Wayne Long

[Business of Supply, December 4th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, one thing the member opposite did not mention was getting pipelines approved and built to tidewater.

I am from the riding of Saint John—Rothesay, where potentially at one point a pipeline may end. I am confused at times by the stance of the party opposite on pipelines. On the one hand, the Leader of the Opposition speaks about how he is going to approve pipelines, but on the other hand the leader is in the province of Quebec advocating for its jurisdictional rights over its decisions. In fact, he has a website called “Listening to Quebecers”.

Will the member stand and say he supports energy east and that he will be a champion for that pipeline with all his Quebec colleagues?

[Saint John Labourers' Benevolent Association, November 20th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last week, I was proud to attend the unveiling of a Parks Canada plaque commemorating the national historic importance of the founding of the Saint John Labourers' Benevolent Association in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay.

Saint John's ship labourers were among the earliest groups of day labourers, or casual workers, in British North America to organize when they formed the Saint John Labourers' Benevolent Association in 1849. After its merger with the International Longshoremen's Association in 1911, the strength of this union continued into the early 20th century, when its members helped to found the New Brunswick Federation of Labour and shape provincial legislation establishing a workmen's compensation system.

The founding of the union defied conventional views toward casual labourers, proving that it was indeed possible for casual labourers to successfully organize and lobby for their rights. Indeed, the precedent set by this union was instrumental in empowering workers across the Maritimes and across Canada.

[Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, November 2nd, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I move:

That Motion No. 192 be amended to change the words “February 2019” with the words “May 16, 2019”.

[Record Suspension Program, October 24th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight with great pride on behalf of my beautiful riding of Saint John—Rothesay to cap off the second hour of debate on my private member's motion, Motion No. 161.

I can say as the member of Parliament for Saint John—Rothesay, a riding that is on the front lines of the war on poverty, that we need to do everything we can to advance polices that will help us tackle poverty reduction in my riding and across the country. It is my number one priority. That is why I used my opportunity to introduce Motion No. 161, a motion that will allow me to move us as close as I can as a member of the House to my goal of eradicating poverty and creating a more just society.

As I stated at the outset of this debate, we have all made mistakes in our lives. I believe in second chances when they are deserved. I would like to believe we live in a society that can forgive past transgressions when such forgiveness is shown to be merited.

Sometimes mistakes that happen early in life can lead to a criminal record. When a mistake is properly addressed, it is best for everyone, both the offender and society, to move on. As a society, we need to be able to give deserving citizens a second chance.

I know the vast majority of my colleagues across the aisle agree with me on this. Indeed, my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan asserted that they do when he said in the first hour of debate of this motion, “We recognize the important role that record suspension plays in allowing people to move on from that phase of their life if there is clear indication of rehabilitation”.

As we have heard over the course of this debate, it is unfortunately the case that the criminal justice system often fails to provide this second chance for many deserving Canadians, especially those in low-income situations.

Approximately 3.8 million Canadians have a criminal record, but very few eligible Canadians apply for a record suspension, and less than 11% of those convicted of crimes have been granted a pardon or record suspension.

In addition, over 17,000 fewer Canadians have been able to successfully reintegrate into society and join the workforce as a direct result of the changes made to the pardon system by the previous government, including the quadrupling of the application fee. This represents a 57% drop in applications since the previous government's changes came into effect. Is this fair? Does this show compassion? I think not. It also represents thousands of Canadians who are unable to secure employment and successfully reintegrate into society.

However, this is not only about giving those who have atoned for their past mistakes an opportunity to escape poverty; it is also about keeping our streets and communities safe. When those with criminal records are unable to secure employment because they are unable to overcome the barriers to securing a suspension of their record, they are far more likely to repeat the mistakes of their past than they would be if they were able to acquire gainful employment.

Breaking down these barriers to reintegration erected by the previous government is not just the right thing to do from a moral and public safety perspective, it is the right thing to do from an economic perspective. It costs taxpayers over $117,000 a year to incarcerate an individual, not to mention the hit our economy takes as a result of lost productivity.

