Ruby Sahota

[Business of Supply, March 7th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I wish to inform you that I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Let me begin by saying that when we have an economy that works for the middle class, we have a country that works for everyone. Since coming into office, our government has worked to bring confidence and optimism back to Canada's middle class and to help those working to join it. We remain committed to doing even more.

One of our government's first actions after coming into government was to raise taxes on the wealthiest 1%, so we could lower taxes on the middle class. We reduced the 22% federal income tax rate to 20.5% for 2016 and subsequent taxation years. This tax cut is already benefiting nearly nine million Canadians. Single individuals who benefit will see an average tax reduction of $330 every year and couples will benefit by seeing an average tax reduction of $540 every year. This means more money in the pockets of the middle class. To help pay for the middle-class tax cuts, the government raised taxes on the wealthiest Canadians by introducing a new top income tax rate of 33% for individuals with a taxable income of more than $200,000 per year.

Our government then proceeded with one of the most significant social policy innovations in a generation; that is, bringing in the new Canada child benefit. The CCB is giving nine out of 10 families and their children more money every month to spend on everything from school supplies to sporting equipment. Families who benefit saw an average increase in child benefits of almost $2,300 in the 2016-17 fiscal year. The CCB has tremendously helped families in my riding of Brampton North. Raising a family in Canada can be challenging and the CCB has helped ease the financial burden for Brampton North families who need it most.

Our government is also taking important steps to make sure that Canadians today have a more secure and dignified retirement in the future. Just last week, we marked the final step in implementing the enhancement to the Canada pension plan.

Taken together, these actions will help strengthen and grow Canada's middle class and, in turn, our economy and our country will be stronger than ever before.

Let me turn to the issue brought forward by this motion today; that is, ensuring a fair tax system for Canada. We believe every Canadian must pay their fair share of taxes, period. Underground economic activity, tax evasion, and aggressive tax planning stand in the way of tax fairness. Too often, it is hard-working, middle-class Canadians, like those in my riding of Brampton North, who pick up the tab for the selfish motives of certain individual businesses that look to gain an unfair advantage. This is totally unacceptable. That is why our government has taken, and continues to take, action to crack down on tax evasion and to combat aggressive tax avoidance.

Part of the government's strategy to fight these problems includes providing the Canada Revenue Agency with sufficient resources to administer and enforce tax laws. For example, budget 2016 committed $444.4 million to enhance the CRA's efforts to crack down on tax evasion and to combat tax avoidance by taking a number of actions. These include hiring additional auditors and specialists, developing robust business intelligence infrastructure, increasing verification activities, and improving the quality of investigative work that targets criminal tax evaders.

Budget 2016 also invested $351.6 million to help the CRA improve its ability to collect outstanding tax debt, which will help collect approximately another $7.4 billion in tax debt owed to the Government of Canada.

Furthermore, Canada's tax system requires ongoing adjustments to ensure it is functioning as intended and contributing to the objective of the economy that works for everyone. That is why internationally Canada is actively engaged in coordinated multilateral efforts to address base erosion and profit shifting, also known as BEPS, which refers to international tax planning arrangements undertaken by multinational enterprises to inappropriately minimize their taxes.

Here at home, we are working to prevent the ability of high net worth individuals to use private corporations to inappropriately reduce or defer their taxes. To help address this, budget 2016 introduced measures to prevent business owners from multiplying access to the $500,000 small business deduction using complex partnership and corporate structures; and to close loopholes that allow private corporations to use a life insurance policy to distribute amounts tax-free that would otherwise be taxable.

The measures I mentioned today are by no means exhaustive, but they do give a good indication of the attention that the government is placing on combatting tax evasion and avoidance. Seeking out tax evaders and avoiders is about fairness and Canadians want fairness

By taking action to prevent tax evasion and close tax loopholes, we will improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system, and contribute to fiscal sustainability, both at home and abroad. We believe that our plan is the right one to improve the integrity of Canada's tax system.

[Status of Women, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, on March 7, Meghan, from my riding of Brampton North, will be joining me in Ottawa to experience a day in the life of an MP as part of Equal Voice's Daughters of the Vote initiative.

Can the Minister of Status of Women please highlight what our government has done to encourage women to get involved in politics and government?

