Publication Search

Madam Speaker, scandals in the sports world continue to plague our country. The scale of these abuses against athletes needs immediate attention. Athletes should have the right to participate in any sport free of maltreatment, abuse or harm.

Today, I stand up for my constituents, some of whom are survivors of abuse and help shed light on the seriousness of the issue.

I would like to thank Dr. Victoria Paraschak from the University of Windsor and many other advocates and sports organizations from across Canada working together to ensure the government recognizes the scope, urgency and importance of protecting our athletes from abuse in sport. They know we need a preventive approach to justice for survivors that examines these problems systematically, not on a case-by-case basis.

I proudly stand, together with these leaders and survivors in sport, to request that the government call a judicial inquiry that is completely independent of sport and that outlines a clear and consistent approach that is fair and immediate for these survivors. Without this transparent mechanism available in the form of a judicial inquiry, we will continue to see complaints, maltreatment and no justice.

It is time to protect our Canadian youth and athletes today.

Madam Speaker, I know the minister has said he is going to watch this Frankenstein deal like a hawk, but he has left Canadian consumers to the buzzards. In fact, the minister has given the green light to Rogers and at the same time given the red light to his own industry committee and the Competition Bureau, which has been opposed to this.

For decades, Liberal and Conservative governments have allowed these massive telco companies to make huge profits off the backs of hard-working Canadians. This is a disaster that will end with less competition, massive layoffs and higher prices. Why have the Liberals thrown in the towel, sided with the telco CEOs and stuck Canadian families with higher prices and the bill?

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to table.

The first involves a sports inquiry. Over 700 petitioners have called for children and youth to have the right to participate in sports in Canada without maltreatment, abuse and harm. The athletes are asking the House of Commons to have judicial inquiry into the sports system.

I would like to thank Victoria Paraschack, a retired professor in Windsor, for doing this across Canada.

Madam Speaker, the second petition is with regard to taxation for those who work in the United States. Over 500 petitioners are affected by the tax rules of the Canada Revenue Agency and have almost double the tax.

They are calling upon the Government of Canada to extend the commuters a full grant of foreign tax credits for the withholdings, to make sure the CRA's 2020 temporary international income tax relief from section VII become permanent and to enact measures that the U.S. companies employing Canadian commuters are not required to hold a separate Canadian payroll for their taxation as it affects our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious, though, that one cannot use one's technology here in the chamber while it is sitting. It is a well-established practice that we have had, and any disrespect for that has always been corrected.

Unfortunately, we are in real time right now, and it is obviously more complicated. I am hoping that perhaps this will be expedited, at least as to whether the allegation is accurate. I do not know. I have not seen the video just yet, but I understand that it is pretty serious.

If it is in real time, happening right now, it is just going to create more egregious debate in the House of Commons. That is unfortunate. If it is true, then that should also be reflected because there is an attempt on the outside to do what one cannot do on the inside.

Mr. Speaker, the former CRTC chair is well known for supporting large Internet providers and being against consumers. This is one reason that we have some of the highest prices in the world for our system.

Where I come from, we are a peninsula surrounded by the United States. Therefore, Windsor-Essex and Chatham-Kent counties basically get inundated with U.S. content on a regular basis. If we do not do anything with respect to this right now, it will be Alphabet that controls what we see and do not see.

I wonder if the Conservatives have reached out to the artists in the border communities about their concerns with respect to being shut out by some of the structural positions the United States has taken. These not only limit them from even going into the country but also from sharing their information. Have they reached out to those artists and dealt with the fact that, with so many Canadians living on the border like us, we are being inundated?

If we look at the hearings taking place in the U.S. Senate and Congress, there have been admissions that this is not a red or blue issue. Instead, it is being called the green issue with respect to what Fox and others are showing. This is because it is all about money and not about truth. Have the Conservatives talked to the artists in the regions who are affected by the border?