In order to be tough on crime, we must be tough on poverty. In this sense, a vote in favour of this motion is a vote for addressing the root causes of poverty and crime. A vote against it represents nothing more than a partisan virtue signalling that does nothing to address poverty or crime.

It is time to put partisanship aside. We must all roll up our sleeves and work across the aisle to tackle the scourge of crime and poverty head-on.

I truly hope my colleagues across the way will vote with their conscience on this. If they truly care about getting tough on crime, they will.

[Small Business Week, October 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, on this Small Business Week, it is time to take stock of some of the amazing things happening in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay. As anyone who has recently visited our uptown core will know, it is bustling, and not just during big events. This was even highlighted last week by the CBC.

Indeed, we are back in the game. Our economy is growing again. Since the spring, our riding's unemployment rate has fallen below the national average, our community has gained hundreds of jobs and hundreds of people have joined our workforce. This is a direct result of the growth of incredible small businesses in our uptown core.

This private sector growth is also being complemented by historic federal and provincial investments, which are helping to jump-start the growth of these small businesses and our overall economy. Our riding starved for these sorts of federal investments for decades, and our government has delivered.

We are back, we are thriving and our resurgence will continue to drive the economic and industrial heartbeat of New Brunswick.

[The Environment, October 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my riding of Saint John—Rothesay is a riding of two realities. It is arguably one of the most industrial ridings east of Montreal, but it is also a coastal community. Overall, the majority in my riding agree that there should be a price on pollution. We see the effects. We just had the most flooding in the history of the Saint John River.

I saw the Leader of the Opposition on a TV show last week and watched him literally squirm when he was asked about what the Conservative plan was on pricing pollution. He laughed, he was awkward and he avoided the question. He will say one thing in Quebec and another thing in New Brunswick.

We believe that we will be on the right side of history. There is no question about that. The party opposite will not be. Therefore, I ask my colleague, what is wrong with incentivizing industry to innovate and pollute less? What is wrong with that?

[Boxing, October 2nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to inform the House about an incredible accomplishment by a tremendous young woman from my riding of Saint John—Rothesay.

Last month, the Saint John Golden Gloves Amateur Boxing Club's own Charlie Cavanagh became the 2018 youth female, 69-kilogram division, champion of the world after defeating her Russian opponent in the weight class final at the Youth World Boxing Championships in Budapest, Hungary. In addition to this incredible victory, she was also named the best youth female boxer of the championship, making her the top youth female boxer in the world.

Last month, I was proud to host a barbeque in her honour, which was attended by hundreds, and I kicked off a GoFundMe campaign to support Charlie's preparation for the 2020 Olympic Games in Tokyo.

I ask all my colleagues to join me in congratulating our world champion and future Olympic gold medallist, and her incredible coach Joe Blanchard.

On behalf of all Canadians I say, go, Charlie, go!

[Supporting New Parents Act, June 5th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak tonight on behalf of my wonderful riding of Saint John—Rothesay.

The riding is a wonderful riding, but is a story of two situations. It is a story of tremendous business wealth and success, and there is a lot of entrepreneurship. It is also a riding that unfortunately leads the country in child poverty and has a very high poverty rate, way above the national average.

In the past election in 2015, I wanted to be a champion, a voice, an advocate for those who needed help but did not have a loud voice, especially here in Ottawa. When I started going door to door in 2015, people told me that the Conservative Party had boutique tax credits, credits that were targeted to a very select segment of the population. The boutique tax credits were there to help someone take ballet lessons or help a family send their kids to piano lessons or play hockey.

The reality is that Bill C-394 is another feeble attempt at a Harper-era tax credit. The credit does not target working families. The credit is not skewed toward reality, and it leaves hundreds of thousands of our children in poverty. The party opposite, with its boutique tax credits, likes to talk about being there for families and being there to give back. For some reason, the party is not there to represent the working-class families that are living in poverty.

The universal child care benefit was for everyone. Whether people made $200,000 or $15,000, they received the same amount. How was that fair? To add to that, it was taxed. Conservatives were taking money back from families that needed it the most; we want to bring children and families out of poverty.

