John Rafferty

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we know on this side of the House is that if we want to make this a fairer Canada, we have to make the gap smaller between the richest and the poorest in our country. That is what we should be working toward. However, what is happening now with the budget, and with what the Conservatives have been doing since 2006, is that they have made that gap wider, meaning poorer families in my riding, just as in the member's riding and right across Canada, are the ones who suffer when the governments increase tariffs and taxes.

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is a question of convenience for the Conservatives. If we raise tariffs in the country, it will cost Canadians more for those goods, and as far as I am concerned, that is a tax. It is a tax when the goods come across the border. It is an increase in price. We are talking about millions and millions of dollars, particularly right to the end of 2018.

There really is no difference. Taxes increase the costs to consumers. Tariffs increase the cost to consumers. In fact, if we look at it that way, the tariff would increase the cost of that piano I was just talking about, and then there would be even more tax on that piano because the price of that piano would be even higher. Canadians get hit all the way around with this big increase, in this budget.

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, he was speaking about credibility. I will not make any comment about it.

However let me just ask the member and the members of his government why they are against music and musicians. Why is there a new tax on pianos? We do not make pianos in our country anymore. Why would the Conservatives raise taxes on pianos? We are not protecting any Canadian industry, but they raised taxes on pianos to make it harder for families to have their kids take piano lessons. It just does not make any sense.

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this opposition day motion which is a very important one.

The core of the matter is what we see in budget 2013 is the Conservatives are raising taxes even though they promised Canadians that they would not.

I have a quote here from the Prime Minister who said, “As long as I will be prime minister...there will be no new taxes.” I assume that leadership conventions are not finished yet, and that there will be one on the other side of the House sometime before 2015, if he is in fact true to his word.

The Conservatives promised that there would not be any new taxes, but of course they are increasing taxes on a whole host of things. I will be mentioning some of them. There is even a new tax, HST on parking at municipal parking lots and at hospitals. People who go to visit a loved one or who go to the hospital for some service will now be paying HST on parking services. The list goes on. There are really two reasons, and I do not know if they have been touched upon during the debate today. The first question is, “Why are the Conservatives raising taxes?”

I will be sharing my time with the member for Newton—North Delta.

Why are the Conservatives raising taxes when they are cutting everywhere else? One would think that the Conservatives would not have to raise taxes because the cuts are so deep. I will use one example here. According to FedNor's website, $23.6 million less.

Last year, the Conservatives announced they were getting rid of some initiatives, including the LIC grant program. That used to provide up to $5,000 for non-profits, including municipalities. I know that one of our communities, Atikokan in my riding, took advantage of that grant to update their website to help promote business and their community.

Those things have all disappeared. The first question is, “Why are the Conservatives raising taxes when they are already making these cuts everywhere else?”

It also says on that site that there is a drop in funding for community economic development programs which are the core funding mechanisms for FedNor initiatives. Also, 20 people are going to lose their jobs. Why are the Conservatives raising taxes when they are cutting? This is just one example of a program that is being cut.

We have heard the Conservatives talking today and saying that they are not raising taxes, they are just making things more expensive for Canadians to buy. We have all heard the rhetoric from the government the last two and a half years, about that sort of thing. They call them taxes, so I do not know why they will not be honest with Canadians and tell them that these are in fact taxes when they raise the prices.

There is one thing that has not been talked about today, and I have been listening intently. For those of us who have a number of border communities, I have three border crossings in my riding, out-shopping is a big problem, particularly for small and medium-sized businesses in the riding. If these things become more expensive, and I am going to talk about “these things” in a minute, that will simply promote crossing the border to shop. It is counterintuitive to raise these taxes, particularly on the things that I am going to talk about. I will use one example, bicycles. We import about $125 million in bicycles every year from 72 different countries. Now the tariff will increase from 7.5% to 13%. It will cost Canadian cyclists between $5 million and $6 million a year. That is what the tariff or tax on bicycles is going to cost Canadian consumers.

