House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2021, with 50% of the vote.
Public Service Labour Relations Act March 22nd, 2016
Madam Speaker, there are a number of exclusions from collective bargaining within this bill. I was wondering if the parliamentary secretary could shed some light on what exactly is excluded from bargaining under this bill and what the reasons are for excluding them.
The Environment March 10th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I think the parliamentary secretary and I can agree that the old process under the previous government was bad, and we agree on wanting to see a much better process.
The one thing she said that was of particular concern to me is that projects that were initiated and reviews that were initiated under the previous government may well continue under the same or a similar process and will not be subject to the exigencies of any new process, so I do worry about that.
I would like to hear tonight a commitment from the government that independent science will be a requirement of moving forward with this proposal, so that people in Winnipeg know that someone who is not working for TransCanada pipelines has looked at this project and has done whatever study needs to be done, and that they will have access to that science and to whatever recommendations come out of that study.
That is really what I am hoping we might be able to hear from the parliamentary secretary tonight.
The Environment March 10th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House tonight to follow up a question I asked the government on the new environmental assessment process it is building. I know this topic has been the subject of a lot debate in the House. The debate can sometimes get quite polemical when we start talking about pipelines and who should and should not be consulted.
I would like to boil it down to what I think is a very reasonable litmus test of the new process. It is an issue that is arising in and around Winnipeg as part of the energy east proposal. The current proposal on the books is to convert a section of pipeline east of Winnipeg between Hadashville and Falcon Lake. It is a bigger piece of the pipeline than that, but for the distance between Hadashville and Falcon Lake, the pipeline runs parallel to the city of Winnipeg's aqueduct. There is some concern that either a catastrophic or sustained low-level leakage of bitumen could contaminate the Winnipeg water supply.
What I am hoping to hear tonight is an acknowledgement by the government that a litmus test for its new process should be that Winnipeggers get independent scientific advice from that process on the safety of their water supply, if that proposal goes ahead. If it is not safe, then as part of the process, there should be recommendations on how to ensure the safety of Winnipeg's water supply from the project, if it does go ahead.
I would like to leave some of the polemics aside, draw attention to what I think is a very important issue, an important test for a new process, and hear the government acknowledge that this is a reasonable test and that whatever new process it develops will ensure, with independent science, the safety of Winnipeg's water supply.
Questions Passed as Orders for Returns March 9th, 2016
With regard to changes to the machinery of government made on November 4, 2015: (a) for each department that was changed, what is the cost of making those changes (i) in total, (ii) broken down by category of expense; and (b) for each agency, Crown corporation, board, commission, or foundation that has been placed under the authority of a different ministry than was the case in the previous administration, what is the cost of making that change (i) in total, (ii) broken down by category?
Business of Supply March 8th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I was surprised not to hear the member for Winnipeg North mention our home town of Winnipeg as he spoke about the aerospace industry.
He did allude to some job losses, and it was the case that under the previous government, we lost hundreds of jobs in Winnipeg because that government would not enforce the Air Canada Public Participation Act. I understand that member at that time was quite critical of the government for not being willing to enforce the act.
I wonder if the reason he did not mention our city is his shame for now sitting with a government that will not enforce that act. I wonder if he would now take this opportunity to absolve himself of that shame, stand in the House and call on his own government to enforce the act, and to stop talking about possibly changing the Act to let Air Canada even further off the hook.
Business of Supply March 8th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, the aerospace industry is obviously very important in Canada. It is not the kind of industry one can exit and then get back into later. Therefore, I think it is important that we show support for the aerospace industry.
We cannot really consider the motion outside of the larger question of a strategy for the aerospace industry in Canada. If the motion is meant to pit Toronto against Montreal, it completely forgets the western aerospace industry. If part of the point of the motion was to present cost-neutral, free, or costless things that the government could do in order to support the aerospace industry in Canada, one of those things would be to call on the government to enforce the Air Canada Public Participation Act.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary if she would stand in her place and express support for simply enforcing the Air Canada Public Participation Act. It is something the previous government did not do. We lost hundreds of jobs in aircraft maintenance in Winnipeg as a result of that, and we would like to see a change from the current government. However, so far, the language of the current government has not indicated that it is willing to do so. In fact, the Liberals seem to be considering changing the law to let Air Canada off the hook that the Conservatives did not pursue.
