Irene Mathyssen

[Income Tax Act, March 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member from the government caucus talks about all that the Liberals are doing. I do not think so. We are still waiting over here. There has been a whole lot of talk in a chamber filled with thunderous noise and all kinds of assertions, but I have not seen anything tangible.

The reality is that when we look at Bill C-2, we see very clearly that it is rewarding those who have the highest incomes. Those who earn $45,000 or less are not benefiting. How on earth is this construed anywhere as a positive step in helping Canadians?

[Income Tax Act, March 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her invitation. I would counter by saying that I hope that the Greens will join New Democrats, because we have been talking about the importance of income equality for years and years.

I think that a guaranteed livable income would be a very important step in making sure that those in our communities who have given so much, the seniors, the veterans, the working families, receive the kind of supports that allow them to contribute to our economy.

One of the fallacies in all of this is that somehow these are folks who are simply on the receiving end of government benevolence. They are the backbone of this country and make this country strong. They are the ones who are providing, and we need to acknowledge that.

[Income Tax Act, March 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I was here during those Conservative years, and without a doubt, in all of the Conservatives' so-called help for Canadians, they missed out a whole lot of people.

They did not help women. They put women at a great disadvantage, and they certainly did not help seniors when they raised the age of eligibility for OAS/GIS to age 67. They did not bring in any kind of socially progressive legislation or policies that really would have made a difference to people in our communities.

There was no national housing program. There was no child care. It was all simply a matter of throwing around money, and most of the money landed in the laps of those who did not need it. I would not call that tax fairness by any stretch.

[Income Tax Act, March 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important bill. Tax fairness has been an NDP concern for decades. Unfortunately, I am not at all convinced that Bill C-2, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, provides the fairness that Canadians have done without for quite some time.

I will begin by quoting from the Liberal Party's election campaign platform. The Liberals told us that they would give middle-class Canadians a tax break by making taxes more fair: “When middle class Canadians have more money in their pockets to save, invest, and grow the economy, we all benefit.”

However, there is a problem here. The Liberal definition of middle class seems to be a moving target. Worse, that vagary seems to be intentional. It wins votes, but at the same time it absolves them of accountability. It leaves us with many questions.

Which Canadian workers fall into the category of middle class? Let us look at the numbers. MoneySense estimates for 2013, based on Statistics Canada data, are that an individual Canadian earning an income between $23,000 and $37,000 annually makes more than the poorest 40% of Canadians and less than the richest 40%. It is reasonable, then, to assume that if one sits in a wage range where the number of Canadians making more and less is equal, one falls in the middle, a middle which at the top end, using this definition, is just under $37,000. In fact, the Liberal tax proposal excludes anyone making less than $45,000. In other words, this tax reform excludes the lowest 60% of wage earners. However, as I pointed out, the Liberal definition of middle class is a little vague.

Let us give the Liberals the benefit of the doubt and look at Canadians with an annual income falling between $48,000 and $62,000 per year. The tax benefit now kicks in at a whopping $50.

As an aside, and because the bill also proposes a rollback in the TFSA limit, it may be sad and somewhat surprising to learn that the claims of the previous minister of employment, the member for Carleton, turned out to be inaccurate when he said that 60% of individuals contributing the maximum amount to their TFSAs had incomes of less than $60,000 in 2013. Were they middle class? Also, for those income earners, the additional $50 tax benefit, or 96¢ a week, does not amount to much. With that increase to one's take-home pay, they would have to wait two weeks just to buy themselves a double-double.

It seems to me that except for the fact that the Conservative Party leader seems to have had a change of heart and is now aligning herself with the 99%, the old Liberal-Tories same old story adage holds true here again today. Under the current Prime Minister's plan, the highest 30% of Canadian income earners are the main beneficiaries of this legislation while the wealthiest 10% pocket most of the money. One would think that an income tax deduction designed for the middle class should actually benefit a larger proportion of Canadians.

