballots do matter in many provinces. How can it justify taking such a profoundly personal decision on behalf of our RCMP officers and not giving them the respect and the right of a secret ballot?

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that what the government is failing to mention is that in many provinces across this country, secret ballot is the system.

Actually, Bill C-525, which government members are speaking of as being a terrible piece of legislation, is the system in the province where I live, British Columbia, and I can tell my colleague the opposite. I worked in an environment where there was a certification union drive. It was a small health centre, and it divided the employers and employees. The fact that it was a secret ballot was a relief to the nurses and physiotherapists who worked there because their choice was private and was not the business of their colleagues. Ultimately, a decision was made.

It is not an unusual situation in this country to have a secret ballot.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, this is a conversation that has been going on within the RCMP for quite a few years now. Obviously before it got to the Supreme Court of Canada, there were many years and many components of the conversation. There was a staff relations representative program, and it was felt that they were able to represent the employees in terms of having conversations with management.

The Supreme Court of Canada did some things in its decision, saying that this was a violation of a section of the charter and there was a need to move forward in terms of members being able to make a decision. It was a very interesting decision, a complex decision, and I think a very appropriate decision in terms of the significant flexibility that was provided.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I too am glad to rise on Bill C-7.

Before I begin to share some of my comments and thoughts, I would note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Brandon—Souris.

As I believe all of my colleagues have started their interventions on the bill, I would like to thank the RCMP who serve us every day. I am from British Columbia and have worked in rural communities. I do not think we can say enough of how important the RCMP are throughout our country, in terms on our safety and the work they do every day, which is sometimes dangerous. Also, there is the important pride and ceremony that they add to our lives.

Certainly as a nurse who worked in a small rural health centre, I remember many times when the RCMP would stop and check in. They wanted to make sure that we were okay. Of course, we were always very thankful, because it was a small community and we could have difficult patients. At a click of a button or a random stop-in, we knew that they cared about us and were there for us.

I also witnessed some of the horrific things they dealt with. They were at the scene of many accidents, and we would receive these patients in the emergency department. I understand some of the very difficult situations that they have to deal with.

I also want to make note of the danger. It was a little over a year ago in Kamloops, where I live now, when one of our RCMP members was doing a somewhat routine traffic stop. He was following someone who was refusing to stop. He got out of the car and was shot multiple times. Thankfully, he survived.

There is the very dangerous work they do every day, but, as important, I look at the pride when our RCMP members are dressed in the red serge and the tourists come and want their pictures taken. In Kamloops, whenever we require someone for ceremonial purposes, they are always there. We put in a request, and there is someone who is always willing to volunteer. Whether it be Remembrance Day, Canada Day, or special recognition ceremonies, they are there for us. I, like everyone in the House, want to thank them.

Broadly, we do support Bill C-7 and the intervention of the Supreme Court. For the most part, I think the government has done a reasonable job in putting a piece of legislation forward that reflects the Supreme Court of Canada's decision. It has some flexibility, which is very important for the unique role of the RCMP.

Having said “broadly”, I will talk about the one or two issues that we do have with the bill. However, there is a piece that I want to highlight that is perhaps less known, that no one has spent much talking about it, which is the Government Employees Compensation Act. There are some elements of the bill that I would like to reflect upon, as perhaps some people do not know what the situation is currently.

With regard to the Government Employees Compensation Act, what we call GECA, clause 40 of the bill would remove the exclusion of RCMP members from the application of the workers' compensation scheme. Clause 42 of the bill would amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act by repealing subsection 34(1). There is a lot of technical language, and I will explain what it means in a minute.

There is also a complementary amendment being made to GECA. The legislation would amend GECA to remove the exclusion of the RCMP members, and amend the RCMP compensation act to ensure full coverage under GECA for RCMP members. This would allow these members uninterrupted access to third-party adjudication, specialized medical and disability claims, and management services for the workers' compensation boards. It is an important element of the bill.

For those who might not know, although I think most people are very familiar with it, every province in Canada has what they call a workers' compensation board or, as we call it, employees' compensation. That is where firemen, loggers, or people in a desk job who are injured on the job or exposed to occupational health and safety hazards have the boards deal with issues of work-related injuries and disabilities.

Actually, until I became a member of Parliament, I never really thought about how our federal government employees were covered in terms of workers' compensation. For a number of years, there have been contracts with every compensation board across the country. People working at a fisheries office in British Columbia are covered by the system in British Columbia. Our Canada Revenue Agency employees working in Prince Edward Island have coverage through the Government Employees Compensation Act. The members of the RCMP have never had that support. They had an internal system that dealt with their issues.

