Scott Duvall

[Housing, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, starting today, the City of Hamilton and Vibrant Communities Canada are hosting the third annual poverty reduction summit. The summit will bring together major business leaders; community organizers; mayors; municipal, provincial, and federal governments; indigenous leaders; and, most importantly, persons who have experienced poverty.

We all know that one of the most important pieces of poverty reduction is safe, affordable housing. There are 5,700 families on the waiting list for affordable housing in Hamilton.

A recent United Nations committee report called on the government to substantially increase the availability of affordable housing. In Hamilton, 5,700 families on a waiting list is unacceptable. I am encouraged by the government's promise to fund affordable housing, both in Hamilton and across the country. Let us hope this is a promise the government can actually keep, but the funding has to start now and not after the next election. In Hamilton, 5,700 families are counting on it.

[The Budget, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I hear the Liberals talk about is tax cuts. I just want to let members know that in my riding, we have been having tax clinics, and the people who are making $45,000 are still looking for their tax cut. I just want to send that message over to them.

One of the other things the Liberals mentioned is EI. In the budget, they talk about expanding maternity leave to 18 months from 12 months. That is great stuff. The problem is that it would be at a reduced rate. People would have to take a cut in family income for a longer period of time. Most important, and what has not been mentioned, is that if people took plan B, with the extra six months, they would be penalized when they went to collect their CPP later in life, because the current government has omitted the drop-out period for maternity leave in the enhancement. Can the member explain to me how this is fair to the middle class?

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's reasoning in trying to justify the bill to convince us to vote for it. However, we have some problems, and I think Canadians want some answers.

When it was Bill C-51, the Liberals at the time said that they would make amendments. Canadians expected an oversight committee that had teeth. This bill handcuffs the committee to do its job properly.

The Prime Minister, the Minister of Public Safety, and nine other cabinet members voted for Bill C-622 in 2014. That bill would have created an oversight committee with full access and subpoena power. Therefore, why is the government now trying to pry these tools out of the hands of this committee when they thought it was better to have it for the committee then?

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 20th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has pointed out many of the concerns that we on the NDP side have, and I thank him for that. However clause 8 of the bill states that a cabinet minister can halt an investigation into his or her own department for security reasons. However, it offers no way to test whether this fact is merely covering up a sloppy management or even a scandal. In the member's view, is this adequate to ensure Canadians get all the facts with respect to the government's handling of security?

[Pensions, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' Bill C-27 is an attack on stable, secure workplace pensions that would let employers back away from commitments to workers and pensioners. This week, workers came to Ottawa to raise their voices about this dangerous bill. Now, according to reports, the Liberal government has said it will put a hold on Bill C-27 because of widespread opposition.

Will the government commit to withdraw this anti-worker bill and refrain from any further attempts to attack workers' pensions?

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when the committee was formed, it went from coast to coast to coast doing unbelievably hard work and taking time away from families to listen to many citizens across Canada on this issue.

They found out that nearly 90% of the experts and 80% of the members of the public who testified called on the government to adopt a proportional electoral system.

The Liberals got 100% of power but only 39% of the vote. Does he feel that there is a clear consensus on what people wanted on electoral reform, and does he feel that there was a clear consensus in what the people were saying?

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there is grave concern over what has happened in my riding. When we did the government's work by having a town hall meeting, we came up with a consensus to have a new voting system going into 2019.

We also know that the Prime Minister said many times, and this is factual, that this was the last election with the first past the post system, and the new system would be put in for 2019.

However, the Prime Minister has now said, just a couple of days ago, that the Liberals are going to abandon this commitment. To us, that is a betrayal of what they ran on.

What I do not understand is the excuse the Liberals are using, that they could not reach a consensus. I am asking the hon. member for her comments. We have many other issues on which we cannot reach consensus, but the government pushes them through.

Why is it this issue that they cannot reach consensus on, and why are they betraying Canadians?

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to hear yesterday's announcement that the Prime Minister is not considering taxing health and dental benefits, but why should we believe that? The reason I am asking that question is there have been many times when the government made commitments to the people of Canada, such as the 20,000 steelworkers in Hamilton the government said it would use every tool in the tool box to help, but so far it was been missing in action.

The government boasts and brags about its commitment to the Canada pension plan enhancement, but it has now turned around and excluded the dropout periods for child-rearing and for people with disabilities, which is a very important provision in the enhancement.

Yesterday we found out that the government is now reneging on its promise to Canadians on electoral reform, even though it has been mentioned 1,813 times.

Could the member tell us why we should believe the government now when it has broken promises before?

[Steel Industry, December 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister really knows what is going on with U.S. Steel from the answer he gave earlier.

During the campaign, the Liberals promised U.S. Steel employees and retirees that employers must honour commitments and “pensioners must be included in any consultation and planning process”. Today, Hamilton steelworkers are forced to come to Ottawa to once again ask the government to come to the table. The impending sale of U.S. Steel gives no guarantees that pensions, health benefits, and wages will be protected. Hamiltonians are asking, what is wrong with the government?

With Hamilton steelworkers in the room, why is the government refusing to help the 20,000-plus who stand to be hurt by this deal?

[Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of concerns that I have been hearing in the House and have been trying to get an answer to, which is on the difference between the $4.3 billion in compensation that the prior government told dairy farmers they would be provided, and the $350 million that the new Liberal government says is all they are going to get. Members keep saying that New Democrats are opposed, opposed, opposed to free trade, and yet we are trying to do our due diligence so that we are not surprised, surprised, surprised.

My question is this. Does the member feel the same way that I do about the difference between the $4.3 billion and the $350 million, and that somehow dairy farmers might be getting milked dry?