A federal tax system is put into place in order to create and maintain an equal and just society, to provide essential services for Canadians, and to ensure that not one of us is left behind. It is the vehicle of a strong social democracy. I would like to suggest that the plan should be sustainable. New Democrats know that is possible. How can the Liberals justify this change when it will result in a total revenue loss of $8.9 billion between now and 2021?

We have an opportunity to effect real change for the people who need it most, and, in doing that, everyone benefits. Unfortunately, the tax change proposed by the Liberals does not even come close.

Why not aim higher? Why not make changes that would ensure that no Canadian lives in poverty?

New Democrats know that we do not have to get bogged down in the definition of who is middle class to see that Canadians are being left behind as a result of Conservative and Liberal government inaction. The gutting of our manufacturing sector and the loss of well-paying jobs and stable work has affected the economy and the lives of people in London, Ontario and all of Canada for decades. New Democrats understand this reality and know that we can do better. The fact that we have Canadians living in poverty is shameful. The income gap is growing and it becomes increasingly difficult for families to find accessible, affordable housing, and child care, health care, and education.

In their effective opposition, the New Democrats have proposed a number of realistic measures to help families struggling to make ends meet: a national child benefit supplement; guaranteed income supplement; $15-a-day child care for all Canadian families; and reinstatement of the labour-sponsored tax fund credit, to name just a few. The NDP understands the reality of the middle- and lower-income earners of this country.

If the country were to reduce the tax rate for Canadians earning less than $45,000 a year by just 1%, from 15% to 14%, 83% of those people, some nine million Canadians, would benefit. The cost difference would be minimal and could be easily recovered with a very slight increase of one half percentage point to the corporate tax rate. The New Democrats' proposal makes sense in dollars and cents terms. Our proposal would also enable the government to increase the working income tax benefit, which has proven to be very effective for low-income workers, and put more money back into local economies.

As tomorrow is International Women's Day, let us talk a bit about equity.

We know that creating equity for workers with the lowest incomes benefits women. Federal tax policy is structured such that the ratio of profit between women and men is 60-40, more or less. It favours those with higher incomes, and since men by and large earn higher incomes than women, they are advantaged and women are disadvantaged under the current taxation regimes. This disadvantage follows them from the time they enter the workforce to retirement, as women on average fall more often into the category of low-wage earners and since those benefits are often calculated based upon annual income, which is more likely to be part-time, precarious, or interrupted in order for women to raise children.

As members can see, tax cuts to the lowest tier of Canadian income earners, such as those proposed by the NDP, would not only benefit those workers and the communities but would also represent a small and vital step toward gender equality.

The NDP has always worked for seniors. I am very proud to say that we are the only party that has a national strategy on aging, and I am thankful to my staffer, Tara Hogeterp, who worked diligently in the last Parliament, with the aid of our NDP research staff team, to bring that strategy to the public.

We do not believe that an increased TFSA limit is the solution for lifting nearly 200,000 seniors out of poverty, so we support the government's proposal to amend it. We fought against the Conservatives' reckless decision to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67. We proposed to increase funding for the guaranteed income supplement by more than $400 million.

It seems to me that the government is missing an important opportunity here to create fair and equal taxation systems that would benefit all Canadians, missing an opportunity to fulfill one of its election promises. It makes me wonder whether it ever had any intention of doing so in the first place.

Instead of making smoke-and-mirror changes to tax policy that would not benefit anyone but copywriters, why not create a system that would actually serve the Canadian population and work toward real sustainable fairness and equity?

In doing so, the government would be able to say that election promises do matter. That would be a remarkable and refreshing change.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, we in the NDP stand by what we believe is going to be the solution for this situation.