For the second reason, I am going to counterpoint what I have just said. As I talk about the examples in this budget, I am going to counterpoint with actual examples of really inappropriate spending by the government.

I just need to take one area, and I am going to talk about the G8 legacy fund. The G8 legacy fund was $1.2 billion all together, and a significant portion of that was used by the President of the Treasury Board, the minister for the Treasury Board, to spend some money in his riding. I will talk about some of that spending right now, and then you, Mr. Speaker, can tell me whether this was really appropriate.

Let us begin with the famous gazebo. With some sidewalk upgrades, some landscaping and the gazebo, that came in at $745,000. By the way, if people watching or MPs would like to go and see this, it is at 15 Humphrey Drive in the township of Seguin. It is there, and people can see what $745,000 bought them. The point I am making is that if one does not cut and one spends money appropriately, one does not need to raise taxes.

Let us take another one, baby carriages. Nearly 90% of all baby carriages come from these countries with tariffs, so there would be a 3% tariff hike. That is a tax, and that 3% hike would cost Canadian consumers about $1 million annually. However, the President of the Treasury Board of course thought it was okay to pay for some signage in Muskoka Lakes and some sidewalks, decorative street lights, benches, waste receptacles and flower pots to a tune of $1,060,000. I am not sure that was really G8 legacy fund money. That money could have certainly counterbalanced the money the Conservatives need to bring in now by raising taxes.

Turning to school supplies, 61% of imported plastic school supplies are from these nations that now have new tariffs on them. There was a tariff before of 3% and now it is 6.5%. So these school supplies are now going to cost Canadian consumers $1.3 million a year. That is counterbalanced of course with some street lighting upgrades and new outdoor furniture for the town of Gravenhurst during the G8 legacy fund spending. That was $1,200,000. Is that appropriate spending?

Some other costs to consumers include wigs. Let us say that for perhaps medical reasons, people may need to buy wigs. Those wigs would now cost Canadian consumers $4.6 million more.

Plastic tableware and houseware—I guess plastic spoons and forks—would have a tariff or tax on them that would cost $11 million. However, the taxes would be raised because in the township of Burk's Falls there were some sidewalks and one electronic sign and public washrooms that cost $150,000. The town of Parry Sound got new sidewalks and trees, a welcome sign and some landscaping and a fountain too, at a cost of $1,321,750.

These figures I am giving members were not easy to find. It took us a long time to find these figures, and I am passing them on to everyone in this House and everybody who is watching on television because if we spend taxpayers' money appropriately we do not need to raise taxes, as the Conservatives would in this budget.

Let me talk about the iPod tax and that on MP3 players. The Canada Border Services Agency has written to at least one importer to indicate that the iPod touch 8GB would be subject to end-user verification in order to get a tariff exemption. Sony has said it is way more trouble than it is worth. So we would see those things increase.

I will give the grand total of the spending on the G8 legacy fund. I itemized a couple of things, but the grand total is $45,758,945, money spent inappropriately. This is one of the reasons that the government has to raise taxes, to make up for the shortfall.

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the member's comments. However, the crux of the matter is that consumers will be paying more for bicycles, baby carriages, school supplies, household goods, wigs, housewares, iPods and MP3 players, and the list goes on. There are at least 1,300 items on the list.

What is interesting is that the minister would not have even had to raise all of these taxes on Canadians if he had watched his own spending. I will give an example.

It was not easy to come up with these numbers because everything is somewhat hidden with the current government. However, the total that I have with respect to the G8 legacy fund money that the minister spent in his own riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka is $45,758,945. That is how much taxpayers' money he spent on his own riding. I will outline all of that spending for everybody in the House and those watching on television later today. It should be a good time, and I ask everyone to listen in.

My question to the member is this: when did he finally decide that it was okay for the President of the Treasury Board to spend $45 million of taxpayers' money in his own riding?

