Mark Warawa

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, sunny days are over. We have a member who is quite bitter, it appears to me, and is making comments that really are not based on fact.

The previous government was the government that took our Canadian veterans and our brave men and women from the decade of darkness into a decade of prosperity. It was an age of respect. We have ended up now with a government that has even taken away benefits from our veterans.

I am quite shocked at the comments from the member. I encourage him to look up the facts instead of alternate facts.

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2017]

moved that the third report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities presented on Wednesday, June 15, 2016, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek for seconding this important motion.

It is important that we have policies in government that are effective. Employment insurance is a very important part our support system within Canada. We need to have policies that work, that are effective, that are transparent, and that are accountable when people find themselves without employment.

It is wonderful that we live in a country where there is support, but things do not always work, and the previous government made sure that there were changes that would make the EI program more effective, more transparent, more accountable, more sustainable, and would truly take care of Canadians who needed that help and support. Those changes were made and were effective.

Unfortunately, the number one focus of the new Liberal government, though not so new or sunny anymore and a government that is not transparent, is to try to destroy everything from the past. Whether it was good or bad, the Liberals want to destroy it and to do so without being accountable.

In question period today we heard questions, but no answers. The Prime Minister stood in the House and refused time and time again to answer simple questions, such as how many times he met with the Ethics Commissioner. Those questions came from all opposition parties. Opposition parties are tasked with making sure the government is held to account, but the government does not want to be held to account and will not answer questions as simple as how many times the Prime Minister met with the Ethics Commissioner about his trip to billionaire island.

It is a question that Canadians want to know the answer to, but we see the same culture across the way, an entitlement culture, a culture of out-of-control spending and growing deficits that are going to be passed on to Canadians, particularly unemployed Canadians. Therefore, EI is very important.

That is the government that wants to tinker and make changes. It does a lot of consulting and discussing, and one of the most recent studies was on EI, not with the goal of making things better but with the goal of removing everything the previous government did that was effective. It is really the wrong motive, a motive of a government that is stubborn and unaccountable.

Then a report was done, and a lot of witnesses appeared at committee on that report. It was hoped that it would be a good report. Unfortunately, the motive and direction that came from the PMO was a dictatorial approach for a predetermined outcome. Maybe the question is how many times the PMO directed members of the committee on that report. I am sure we will not get an answer to that either, but opposition members on the committee, because of the report missing the mark and focusing on undoing accountability, were forced to do the right thing, which was to create a dissenting report.

I neglected to say that I will be sharing my time with the amazing member of Parliament for Perth—Wellington.

A dissenting report was presented, and I would like to share with the House the context of that report.

To summarize, the previous Parliament had created changes that brought in transparency, accountability, and an effective support system for those who need it through employment insurance. I will share some of the highlights of that dissenting report.

The dissenting report says that:

We participated in the study on the EI program with open minds. During the consideration of the report, we supported the recommendations that promoted the evaluation of EI program measures, that protected the most vulnerable, and that encouraged greater transparency and efficiency.

However, we rejected recommendations that did away with measures implemented by the previous government as part of its major EI reform in 2013. In our opinion, these measures should be kept, as they have had a positive impact on employment as well as on how citizens treat EI benefits. The primary objective of this reform was to make it easier for unemployed individuals to return to work by helping them find a job.

Is that not a wonderful idea? It is a concept that Canadians support: jobs, jobs, jobs, protecting the economy, the environment, providing a healthy future for Canadians, jobs, and helping them find jobs.

The report goes on to state:

The reform was designed to increase accountability for unemployed workers receiving benefits and we believe it was a step in the right direction. In fact, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation told the Committee that “We believe that a system that is too generous can create disincentives for people to seek or accept work when they otherwise might do so”, and we support their position.

Furthermore, we believe that the report adopted by the Committee was not objective in terms of the differing views about EI reform. Of the 80 quotes from witnesses included in the report, 42 were very critical of the measures implemented by the previous Conservative government, and only 15 were in favour of these measures. Of the 27 witnesses cited, a mere 7 witnesses made positive comments about the measures implemented by the former government. Some witnesses who expressed opinions that differed from the majority of the witnesses heard were not cited in the report at all, despite the relevance of their arguments. For example, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation appeared before the Committee in person, and yet it was not quoted in the report at all, while six briefs were cited whose authors did not appear before the Committee.

That is a prime example.

I serve on the HUMA committee, and I have seen a major change in this Parliament over previous Parliaments. The Prime Minister's Office gives direction and tinkers with committees, and committees are not able to do their work. Their work is being directed by the Prime Minister's Office. They end up with a report that is predetermined by what the Prime Minister wants that report to say. When the Canadian Taxpayers Federation provided good input, it was removed from this report. Why? It was because it did not create a report that the Prime Minister wanted.