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, there is no ill intent in the Conservative opposition motion. However, the original Motion No. 103 was worked on for a long time by a member of the House, and that motion in itself was a terrific motion.

There is nothing wrong with studying systemic racism among all communities and focusing particularly on Islamophobia. It is what society in Canada calls for today. It is what we should call out and focus on.

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that pointing out systemic racism among all groups, which the original Motion No. 103 does do, in fact, is noble in its intent. However, the removal of the word “Islamophobia”, to me, in itself shows that there is something that is worth fighting for in our current climate in Canada. It shows that there is an extreme fear against calling a person or an act Islamophobic. It does not limit freedom of expression, which a lot of critics have said. I believe that is a misrepresentation.

Yes, systemic racism against all faiths does occur in this country. I am a witness to that, and many in this House probably are, but the current climate in Canada calls for us to take some bold action against what is happening. So, yes, we should call it what it is. We should have no fear against the word “Islamophobia”. Let us use it, let us figure out what it means, let us figure out why this current climate and temperature is occurring in our country.

[Business of Supply, February 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise against the opposition's motion that was introduced by the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands. This motion looks to gain the support of this House to require the government to recognize the increasing public climate of hate and fear across Canada, condemn all forms of religious discrimination and systemic racism, and to request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage conduct a study.

The current motion has a different motive. This came in response to Motion No. 103 introduced yesterday. It essentially reformulated the motion introduced yesterday with one significant and notable difference: the word “Islamophobia” is removed from the Conservative motion.

The Conservatives claim to want to have a mature debate but fail to recognize and make the effort to learn what Islamophobia is. They fail to understand what the word means to Muslims living in Canada. They fail to show leadership in the face of a growing wave of hate and irrational fear of Islam and Muslims. They continue to allow the extreme views of people who perpetrate racism and discrimination against people of different faiths. This motion holds little weight when the Conservative Party leadership hopefuls are joining protests of racist and xenophobic groups.

Let us be clear. Much of this directly relates to the recent petition e-411, signed by more than 69,000 Canadians, asking the government to denounce Islamophobia. This petition received broad support from Canadians because people of different faiths in this country are facing systemic racism and religious discrimination every day.

A few years ago, in my city of Brampton, flyers were being circulated against the Sikh community and immigrants asking, “Do you really want Sikhs and immigrants to be living among us in Brampton?” We see swastikas printed on Jewish synagogues here in Ottawa and across Canada, racist graffiti against Sikhs in Edmonton, and anti-Muslim protests at the University of Calgary. A mosque in Calgary was vandalized and left with a burned copy of the Quran and a threatening letter. We can never forget the tragic and horrific terrorist attack on the mosque in Sainte-Foy. That attack was a result of the divisive rhetoric used by leaders of government, political parties, media personalities, and other public figures. When public figures use hateful, discriminatory, and divisive language, it gives legitimacy to those who feel it is acceptable to perpetrate racism and discrimination against people of certain religious groups.

What we read and hear about in the news does not even include the countless daily discriminatory and racist attacks that people face on buses, on sidewalks, at schools, and at work.

As much as I have been loved and accepted by many Canadians, I too have been a victim of racism. Imagine a young girl in middle school isolated in an elevator and her hair being set on fire as she was being called a “Paki”. That happened to me. Imagine what kind of fear and mental anguish one would go through in life when one realizes that adults could perpetrate such hate toward a child. We cannot allow ourselves to let this continue, especially if the government can do more to help people who are marginalized because of their faith. This Conservative opposition motion should be seeking to get the heritage committee to study the rising tide of fear and hate against people of the Islamic faith and all other faiths.

However, eliminating the word “Islamophobia” waters down original Motion No. 103. In order to have a proper understanding and study on the issue, we must name that issue. We must call it what it is and we must have a focused study.

Denouncing Islamophobia is not prohibiting respectful criticism of Islam or any other faith as that is allowed by our country's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What is not acceptable is categorizing Islam as a religion of evil and violence, and painting all people of the faith with one brush.

People in this country have called for targeted attacks against people of the Muslim faith. Motion No. 103 does limit the study to be done and provides for all Canadians who want to practise their faith without the fear of discrimination and being marginalized by others. The opposition motion is asking the committee to conduct a study on racism and religious discrimination that exist in our country, but it eliminates once again the word “Islamophobia” which is a very real issue in this country today.