In terms of the government acquiring $54 billion by the Liberals and $3 billion by the Conservatives, this money is owed to workers, and we would like to see it returned.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I have to tell a story, which I perhaps have told before. In 1997, then prime minister Jean Chrétien gave a speech at a $250-a-plate luncheon to those very well placed in society, such as business corporations and those in the industry sector. He said, “You have slain the deficit. You are wonderful, you have slain the deficit that this country had.” That was not quite true. The deficit was certainly lower, but it was not that bunch who slew it, it was the workers of this country, because $54 billion was stolen from the employment insurance account that those workers and employers had diligently put aside so that workers could benefit.

I have some concerns and this motion is absolutely directed toward the government. We are saying it should live up to its obligations and help the people of this country.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, when I talk about the fact that I remember Liberal promises of the past, I remember the red books of 1993, 1997, 2000, and 2003. The Liberals promised all kinds of things. In 1997, they promised that pharmacare was going to exist by January of 1998. They promised child care. They promised all kinds of supports for workers, and they never delivered.

I have this very terrible feeling that as this budget unfolds, we are going to see a pulling back, like we saw in the 13 years of Liberal government, a pulling back from the promises that Canadians depended on and believed in. As my colleague says, they signal left and then turn right.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for North Island—Powell River.

While it is an honour to rise in the House today in support of this motion, I cannot say that I am happy; rather, I am concerned, disheartened, and angered by the repeated abuse and neglect of our employment insurance program, which is one of Canada's key social programs, a cornerstone of our social democracy, and an important part of our social safety net. That abuse and neglect makes this motion brought forward by the member for Jonquière very necessary.

We have experienced nothing but lip service and empty promises on the part of Liberal and Conservative governments who conveniently forget their promises as soon as they are in power, by restricting access to benefits for vulnerable Canadians and using the funds, built from the premiums of workers and employers, like a cookie jar that they can raid in order to continue corporate pandering and give the illusion of a balanced budget.

Let me remind members of the proud social democratic roots that are the foundation of our country, the foundation of programs like employment insurance in Canada, which were created to ensure fairness, equity, and that no one is left behind.

A social democratic society provides balance in a capitalist economy with the recognition that some core values, such as access to decent employment, health care, affordable housing, education, pensions, food, and union representation, among others, are not commodities to be marketed away at the whim of the corporate or government elites.

It was a Canadian, John Humphrey, who drafted the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948. It is a declaration that was subsequently enshrined in international law in 1976. I should add that it is a law that was and is endorsed by every province in this country.

In his autobiography, Humphrey was clear about the centrality of social and economic rights to the lives of ordinary people, and he stressed that other human rights have no meaning without them. This is the proud legacy we hold as Canadians; and the foundation of institutions, such as our employment insurance program, was created in the spirit of that legacy. We must not let the government tell us it cannot be done.

In a lecture on the future of social democracy by the Hon. Ed Broadbent in November 2015, he pointed out that the most stable and robust economy that the U.S. has ever experienced was in the 1960s, a period in which social programs were strongest in that country. When we think about it, this is truly what trickle-down economics should be, because that economic stability, a period in which the U.S. GDP was strongest, was the result of progressive policies and social programs implemented by Franklin Delano Roosevelt following the Great Depression and World War II.

Equal societies improve outcomes for everyone. A strong EI system in Canada not only benefits those whose employment has been interrupted, but it benefits dependent family members and children who are able to remain well fed, clothed, and adequately housed. It benefits the local economies, because even unemployed workers have money to spend in their community.

Our motion today calls upon the government to honour its campaign promises and throne speech commitment to strengthen the employment insurance system by taking immediate action to do the following: one, create a universal qualifying threshold of 360 hours for employment insurance, regardless of the regional rate of unemployment; two, immediately repeal the harmful reforms of the previous government, including those that force unemployed workers to move away from their community and take lower-paying jobs, and those that eliminated the extended EI benefits pilot program to help seasonal workers; and three, protect the employment insurance account to ensure that the funds are only spent on benefits for Canadians, including training, and are never again used to boost the government's bottom line. We certainly saw that from the Conservatives and the Liberals.

