Wayne Long

[Citizenship Act, March 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear that the changes in Bill C-24 passed by the Conservative government in 2014 turned millions of Canadians into second-class citizens with fewer rights than other Canadians. The changes were discriminatory, anti-immigrant, and un-Canadian. Bill C-6 would simply undo these changes.

No government should have the right to revoke citizenship, whether one is born in Canada or abroad.

Does the member opposite not agree that Bill C-6 simply restores equal citizenship in Canada to Canadians?

[Income Tax Act, March 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Conservatives, it is a dream to have Canadians save. They want everybody to be able to save. However, try telling that to people in low-income areas in priority neighbourhoods. Try telling that to families that are living day to day. Try telling that to people on the street. Our homeless rates are rising. Our poverty levels are rising. Try telling that to them.

The Conservatives also talk about the Liberal shell game. A previous speech by a member of the party opposite talked about Premier Wynne and how she was using a government slush fund to pay down debt. That came from a party that took $20 billion in EI reforms in 2010 and another $3 billion in EI reforms from 2010 to 2015 to pay down debt, so let us not talk half-truths.

Would the member opposite not agree that only 6.7% of Canadians maximized or registered for a tax-free savings account, which does not mean it was used? Would the member not agree that doubling something like that was actually for the few and not for the many? Would the member not agree that good governments make policy for the many, policy such as the Canada child benefit or a tax break for the middle class?

That is what good government should be.

[Income Tax Act, March 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we inherited an economy that was not moving forward and not in good shape due to the low-growth policies of the party opposite.

When the party opposite talks about the shell game the Liberals are playing, let us talk about the party that invented the shell game. After seven straight deficits, the party opposite said it was going to come up with a plan, that it would come up with a surplus or a balanced budget in the year before the election.

Let us talk about the shell game. There was $900 million put back into the budget from its own public servants' sick leave; the $2 billion rainy fund was put into the shell game; the GM shares were sold and also put into the shell game; and lapsed funding for veterans affairs was put into the shell game; and EI training was thrown in too.

Canadians have woken up to a low-growth, no-growth economic style from the party opposite. Good government and good government policies are for the many, not the few. With only 6.3% of Canadians using tax-free savings accounts, doubling that number pandered to the few.

Would the member opposite not concede that good government policy, good governance, is for the many, not the few, and not like the doubling of the tax-free savings accounts?

[Income Tax Act, March 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite said that our party would take with one hand and take with the other. That could not be further from the truth. Let us look at the numbers. They show that 6.7% of Canadians max out TFSAs. That is a fact. Why does the party opposite want to double that number? The Conservatives wanted to double the number because it pandered to their base.

The member opposite also said that the government would take that money, and that we were arrogant about how we would spend it. Is it arrogant to come up with a Canada child benefit that would help nine out of ten Canadian families and that would pull 315,000 children out of poverty?

The party opposite's finance minister, who has disappeared off the face of the earth, stated that future generations would pay for this. Our grandkids and great-grandkids would pay for the TFSA doubling. That is not fair to Canadians. It is not fair to Canadian families. What the Liberal Party would do is put money back in the pockets of families and in the pockets of people in the middle class.

If only 6.7% of Canadians maxed TFSAs, what was the rationale behind doubling that amount?

[Income Tax Act, March 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the facts on TFSAs.

There are 28 million Canadians eligible; 10 million participated, which is 38%. Of that 38%, 18% maxed the original amount. It is only 18%, yet the party opposite doubled the amount; 93% of Canadians did not benefit from the TFSA.

There was a comment that it could be a dream of future Canadians to participate in a TFSA. Has the party opposite been to a low-income priority neighbourhood? During the election, I went from door to door in these neighbourhoods. Basically next to none of the people in these neighbourhoods participated in the TFSAs.

The doubling of the TFSAs would drain government money, government resources for now and the future, and that money could be used to help low-income families, families in need.

I commend my colleague for his speech. Would the member not agree that the tax cut for the middle class would do the right thing for our economy, and that the Canada child benefit would put money back into families that need it?

[Income Tax Act, March 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, for the record, let us talk about the tax-free savings accounts. They were doubled for one reason, and that was to pander to the Conservative base. I wonder if the member opposite could tell me how many middle-income or low-income people would benefit from the Conservative Party's doubling of the tax-free savings account.

[Income Tax Act, March 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I have one comment with respect to tax-free savings accounts. It was a very good program initially, but I think the facts show that a very small percentage of Canadians actually maxed out their tax-free savings accounts and a smaller percentage took advantage of doubling the tax-free savings account. This absolutely was done by the party opposite to pander to its base and allow those who could afford it to do so.

The Liberals came forward with a tax break for the middle class, to put more money back into the pockets of the middle class. What does my hon. colleague believe the benefit of putting more money back into the pockets of hard-working middle-class Canadians will mean to the economy?

[Employment Insurance, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for her speech. It was certainly a passionate speech.

The NDP is a party that joined the election and promised many things to many people, like a $15 a day daycare with no way to pay for it, and a $15 an hour minimum wage that was only going to be for 1% of Canadian workers.

My question to the member opposite is this: given that her party and her leader promised, and committed to, a balanced budget in year one, how would they ever begin to pay for the changes that they are proposing in EI?

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will say that I feel it is disingenuous and unfair to suggest that the Liberals do not support our men and women in the Armed Forces. I think that is a very unfair comment. It really disappoints me to hear how much the rhetoric has increased tonight. I do not think it is accurate to suggest that our troops are at greater risk because we are going to withdraw our CF-18s. It is disingenuous to suggest that. It is a coalition effort, and the fact that we are going to pull our CF-18s will not put our troops at any more risk.

The Liberal Party has simply come up with a plan that it feels is the best way forward to combat ISIS. Will the member opposite not concede that Liberals are doing what we think is best? We think it is the best strategy. We think it is best way forward for our country and for our contribution to the effort.

[Coldest Night of the Year Fundraiser, February 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, here are the sobering facts. At least 200,000 Canadians experience homelessness in any given year. At least 150,000 Canadians use a homeless shelter at some point, and tonight 30,000 Canadians will be homeless.

That is why I was proud to participate in the Coldest Night of the Year walk to support homelessness and to support outflow ministries that provide shelter, hope, and so much more for those who are hurting. Thanks to Tony Dickinson, Jamie Hall, Phil Appleby, Colin McDonald, Chanelle Morgan, and Laura Duncansen for their leadership.

Coming from a city with the highest child poverty rates in the country and some of the highest homelessness rates in the country, fighting poverty is my top priority. As we know, this will not be an easy task, but working alongside Minister Jean-Yves Duclos and his department and putting a strong case forward to make Saint John a model city on poverty, we can bring outside-of-the-box thinking, fresh ideas, and innovation to an issue that has plagued my city and our country for far too long.