Cheryl Hardcastle

[Foreign Affairs, March 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, recent events in Honduras are of grave concern.

Berta Cáceres and Nelson Garcia, two indigenous environmental and human rights activists, have been assassinated. As a result, the Dutch development bank and the Finnish investment fund suspended all activity in Honduras.

Will the government condemn these murders and call on the Honduran government to hold an independent international investigation?

[Business of Supply, March 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I believe certain aspects of my speech are being sensationalized right now for the purpose of this debate. However, absolutely I am extremely cognizant of all human rights issues, whether they are related to a faith practice and an organized religion or a spiritual pursuit and other faith practices as well. That is not an issue for me.

I understand that, with what is happening in the Ukraine, or in Egypt or even here at home, when the context is about human rights, it is about religious freedom as well. We do not have to pull religious freedom out. In fact, at the beginning of my speech, I mentioned that one of the very first human rights that was articulated, maybe 15,000 years BC, when we had tablets from some of our earliest populations, was the freedom of belief, of pursuing, and giving accolades to different gods. We understand where human rights are. We do not need to separate the Office of Religious Freedom.

If there are ongoing issues with regard to human rights that are secretive and not public, there are resources where this is better handled. We have people who specialize in operations that way who can be supportive. I cannot speak to those things publicly if I do not know about them. However, as a country, we are certainly capable of undergoing and continuing any kind of work to protect people in a collaborative manner that is also clandestine if need be.

[Business of Supply, March 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, in this forum, it is very important, due to the context of the motion, to highlight some of the more exacerbating reasons for better ways to move forward with human rights. For us to move forward effectively, I adamantly believe there cannot be a hierarchy. I believe we can move forward much as in the spirit that was done in the past with Rights & Democracy initiatives. When we do not have a hierarchy on human rights, we actually fortify human rights because they are interdependent, and we maximize our resources when we take that approach with the most vibrant way human beings are able to flourish and to express themselves in civic space.

[Business of Supply, March 21st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am a proud practising Catholic, and indeed I do acknowledge the first human right was the right of religious freedom, the right to worship as one saw fit. All other human rights emerged from this fundamental right.

As our civilization developed over the centuries, our concept of freedom became more expansive. We now believe that other human rights are every bit as fundamental as the freedom to worship freely. A perfect example of what I mean can be found in article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states, “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms”.

While the right to worship freely may predate the right to not have one's body sold into slavery, the right to not be owned by another person, I think we can all agree is every bit as fundamental as any other. Implicit in the right to not be owned by another is the understanding that all human life is of equal value.

Even our understanding of the concept of religious freedom is more expansive than it was originally construed to be in that the first form of religious freedom, at least in the west, was religious tolerance. This was what philosophers referred to as a negative freedom, the freedom to be left alone. Our understanding now is much more robust.

I wish to state, Madam Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Windsor West.

I am very proud to say that the universal declaration was written by a Canadian by the name of John Peters Humphrey. Article 18 states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

I take this stroll through history to make a point, which I believe to be important; there should be no hierarchy among human rights, that the question of religious freedom has to be understood within the broader context of freedoms and fundamental rights. This is the position of the NDP. We believe that if our government is to promote human rights, it should promote the full spectrum of freedoms and not just the freedom of religion, as significant as this freedom no doubt is.

Let us look further at these rights and freedoms, all of which are fundamental: freedom of expression, of privacy; freedom of the press; freedom of assembly; the right to participate in one's government; the right to equal pay for equal work; and the right to form and participate trade unions. There are many more that I will not go into. The point is that we should not arbitrarily limit our focus to just one of all these fundamental freedoms.

When it comes to promoting fundamental human rights, we should not play politics with them. That, unfortunately, is precisely what the Conservatives did when they were in government.

In March of 2012, former foreign affairs minister John Baird announced that the Conservative government had decided to scrap the highly respected organization, the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, better known simply as Rights & Democracy. It had been created to be a non-partisan, independent Canadian institution, established by an act of Parliament in 1988, to encourage and support the universal values of human rights and the promotion of democratic institutions and practices around the world. At the time, then minister Baird claimed that the move to close Rights & Democracy had to do with the government's efforts to find efficiencies and savings.