Mr. Speaker, it is a fair criticism by the member about using closure. It is a very serious issue in terms of our parliamentary democracy.

The member also mentioned the Stephen Harper era. I was here during that time, and she knows that 114 or 117 times, I think, the Harper administration used closure on 11,000 pages of parliamentary law. I am wondering whether she has some reflections on all of those things, which actually involved women's issues, environmental issues, issue over pipelines and issues related to the economy. There were even some things that went to the Supreme Court and were brought back.

Maybe the member could give some reflections about when and how this issue should be resolved. It really goes back to the 1950s, when, for the first time, there was closure on a debate, which was over a pipeline issue. Perhaps we could get a little insight on that.

Mr. Speaker, for almost a decade, I have asked respective governments to stop plans to bury and abandon nuclear waste near the Great Lakes.

Last week, the U.S. Congress and Senate, both Democrat and Republican, united opposing Canada's plan to create this radioactive dump. High level nuclear waste has long-standing and devastating consequences on lakes that provide 40 million people with drinking water. The Liberals should be funding the organizations that clean and protect these waters, like the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, not science fiction.

Will the government stop this plan from moving forward and instead focus on its commitments to keeping these lakes great?

Madam Speaker, I will start with a bit of acknowledgement of the member for Timmins—James Bay's work domestically with the Canada pension plan and ethics reviews, which are very important. When we think about the Canada pension plan, it goes back to Pat Martin, a former NDP colleague. For many years, he said that we actually need to have green and ethical screening of our investments for the Canada pension plan.

For those Canadians who are tuning in right now, it is disgraceful that, to this day, our Canada pension plan has actually supported child labour and invested in everything from guns to tobacco and other types of endeavours that would be seen as reprehensible. We continue to have this arm's-length approach to how we use the public funds from many people who are activists against this use and many investors in Canada; this actually includes investments into small and medium-sized businesses, which have to compete globally for our own investments that we have in endeavours of such a nature.

Coming from an industrial town in Windsor-Essex County, I have seen our job losses at the expense of using child and forced labour. This includes not only the abuse of those individuals but also ethnic cleansing and other types of imperialism that other countries use labour for. Many times, this has been through investors coming from our country, so we have actually undermined ourselves.

I have been at meetings where, for example, unions from Mexico have come down and said not to allow the investments because there is abuse of their women, children and men. There is a short-term gain from jobs through exploitation versus what would be a long-term gain from the proper investment and necessary humanitarian advancements.

Finally, the member for Elmwood—Transcona has carried on the amazing work of his father, Bill Blaikie, in this chamber. Thanks to this, with the U.S.-Canada-Mexico Agreement, we got at least some type of a labour and environmental lens that can be applied. However, we see how fragile that is; in this last number of weeks, even the United States has been identified with problems on labour and using children. This includes the Ford Motor Company, which is founded, in many respects, in my riding across from Detroit, Michigan.

These are real things that are happening because we do not impress upon investors the right, necessary standards or do the routine things we should. I want to transition a bit to talk about one of those routine things, which is with our Customs and Immigration Union. I was here at the beginning, when they used to actually use students to cover their employment breaks at the border. In this past year, we have again seen the government not taking the contract or the types of necessary supports very seriously.

When we talk about the CBSA and our men and women who are on the line for us every single day, we do not give them the proper supports. Today's debate, with the verbiage coming from the government side on this, is upsetting because the routine thing we could do is actually support our CBSA officers, who have had to deal with extraordinary circumstances under COVID while underfunded.

In fact, this last summer they had to go into forced practices to actually have proper staffing because the government has mishandled the implementation of the right people. On top of that, it is even trying to move toward more automation as opposed to having men and women at our border as a policy.

