House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was particular.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as Liberal MP for Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte (Newfoundland & Labrador)

Won his last election, in 2011, with 57% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Business of Supply February 8th, 2011

Madam Speaker, again, small- and medium-sized businesses are scheduled for a tax cut and we support that tax cut.

We do not support it for the large corporations, the ones that have far more ability and flexibility to pay a reasonable portion of the national tax base. We do not feel it is the right time to actually make sure they pay one of the lowest tax rates anywhere on the planet. We feel they have a responsibility.

I will say this about the folks at the Newfoundland and Labrador Manufacturers & Exporters Association. Whenever I talk to them, they all say to me that one of the biggest issues we face as a country is a ballooning national deficit and a growing national debt. They tell me that one of the biggest threats to their members and to the economy of Canada is that the government is not dealing with that. One way to deal with it is by getting revenue from large multinational corporations to help pay that debt. It is pretty simple.

Business of Supply February 8th, 2011

Madam Speaker, this is an interesting debate. Perhaps this is the time to re-ground it a bit. The government would like to create the perception among Canadians that this is about stopping the tax cut for all companies and all businesses. It is not.

Small and medium-sized businesses, which are the engine of growth of the economy of our country, will enjoy generous tax breaks supported by the Liberal Party of Canada. In the very title of this debate, this is about tax breaks for large multinational corporations at a time when the taxation rates for those large multinational corporations is at the lowest it has ever been, one of the lowest regimes anywhere in the G8, which the government itself points out.

This debate is a very timely one. We are also having it at a time when we are discussing the fact that Canada has a $56 billion annual deficit this year. According to the government's statistics, numbers and prophecies, it will have this deficit for the next six years. Every chamber of commerce I have ever spoken to always tells me that one of the greatest issues threatening the economic stability of its members and of the provinces those members represent, and of the country, is this massive national debt, which is accumulated through annual deficits year after year. The chambers of commerce always tell me that we must tackle the deficit. When I hear from chambers of commerce, that is their one primary piece of advice.

When we deal with the stimulus and when we talk about the recession, much of the stimulus money the government brought forward went to whom? It went to large multinational corporations, which the Conservatives feel are the genuine engine of the economy of Canada, not small and medium-size enterprises. They do not want to get the information out there that small and medium-size businesses deserve a tax cut and that it is supported by the Liberal Party of Canada. They want to reflect that it is all corporations.

The Conservative Party of Canada has earned, and earned well, the name “the party of big business”. Every time there has been an opportunity to serve the people of Canada, to serve consumers, to serve and to provide support to working class people the Conservatives have failed.

We try to bring in legislation and procedures to protect consumers who are airline passengers. Who makes sure that big business rules the day and consumers do not get a chance? It is the Conservative Party of Canada.

The Conservative Party says that it needs to protect people, that it needs to protect the food supply. Who ensures that does not happen? The Conservative Party of Canada. Who ensures that big business rules the day and controls the public agenda of the Conservative government? It is big business.

We are saying very clearly that we have a problem on our hands, created by the government. We have a $56 billion deficit this year. A lot of the reason why we have that deficit is because there was a lot of stimulus money that was given to big business. Why not ask it to pay back a reasonable portion of that money through reasonable taxation? The Conservatives say no. Why? Because they are the party of big business, not of people, not of small and medium-size businesses, not of working class people.

Let us be clear. When it comes to making a decision between people and the profits of large multinational corporations, the Conservatives are picking the large multinational corporations. It shows in the record time and again.

We have a $56 billion deficit this year. According to the government's own numbers, we are going to have a deficit for the next six years.

Picture this. We have been a confederation for over 144 years. In that entire period of 144 years, we fought two world wars. We sent our men and women to Korea to fight a war there. We sent peacekeepers all around the globe. We financed a chain of post offices right across the entire country. We built a transportation system right across the entire country. We built a railroad right across the entire country. We did big things.

The entire deficit, the debt of Canada over 140 years of Confederation, was $500 billion. It will be $56 billion in one year under the government. It is unbelievable the Conservatives would now say that it is the people who have to pay exclusively for that deficit.

What do the Conservatives do? There is an opportunity to ask large corporations to pay a reasonable amount of tax, to contribute a reasonable amount of money to pay off some of that deficit the Conservative government has dug us into.

However, no, the Conservatives government will cut the pensions of seniors. Because there is an opportunity to shave a few bucks off the pensions of seniors, the government will cancel their eligibility for the guaranteed income supplement and lower Canada pension plan benefits for those who want to retire at the age of 60. The government wants to ensure that those people pay for its expenses. That is the Conservative Government of Canada, that is the Conservative Party of Canada in action, the party of big multinational business. It is rightfully earning the title that it is the government, the party of big business exclusively.

Can the Conservatives defend themselves about it? No. They simply go on with a rant about how if they do not do this, the sky will fall.

If there were a real problem, the Conservatives should have said that they would cut corporate taxes to the level they were in 2008. However, they would not have done that because they denied there was a recession back in 2008 as well as denied they would be in deficit. They denied that the circumstances would ever change back in 2008.

They changed pretty abruptly because not only did the Conservatives then say that the country was in a massive deficit and recession, they spent $56 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money to try to get out of the situation they had denied two short years ago.