In my community of London, Ontario, the unemployment rate is 5.8%. This is a bit of good news for a region that has been very hard hit in the last five years, but we cannot forget that this region has long been hard hit by the loss of well-paid and stable manufacturing jobs as a result of government's historical refusal to insulate our economy from globalization. It is becoming harder and harder for those who have not found a stable, lasting job to get help when they need it.

Currently in London, workers need a staggering 700 hours to qualify for employment insurance benefits. That amounts to more than four consecutive months of full-time work. Sadly, in a world where precarious, temporary or short-term contract jobs dominate the job market, many people find themselves in jobs that only last 90 days, leaving workers a full month short of eligibility for EI.

Let me tell the House about the situation faced by one of my constituents. Steve completed his training program last year, having returned to school to retrain as a machine operator. He successfully secured an apprenticeship and put his new-found skills to work over the summer and through the fall. He was laid off recently and did not qualify for unemployment because he fell 17 hours short of qualifying for EI benefits. Steve has always been a hard worker. He contributes to society. He pays his taxes. Now, as he has been unable to find any sort of job, he is left to live on social assistance of $590 a month, much less than he would have been eligible for on employment insurance.

Steve is an example of why we need a 360-hour eligibility standard. If Steve is lucky enough to locate work, there is a good chance in today's economy that it will be a low-wage, temporary, or contract job. Even apprenticeships are precarious and all the retraining possible does not help workers who have taken the initiative to retrain themselves but remain ineligible for EI.

Another constituent, Chris Gerrits, wants this House to know about his wife whose employment was interrupted because she required two major surgeries in the past year. She went back to work between surgeries, and as a result, has been left without an income since August because she was not able to work enough hours between surgeries to qualify for further benefits.

These people are contributing to the EI program. In both cases they have contributed for many, many years before needing to turn to EI for help, only to find that the help was not there when it was needed. These are the people our current system is failing, and this is the reason we stand here today in this House calling for reform.

The sad reality for Canadian workers today is the erosion of full-time, permanent, and well-paid work, and the need for people to work two, three, even four jobs in order to make ends meet. More and more Canadians must contend with precarious work conditions because our market cannot or will not provide better. We cannot ignore the fact that an intersectional analysis of this phenomenon reveals that subsections of workers, such as women, young people, seniors, immigrants, indigenous people, and disabled people are most vulnerable to the effects of precarious work.

According to the parliamentary budget officer, many Canadians who are not receiving EI have been unemployed for more than a year or were employed in precarious work that made it difficult for them to accumulate enough hours to qualify.

The New Democratic Party of Canada believes that higher levels of employment, gender and economic equality, social rights, civil liberties, and environmental economic sustainability can be achieved in this system where government plays a major role. That role is to strengthen social programs, ensuring their sustainability in order to fuel a thriving, robust economy.

Sadly, the legacy of Liberal and Conservative governments has been to weaken social programs such EI. The systemic disregard of previous governments also ignores the reality that social programs provide infrastructure for a healthy economy. We have seen Liberals and Conservatives drastically slash access to employment insurance, leaving a majority of Canadians without benefits. This is simply not acceptable.

I hope this new government is listening and is ready to act instead of giving old promises. I have seen promises. I remember red books in the past.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for pointing out in such a succinct way how we have heard a lot of promises and very little, virtually nothing, in terms of real action.

I wonder if she would comment on the fact that this mission has not been sanctioned or mandated by either the United Nations or NATO. That is a serious problem with respect to Canada's role. Are we humanitarians, are we concerned about what is happening to people, or are we just blindly going along with a U.S.-led mission?

[International Trade, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, he should tell that to the trade officials.

Liberals think that we can consult Canadians without even letting them know what the TPP would do. It gets worse. Liberals say they will review the temporary foreign worker program, but fail to mention that the TPP would create new loopholes to make it easier for companies to bring in foreign workers.

How do they expect to fix the broken temporary foreign worker program while they ram through a trade deal that would create new loopholes?