Daniel Blaikie

[Income Tax Act, February 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I tend to agree with the member. My own conception of the middle class probably falls somewhat lower than transferring money from the high six-figure earners to the low six-figure earners, which unfortunately is what Bill C-2 would seem to do.

There are many people now who would have been in the middle class, however one would define that a year ago, but have lost their jobs. We have seen a lot of urgency put on Bill C-2, but not the same urgency put on reforms to the employment insurance program.

Could the member speak to how much that might have helped people who are no longer in the middle class because they do not have employment, but a year or two ago would have found themselves there?

[Income Tax Act, January 29th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, some members today have already done a good job of elucidating how odd it is to have a so-called strategy for the middle class that especially targets and benefits people making well into six figures. It is a strange definition of the middle class. There have been some allusions by members opposite, as well, as to how it is meant to help.

One of the big struggles for the middle class right now is job loss. We have seen that across the country from coast to coast to coast. Would the member agree that it would have been a better prioritization and better for the economy to put the same priority, which the Liberals have put on these tax cuts to help Canadians who overwhelmingly earn six figures already, on amending and fixing what is broken with EI? That would ensure that workers who are getting laid off right now across the country could access EI when they need it. Also would it have been a better prioritization and better for the economy to help people living on CPP, who are not getting enough money, and put money into their hands right now—the ones who really need it and would spend it—instead of people making over $100,000 a year? I would like to hear her thoughts on that.

[The Environment, January 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, in the last election, Canadians called for a better NEB process, but without defined targets and more information, the new government is going to make a longer process without making a better process.

Key stakeholders are noticing. That is why the mayor of Burnaby said he was severely disappointed with the new Liberal measures, and first nations are saying that the new measures ignore critical risks to rivers, ecosystems, and streams.

The minister said she would base her decision on science, but the broken system is not gathering it. Why is it that she is willing to move ahead with a decision without evidence?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, January 25th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, in my time knocking on doors in Elmwood—Transcona one of the stories that stuck with me most was that of a woman in East Kildonan who invited me into her living room in her apartment. She is living on CPP. We moved the discussion from the living room into the kitchen, where she opened her fridge and cupboards to show me that they were literally bare. Improving the CPP is a really urgent issue for her. Every year her rent goes up but her income does not. That is why I was disappointed after the latest meetings of ministers of finance from around Canada that the federal Minister of Finance had nothing to say about a timeline for increasing the CPP.

I am wondering if in the internal conversations of the government caucus there have been concrete suggestions about a timeline, and if so, if the hon. member could enlighten us now.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, January 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston has been vigorous in his support of the idea of putting any proposed reform to a referendum. He did mention in his speech the fact that part of the reason for the failure, in fact the reason for the failure of the B.C. reform, was that the government imposed a supermajority. Am I to understand that he would be satisfied with a 50% plus one outcome for change on a referendum on a proposal from the current government?

[Canada Post, December 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, under the previous government 20,000 Winnipeggers lost their door-to-door mail service along with many others across the country. During the campaign, the Prime Minister promised to restore that service but the government has been backpedalling ever since. I was quite shocked to read in the Free Press this week that Winnipeg Liberal MPs say that people in our city are happy with the cuts.

I am wondering if the Minister of Public Services and Procurement will explain to seniors and people living with disabilities struggling to stay in their family homes why the Prime Minister feels that promises made to them do not need to be kept and when exactly he told her it would be okay to let them down.

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, do we have a commitment from the minister to appear promptly before committee after spending is authorized by Treasury Board out of the contingency fund?

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, I was pleased to hear in the President of the Treasury Board's earlier remarks an acknowledgement, and I agree with him that spending money out of the contingency fund is by far and away not the most transparent way to conduct the spending of government.

Given that the member agrees with that and given that part of the purpose of the estimates is to replenish that contingency fund, presumably so it is available to be spent, would he agree that having the President of the Treasury Board come to the committee for government operations and estimates at the soonest available opportunity after an incident of spending out of that contingency fund would be the best way to preserve the prerogative of Treasury Board with respect to that fund and alert Parliament in a prompt and appropriate way about how the government is spending that money?

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2015]

Mr. Chair, I have a few questions for the hon. President of the Treasury Board with respect to the allocations and estimates for the contingency fund.

I have a question about some of the spending that was made to date out of that contingency fund, particularly the biggest envelope, which was the AECL spending out of that contingency.

Do the spending and the costs associated with the privatization of operations represent an expansion of services covered under the contract, or do they represent a revision of costs for services already under contract?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, December 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for a moment on the theme of the hon. member's speech, seniors. We know it is important, if seniors want to retire in dignity, to have an adequate, reliable income. We in the NDP know that the expansion of the Canada pension plan is the best way to ensure that all Canadians, no matter their income bracket, retire with that income.

I wonder if in light of those facts the hon. member would urge his colleagues to stop misrepresenting an expansion of the CPP as a payroll tax when it is part of the wage package that Canadians work for every day, so that they can retire with dignity.