Fast forward to February 2013, when the Government of Canada officially opened the Office of Religious Freedom within Global Affairs Canada, with an annual budget of $5 million. So much for efficiencies and savings I guess.

The Conservatives shut down Rights & Democracy, an organization dedicated to promoting a robust conception of human rights only to open up less than a year later another organization designed to promote just one right in particular, the right to worship freely.

It is important to recall, too, that the Conservative government of the time also shut down three offices of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, in Halifax, Vancouver, and Toronto, the three cities that registered the highest number of human rights complaints. During this period, the Conservative government also slashed funding to highly respected human rights organizations, such as KAIROS, Alternatives, and the Canadian Council for International Co-operation, in retaliation for their criticism of the Conservatives' appalling record on international rights.

Also during this time, the Conservatives cut funding to many organizations promoting women's rights: the New Brunswick Coalition for Pay Equity, le Conseil d'intervention pour l'accès des femmes au travail, the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women, Womenspace, and several more. Why would a government claiming to be committed to human rights slash funding to all of these organizations then turn around and open an Office of Religious Freedom? The reason, of course, is simple: politics.

To get a sense of what I mean, we only need look at the actual record of the Office of Religious Freedom.

In an analysis of the ORF by Samane Hemmat, published in OpenCanada, Hemmat notes that, “Christian minorities have garnered almost twice as much of the attention...as compared with Muslim and Jewish communities”. This is not to suggest that Christians are not being persecuted in the Middle East, because they are.

This is why, during the previous Parliament, the NDP supported a study by the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the human rights violations against Egyptian Christians. We also supported the committee's all-party statement condemning this violence against Christians, calling for its cessation. According to Hemmat, the ORF has also released press statements speaking out for Christians in Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, China, and the Central African Republic, though paying special attention to Christian minorities in Pakistan and Coptic Christians in Egypt, a strong population which has immigrated to Canada.

The focus on Ukraine is especially puzzling, given the low ranking it received on the Pew forum's government restrictions and social hostilities index. I am sure the fact that Canada had the third-largest Ukrainian population after Ukraine and Russia and that the Conservatives were keen to court this population had nothing to do with ORF's advocacy on behalf of Ukrainian Christians.

As my time is drawing to a close, I would like to wrap things up by acknowledging the fact that a number of our friends in various faith communities across Canada support the continuation of the Office of Religious Freedom. I would like our friends to know that the New Democrats support the same freedoms as they do, every bit as passionately as they do, even as we do not support the continuation of the ORF.

The New Democrats believe these important freedoms would be promoted more effectively by a government body less political in nature, one designed in a way to promote a thoroughly robust and inclusive conception of human rights, all human rights and freedoms, as opposed to one designed for crass political purposes. Our faith communities deserve better and Canadians deserve better.

We believe, along with our new Minister of Foreign Affairs, that rights are indivisible, interrelated, and interdependent, that freedom of religion is unthinkable without freedom of conscience, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, or freedom of movement. Our party is committed to working with the new government to ensure that human rights are front and centre in all decisions made, indeed, to ensure that human rights are the central organizing principle around which all policy is formulated in all matters before the state.

[International Trade, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, people in Tecumseh and throughout southwestern Ontario are worried about the impact of the TPP. This Conservative trade deal will destroy tens of thousands of good jobs and severely damage Canada's auto sector. Yet, the Liberals are pushing ahead without proper study and without consulting.

Will the trade minister come to my community and look auto workers in the face before she rubber-stamps the trade deal that sacrifices their jobs?

[Windsor-Essex Community Recognition Night, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great pride in my riding of Windsor—Tecumseh to celebrate its extraordinary compassion and ingenuity. That bell again rang true earlier this week when I attended the Windsor-Essex County United Way's community recognition night to honour a host of caring community members for their impact on Windsor and Essex County. I am awestruck by the creativity and the scope.