As members might imagine, the workers' compensation boards have developed a lot of expertise in a number of different areas. This is expertise that could not be duplicated in a very small system, such as perhaps a small group within the RCMP. I will give a few examples. The boards have realized that prevention is significant and important, and there are amazing results in terms of prevention. Obviously, there are a lot of medical staff and programs and services, including occupational therapists and physiotherapists with ability and expertise in assessing workplace injuries. Some people would say that the RCMP is unique and would wonder whether this would work. I would argue that the boards deal with police services, provincially and municipally. They deal with firefighters, and a number of others. I think that the expertise that will come to bear is very important expertise.

The adjudication process, the third-party assessment, will be a much fairer system. This is a significant change. It is not a change that we have talked about in this House very often. We have not debated it as part of the legislation. However, I think it is important that we highlight the exclusion of the RCMP to the Government Employees Compensation Act. Not only did we work on it prior to this being introduced, but this is a piece of the legislation that we are very supportive of.

I need to conclude, but I have to talk about the secret ballot. It is ludicrous that the government members cannot even say the words “secret ballot”. The decision on whether to unionize or not is a difficult decision. It is a very personal decision. The RCMP members, in my conversations, have had a lot of struggle with that issue. The card-check method is very public. Someone who might be their friend puts a card in front of their face and wants them to sign it. Pressure comes to bear, and the pressure can come from either the employer or employees.

In my heart of hearts, I truly cannot understand why the government has moved away in terms of its secret ballot. It is not guaranteeing the right for the RCMP to have a secret ballot on an issue that is so divisive and personal. It is absolutely essential that this legislation allow what votes all over do.

My colleague earlier talked about card checks and whether we want a card check for our federal government system. That is the one area that I think Conservatives have particular concerns over. I do think there are some good elements of this bill that appropriately respond to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, a part of this bill that has not received much attention is the removal of the exclusion of the RCMP from the Government Employees Compensation Act.

That is some complicated work that needs to be done. I wonder if the hon. member could share with this House if that work has been started. Is it completed? Are they ready to actually transition, because it is certainly a very important transition?

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, March 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, during my colleague's speech he alluded very briefly to the impact this might have on the fiscal framework. I think it is important to look at that.

I also need to bring this into today's context, where we anticipate a federal budget at four o'clock, with all indications being that there will be many sorts of wants, not needs, in this budget. We need to talk about the issue in terms of the space that the current government will leave in the fiscal framework for what, ultimately, will not be a want but certainly a need in terms of what the government is compelled to do.

[Income Tax Act, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, what the member is failing to recognize is the scope of things our government did. TFSAs were one tool.

A government has a responsibility to help all citizens and to provide the tools and opportunities for their success. Certainly we did many things for the people who have challenges in their lives, whether it was the biggest increase to the guaranteed income supplement or the many measures we brought in to help those with disabilities or the 130 tax cuts that had a positive impact or the GST going from 7% to 6% to 5%.

What I fail to realize is why the NDP has such an objection to providing a tool that will allow people to move forward and be self-determining in terms of what they are doing and how they are doing it. Instead it always wants the government-knows-best route and the government has to run a program. It does not want to give tools to Canadians. It wants to make sure we have a big, bureaucratic government program to do it.

[Income Tax Act, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, he has again demonstrated how bad the Liberals are with math. It is quite stunning. They make this mistake in terms of what the changes to this tax rate are going to do, and then he throws out numbers that are, quite frankly, totally wrong.

When I look at the actual record of our government, I see that we paid off close to $40 billion in debt. During a global recession we did, with the rest of the world, enter into some stimulus spending, but when Minister Flaherty stood up in the House during the worse global recession and talked about targeted spending, he also had a plan to get back to a balanced budget. It was executed perfectly. It was very hard to turn off the taps. He stimulated and he targeted, and during a global recession, Canada had the best recovery.

The Liberal government is heading into deficit spending for a recession we are not even in.

[Income Tax Act, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to join in the debate today. This is, of course, really the first substantial piece of legislation that has been put forward by the Liberals. It is interesting that we have mostly been focused on the change in the marginal tax rate and the TFSA, and I am going to spend most of my time on those two issues, but for people who might be following the debate, this legislation does have a couple of other pieces to it: charitable donation tax credits, income earned by a child, income earned by a trust, and taxation of corporations and shareholders.

If our party, when we were government, had put this particular bill forward, I think the Liberals would have said we had put forward an omnibus bill. They would have asked what we were doing and they would have said it was an omnibus bill because it included six different pieces.

I recognize that within an important piece of legislation it is sometimes sensible to do things that perhaps are not that controversial and are a bit of housecleaning, so there are some more pieces to this bill. It is not an omnibus bill, although the Liberals would have characterized it as such if we had put it forward, but there are some additional pieces.