That is really what the ArriveCAN situation was. We know there was lots of discussion in the House about its mismanagement as an application on someone's phone. However, at the end of the day, this was really about the Liberals trying to defund men and women at the border. We have also seen this at airports that have moved to automation, and we are seeing it at land borders. This is unacceptable, especially when I have been fighting for over 20 years for a new border crossing here in Windsor-Essex County, the Gordie Howe International Bridge. We are finally getting it, but there is going to be a shortage of officers. Moreover, that is the best line we actually have to back up the policies that are spoken about in legislation made in the House.

Why do we have underfunding at our ports? Why do we check very few of those facilities? Why do the men and women in our CBSA not have the proper technology or the right supports?

I was in the House and chamber when then Liberal MP Derek Lee called them wimps. The CBSA officers were not getting the proper supports at that time, so the government did nothing to actually discredit that statement. What we did then is that we moved to a modernization process and gave them some better skills and supports. However, through successive governments, they are constantly going through contract renegotiations and often working without a contract or collective agreement, on a regular basis. That is unacceptable.

If we want to do the routine things to back up what we say in the chamber, we could support our men and women at the border. That means proper identification. Those things that they can do are very much an important skill set for ending not just the issues with forced labour and trade agreements, which we do not enforce on the shipping level but arrive on our doorstep, but also public safety issues.

I have done a lot of work on fraud and prevention of different types of things coming into our country. I always remember that we have a lot of different devices and types of materials coming into Canada that need to be checked regularly; it is actually important for our economy that we check them because we are competing against manufactured knock-offs and a series of different things. We cannot assume that they are just garments or clothes. The reality is that some of the knock-offs that have come into our Canadian society and even our industrial manufacturing industry include parts for hospitals, airplanes and cars. These things are getting through our system right now, but we can identify and deal with them if we have the proper training and supports.

Therefore, when we talk about today's motion, we have identified this particular issue, especially with regard to the Uighurs and the genocide taking place, as well as the series of other exploitations that are very important. Here, we have to come back to what we can control, which, at this time, is supporting our CBSA officers by having proper collective agreements, having proper training facilities and doing proper staffing on a regular basis all the time. That is where we can control something and make a difference at this moment. Having words in the House and dealing with the larger corporate issues that we have less control over are things that will be challenging, but we should take them on. However, again, I have referenced the CBSA because it could be done in a heartbeat, as could the issue related to the Canada pension plan. That is a politically appointed process to get on its ethics board and actually follow through.

The member for Timmins—James Bay brings up a really good point in terms of accountability, of being back on our shores here for the investments and exploitation that take place. There is no reason we could not start that in the House with our own investments as a country and as a government nation deciding how our public money is used.

One of the most upsetting things about this is that those are the simple things that we can control, and yet we hear more excuses and complaints from the government having to exercise basically the systems that it has employed at its fingertips. I have regularly witnessed this, and it has always been the excuse that it is the capitalist way or the free market economy that is out there. Let us take a look at that as I wrap up here.

If, at the end of the day, we want the free market economy with no regulations, then we are getting child exploitation, women's exploitation and other populations who are migrating for different reasons. Even in our country, when it comes to foreign workers coming in, there is exploitation. Therefore, it is up to us as policy-makers to make decisions to change things.

If we want to just accept the free market the way it is right now, then we are literally accepting the exploitation of children, women and migrant workers as the status quo. That is unacceptable from my standpoint as a New Democrat, and I think it is unacceptable for most members in this chamber. However, at the end of the day, it takes real action on what we have that is controllable instead of complaining about the things we cannot control.

Madam Speaker, the challenge that we face here, and what I find most offensive, is that we know all this. However, we do not act, and the government is still consulting. What is there to consult about on the exploitation of children? I do not understand that.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from a fellow border colleague who knows the stress that the issue brings, and I thank him for his work on that.

Mark Weber was very clear in terms of what the CBSA and its members can do. With the proper training and supports, we can actually advance not only the protection of general society with regards to our border officers, with everything from gun control and a number of different initiatives on the drug response and so forth, but we can also do the same for businesses that want to compete fairly by intercepting illegal products or those actually manufactured under duress or through other types of measures. However, quite frankly, this needs boots on the ground. In fact, last summer, the CBSA had to go into forced vacation time and other initiatives because it did not have the proper staffing. So those are things we can control.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's work on our committee, where rights and fair balance are part of his regular work.

