House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 2019, with 45% of the vote.
Natural Resources February 18th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has confused this issue for both industry and first nations. During the election campaign, he said that no meant no. More recently, he backtracked from that commitment. Uncertainty hurts both prospective development and indigenous communities.
Can the minister stand in the House and provide clarity? Does no mean no, yes, or maybe?
Natural Resources February 18th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, last week, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations stated at a press conference that pipelines will need an indigenous licence to proceed. I would like to ask the minister this. Does she agree with giving a veto over the development of Canada's natural resources?
Indigenous Affairs February 2nd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the parliamentary secretary indicated that she had no problem gutting the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. Does she not realize that transparency and accountability mean readily accessible information? It does not mean having a report sitting in the basement of the department of indigenous affairs.
How can the minister justify to band members that they must plead or go to court to get basic financial information?
Hockey Day in Canada February 2nd, 2016
Mr. Speaker, this week, the city of Kamloops, British Columbia is proud to host Hockey Day in Canada. Hockey is a key part of Canada's identity and the identity of Kamloops, with over 86 teams in our city.
Rogers Media said that we were the perfect setting for the 16th annual nationwide hockey celebration, and I could not agree more. Many residents have been working hard to bring this incredible event to life. We will be joined by Don Cherry; Ron MacLean; former Canucks captain, Trevor Linden; and my favourite visitor, Lord Stanley's cup itself.
We have world-class facilities and athletes and a beautifully rich sports history. Later this year, in April, we will also be welcoming hockey fans for the women's world championship.
This is our favourite game. Come celebrate Hockey Day in Canada, hockey day in Kamloops.
Income Tax Act February 1st, 2016
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has never let facts get in the way of his speeches in the House, facts from the parliamentary budget officer and the finance officials' own report as of November, and facts from the Auditor General in terms of the rollout of the stimulus plan.
The member did start off his speech earlier talking about a promise he made to his constituents, talking about the commitment the Liberals are going to keep. Did he also promise them that it was only going to be a $10-billion deficit? That was also a promise. Is he going to break that promise?
Even though the Liberals have not been able to define middle class yet, did the member tell his constituents that the so-called tax swap of raising the taxes on the rich and giving the middle class a break was going to cost $1.4 billion and add to the structural deficit of his government?
Income Tax Act February 1st, 2016
Mr. Speaker, when my colleague was running for office, I am sure he knocked on many doors and talked at many community forums where he would have indicated some of his party's key platform commitments, one being that there might be a deficit, but it would not be any more than $10 billion, and that the Liberals would have the rich pay more and the middle class would benefit, but it would be revenue-neutral. We now know that the deficit will be higher than $10 billion and we know that this revenue-neutral tax actually will be $1.4 billion.
How will my colleague explain that to residents of his riding? The Liberals will create a structural deficit, so who will pay that debt in the future?
Income Tax Act February 1st, 2016
Madam Speaker, I note that the member talks about the TFSAs. I think there are different circumstances in people's lives. It is not about the rich. There could be a 30-some-year-old who has been barely making ends meet who has not started to save for his or her retirement but who has a bit of a windfall gain in terms of an inheritance. There could be seniors who are converting their income retirement plans.
Could my colleague talk a bit further about the enormous opportunities TFSAs had for Canadians and how they really were not just a tool? I know it seems like a lot of money every year, but that balance carried forward for years when people had extraordinary circumstances.
Income Tax Act February 1st, 2016
Madam Speaker, the hon. member has said we should focus on the bill. I am going to do just that. I want to focus specifically on what the bill would do. It is going to give him, as a member of Parliament, a so-called middle-class tax break in the range of $600 to $800, which he would receive.
This would add to the debt of our country, because the Liberals' math is wrong. They said that the rich paying more—those earning over $200,000—would result in a revenue-neutral middle-class tax cut. However, that is wrong. It is wrong by $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion. He is going to accept another $600 to $800 in his pocket at the expense of future generations and his grandchildren.
As someone who regularly stands up in the House and speaks about affordable housing and poverty, how can he stand up and vote for this particular bill?
Income Tax Act February 1st, 2016
Madam Speaker, it is not very often that I agree with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley but he did raise some important points in this debate today.
We have talked clearly about how the Liberals promised that this would be a revenue-neutral plan, that the rich would pay more and the middle class would pay less. I am going to use an example. Using the member's numbers, if a husband and wife were both members of Parliament they would get a $1,600 tax break. Not only would they be getting a tax break, but it would be going to the debt of our children and grandchildren.
Does the member have some idea as to who is going to ultimately pay this debt that the Liberals will be creating?
Income Tax Act February 1st, 2016
Madam Speaker, the Liberals ran on a promise that there was going to be a revenue-neutral change. They were going to take from the rich and give to the middle class. It has become clear that this revenue-neutral change is going to be anything but. It shows poor math. We are looking at $1.4 billion, give or take—quite a few hundred million dollars. This is not temporary stimulus. It is not something that will happen just one time. It would add to the structural deficit of the government.
Does the member believe it is fair for his grandchildren to pay the Liberals' debt, which they will accumulate, for a tax cut that was given based on poor math?