Laurin Liu

[Labour, May 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Conservatives to walk the walk.

The Minister of Labour erroneously stated that the Canadian Intern Association was in favour of the rules that the government plans to implement to govern unpaid internships. In an open letter, the president stated that Bill C-59 would actually expose interns to exploitation.

Will the Conservatives adopt the NDP's proposals to provide meaningful protection to unpaid interns instead of proposing half measures?

[Petitions, May 12th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition to put an end to unfair fees and rip-offs. The petitioners are asking the government to limit credit card interest rates and ATM fees and to appoint a gas price ombudsman to ensure that there is no collusion between oil companies.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, my honourable colleague is absolutely right. Getting rid of the tax on products that women buy would enhance the fairness of the tax system. Consequently, it is absolutely a matter of social justice, of gender equality.

I would like to follow up with an anecdote. Every year in December, I participate in the charity drives held in all the towns in my riding. We know that every year there is a great need for donations of feminine hygiene products. Women living in poverty and vulnerable situations are always in need of feminine hygiene products. This shows just how essential these products are. This is a problem that does not get enough attention.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I am pleased to know that the government is taking the NDP's good ideas and incorporating them into the budget, but I am also concerned about it because we know that we cannot trust this government to really take action, to go far enough to help Canadian families and women.

Let me give an example. Last year, I introduced a private member's bill to implement protections for unpaid interns. This is another gender equality issue, since women are overrepresented among unpaid interns. The Conservative government took the idea behind my bill and incorporated it into the 2015 budget implementation act, but the protections do not go far enough. Unlike my bill, the government is not offering protection against sexual harassment and it is not setting a maximum number of hours of work.

That is just one example of a government that does not go far enough and that implements half-measures. I am pleased that the government has said that it will support the motion. We will have to keep an eye on this issue, and I hope that the government will really take action.

[Business of Supply, May 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, today, I am pleased to speak to the NDP opposition day motion to eliminate the unfair tax on feminine hygiene products. I would like to commend my colleague from Churchill for her speech, my colleague from London—Fanshawe for the work she has done on this issue, and the hundreds of thousands of women in Canada who worked so that we could talk about this issue in the House today. They did a wonderful job.

I consider myself lucky to be part of a feminist caucus in the House of Commons that is 40% female. That makes us a strong team that is able to raise issues about the status of women. In fact, in February, I launched a campaign that calls on the federal government to implement a national eating disorder strategy. I would like to thank my colleagues in the NDP caucus, specifically my male colleagues, for supporting this motion.

The NDP just won a huge victory in Alberta. The province elected a caucus made up of 47% women. I am very proud that the majority New Democrat government caucus in Alberta almost reached parity. The only way to improve the status of women in Canada is to elect more women to the House of Commons.

Today, the NDP is calling on the government to eliminate the GST and HST that apply to sanitary napkins and other feminine hygiene products because these products are deemed non-essential. We know that these products are essential since most women cannot live without them. This tax is unfair because it is imposed only on Canadian women who need to use these products. That is why we are calling on the Conservative government to abolish this tax on women. Sanitary napkins and feminine hygiene products are not luxury products.

The tax on sanitary napkins clearly discriminates against women. It makes no sense that women have to pay tax on sanitary napkins while other non-essential products like wedding cakes and cocktail cherries are exempt. That is why the New Democrats want to adopt this motion that will help all women in Canada, especially low-income women, for whom an additional $12 in tax a month constitutes a monthly economic burden.

There are already precedents in Canada, and other jurisdictions around the world have taken similar measures. Ontario, British Columbia and Nova Scotia already exempt feminine hygiene products from PST. This is a hot topic all over the world. Similar campaigns have already been launched in Australia and the United Kingdom. This is an issue that is uniting feminists around the world.

Here in Canada, women pay more than $36 million a year in GST on feminine hygiene products. We consulted a number of studies by the Library of Parliament. That is not an insignificant amount of money for women. In Canada, a disproportionately large number of women live below the poverty line.