I salute the volunteers and the partners of the Ford City rejuvenation project for the vibrant transformation of this historic neighbourhood. I salute Bill and Rochelle Tepperman for their lifetime of leadership in social justice and service to others, Family Services Windsor-Essex, Windsor police, our CUPE and Unifor locals, Windsor firefighters, Transit Windsor Local 616, Laval International, and Costco Windsor. There are a host of individuals behind these organizations who collectively make a difference.

On behalf—

[Income Tax Act, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has proposed a number of realistic measures to provide assistance for a national child care benefit, guaranteed income supplement, and a national affordable day care plan. To suggest that we have not done our due diligence and our homework, we came out with a fully costed plan. We can argue where some of the resonations were during the campaign, but it certainly was not with the stats and facts, because we have those here.

The Liberals are missing an opportunity if they do not accept those facts and move forward with the well-being of middle-class Canadians, as was aggressively put forward in their platform.

[Income Tax Act, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I explained that in my speech. I expressed a bit of frustration with the shortcomings of this legislation.

What we are seeing with Bill C-2 is a token response to the Liberal platform and to what Canadians saw. There was something in that platform that resonated with Canadians. That is why they were elected, the Liberals claim, so they should do something with it. It is a token response. As a matter of fact, it is insulting to people living in that median income range, because $600 can go a long way toward nutrition and bills.

Not providing that well-being for all Canadians puts a burden on all of us as a country. One would think the Liberals would want to maximize this tool. That is why it is a bit frustrating.

[Income Tax Act, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that the Liberals were vehement during the election campaign about relieving the middle class. What we are saying is that they have to identify who the middle class really is. In Canada today the median income is $31,000. What is the definition of middle class if it is not that?

It is not realistic to look at someone who has a lower income with limited discretionary funding and is making choices that someone in the higher income class does not even have to worry about. We have to apply a bit of empathy here, to see where the effect would be, so that we would be targeting the middle class. That was aggressively pursued by the Liberals during the campaign.

Was that all rhetoric, or can we really have some meaningful action? The median income in Canada is $31,000. Like it or not, that is the reality.

[Income Tax Act, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-2 today. I will begin by saying that, while the NDP members have issues with some elements of the bill, we are pleased to acknowledge that there are parts of the bill that we believe would be beneficial to Canadians. We have decided to support the bill going forward to committee, where some of these can be more meaningfully considered. There are some clarifications and some rationalizations that I am going to take advantage of during my time here today.

Let us talk about some of the more positive aspects of Bill C-2

Bill C-2 would include tangible measures to collect a fair tax from the rich. Specifically, it would increase, by 4%, the top income tax rate on incomes over $200,000.

As the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan pointed out when the bill was first debated, this increase is entirely consistent with what the NDP has achieved at the provincial level.

In Nova Scotia, the NDP government increased, by 4%, the top rate on incomes over $150,000.

In a minority legislature in Ontario, the NDP amended a budget to add two points of income tax on incomes over $500,000.

The NDP government in Alberta has, quite correctly, gone from a flat tax to a progressive income tax system.

As part of our election platform in Saskatchewan, the NDP is proposing an additional percentage point of tax on incomes over $175,000.

The other positive aspect of this legislation is to restore the TFSA contribution limit to $5,500 per year. I think it is important to note that the previous Conservative government's proposal to increase that limit to $10,000 would only affect people who have extra money left over after 18% of their income has been contributed to RRSPs and after the $5,500 that can still be contributed to the TFSAs.

In 2013, fewer than 7% of eligible Canadians made the maximum TFSA contribution. It stands to reason that probably only up to 7% of Canadians would stand to gain anything from a higher limit on TFSA contributions. Therefore, restoring that limit to $5,500 is clearly a progressive move.

Let us face it. Given the unemployment rate, the skyrocketing cost of food and rent or housing, and there are far too many people who will not see benefit from the bill. Consider a family of four living off minimum wage with a total monthly income, including benefits and credits, of $2,882. By the way, I get this information from the local Windsor anti-poverty organization, Pathway to Potential. Of this fixed monthly income, 62% goes to rent and food, leaving only $1,082.70 for remaining expenses, such as utilities, phone, transportation, medical costs, and dental costs. People face precarious situations when their rent exceeds 30% of their monthly income. When income is low and rent is high, there is not enough money left for food. This helps explain why so many are forced to use food banks. In 2015, 80,865 individuals were served by Windsor and Essex County food banks, and 41,942 of this number were children.