When all of the different standing committees are being directed by the Prime Minister's Office, this is what we will have. In the same way, we see that the Prime Minister will not himself answer simple questions, such as how many times he has met with the Ethics Commissioner. We see the same example happening in committees. It is sad, and it requires dissenting reports to actually get to the truth.

The dissenting report went on to say:

One of the major failings of the report, in our opinion, is that it does not reflect the fact that “witnesses acknowledge that in practice, few individuals lost their EI benefits due to these new definitions.”

The following citations show that this statement is true:

According to Hans Marotte, representative of the Inter-Provincial EI Working Group, “it is true that I didn't handle a great many cases stemming from the Conservative reform.”

There are a number of quotes. The core point I want to make is that if we have a government that will not permit the truth, that tinkers and manipulates so that we do not have the truth, then how can Canadians trust it? I do not think Canadians do trust this government anymore.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 8th, 2017]

With regard to the government’s projection presented on page 253 of Budget 2017 showing a 4% increase in Goods and Services Tax (GST) revenues from 2016-17 to 2021-22: (a) upon what basis is the government’s projection based; (b) how much of this forecasted increase will result from an increase in the GST rate; and (c) how much of this forecasted increase is the result of provincial carbon taxes, prices and levies?

[Petitions, May 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the last petition is about conscience protection. In Ontario, physicians are being forced to do medical procedures against their consciences. The petitioners are saying that this should not be happening in Canada and that we need to change the laws in Canada and make sure that the conscience rights of all Canadians, including physicians and health care professionals, are being protected.

[Petitions, May 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the second petition I am honoured to present regards sex selection. It highlights the fact that ultrasounds are being used to determine the sex of a child, and if it is a girl, the pregnancy is ended. Ninety-two per cent of Canadians say that it is abhorrent and should not be happening, and they are calling on the House to condemn that practice.

[Petitions, May 5th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to present three petitions in the House today.

The first petition highlights that 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was tragically killed by a drunk driver, a person who foolishly chose to drive while impaired. Kassandra's family is devastated. Families for Justice is a group of Canadians whose loved ones were killed by impaired drivers. They believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They have provided a letter from the Prime Minister saying that he would support legislation similar to the last Parliament's. The petitioners are calling on this Parliament to keep those promises of the Prime Minister and to pass legislation to toughen up our impaired driving laws.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my NDP colleague for her commitment to seniors. It is an honour to work with her. It is an honour to work within the Conservative Party, which actually had a minister for seniors. If we do not have someone leading the discussion on meeting those needs, it will not happen. If we do not have a target to hit, we will not hit it. I appreciate her encouragement.

There is another major problem that Canadian seniors, and in fact all Canadians, are facing. It is not a misspeak; it is a falsehood when the Prime Minister would say the carbon tax is revenue neutral federally. We now know that is not the case. In fact, there is a report from the Library of Parliament which shows that millions of new dollars are coming out of the pockets of Canadian seniors, of Canadian families, of the middle class, those who are struggling, because the government is going to charge a tax, GST, on top of that mandated price on carbon.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I made notes of what the member said. He said “I would suggest that” or “maybe that”, which are all hypothetical comments.

In fact, the Liberal government has hurt Canadian seniors. The Liberals have ignored Canadians in poverty. They are taking away tax breaks for Canadians. They are increasing taxes on Canadians in any way they can imagine. It is hurting Canadians. Canadians are waking up to the nightmare they now find themselves in. It has to stop. The Liberal government has to stop saying one thing and doing something totally different. When the Liberals say what the right thing to do is, and they know what the right thing is to do, then why would they do the wrong thing? They need to stop that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, May 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Abbotsford. He will remain in our thoughts and prayers as he continues to recover and face other medical interventions in the coming weeks and months. We pray for his full recovery.

We are here to debate the budget, and I have looked carefully at the budget. The reality is that Canadians are waking up to a nightmare of out-of-control spending and no accountability. The government knows what to say, but what it says and what it does are two totally different things.

The media have critiqued the budget. John Ivison said:

Much in the budget appears to be bureaucratic tinkering. A number of Canada's innovation programs are to be “streamlined” into a super-sounding Strategic Innovation Fund, but simply merging the automobile and aerospace funds and giving them a new name is not the cutting edge of innovation.

It is just tinkering.

Andrew Coyne said, “No money, no ideas, but a wealth of bafflegab and buzzwords from the Liberals”.

He went on to say: “But of course it isn’t just that they’ve run out of money: they’ve run out of ideas. Or at least, good ideas.”

Canadians have woken up to the nightmare that the Liberal government, halfway through its term, has not kept its promises and has created a huge mess for Canadians. I am going to focus on the mess the Liberals have created for Canadian seniors.