I first became aware of the issue of poverty among women in 2012, when I was working on my private member's bill to automatically register all Canadian seniors for the guaranteed income supplement. In my research I learned that women were overrepresented among seniors living below the poverty line. This is extremely disconcerting.

Women are also overrepresented in part-time employment that pays minimum wage. They often have to work two or more jobs in order to make ends meet. What is more, they often have family responsibilities. They have to take care of their children or aging parents, which prevents them from participating in the economy and having a well-paying job. They are often forced to work less. All these factors and more make women more likely to live in poverty.

Today's motion to eliminate taxes from feminine hygiene products will help women, regardless of how much money they earn or their socio-economic status.

A few weeks ago, a very interesting study was mentioned in an article in The Globe and Mail about the wage gap between men and women in Canada, which is double the global average. That is impressive since Canada considers itself a leader that is more progressive than other countries. This study shows that is not so.

A study published by Catalyst Canada showed that women who work in Canada earn on average $8,000 less a year than men who do equivalent work. That is not an insignificant amount of money. It could be used toward a mortgage. By comparison, elsewhere in the world, the average wage gap is only $4,000 a year. The wage gap in Canada is double the global average, which is troublesome. We still have a lot of work to do on this in Parliament.

The NDP has put forward several measures to reduce that wage gap. Just the other day, I was talking about the bill introduced by my colleague from Toronto to create a national strategy to help workers in precarious jobs and those who are self-employed.

We still have a long way to go before we eliminate the wage gap between men and women. The NDP is ready to do it. The Conservative government wants to bring in income splitting, which will help only the richest 15% of families and will encourage women to stay home to look after their kids. This backward policy will not help us achieve gender equality, and we are opposed to the principle. Many people in my riding are angry about the Conservatives' approach, which benefits only the richest families.

The NDP has also put forward measures to create affordable day care spaces because we know that similar measures in Quebec are working. This has encouraged far more Quebec women to participate in the labour market, which is important. We need to keep day care costs to no more than $15 per day across Canada.

I am glad that the Conservative government is supporting our motion today, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support the NDP motion.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 8th, 2015]

With regard to trade missions conducted by the government since 2011: (a) how many trade missions have occurred and which countries have been visited; and (b) which Canadian companies have participated in each trade mission, identifying (i) the location of each company’s headquarters, (ii) the dollar value that each participating company billed, (iii) the dollar value that the government covered for each participating company?

[Petitions, May 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that on this NDP opposition day, this petition is especially relevant because we know that Canadians pay more than $336 million a year in GST on feminine hygiene products.

The people who signed this petition are calling on the government to pass the NDP's Bill C-282 in order to eliminate the GST on all feminine hygiene products.

[Employment, May 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, it took years of pressure from the NDP and intern advocates to get any action from the government whatsoever, but after voting against the NDP's intern protection act, it has now introduced a BIA that would leave interns without key workplace protections, such as those against harassment or excessive working hours.

With youth unemployment at twice the national average, hundreds of thousands of young Canadians are forced into unpaid internships. We can do better. Will the minister fix the government's omnibus bill to ensure real protection for Canadian interns?

[Employment, May 8th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the youth unemployment rate continues to climb.

Apparently, the budget implementation act will finally provide health and safety protection to unpaid interns. However, the legislation fails to guarantee other minimum standards, such as protection from sexual harassment or a cap on hours of work.

In Canada, there are roughly 300,000 interns, and most of them are young.

Will the minister correct these serious flaws in the budget implementation bill in order to better protect interns?

[Citizen Voting Act, May 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. He eloquently presented our position on Bill C-50 and the reasons why we are opposed to An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

This bill basically deals with the right to vote of Canadians living abroad. This bill is very important because it directly affects one out of three Canadians. Unfortunately, I see that we are debating this bill under a time allocation motion. In fact, it is the 95th time allocation motion that the Conservative government has imposed on the House since 2011. Despite the fact that we have raised a number of concerns with this bill, the government does not want to have this serious debate in the House, which I find disappointing.