The motion could do more by asking for the condemnation of Islamophobia and all forms of discrimination against people of any religion.

To ask the government to condemn Islamophobia is not without precedent. In a previous Parliament, former Liberal member Irwin Cotler received unanimous consent to his motion which called for the government to condemn anti-Semitism, stating that discrimination against Jews is an insult to our shared democratic values and for the government to work with community stakeholders to help combat all forms of anti-Semitism.

The context is similar when it comes to anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Both are terms used to describe the action of discriminating against Jews and Muslims respectively on the basis of their religion. If that motion was acceptable in a previous Parliament, then seeking the condemnation of Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and discrimination against other religious groups should be treated the same.

It is important that we define what a phobia is. The definition of a phobia is “an extreme or irrational fear of, or an aversion to, something”. Therefore, Islamophobia is by definition “an extreme or irrational fear of, or an aversion to, Islam”. That is a very simple and clear definition of what Islamophobia is.

Islam is a religion of peace, harmony, and community. Canadian Muslims are peaceful, respectful, and essential members of our community along with other Canadians. For those of this faith or of any other faith, or for those without faith that are not peaceful and respectful, we have the Criminal Code to deal with that. The actions of so few extremists that have made Islamophobia so prevalent in today's society has made this fear a reality in our country.

Just like any hateful and violent actions committed by someone from a certain community, it does not mean everyone from that group is the same. When people have a problem with Islamophobia being listed specifically to be condemned by the government, that implies it is okay to have an irrational fear of Islam.

It is ironic that those who want that word removed called for the removal due to freedom of expression, but those people are directly trying to block that freedom of expression by removing that word from the motion. Those are far from the truth about Islam and should not be used in categorizing a religion that is followed by over one million Canadians.

This Conservative motion comes after the terror attack in Sainte-Foy and after every party in the House has agreed that the hateful and divisive rhetoric used by people against Muslims in Canada cannot be ignored anymore. If we do allow it to continue, we are allowing more Canadians to think it is okay to marginalize and discriminate against one group of Canadians. We cannot repeat the mistake of letting Islamophobia and systemic racism persist.

[Youth Homelessness, February 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, youth homelessness and mental health is a major issue across Canada, but particularly in my home town of Brampton.

Homeless youth have no place to go. Mental health services are lacking and hard to access. Brampton's community partners need our assistance today and tomorrow. This is why, on January 13, I hosted a round table on this issue with key stakeholders across Brampton to initiate dialogue on what the federal government can do to help solve this issue. Small steps have been taken with the opening of Brampton's first temporary youth shelter, but there is much work still to be done.

I encourage all members to become champions in their communities, because this issue affects our most vulnerable youth.

[Statistics Act, January 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I fully understood the question, but when it comes to the council or the parliamentary committee that this bill is going to go before, I believe it would be up to the parliamentary committee, of course, to decide on the experts it wishes to hear from. As we know, our committee consists of members from all parties, so I can only have faith that the committee will make good decisions when choosing the witnesses to come before it.

[Statistics Act, January 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, creating this council that will advise the chief statistician, with the combination of having open transparency and creating that distance between the minister and the advisory council that will then inform the chief statistician, is a great step to putting a distance between the two departments and making sure there is more independence going forward for the chief statistician working with the advisory panel alone. That, in itself, is a good measure to take.

I, too, look forward to this bill going to committee and the committee working on making sure that this bill has the proper amendments in place to make sure it serves Canadians as it should.

[Statistics Act, January 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has said he has not heard whether there were complaints. I also am not sure and cannot validate whether there were or were not complaints.

I understand that the new Canadian statistics advisory council would be focused on presenting quality statistical data to Canadians, and that is something I believe all of us can be proud of and can benefit from in the future. Having accurate quality statistics is important for all of our cities in order to develop good policies.

It is hard for me to comment on something that is unknown to me or the member, but it is something we can inquire about. Whether that information is available, I do not know.

Quality is what we are concerned with, and we can trust that the new advisory council would make that its focus and its main mandate.

[Statistics Act, January 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by taking a moment to express my grief for the victims and family members of the terrorist attack in Quebec against our Muslim brothers and sisters. I know that all of my colleagues stand with me in solidarity with them at this terrible moment.

