House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2019, with 17% of the vote.
Respect For Communities Act June 17th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, since this is the government's 74th time allocation motion, the question I am going to ask may seem sarcastic, but I am really starting to wonder about this.
Do the Conservatives intend to introduce a bill that would make the usual and current rules of the House the exception, since the exception has become the rule?
Social Development June 16th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tribunal, which hears Canadians' appeals concerning employment insurance and old age security, is overwhelmed because of a lack of umpires.
For example, the income security section has only 35 umpires to hear 3,700 cases. At this rate it will take nine and a half years to hear these cases, provided that there are no new cases, which is light years from reality.
Does the minister believe that it is normal for it to take this long for Canadians to obtain justice?
Employment Insurance June 11th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, the Social Security Tribunal just slapped the government in the face by saying that it exceeded its authority when it claimed tens of thousands of dollars from 100 employees of a seafood plant.
The Employment Insurance Commission knew about the agreement and had agreed to pay benefits, but instead of listening to the findings of the tribunal that it created itself, the government is refusing to listen to reason and is appealing the case.
Can the minister explain why he is going after honest workers?
Philippe Massicotte and Thomas Dupré June 11th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I have often said that young people are not our future, they are our present. Thanks to their creativity, Philippe Massicotte and Thomas Dupré, graduates of St. Joseph Seminary in Trois-Rivières, will represent Canada at Expo-Sciences International in Brussels next July.
Their invention, both simple and clever, reminds people that good posture is an important part of preventing back pain, which costs the Canadian economy $4 billion a year. Their invention won them the Youth Science Canada Excellence Award, the S.M. Blair Family Foundation Award, the Université du Québec award, and the Synapse award, presented by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
While the talent and hard work of these two young men deserve recognition, I would like to take this opportunity to also congratulate the parents and teachers who support them on a daily basis.
Philippe Massicotte and Thomas Dupré, you make us proud, and the people of Trois-Rivières join me in congratulating you and encouraging you to keep dreaming big.
Business of Supply June 10th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his highly relevant speech. Obviously, I support all of his remarks on personal finances.
However, I would like additional clarification on this policy, or how the Conservatives make policy. They never consult anyone. Once again, with this measure, they are getting ready to transfer $2 billion in additional expenditures to the provinces without seeking their opinion on the matter.
Business of Supply June 10th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Bourassa for his speech.
I have to say that I do not really understand why he thinks our motion was badly written because his entire argument sounds a whole lot like ours and his conclusion is the same.
However, I have one burning question. Maybe we do not know how to write, but does his leader have some trouble saying what he means? I ask because it seems like the Liberals are staunchly opposed to this, but their leader said that income splitting is a good idea.
I am having a hard time squaring those two positions, unless of course there are divisions in the Liberal ranks. If that is the case, can the member clarify?
Business of Supply June 10th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I was elected in the riding of Trois-Rivières to work as a federal politician, so I feel perfectly comfortable answering questions about federal matters and letting provincial politicians handle their own affairs.
However, what I do know is that in 2015, the Liberals and the Conservatives will have the opportunity to see and hear what the public has to say as it chooses to direct Canada toward a more inclusive vision, where no one is left behind. Only one party is making clear proposals of that sort, and that is the New Democratic Party, which I am pleased to represent in one riding, just like many of my colleagues. I predict, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there will be even more of us in 2015.
Business of Supply June 10th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, it is music to my ears to hear my colleague opposite say that once the budget is balanced, they will give the money back to the people it belongs to. Am I to understand that the Conservative government is finally telling us that it will stop dipping into the employment insurance fund to reduce its deficit and pay for the initiatives it wants to put forward and, as of next year, the employment insurance contributions of employers and workers will be used for workers who have lost their job and those people they are directly intended for?
Business of Supply June 10th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I think this is one of those rare opportunities when the House can take preventive action.
Since I and many of my colleagues were elected, we have often stood up in the House to criticize bills that have been introduced. However, today's motion has come at a time when we are expecting a balanced budget to be announced in 2015. We know that our budget is nearly balanced right now. If we compare the provisions accumulated with the deficit announced, we are essentially breaking even.
For once, we have the opportunity to tell the government in advance that a policy it is trying to implement does not make sense, even if the idea of it initially sounded good. For the benefit of those watching us a few hours or days later on CPAC or in the media, I want to quote the motion we are discussing today:
That, in the opinion of the House, the drastic increase in income inequality under recent Liberal and Conservative governments harms Canadian society; and that the House express its opposition to the Conservative income splitting proposal which will make this problem worse and provide no benefit to 86% of Canadians.
Everyone here seems to understand what income splitting for tax purposes means because we have been talking about this bill and thinking about this issue for weeks and months. However, for the average person in my riding and many others, who often struggles to do his or her own taxes, this notion might be somewhat abstract. I will therefore put my teacher's hat back on for a few minutes and try to give a simpler explanation of what income splitting is, so that everyone can follow the debate.
Income splitting is a very simple accounting procedure that would allow spouses to transfer up to $50,000 between them for tax purposes. If this little shell game were adopted, one member of the couple would pay less taxes because he or she would be in a lower tax bracket.