I am also disappointed by this government's approach in terms of the bills it has introduced in the House concerning Canadians' right to vote. A few years ago, it introduced Bill C-23, and I was able to voice my concerns about it in the House. It restricted the right to vote of many Canadians, especially marginalized Canadians. In fact, the bill actually prevented them from voting. Bill C-23 primarily prevents young people from voting, as it does aboriginal people and vulnerable citizens, such as the homeless. Basically, the voter card will no longer be accepted as a form of identification when people go to their polling station to vote in an election. With this bill, 120,000 Canadians who had to have someone vouch for them during the last federal election may not be able to vote in the next election. Bill C-23 is extremely problematic.

However, today, we are debating Bill C-50, which could prevent another cohort of Canadians from voting. I am talking about the 1.4 million Canadians who live abroad. We know that there are many reasons why Canadians choose to live abroad. Some of them are going to school, while others are working and are very mobile. I am the NDP deputy science and technology critic. I therefore talk with many scientists who find very interesting jobs or contracts that require them to live abroad for several years. I am also thinking of some of my constituents who often travel to the United States, including retirees who choose to spend their final years there. They are still very attached to Canada and they feel as though they are 100% Canadian. They would like to have the right to vote in Canada's general elections.

I would like to give a little bit of background to explain why this bill was introduced in the House and why it is so necessary. The bill is before the House because of an Ontario Superior Court decision. That court ruled that paragraph 11(d) of the Canada Elections Act, which prevents Canadian citizens who have been living abroad for more than five years from voting, is unconstitutional. We therefore have a problem. The court forced this government to take action. The decision was rendered in the case of Frank et al. v. Attorney General of Canada. It is a case that will be quoted often in this debate.

At first glance, the bill seems to harmonize the legislation with the court's decision. However, we need to be careful. We on this side of the House did our homework, and we found that that is not the case.

In fact, the bill does not bring the act in line with the Ontario Superior Court ruling. Bill C-50 does not repeal subsection 11(a) of the Canada Elections Act, and the government has still not withdrawn its appeal of the Frank ruling.

The government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It talks about this ruling and claims to want to find a solution to the problem, but it has introduced a bill that is not consistent with the Ontario Superior Court ruling. In fact, it has introduced a bill that will cause even more problems for Canadians living abroad.

Bill C-50 will make it more difficult for all citizens living abroad to vote, whether they have been abroad for more than five years or for less. Furthermore, the bill provides for new prohibitions on the types of identification that the Chief Electoral Officer will accept from any citizen living in Canada or abroad, which could seriously compromise the votes of many Canadians come election day.

Before going into detail about the problems with this bill, I would like to talk briefly about Bill C-575, which was introduced by my colleague from Halifax. The bill is clear and unequivocal. It is the NDP's response to the decision in Frank et al. v. The Attorney General of Canada.

This bill, which was introduced in good faith, gives all Canadians living abroad the right to vote. I would like to know why my Conservative colleagues did not simply accept and adopt the bill introduced by my colleague from Halifax, which is in line with the court's ruling.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives' bill ties Elections Canada's hands and makes voter identification requirements so complicated that Canadian citizens living abroad will have a much harder time voting. They are doing this for no reason at all.

I listened to my Conservative colleagues' speeches, but I did not hear one single citation or study showing that the measures in this bill are necessary and valid. Back when the Conservative government was advocating for Bill C-23, it was also unable to quote one expert who thought the measures in the bill were a good idea.

Since I have only a minute left, I would like to go into more detail about the provision that removes the Chief Electoral Officer's discretionary power to determine what forms of identification are acceptable under certain circumstances. For example, under clause 143, the Chief Electoral Officer will no longer be able to accept a foreign driver's licence as a main form of identification or even a secondary form of identification to corroborate a main one. We have to wonder how many Canadians living abroad keep a driver's licence that is no longer valid.