[Business of Supply, April 15th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right, particularly in the last part of what he said.

Governments have to make some choices. They can either raise taxes and tariffs, as the government has done in the budget, or they can spend money elsewhere.

As an example, something my staff and I have worked very hard on is going through all the points from this secretive government to find out exactly how much the President of the Treasury Board spent from the G8 legacy fund in his riding during that time. I will not go through all the items, but maybe I will have a chance later on to do that. I may be missing some, but it comes to $45,758,945 that was spent from the G8 legacy fund in his riding. If he had not done that, would he have had to raise taxes now? Would my friend comment on that?

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the government has a piecemeal approach to these sorts of things, and it is not just this bill but all kinds of other bills. I cannot speak on those before 2008, but almost every bill that has come before the House in this Parliament and the Parliament before are piecemeal, rather than having one comprehensive bill come forward and everybody is standing in this House when it comes time to vote.

If it were ever deserved by this government, I would be happy to say, “Thanks very much; that is a fabulous bill and I support it”. Unfortunately, the best I can do in this particular case of Bill C-15, and just about every other bill the government has put forward, is to say, “That is an interesting attempt from the Conservative government, but why did it not go that needed step further to make legislation of which we and all Canadians could be proud?”

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. As I said before, I know this member from Ajax to be a highly intelligent and very committed member of Parliament, but to answer his question, I have to remind him that we are not government yet. The time will certainly come in 2015 for Canadians to make that kind of decision.

A call for a wall-to-wall review was done in 2003, but it is 10 years later. Of course, the Conservative government has been here for most of that time, and the member is asking why it has not been done.

[Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act, March 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-15, which would amend the National Defence Act to strengthen military justice. This is following a couple of studies and papers put forward, one in 2003 and one in 2009. The 2009 report was of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

Among other things, the bill would provide greater flexibility in the sentencing process. It would provide for additional sentencing options. It would include absolute discharges for minor offences, intermittent sentences and restitution. It would modify the composition of a court martial panel in accordance with the rank of the accused person. It would modify the limitation period applicable to summary trials and would allow an accused person to waive the limitation periods. It would clarify the responsibilities of the Canadian Forces Provost Marshal and would make amendments to the delegation of the Chief of the Defence Staff's powers as the final authority in the grievance process.

As we heard earlier today, the New Democrats are supportive of this legislation because it would be a step forward. Unfortunately, and perhaps anticipating a question from the parliamentary secretary from Ajax—Pickering, why take one step when we could take two, three, four or more steps? It has been a pattern with the current government in legislation that comes forward. The member for Ajax—Pickering is a very intelligent and well-spoken man, and I am sure he understands more steps could be taken but is unwilling to take them. Perhaps in the question period we will have an opportunity to hear from the member about why he will not take that extra step.

For the most part, Bill C-15 would be a step in the right direction. However, as we have heard from other speakers, it could go further. Let me speak to a couple of amendments that are coming forward at report stage from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

There are two amendments, and although they are not perfect, they could be amendments that need to be discussed. Canadians expect us to be in this place, to work in committees and to make legislation the best it can possibly be. That means putting forward amendments. Sometimes the amendments are not perfect, but if an amendment is not perfect as put forward, it should be the responsibility of the committee, and in particular of the parliamentary secretary on that committee, to ensure that there could be a counter-amendment, or other amendments or things that could make the legislation better in almost every instance as it comes before the committee. Canadians expect us to do that. Therefore, I hope these amendments from the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, which I will briefly outline, will be considered in the light in which they were given, which is to improve the legislation.

The member put forward two amendments at report stage regarding proposed subsections 18.5(3) and 18.5(5) of the National Defence Act. Clause 4, which would add section 18.5 to the National Defence Act, would give the Chief of the Defence Staff authority to direct military police investigations. The Green Party's amendments would amend that section of the act, which the NDP targeted as problematic and attempted to amend without success during committee.