In the previous Parliament, we had a minister for seniors. I, and in fact the experts, the seniors advocates in our country, the NGOs, have all told the government that people are aging and that we need to prepared for that. Right now in Canada, one in six Canadians is a senior. A year ago we reached the point that there were more seniors in Canada than there were youth.

There is a major shift in the Canadian population. There are more and more Canadian seniors. People are aging, and we need to prepare for that, so we asked the government to please appoint a minister for seniors and begin work on a national seniors strategy. To this point, halfway through its term, there has been nothing. The Liberals have actually refused to appoint a minister for seniors, so it is not surprising to see a budget that continues to ignore seniors. No one is standing up and speaking out within the Liberal cabinet to say, “Wait a minute; we are not properly taking care of seniors.”

What happened in the budget was, again, a little bafflegab, and every once in a while it would mention the word “senior”, but there is nothing new for seniors—well, that is not quite correct: there are a lot of seniors on fixed incomes who ride on public transit, and there had been an arrangement whereby they would pay for 12 months and get two months' credit, so it only cost them 10 months; the Liberal government has now taken that away, and the cost for seniors now in Canada has gone up dramatically, because they have lost that bus pass tax credit.

Why is the government refusing to appoint a minister for seniors? Why is it refusing to listen to seniors and their unique needs? Why is it refusing to prepare for the aging population?

It was a year and a half ago that I introduced at HUMA committee a call for a study on a national seniors strategy. The committee, under the direction of the Prime Minister, refused to do that. He controls everything. We were told we could not study that now.

Conservatives in the committee, along with our NDP colleagues and friends, have continued to ask for a study on a national seniors strategy so that we can get ready to take care of the aging population. Right now, one in six Canadians is a senior. In five and a half years, it will be one in five Canadians, and in 12 years it will be one in four. That is in 12 years. We are not ready for that and we need to get ready for it. Again, the Liberals are totally ignoring their responsibilities in taking care of Canadian seniors.

I had a very good meeting with the Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce last week. The president of the chamber, a lawyer, brought to my attention another major problem with this budget. In fact, he wrote a letter to the Canadian Bar Association about it, and I will read it to the House.

He talks about WIP, work in progress. It is one of those little poison pills the Liberals have snuck into this budget, and most Canadians are not aware that the government has done this.

If someone is in a serious car accident and is injured, it may be a number of years before the person gets a settlement for the injuries he or she sustained. The tradition is that the individual would retain a lawyer over the two-year, three-year, five-year process of getting compensation for the injuries. The lawyer would say that he or she would not need to be provided a retainer and would take one-third of the settlement. That is the norm.

The Liberal hungry-for-tax-increases government would tax the work in progress. It would tax the legal firm for every hour that it spends helping the person. The legal office would pay the money up front for MRIs, physiotherapy, or any tests to help the individual and would get paid nothing until the settlement, which may be three, four, or five years down the road. It would be taxed by the Liberal government for WIP, work in progress.

Scott Johnston wrote:

The elimination of the election for billed-based accounting and implementing taxation of work-in-progress will have a deleterious effect on all of our firm's contingency files for personal injury and estate litigation claims. Forcing the payment of tax before a bill is issued and the funds are actually received by the firm causes a colossal cash-flow debacle. Most of our contingency files carry on for years before settlement or judgment meaning that the firm will have to self-finance tax payments on hours recorded for clients over frequently an extended period of duration without actual receipt of the cash to remit such tax payments.

Legal firms across this country are going to have to fund the Liberal government's tax grab.

The letter continues:

This may cause lawyers working under contingency fee agreements generally in the profession to “cherry-pick” cases to select only “quick settlement” files,

—and this is the most important point—

therefore denying access to justice for impecunious litigants with more challenging and protracted matters.

The irony is that the Liberal government has mandated this study on poverty reduction in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which it is studying and working on right now. At the same time, the government is saying that people who need the help of lawyers to help them in their impoverished and difficult situations, particularly in state litigations or vehicle crashes, with this change, lawyers will likely not be able to help them, denying justice to the impoverished.

What the Liberal government says on one hand and what it does on the other are totally different. I hope the government will listen to Canadians and reverse this hard-headed, stubborn plan to tax our poor and desperate people.

[Petitions, April 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is in regard to vehicular homicide. The petition sadly informs the House that 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was tragically killed by a drunk driver, a person who chose to drive while impaired.

Families for Justice are Canadians who have lost a loved one, killed by an impaired driver. They believe that Canada's impaired driving laws are much too lenient. They want the crime to be called what it is, vehicular homicide.

The petitioners are calling on the Prime Minister to honour his letter and to support legislation to condemn this. The petition also highlights that 1,200 Canadians are killed every year by a drunk driver.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish you and all members of this House a wonderful blessed Easter as we remember the great love and sacrifice of Jesus Christ.