There is an alternative. The alternative is supported by the Liberal Party of Canada and many on this side of the House. We all have a responsibility to try to tackle this deficit, to provide reasonable services and programs to the people of Canada, to ensure stability of seniors' pensions, to ensure our children have a reasonable opportunity for an education. That comes from one place and one place only: reasonable taxation and reasonable expenditures of that taxation.

The government does not want large corporations to have to bear a reasonable burden the same as every other citizen of Canada must bear to provide those things. The Conservatives do not feel large corporations should have to bear any amount of responsibility to encourage the innovation agenda by actually contributing to national science and technology. They do not feel as though there is any need whatsoever to provide one modicum of stability to the pensions of our seniors.

What do the Conservatives do? They simply write off $25 billion in an income trust fiasco, a double-cross. They write off the pensions of seniors by secretly changing the rules to the GIS eligibility. Then they cut the pensions of those people who want to retire, based on the rules they understood would be there, at the age of 60. They reduce their pensions to just 64% of what they normally would have been. That is down considerably from what the rules were before.

When the Conservatives spend their $120 million a year on advertising, talking about programs of the Government of Canada, do we hear one word about that in the advertising? Do we hear that the Conservative action plan is to cut the Canada pension plan for those who receive benefits at the age of 60? Not one word.

That is why this has to be spoken about in the House. People have to be informed that the Conservative Party of Canada is the party of big business and that will not change any time soon.

Business of Supply February 8th, 2011

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I believe your words are very timely and very appropriate for a little decorum. It is our responsibility to provide that to the House and to Canadians. Will your words apply to the members of the Conservative Party as they begin their deliberations for Standing Order 31s this afternoon and beyond?

I understand the Conservative Party likes to attack particular leaders and particular MPs in the House, challenging their integrity. Will those words echo this afternoon I wonder? I doubt it.

Points of Order December 10th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, during the course of my questions, I referred to documents that were drafted and distributed by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. They are indeed documents called functional guidance and policy procedures. There is also a service delivery directorate that I referred to during the course of my questions.

I will ask for the unanimous consent of this House to table those documents, noting that what the parliamentary secretary said in his answer is not actually revealed in these documents whatsoever. There is a problem of fact in the parliamentary secretary's answer.

I now ask this House for unanimous consent to table those documents I referred to during—

Points of Order December 10th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, I have a second point of order.

Points of Order December 10th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, it is the practice and convention of the House to seek unanimous consent for the production or tabling of papers referred to during question period.

During the course of debate on pensions over the last number of weeks, I have attempted to table in the House, for the benefit of all members, various papers that have been brought into my possession. I have referred to these papers during question period and they have formulated much of the basis of many of my questions to the government. They actually indicate that there has been no change whatsoever in federal public pension policy except to deny seniors pension benefits should they cash out their RRIFs for emergency circumstances.

The parliamentary secretary, during the course of today's question period, referred to a point of which members should take note. He said that the previous policies, or the current policies, on the administration of public pensions and the eligibility rules surrounding the guaranteed income supplement, were indeed cancelled.

It is common knowledge of all members who understand the administrative practices of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada that in order for those policies to be cancelled, specific documents would have to be assigned or distributed to Service Canada employees. Those documents are called functional guidance and policy procedures. Those written documents are formal documents that describe the government's policies.

In order for the parliamentary secretary's statements to be accurate, there would have to be a written record of that decision through the functional guidance and policy procedures documents.

Would he now table those documents in the House so that all Canadians could actually see whether or not there is a shred of truth to what the parliamentary secretary has said?

Pensions December 10th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, according to Service Canada's own pension call centre, the pension cuts are definitely not cancelled.

Just this morning, a pensioner from my riding called the 1-800 line and was told by Service Canada staff that no instruction had been given to revert pension eligibility rules to the old rules, nor had any instruction been given to any staff member to reassess and approve anyone already rejected.

Unless there is something very dishonest the minister has to hide, why does the government not table a copy of the exact pension rule instructions in the House today?

Pensions December 10th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, the Scrooge responsible for the cuts in seniors' pensions told the House that the cuts are now cancelled, cancelled, cancelled. In today's Globe and Mail, the minister's own spokesman, Ryan Sparrow, confirms that the cuts are really just on ho, ho, hold.

According to Sparrow, the government has yet to figure out if it will ever be able to cancel, cancel, cancel these cuts. The minister's statements seem to get richer and richer while the seniors get poorer and poorer.

When will the government finally, formally, honestly and legitimately fix these cuts?

Seniors December 9th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, the minister can misinform the House all she wants. These documents spell out exactly what is happening within her department today. It is business as usual at Service Canada. Make an emergency withdrawal of RRIF savings; lose the GIS in return. Contrary to what was promised, there has been absolutely no directive to re-evaluate anyone previously turned down. The secret May 17 policy still stands. The minister has given one directive, however; all future GIS applications are indefinitely to be buried in the mailroom so that this truth could not be leaked out.

What is worse, a lie or a cover-up?

Seniors December 9th, 2010

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told the House the policy of denying GIS benefits for seniors who make emergency withdrawals from their RRIF has been reversed, not put on hold but cancelled outright.

The House has been given false information. Internal documents I have obtained, issued to Service Canada processing staff on November 26 and 30, confirm that the May 17 policy to cut GIS benefits still stands and still is the policy of the Government of Canada today.

How do the Prime Minister and the minister explain their earlier statements?