Erin Weir

[Tax Avoidance, April 14th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, since I have only a few minutes, I would like to focus on three key questions: what is the problem; how big is the problem, and what, if anything, is the government doing about it?

What is the problem? We need to talk about what tax rates are actually in effect in Barbados on international business companies. What we find is that on the first $5 million U.S. of profit the tax rate is 2.5%. That used to go down to a tax rate of 1%. However, as of 2013, Barbados has cut that all the way down to 0.25%. A quarter of a percentage point on profits over $15 million a year is what international companies pay in Barbados, so when the Conservative member for Brantford—Brant or the Liberal member for Sudbury give us these textbook explanations about avoiding double taxation, we have to talk about what is really happening in Barbados.

Certainly it makes sense that if a Canadian company actually pays a decent amount of tax somewhere and then repatriates profits back home it does not again pay Canadian tax on that same money, and fair enough. However, is the position of the Conservatives and the Liberals in this debate that when a Canadian company pays a tax rate of 0.25% in Barbados that is good enough, that the company has paid its fair share of tax and it should not owe any more Canadian tax on that money? It seems that is what we heard from the previous speakers.

There is absolutely a very serious problem of Barbados being a tax haven and it really does not make sense to exempt profits repatriated from that country from Canadian tax.

The next question is, how big a problem is it? Maybe there is a little loophole there, but if Canadian companies are not really taking advantage of it, we would not worry. The member for Mount Royal tried to suggest that there are all kinds of different tax havens out there, so why focus on Barbados. I will tell him why. If we look at Statistics Canada's figures on foreign direct investment positions, we find that most of Canada's foreign direct investment is in the United States, as one would expect, but the second-largest Canadian foreign direct investment position in the world is in Barbados at $71 billion. Why is that? Barbados is a pretty small country. Its GDP is something like $5 billion Canadian, so why would we be parking $71 billion in an economy of that size?

We have not heard an answer to that this evening. I think it is obvious that Barbados is just being used as a tax shelter. Why would Canadian companies be investing more in Barbados than, say, in the United Kingdom, the third-largest country for Canadian foreign direct investment? The United Kingdom, of course, has an actual economy and there are things there that corporate Canada might actually want to invest in.

There is a really big issue with Barbados. It is not to say there are not other tax havens, but clearly, Barbados is the biggest tax haven being abused by corporate Canada. We have to start somewhere and it makes sense to start with the biggest part of the problem. That is exactly what this excellent motion from my colleague, the member for Joliette proposes.

The third question that we need to address here is, what is the government doing about this very serious and very large problem? There was a lot of talk in speeches from the Liberals about all the good measures in the budget to deal with tax evasion. Indeed, the budget documents use the term “tax evasion” about a dozen times. It even uses the term “tax avoidance” about half a dozen times. A word that does not appear in the budget at all is “Barbados”. We are going to fight tax evasion without even talking about the largest source of tax evasion and tax avoidance. That is a very major problem, and that is the reason why members of the House need to vote in favour of the motion presented by my colleague from Joliette.

[Canada Labour Code, April 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise as a seconder of this private member's bill, Bill C-234.

In the debate about a previous government bill, Bill C-4, government members often spoke about restoring balance to Canadian workplaces. We in the NDP were happy to support that legislation, because Bill C-4 did restore balance to certification and decertification. However, we need to be concerned not only about the right to join a union, but also about the right to bargain collectively.

An essential component of balance in collective bargaining is that in the rarer cases where this process breaks down, both sides bear a cost. Employers do without labour while employees must do without their wages. That puts pressure on both sides to keep negotiating to try to find a solution.

The use of replacement workers, or scabs, destroys that balance by allowing the employer to continue functioning as though there is no labour dispute. We have had far too many cases in Canada of employers demanding severe concessions, locking out workers or provoking a strike and then using scabs rather than negotiating in good faith. One problem with replacement workers is that they can be used to prolong labour disputes.

Another problem with replacement workers is that they increase the likelihood of violence. The process of moving scabs across a picket line into the workplace inevitably puts the employer's security forces in confrontation with the picketers. That is a recipe for bad things. However, even where replacement workers are not actually used, the implicit threat of scabs gives management an unfair advantage in bargaining.