I am pleased to speak about one important particular amendment to Bill C-36, an act to amend the Statistics Act, which relates to the release of census records 92 years after any given census. Consistent with this government's commitment to open and accessible data, Bill C-36 proposes to remove the requirement to request consent before transferring census records to the Library and Archives Canada after 92 years, beginning with the 2021 census of population.

Researchers, historians, and genealogists require this information to conduct research to help us better understand our past and to build our future. There has been little opposition to the release of these records and as many other countries have come to understand, preserving information about our past is of great value.

The U.S., New Zealand, the U.K., and Australia are among many countries that preserve census records for release. In the U.S., the time lapse is 72 years. In New Zealand and the U.K., it is 100 years. In Australia, it is 99 years. Until recently, Australia's and New Zealand's census records were actually destroyed. Then they passed laws, in 2000 and 2005 respectively, to allow such records to be released. They recognized the value of these records. They did this after campaigns by networks of family historians, genealogists, and interested citizens.

In Canada, we are fortunate that there has never been a policy to destroy census records. The notion that such records provide valuable historical information has always been upheld in our country, Until 1993, census records were routinely released after various lengths of time, ranging from 70 years to 98 years, with no restrictions. In fact, it was not until requests for the release of the 1901 census records that an impasse over access arose.

It was noted that legislation at the time did not allow for the release of individual records from censuses after 1901 because of confidentiality provisions. On the other hand, the National Archives, heritage and genealogical groups, and others argued that census records constituted a national historic treasure that should be preserved. They argued they should be made available after a sufficient number of years for privacy concerns to no longer exist or hold sway. They believed 92 years to be in accordance with existing regulations in the Privacy Act.

Why 92 years? At the time that the Privacy Act was adopted in 1983, data from the 1891 census had yet to be released. To facilitate its release, the Privacy Act regulations included a provision for the release of census records after 92 years, the number of years between 1891 and 1983. That 92-year precedent was applied to the Statistics Act when a section about releasing census records was added as a result of the passage of Bill S-18 in 2005. The enactment required that Canadians consent to release their census records beginning with the 2006 census. It also provided for a parliamentary review of the administration of that requirement. The experience of the past three censuses indicate the support of Canadians for the release of census records after 92 years.

It is important to note here that in 1999, the hon. John Manley, the minister of industry, called for the creation of an expert panel on access to historical census records. That panel, which was chaired by a former Supreme Court justice, issued a report after an in-depth inquiry. It found no evidence that legislators in the early census days intended census records to perpetually be confidential. The panel recommended allowing public access after 92 years. The government at that time stated that this issue would be considered as part of the review of privacy legislation. In our view, the passage of Bill S-18 only partially resolved this issue.

Our government believes that census records constitute a national historic treasure and therefore should be preserved, and more importantly, should be released for research purposes after 92 years.

Census records are essential to understanding our society's past, present, and future, which cities like Brampton, the city I am from and represent, that have large immigrant populations, can definitely benefit from. There are so many Canadians who are desperate to find out more about their roots. That is why Bill C-36 proposes amendments to the Statistics Act to remove the requirement for consent for all census records, beginning in 2021.

As Canada becomes more diverse, cities like Brampton could use this historical data to see if policies made by previous governments reflected their populations. It would also help emerging cities compare their growth patterns to Brampton and better compare policies that did or did not work for their people.

Records for the 2006, 2011, and 2016 censuses, for which consent was required, would be released only if consent was given.

Two key considerations in deciding to include this amendment in the bill related to privacy concerns and response rates. On the privacy front, as in other countries, the proposed amendments strike a balance between the right to access and the right to privacy. We believe that 92 years is a sufficient lapse in time.

The other issue relates to the potential, however remote, for response rates to fall if people think the data will eventually be released. We are talking about more than nine decades after a person has taken the census. Experience has shown that the automatic transfer of census records after a sufficiently long period of time does not adversely affect census participation. Response rates to a census have remained high over time, whether or not consent was sought before the release of census records.

In making this change, we are ensuring that researchers can eventually access what many consider a national historic treasure, a treasure that may help us understand both our own individual lineage and the evolving social fabric of our country.