Income Tax Act March 7th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, Canadians made it very clear in the last election that there is an appetite for government to invest in infrastructure, whether physical or social infrastructure. However, I wonder about the wisdom of cutting government revenue to make those investments. Canadians are getting some money back in their pockets, but it is money the government is spending anyway and Canadian taxpayers then have to pay interest on it.
We saw that a little with the previous government too, where big deficits were already being run and taxes were being reduced. Taxpayers end up paying for the money they are getting back with interest. I just wonder about the wisdom of that.
Income Tax Act March 7th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member that I am concerned that as deficits mount for a Liberal government, it does look to cutting programs eventually as a way to make up for that shortfall. That is why we have proposed that it look at raising the corporate tax rate and closing tax loopholes for CEOs, and we have seen them starting to backpedal somewhat on that commitment, so I do share some of the member's concerns.
I would say that if we are to offer good and sustainable social programs that support families, we do need to ask that revenue question. That is something that the NDP has been willing to do. It is a harder conversation than promising the moon and then getting elected and sorting it out later, usually to the dissatisfaction of most Canadians. That is a conversation we are willing to have. I would urge the government to look at raising the corporate tax rate in order to make up for some of the shortfalls in its plan, and I look forward to further discussion at committee.
Income Tax Act March 7th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, it would be irresponsible to endorse a plan I have not seen. In the House we have been calling to see that plan. We keep being told that it is coming. However, until I see the details, I will not say one way or another whether it is something I would be willing to support.
I would urge the member or another member to stand up in the House today and give us the details of that plan so that we might better evaluate our support.
Income Tax Act March 7th, 2016
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on this bill today.
What has been most interesting about the debate on this bill to date has been the opportunity to drill down into an issue of contemporary Canadian political semantics. There was a time when we started to talk about the middle class that a lot of people felt this was sort of updating the language of standing up for working-class people and that when we talked about the middle class, we were talking about people who were going to work every day and working hard every day to bring home what they needed to be able to feed their family, pay for their home, and engage in some meaningful recreation after working hours as well.
That is where a lot of people felt the language of the campaign put forward by many parties, especially the governing party, was going when we were talking about the middle class. People felt the middle class meant people who were working hard every day to try to provide for their families.
We see an acknowledgement by the government sometimes that that is not quite what they mean by “middle class”. It has talked about the middle class and those working hard to join it. However, in fact, the way the government is defining the middle class through the tax cuts is to say, first of all, that they would only benefit people making over $45,000 a year, which already does not include 60% of Canadians going to work every day and trying to provide for their families.
Then the greatest benefit, of course, does not come at the bottom of that bracket, but at the top, so when we start talking about the people who are going to see the major benefit of this tax cut, it is plain to see that it is far more than 60% of Canadians who will not be seeing any real, substantial benefit from this tax break.
We have been talking about how we define the middle class. If we are trying to define in any sort of absolute way what that means vis-à-vis the majority of working Canadians, then I would say the government proposal really does fail to do anything for the middle class, understood as the large majority of Canadians who are going out and earning the median market wage for a lot of the work being done in Canada. The median salary of a Canadian worker is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $35,000 a year. That is not even close to qualifying for any benefit under the new Liberal tax plan.
We can define it aspirationally, as the Prime Minister sometimes does when he says it is the middle class and those working hard to join it. Maybe the implication is somehow that is more the focus or that we really need to capture all those people under the umbrella of “middle class”, even though they are living a life quite different life from those making $90,000, $100,000, $110,000, $120,000, who are the people in the middle of the bracket that the government has chosen to target.
If we are defining it aspirationally, then it is a mistake to say it is the class of people who need the most help. It is not. It is often implied by the government itself that the intention of the program is to provide help to those who need it the most, but if the middle class is going to be defined only aspirationally, then it would be a mistake to say that it is the class of people who need it most.