I think it is safe to say that, when we have a situation this urgent, this dire, we should be drafting legislation to help these people. Yet, these are precisely the ones who are left out of the bill. When families must choose between paying rent and feeding their children, they are not going to have a spare $10,000 to hide away in a tax-free savings account.

Let us consider students. In the Windsor area, we have St. Clair College and the University of Windsor. The reality is that most people who go to school are just getting by or taking out loans to get by, let alone putting money in a tax-free savings account. Perhaps some of them are doing so with the help of family members, but the ordinary Canadians I represent do not have that luxury.

As I alluded to earlier, in the service sector, many people are moving to part-time or precarious work and basically just getting by.

Unfortunately, with this bill, we know from third-party experts and economists that 60% of this plan for a reduction in taxes for Canadians would not be enjoyed by the middle class or those with low incomes. Therefore, it is a sizeable section of Canadians who would be left out. Because of the way the scheme works, the wealthiest would benefit the most. That is a real problem, which New Democrats want to address at committee. It is an issue we have raised before.

Who would benefit from this bill? It would not be the office workers who are making an annual salary of less than $40,000 a year, or the hair stylists who basically earn around $28,000 annually in Canada. They would get zero. It is the same with social workers who make an annual salary totalling around $44,000, and with our friends in the retail sector who earn $21,424 on average.

Cashiers would get nothing back. That is a classic example. All of the people working in department stores, retail shops, drive-throughs, fast-food chains, and all of these types of businesses would receive zero from the plan. They are the people we should be rewarding with a tax reduction. These are the people who do not have the equity to easily afford some of the tax deductions that wealthier Canadians get. They do not earn income at the level to take advantage of some of the policies that have been put in place in the past couple of decades.

Waiters and waitresses earn less than $22,000 on average. They would get zero. That is another group of individuals who, I would argue, would not benefit from this reduction. They would get nothing at all. Nannies are another example. Chefs and assistant chefs would get nothing.

Who would get a benefit from this legislation? Bank managers who earn around $82,000 a year would receive $555 in their tax season from this. They would also be in an income stream where they might be able to take advantage of tax-free savings account. It would be beneficial for them and their family. Lawyers earning around $108,000 a year on average in Canada would get $679. Members of Parliament with the same wage amount would get the cap of around $680 as well.

It gets worse. Bill C-2 also includes a so-called middle-class tax cut that would not actually help the middle class. I think the Liberals might be a bit confused between cutting the middle-class tax bracket and changing taxes in such a way as to help people with middle incomes. What the bill proposes is a tax cut that applies to incomes above $45,000 a year, which is more than the median Canadian income. To receive the maximum benefit, someone would need to have an income of more than $90,000 per year. To put that into perspective, someone working as a nanny for the Prime Minister would receive nothing from the middle-class tax cut. However, the Prime Minister himself, and indeed all members in this House, would get the maximum benefit of about $700. However, we do not need the money.

What are the alternatives? We in the NDP have proposed to reduce the first tax bracket, which applies to everyone. We also propose a boost to the working income tax benefit, which is better targeted to lower incomes. It would be extremely easy to design and implement a middle-class tax cut that would actually go to the middle class. However, in all of the discussion we have heard with respect to this bill, I have not heard a coherent explanation from the Liberals as to why they are pushing ahead with a tax cut that would only go to incomes above $45,000, rather than enacting a tax cut that would include all taxpayers.

Moreover, it has been revealed that the bill would not pay for itself. It would cost more than $1 billion a year in lost federal revenue. In effect, what the government is proposing is to borrow money to fund a tax break for people who do not really need it.

In conclusion, there are enough positive elements in Bill C-2 that the NDP is prepared to support it on second reading. However, there is a huge amount of room for improvement in targeting the so-called middle-class tax cut to those who really need it, and in collecting the revenue that would ultimately be needed if the government is ever going to balance the budget—