What is the purpose of this? It is to reduce the amount of taxes a couple or family pays. On paper, there seems to be little to criticize about this measure, since this tax arrangement would benefit families. However, it would not benefit all families, and that is where things start to go wrong.
This is what I would refer to as one of the Conservatives' so-called good ideas. Why is that? This idea is a promise that the Conservatives made in 2011, but that has still not been implemented, as I was saying earlier. It seems it will be in the next budget bill.
Given how quick the government is to impose its ideology and force the House to quickly accept tax measures with little or no debate, the reason income splitting has not yet taken effect is probably that the Conservatives themselves are beginning to doubt that it is appropriate and effective and the Conservative caucus is far from unanimous on this issue.
Let us remember that the former finance minister—whose memory is honoured by many Canadians—had serious concerns about this proposal and suggested that members not support it.
Let us now think about who would benefit from this so-called good idea I was talking about. It would definitely not benefit all Canadians since its implementation would cost the federal government $3 billion and the provinces nearly $2 billion.
For years we have seen this government's incredible ability to offload expenditures onto the provinces in an attempt to help balance the budget. Once again, this so-called good idea does nothing for Canadians and it will upset any balanced budgets on the provincial side of things. It is hard to imagine that that is a good idea.
The question is very simple. How will the Minister of Finance come up with an additional $3 billion? Will he take it from the employment insurance surplus or will he make more cuts to public services?
The question remains. We have already seen the damage this government's fiscal policy has caused. It would be quite sad to see the government make even more cuts to public services and misuse funds that have been earmarked for other purposes.
Who will benefit from this so-called good idea? Families, perhaps? Not even. Families with the greatest need are probably not the ones who will get the money. According to some reports, nearly 90% of families with children under 18 will not benefit significantly from income splitting. None of them. That is basically what that is saying. It means that this measure, while flashy and impressive, is missing the mark. It is counterproductive to make a law or policy that misses the mark, especially a fiscal one. A 2011 report by the C.D. Howe Institute, which is not known for being particularly leftist, made the exact same observations.
Could this measure help or benefit women? We in the NDP often analyze a legal or a budget provision through that prism, the prism of gender equality. With this income splitting measure, will women be able to move closer to pay equality? Well, no, it does not seem that the measure has hit the jackpot in that category either. Income splitting will also have undesirable consequences by discouraging women from entering, returning to, or even remaining in the labour force. The Conservatives' proposal will result in a major increase in the effective marginal tax rate for the spouse generating the lower income.
The measure therefore will not benefit women and it will not benefit Canadians. We wonder whether perhaps it will benefit the regions. We recall the Conservatives' wonderful slogan, “Our region in power”. Do we have a measure that meets the needs of the regions? No, we do not. Mission unaccomplished, yet again.
The ink is hardly dry on a report from the Broadbent Institute that sheds some very interesting light on the matter. I would describe that light as having more to do with partisan politics than with the economy and taxes. The report points out that this proposed measure would do much less for some provinces and somewhat less for others. I will let my colleagues guess the picture it paints, but for the benefit of those who are watching, I will say that among families with children under 18 years of age at home—the Conservatives' main target group, by the way—those living in Alberta would benefit most from income splitting. What a coincidence. They would save an average of $1,359 in taxes, while those in Saskatchewan would save about $1,070. As we all know full well, there are 42 federal constituencies in those two provinces and they elected 40 Conservative members in 2011. Again, just a coincidence.
In the face of the Conservatives' so-called good ideas about taxes, the proper instinct is always to ask who benefits. As it turns out, it is Conservative Party voters once again. At the other end of the scale, families in Prince Edward Island and Quebec will save very little, if anything at all. In those provinces, as we know, nary a Conservative is to be seen.
We have a government that was elected with a minority of 39% of the votes and puts forward ideas for another minority of the population. We really are light years away from a government that governs for all Canadians.
Who will benefit from this measure? The only answer, which I do not have the time to expand upon, is families that are already rich and do not need this incentive.
To conclude, this measure is a so-called good idea from the Conservatives, as I said, and we hope that it will be quickly abandoned. It is unfair, in the truest sense of the word, because it increases the inequalities between Canadians. It would not be the first time, because the policies of Conservative and Liberal governments have already helped increase income inequality. In fact, in the past 35 years, 94% of the increase in income inequality occurred under Liberal and Conservative governments. Please, let us not add to it.
In addition, there have been billions of dollars in Liberal and Conservative cuts to social transfers, which have made things worse by reducing low-income Canadians' access to social programs.
Instead of this so-called good idea, the NDP is proposing thoughtful solutions to give Canadian families a break. In 2015, Canadians across the country will have the choice to vote for a government that offers them a vision where no one is left behind.
Government Appointments June 10th, 2014
Mr. Speaker, when the Conservatives replaced the boards of referees with the Social Security Tribunal, we told them that they were making a mistake, and now we see that we were right.
The Conservatives' management of these tribunals is worrisome. The process does not allow for a fair and quick decision. What is worse, we have learned that, one year later, 11 member positions are still vacant. These seats are sitting empty while Canadians are facing extreme delays before their cases are heard.
How does the government plan on dealing with this fiasco?