There is a very simple solution to all of these problems: to prohibit replacement workers during legal strikes and lockouts. This is not a new or theoretical solution. Two provinces already have anti-scab legislation and the longevity of anti-scab legislation in those jurisdictions is a testament to its success and to its workability. Quebec has had anti-scab legislation for nearly 40 years. British Columbia has had anti-scab legislation for nearly a quarter century. In both of these provinces, anti-scab legislation was introduced by social democratic governments, but importantly, it has been continued by subsequent right-wing governments. At the provincial level, parties of both the left and the right have accepted anti-scab legislation.

What about at the federal level? What did we hear from the Liberal Party? The member for Cape Breton—Canso tried to tell us that the existing provisions in the Canada Labour Code, which do not actually prohibit replacement workers, constituted some kind of appropriate balance. However, I have already explained why the real balance involves pressure on both sides during a strike or lockout. The real way to achieve balance is not to have replacement workers in the equation at all.

The sense in which the member for Cape Breton—Canso considers this a balance is that we have two sides, unions and employers. Unions obviously would like to have anti-scab legislation and employers would not want to have it. He does not think we can make a change without consensus.

That is kind of a disingenuous argument, because the current situation confers a huge advantage to employers, so of course employers will never voluntarily agree to give that up. It is for parliamentarians to make a balanced assessment, and that is exactly what this private member's bill proposes.

We have also heard the argument from the member for Cape Breton—Canso that this is the wrong process, that we do not want to look at one little element of the Canada Labour Code, that we need to do a big tripartite review of the whole thing. Well I say, bring it on. There has not been a review of the Canada Labour Code since 2006.

The member for Cape Breton—Canso kept saying that we could not do this without a big review of the Canada Labour Code. Let us have that review of the Canada Labour Code. I think that would be very much welcomed on this side of the House. That is not really a good argument not to adopt this legislation. Let us go ahead with the review.

I think the main argument, though, from the member for Cape Breton—Canso is this notion that it is somehow inappropriate to put forward this proposal as a private member's bill. Leave it to the Liberal Party to turn a question of principle into a question of process.

The grain of truth in this argument is the idea that the previous Conservative government did abuse private members' bills to make changes to labour legislation without the same sort of scrutiny that would have been applied to government legislation. That is a criticism that one can make of a government; and if the present government wanted to put forward legislation to implement a ban on replacement workers, obviously, we in the NDP would support that legislation. The reason we are putting it forward as a private member's bill is that the Liberal government has not put it forward on the order paper. It missed the opportunity to do so in Bill C-4. The only way we have to put forward legislation is through private members' bills.

We heard the statement from the member for Cape Breton—Canso that this is introducing a change by the back door. It is not the back door. It is the only door to which the NDP has access. Therefore, yes, from a process point of view, one could criticize a government for sneaking things through with a private member's bill. One cannot criticize the third party for introducing legislation through a private member's bill, because that is the only way it can happen.

What did we hear from the Conservative Party in this debate?

The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, first, suggested that anti-scab legislation was inappropriate in the federal sector because the federal sector includes these strategic industries, these kinds of essential services.

The way to protect essential services is not to allow replacement workers. If there are specialized people off the job in telecommunications and that is causing a national emergency, the solution is not to bring in scabs. The solution is, hopefully, to negotiate some sort of essential service protocol with the union. If that is not possible, there is the possibility of back-to-work legislation under the Canada Labour Code.

The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent said, well, we don't want to spend all our time in Parliament passing back-to-work legislation, which is kind of a funny statement because the Conservatives were content to spend all kinds of time doing that in the last Parliament when they were in power. Every major strike or lockout in the federal sector during the previous Conservative government attracted back-to-work legislation from that party. Therefore, I do believe that comment is a little out of context.

One of the concerns that the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent raised was that anti-scab legislation could force employers to settle labour disputes quickly.

I would suggest that is a feature, not a bug, of this private member's bill, that we actually want to bring these disputes to a quick resolution. One of the problems with replacement workers is that they drag things out, and one of the benefits of this legislation is that it would speed things up.

We also heard an argument from the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent that there were more labour disputes in Quebec versus Ontario and that this is all the fault of anti-scab legislation.

I would suggest there is a whole bunch of other differences between Quebec and Ontario, including the higher rate of unionization in Quebec. I think the better comparison is what happened within Quebec when anti-scab legislation was passed, because actually it was passed in response to an extremely high level of very disruptive labour disputes in that province, and the introduction of anti-scab legislation led to a great reduction in the number of strikes and the amount of picket-line violence in Quebec. Therefore, I actually see this as a good model for the federal sector.