When I went door to door, people were amazed at the audacity of the universal child care benefit. It did not help families that needed it the most. It was a boutique tax credit. We remember during the election the member for Carleton going around in his Conservative golf shirt to communities to hand out tax credits. It was called “Christmas in July”. That did not resonate with Canadians. It did not resonate with people in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay.

The first week that I started campaigning for the honour of being a member of Parliament, I went door to door in our priority neighbourhoods, such as Crescent Valley, family by family. People talked about not being able to afford to live. They could not afford to heat their houses or buy groceries. They could not afford books for their children to go to school. It is great to have a boutique tax credit to take kids to ballet or to piano lessons, but people across this country were forgotten by the party opposite for 10 years. People were trying to survive week in and week out with the necessities of life.

Yes, I am a proud Liberal. Yes, I believe that the Liberal Party and federal governments have a duty, an obligation, to provide good national transitional programs, especially for those in need. The Canada child benefit is that program. It is changing lives. It is lifting hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty from coast to coast to coast. When I go door to door now, people are so appreciative that our government came forth with a program that is actually having an impact on their lives. With the Canada child benefit, nine out of 10 families have the extra help they need, month in and month out, to pay for things like healthy food, summer camps, back-to-school clothes, and the necessities of life. That is one of the biggest differences between our party and the party opposite. We believe that we can do good things for Canadians.

I know the members of the party opposite like to wrap themselves up in “We are there for everybody—we are there for the middle class and we are there for people who live in poverty”, but let us talk about the tax-free savings account as an example.

The tax-free savings account was a program that was maxed out by 3% of Canadians, yet the party opposite wanted to double that tax-free savings account for Canadians, for the masses. However, it was not for the masses; it was for a select few. If we have hear it once, we hear 10 times a week that this party is mortgaging the future. Even before I ran in politics, I remember listening to Power and Politics one night when the finance minister of the party opposite was interviewed. He was asked how the Conservatives were going to pay for doubling the tax-free savings account. He replied, “Don't worry about it. It's okay. The Prime Minister's grandchildren or great-grandchildren can pay for that. We'll pass that down the road.”

I remember sitting there in amazement that a finance minister of the party opposite could actually say that he was mortgaging our children's and our children's children's future to double the tax-free savings account, which targeted a very narrow scope of Canadians.

Bill C-394 does the very same thing. It targets a very narrow sector of Canadians. That is why, as a government, we believe in national programs like a national poverty reduction strategy, historic investments in affordable housing, historic investments in child care and early learning, and especially the Canada child benefit.

As I alluded to earlier, my riding leads the country in child poverty. I take great pride in knowing that in my riding, that needle is starting to move to the left because of wonderful programs like the Canada child benefit.

Members of the party opposite have said that they are listening to Canadians and Quebeckers. I know the Leader of the Opposition has a website called “Listening to Quebecers” and that they are in favour of Quebec jurisdictional rights. Well, we are here to listen to Canadians. We believe our programs are the right programs. We will stand behind our programs and do that day in and day out for the betterment of all Canadians.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, May 31st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to members opposite talk about the pipeline, about how the Conservatives built different pipelines, and that they had all the answers and could get pipelines built. The Leader of the Opposition was in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay three weeks ago, talking about the pipeline, saying he could build it.

However, one thing I am very curious about is an article on the Leader of the Opposition's website in which it says he “is listening to Quebecers”. He talks about giving Quebec added jurisdiction and responsibilities over its territory, that it will have the right to decide what happens in its territory on all issues.

How does the member opposite square that? On one side, the Leader of the Opposition says that he would build energy east. On the other side, he stands in Quebec and talks about how he is there to protect their jurisdictional rights.

[Canada Revenue Agency, May 24th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are currently affected by the flooding in my riding of Saint John—Rothesay, and in all of New Brunswick and British Columbia. I personally witnessed the impact of the floods on families, businesses, and first responders who are working 24-7 for their community. This year, some of these courageous people may find themselves unable to file or pay taxes on time. Those people should not be penalized.

Can the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue inform the House on the actions the CRA is taking to support affected Canadians?