If it is defined absolutely, we are looking at the majority of working Canadians, and I would say that those are the people who do need help. If anyone needs extra help or extra resources in order to leverage more out of their work and create an acceptable living standard for their family, it is the people on the lower end of that scale, not the people on the higher end.
I find it a strange focus. I wish the government would be clear about the way in which it is going to go about defining the middle class and clarify whether it wants to speak directly to the majority of working Canadians or whether it is talking about some aspirational category. If that is the case, then the help is misplaced. We really want to be helping those who are trying to get into that category, and this tax package really has nothing to do with that.
I find that odd. We want to talk about how we provide real help to those who need it, those working families. If the Liberals are going to get away with defining “middle class” as being that upper end, a six-figure category, then we do need to rehabilitate the language related to “working class” in Canada, because the category of people we thought we were talking about when we were talking about the middle class clearly is not the category we are talking about if we listen to the government.
There is a whole group of people out there, 60% of the population, working for under $45,000. Those are the people on whom the efforts of government are best spent, both because there is a moral obligation to make sure that people who are putting in that work are getting a fair return for that work and are able to provide for their families and also because there is an economic argument.
It is the kind of economic argument that has been appropriated by the government in favour of those making around six figures. That argument really belongs with that 60% who are making $45,000 or less a year. The resources provided to them and the extra bit of spending money that could be provided to them, whether it is through tax relief or through a child care program that would do a better job, would relieve the actual dollars that are coming out of the pocket just the same as taxes are.
Child care is not optional for most working families in Canada, so the money that they spend on child care is no more an option than the money that is taken off their cheque every week for taxes. Providing relief on the cost of child care is meaningful and would put money back into the pockets of families. The benefit of this strategy is that it also means we could do a better job of making sure those services are available where they are needed.
We know that the market has not always been doing that in the most efficient way and that there is room for intervention there. There are many ways to put money back into the pockets of those families who need it the most—not the ones in which one or two earners are making $100,000 a year, but the ones who are making a median salary. We could do that with a child care program.
We could do it by providing relief on EI, because even families who might have benefited from these tax cuts because they were making $80,000 to $120,000 somewhere in the country in the trades are now unable to find work. Because of the change in commodity prices, their jobs no longer exist, and those families need relief right now.
It is why I was quite pleased with our opposition day motion to get the government to move as quickly on EI as it saw fit to move on this tax break, the main benefit of which is going to go to people already making six figures. It will not help the people who need it now. If the government asked what its priorities are and how it can move quickly to help those who need it most and how it is going to put money in the pockets of people who will spend it right away because they have to and need to, this would not fit the bill.
I am shocked that this is what we are debating and that it took an NDP opposition day motion to get urgent debate on EI reform in the House. We will be voting on that later today, and I would be pleased to see colleagues across the way stand in favour of that motion. It is much needed, and I would be remiss if I did not mention it, because the vote is today.
In the spirit of being constructive, we also put forward a different tax proposal. Investing in a national child care strategy is a better way to go and would accomplish a lot of what the Liberal government said it wants to accomplish through tax relief. We said, “Fine; the Liberals ran on a platform of tax cuts that are supposed to help the middle class, so let us play ball. Why do we not give a proposal that is in spirit the same thing, but would actually do a better job of realizing the objectives the Liberals set out in the campaign for tax relief?”
We proposed a reduction on the first bracket that would actually cover that 60% of Canadians earning below $45,000 a year. It is why we are looking to move the bill on to the committee stage to have it examined. I hope members opposite will see that as an opportunity to improve a plan that has misfired because it not helping those who need the help and is not helping those that the government in the election campaign implied it was going to be helping with tax relief.
We are looking to be constructive in the House. We think we have found a way to help the new government help itself. It is a busy time. There is a rush to get certain things through, and we hope that our reflections may assist the government in doing a better job of what it said it would do. We are voting in favour of the bill at second reading to get it to committee and have that full debate.