In conclusion, I urge members to support this private member's bill, which they are free to do because it is a private member's bill. They do not have to vote on party lines. This legislation would strengthen the right to strike while, at the same time, producing fewer, shorter, and less violent labour disputes.

[The Budget, April 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Edmonton West for his remarks. It has been a pleasure working with him on the government operations committee.

He is quite right to point to the hard economic times in Edmonton and that his city is very deserving of being included in the budget's extension of employment insurance benefits. Things are even worse in my province of Saskatchewan, which is not benefiting from the progressive policies of Rachel Notley's government. The last labour force survey from Statistics Canada showed that full-time employment in Saskatchewan had fallen by 2.4% over the past year, the largest drop of any province west of Prince Edward Island.

I wonder if the member for Edmonton West would agree that Regina and southern Saskatchewan also need to be included in the budget's extension of employment insurance benefits.

[The Budget, April 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat disappointed that the member for Edmonton Riverbend used his speech to take a shot at the Alberta NDP government for allegedly being a day or two late in critiquing the fact that the federal budget EI extension omitted Edmonton.

That strikes me as very interesting. In the question period following the budget, not a single one of the Conservative MPs who represent Edmonton, Regina, or southern Saskatchewan said anything at all about our regions being left out of this extension of EI benefits that were supposedly targeted to areas hit by the downturn in oil and gas. In fact, it was only the NDP that raised this issue and called for the inclusion of Edmonton, Regina, and southern Saskatchewan in this extension.

My question for the member would be this. Does he recognize that the previous Conservative government's cuts to employment insurance are a major part of what led to this situation in which a majority of unemployed Canadians, including in Alberta and Saskatchewan, are not receiving EI benefits at all?

[The Budget, April 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way provided a laundry list of measures in the budget for employment insurance, not all of which will come into effect until 2017. Despite those measures, the budget projects keeping spending on EI benefits below EI premium revenues for four of the next five years. Therefore, I would ask the member whether there is enough money there to make some further improvements to EI, such as including oil and gas-producing regions like Edmonton, Regina, and southern Saskatchewan in the temporary extension of EI benefits, which was supposedly intended as a response to the downturn in oil and gas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his eloquent remarks. He is a fellow new MP, and, of course, was not part of the previous Conservative government. However, he has often come forward in the House as an ardent defender of that government's record.

Therefore, my question is, if the Conservative position is to support collective bargaining rights for members of the RCMP, subject to a secret ballot certification process, why did the previous Conservative government not extend collective bargaining rights to members of the RCMP when the Canada Labour Code at that time did include a secret ballot certification process?

[Employment Insurance, March 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, today's EI numbers show just how hard cities like Regina and Edmonton have been hit. For weeks, the Liberals have been pledging help for Alberta and Saskatchewan. Yet, despite Liberal promises, the budget's only concession for regions hit by the collapse of oil and gas has been an extension of EI benefits; except, this measure excluded Edmonton, Regina, and southern Saskatchewan, where oil workers are being laid off.

Why does the budget's EI extension exclude Saskatchewan's oil patch?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan for his kind words about RCMP Depot, which was in his former riding and is now in my riding. I share his sense of pride in representing this iconic Canadian institution.

I would also pay tribute to the member's remarks about his father's role in building the steelworkers union in Saskatchewan. I have inherited some books signed by his father, from my time with that great organization.

It seems that the member is arguing that, because the Conservatives do not like the certification process in the Canada Labour Code, members of the RCMP should be denied any access to collective bargaining. That is kind of like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

If that actually is the Conservative position on this issue, I guess I would have to ask why the previous Conservative government did not extend collective bargaining rights to members of the RCMP when it had its preferred mode of certification in effect in the Canada Labour Code.

[Ethics, March 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, concerns have been raised about millions in federal funding for Regina's Global Transportation Hub. This crown corporation spent $21 million buying land at inflated prices from businessmen with cozy ties to the governing Sask Party. Two weeks ago, the President of the Treasury Board promised to look into this scandal. Even a former Sask Party MLA has called for a police investigation.

Will the minister now report what he found, and will he be referring this matter to the RCMP?

[Income Tax Act, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps members have seen the movie Groundhog Day. I started out my week by asking the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan a question about Bill C-2. I asked him whether he was concerned that a $10,000 contribution limit over time might allow the affluent to accumulate huge pools of tax-free investments. His response was that it was good to allow people to make contributions tax-free. However, there can be too much of a good thing.

In that spirit of Groundhog Day, I would like to ask the same question. At some point does the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan believe investment profits should be subject to tax?