The second amendment put forward by the member is a measure that would increase the transparency of this problematic authority that would be given to the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff by Bill C-15. While this amendment would be an improvement, we strongly believe that granting the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff this authority could be a violation of maintaining the independence of the Military Police Complaints Commission, so we will be looking at that.

When these amendments are put forward, we and all Canadians expect both opposition and government members of the committee to look at them, take them in the spirit in which they were brought forward and deal with them in an appropriate manner to make the legislation better.

What we as the opposition are hoping for, and what I hope the government members are also interested in with this bill, is to come up with a fairer military justice system. That is the bottom line on Bill C-15. It could be fairer than the final product is likely going to be, and it would be nice to have gone that extra step forward.

There are many important reforms in the bill, and the NDP supports this long overdue update to the military justice system. Members of the Canadian armed forces are held to a very high standard. In turn, they deserve a judicial system that is also of a very high standard. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to understand that this is a step forward, although there could be another step and another step.

Let us briefly talk about, in the time I have left, five items that either need to be looked at or that are included in the bill.

The first thing, and maybe one of the most important, is conducting an independent wall-to-wall review of the military justice system and providing a legislative response to the LeSage report within the year. One of the things that has not happened is a wall-to-wall review. Recently, a recently retired judge of the Federal Court of Appeal and Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada, Gilles Létourneau, outlined the need for such a review. Therefore, there are still things that will need to be done moving forward.

A reform of the summary trial system is another thing. Currently, a conviction of a service offence from a summary trial in the Canadian Forces may result in a criminal record without the proper procedural fairness for the Canadian Forces member. Summary trials are held without the ability of the accused to consult counsel. There are no appeals or transcripts of the trial and the judge is the accused person's commanding officer. These are things that will be looked at as we move forward.

Another item is expanding the service offences exempted from receiving criminal records. There are a number of minor service offences that result in criminal records right now and I believe this will be expanded by about 95%. That is certainly a good thing. I do not think that the military term is “goldbricking", but I know there is an official term and perhaps the parliamentary secretary will help me out with that in the questions. However, offences such as that should not lead to criminal records as often happens outside of the military duties of the Canadian Forces members. Certainly, outside of the Canadian Forces, it would not be an issue.

In my remaining time, let me talk about strengthening the Military Police Complaints Commission. I know, again, that the parliamentary secretary will have a comment on this. While a lot of Bill C-15 is a step forward, it does not move forward enough. Elements of clause 4 regarding the complaints commission are a clear step backward within the military justice system.

I have been listening to the debate over the course of today and the parliamentary secretary was commenting to some of the other speakers about this particular issue. The reason I am bringing it up at the end is that we might have an opportunity to speak to it further. He will probably be concerned about why we did not say or do anything about it earlier in the process of the bill. We moved amendments earlier in committee on Bill C-15 to remove the power to interfere with military investigations. This was after listening to the testimony of a number of witnesses. We opposed that power then and we still oppose it. However, we do support the bill on the whole because it is a step forward.

This is a dilemma that we have had since 2006 with the government putting forward legislation that may have something in it that would not allow us to vote for it in all good conscience. The government may also put something into a bill where it could have gone further and taken the steps necessary to make it good legislation, perhaps legislation that would not be challenged in court at a later date.

I want to emphasize that we do support Bill C-15, but it certainly could have been better.

[The Criminal Code, March 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that Bill C-30 was a bit of a debacle for the government. Certainly Canadians and we in the opposition let the government know that it was. The question is why the government waited so long to deal with a relatively straightforward and simple issue of public safety. I am not really sure why that was.

I have a question for the government based on my hon. friend's question: will the government's priorities on justice bills be based on the charter and the Constitution rather than on a Conservative political agenda? I say that because Bill C-30 was certainly a political agenda, as opposed to thinking about what the ramifications would be for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or our Constitution.