One thing I look at is Quebec and Montreal, where the textile industry was undermined by public policy through our trade agreements. These agreements actually allowed for a lot of the work to go to Jamaica historically, and now it has been offshored to China and other places at the expense of good workers, a good system in place and good quality. That is what we have to look towards: our trade agreements and following up.

If there are going to be supports, then we support, for example, child care, dental care and pharmacare. We support all the things that can actually subsidize the worker in the sense of making sure that any type of public money goes to training and the individual's well-being. In that way, governments will not just fund corporations and see the investment disappear to other areas; otherwise, we end up undermining ourselves by basically funding the competition.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the CBSA officers, one of the things we had this summer was mandatory working during vacation time and mandatory overtime. One of the things we could do is actually expand their operations and boots on the ground, so to speak.

What are the member's comments about that, versus what right now is an agenda to actually move to more automation? Where do the Conservatives stand on that?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate here this evening. Bill C-241, sponsored by the member for Essex, is an excellent bill that the NDP will be supporting. I am also pleased to be in the same area as the member, and I think it is a good example of how we can bring forth responsible and solid legislation that not only reflects on our area, but also impacts the rest of the country.

Unfortunately, I cannot get the last 10 minutes back from the previous speaker, but I can say that the member sponsoring the bill has been open to meeting with the government and ministers on an open basis. He has approached the Liberals very responsibly, trying to get them to come on board. Quite frankly, I think the only reason the Liberals do not support it is because it is not their idea. It is as simple as that.

I am going to go through the specifics of why the bill is important, but a lot of people would see this as a housekeeping bill in many respects. I want to point out that this is a modest tax credit and a piece of legislation with an approach that should be, in a minority Parliament, a bipartisan way to get some stuff done for Canada. I commend the member for coming forth with the bill right away. He was selected high in the order, and we only get a certain amount of opportunities and time. It is like winning the lottery.

This is not a going-through-the-motions type of bill; it is going to provide a tax credit. We know there are many tax credits out there for other individuals and corporations. It is unfortunate that we do not have this one, which is to allow for travel-related expenses for work done at least 120 kilometres away from a skilled trades member's place of residence. In Windsor and Essex County, which includes LaSalle, Tecumseh and Kingsville, even the Chatham-Kent area in southern Ontario, there are often different times where we might have a flux of employment in the auto industry, or other types of trades that go up and down. We also have many workers who will fly out to Alberta, to the oil sands, or fly out to other places to do skilled trades work. This is a modest tax credit to help them in that process.

These individuals are self-employed in many respects, although they often belong to unions, like LiUNA, which is a very good union, and Unifor, which is another good union. At times, they are individually contracted to go out to different places, and the cost can be quite significant. The previous speaker from the Bloc mentioned a really good point on the inflationary costs that have gone up for travel, and other things of that nature. I think that is an excellent point. This keeps people working all the time and stops them from having to go on unemployment. It also encourages young people to have more stability. It is a challenge to work abroad. There is a lot of stress when it comes to family and raising young children.

These measures are controllable. The person has to provide receipts. There is full accountability for the expenses taking place. I looked at some of the other tax havens, the types of taxes and tax credits we have for people. I will focus on a couple of them to show how unfair it is for these workers to not be able to write off a few business-related expenses for their travel when it is helpful for our country. We have a corporate dividend tax credit, a tax credit for the oil and gas industry, and a stock option deduction for taxes. We have a number of different businesses taxes that businesses can write off, which even include private boxes for sports tickets, concerts, vacations, office parties, and deductions for executive pay. If members can believe it, all those things are a tax deduction, but they are not for skilled trades workers.