As I indicated, the focus of my comments is going to be on the two pieces that most people are making comments on today. One of my colleagues called it the bill that giveth and taketh away. I think I would describe it as a bill that represents the first broken promise of the Liberal government.

The Liberals are saying they went to Canadians and were given this mandate. They told Canadians they were going to tax the rich and give it to the middle class. The Liberals did indeed tell Canadians that particular piece of information, but what they also said when they were going to Canadians during the election period was that the change would be revenue neutral. That is broken promise number one, and it is a big broken promise. It is an $8.9-billion broken promise over six years. This is not about fulfilling a promise, but about breaking a promise to Canadians.

What is that change in the tax structure that giveth to the middle class and taketh from the rich? Apparently just today, I understand, the Prime Minister of Canada called it a tiny bit of redistribution. That is what he called that change in the tax level for people who earn over $200,000. Moving from 29% to 33%, he said, is just a tiny bit of redistribution.

If we do the math, what he has actually done is given them a 12% increase in their taxes. Going from 29% to 33% is 12%. People can make $200,000, and it is a lot of money, but people with a large family who all of a sudden are hit with a 12% hike in their taxes will find it is a pretty significant hit. Everyone's circumstances can be a little bit different, but for those people who earn over $200,000 who are maybe paying off student debt or who have other elements, calling it a tiny bit of redistribution is a bit of a fallacy.

When the Prime Minister said he was going to give the money to the middle class, he never really defined the middle class. I do not think Canadians would consider the parliamentarians in this House, who are making good money, to be part of the middle class. I think our salaries are available on a website, and we are just below the $200,000. Some of the parliamentary secretaries are probably butting up to that level. They are actually benefiting the most from this tax break. If Canadians had been told that fact, they would have perhaps been less enthusiastic. They might have asked about those people making $190,000 getting tax breaks, and not only getting tax breaks but adding to the debt of our nation by doing so.

To be quite frank, the Conservative government believed in keeping our taxes as low as possible. Conservatives always support lower taxes. To be frank, when $6 a week is being added directly to the debt of this country, I think that if I had to make a choice, I would say, “Please do not put that $6 a week onto my children. I will pay that $6 a week myself.”

There are a lot of problems with this measure, which is absolutely unsupportable from our perspective. The biggest concern is that it would create a structural deficit when we actually handed the Liberals a surplus. Wrong promises and miscalculations have created a significant problem for them. We have called this a “whoops” in other speeches. This will be a burden on our children.

Now I want to shift to the tax-free savings account. The Liberals seem to love the stick approach to getting people to do things when it comes to government programs, making things mandatory, increasing the CPP, like the Ontario government is doing. They do not like carrots. They would rather have a big government program that makes people do things. Our party believes we need to provide Canadians with the opportunity and the flexibility to make their own choices.

The Liberals talk about only the rich being able to afford $10,000. I will give the House a couple of real-life examples about why the TFSA is an incredibly important tool for Canadians and that the $10,000 contribution limit is quite reasonable.

My first example is that of a young adult who has come into a small inheritance. This young person has never been able to contribute to a tax-free savings account, having just finished school. This young adult decides to put that money into a tax-free savings account and is able to grow that investment instead of spending that inheritance right away. This individual has decided to use it for the future, and in a couple of years buys a first house. Is that an inappropriate thing to do? It is a reasonable and sensible choice for someone who otherwise would have had no options.

Many seniors are now selling their homes and moving to assisted living facilities, or to a complex that provides support. They might have made some money on the sale of their homes. They have maxed out their RRSPs, but they have room to put some of that money into a tax-free savings vehicle that will help them in the future to pay their monthly expenses.

These are just two examples of why having a robust tax-free savings account is important. I recognize that not all Canadians can put in $10,000 every year, but there are times in their lives when they could. That is the beauty of the product. It is not that individuals had to contribute $10,000 every year. There are years where people might not be able to put a penny in, and there might be some years where they could top it up to where they needed to be.

I have demonstrated today that Bill C-2, the first substantial bill to be put forward in the House by the Liberal Party, has some serious and significant flaws. It would add to Canada's structural deficit. It would not do all that much in terms of the middle class. It would take away an important tool that people have in terms of saving for their future, whether they be young or old.

I would ask that the Liberals perhaps reconsider this legislation. They have been given a surplus. I would urge them to not keep adding to the debt. We are $18 billion, we are $30 billion in deficit. Those are frightening numbers. Perhaps the Liberals should rethink their plan and look at what they are going to leave for their children and their grandchildren.