We are also trying to get more women and diversity into our skilled trades, but they cannot get the same deductions we can for an office party. It is outrageous. For the government to complicate this, or make it more difficult than it seems, is irresponsible. I do not know why the Liberals cannot just get behind the bill. It is unfortunate. The bill has a history in this House. Former New Democrats for Hamilton Centre have brought this forth, including past members Chris Charlton, David Christopherson and Wayne Marsden. Now our current member for Hamilton Centre, who is doing an excellent job on this, and the member for Essex have pulled this together, and I think it is worthy of being brought forth on its merit alone.

We have done this before. In the last Parliament, I worked with the member from Saskatoon when I had a private member's bill on single-event sports betting, and because he got selected higher, I took it off the Order Paper and gave it to him. He took it and did a wonderful job, and the legislation got passed. It affected the reduction of organized crime, and now we have an accountable process. It is a good example of making Parliament work. I think the bill before us should be seen with the same type of lens.

I do not know why government members would want to oppose this legislation. Some of them argue it is redundant. Some of them argue it is not good enough. It is ridiculous. Those arguments are shallow and vain, quite frankly, because if there is still a problem, it can go to the Senate for some amendments. Members can be creative and suggest something or show something that is wrong with it in a concrete way, rather than just trying to wind the clock down on the process.

When we get an opportunity in the House of Commons, it is like winning the lottery. For people who do not know, we are like ping-pong balls in many respects. The process is that we get drawn randomly, and if a member gets selected in the top 40, they at least have some hope of actually getting their bill through the entire process in a regular Parliament. However, in a minority Parliament, it is even more shallow, because if we do not have a five-year term, if it is a shorter term, a member would not be able to get their bill through. Even the last bill I did, again with the member from Saskatoon, who did an excellent job of working on the bill with me and others, came into effect within only a couple of days of the election, because the Prime Minister refused to do it. It took outside lobbying efforts to get him to finally officially authorize it and bring the legislation into force, a couple of days before the last election.

It is hard enough, and my point is that we all have a collective responsibility to use these opportunities as best we can. The member did not choose something like “happy groundhog month” or something very shallow like that. This legislation is well thought out. It is legislation that has been in the House before. It is not going to break the Bank of Canada. In fact, it passed the test of mettle in being proper and with due diligence, by the Speaker's ruling. This is one of the things that should be noted. We actually have unions behind the bill as well. Canada's Building Trade Unions has been supporting this tax deduction for a long time. Operably, it is really good. I mentioned LiUNA and Unifor as well.

Again, what we are talking about here is for a long period of travel, 120 kilometres, where a worker would be able to deduct a little bit of that cost. We have all seen, in the last number of months, and the last couple of years really, the rate of inflation going up. I could not think of anything that had more appropriate timing than this. In fact, it merits the government stealing the legislation if it wants to actually impress upon getting something done for workers at this particular time.

If the government is saying that we cannot afford this for skilled trade workers, then why would we not stop letting people write off private boxes, and stop corporations from deducting office parties and other nonsense like that? This is something that could go right to the worker.

Again, it would go through our accounting process, which is already established, and so the legislation would not create another bureaucratic arm or process. It would actually be an amendment to our current tax code, which is commendable in the approach it is taking. It is responsible and could actually be triggered right away.

I feel passionately about this. There are two things that are behind the bill. First and foremost is that a member has sincerely brought forth legislation, which has had a number of versions in the House in the past and is very much amenable to a bipartisan approach and working together. Second, it is very effective for tradespeople. It has a direct correlation to the economy and how we can actually protect workers and enhance opportunities for them and their families, and it has a social justice element as well.

To conclude, there are a lot of other tax things out there that are a bunch of nonsense and that really should be reviewed, eliminated or at least discussed, whereas this is extremely responsible. I hope the bill before us receives the proper weight or at least the government looking at what it can do, and that we can move it to the Senate and go from there.

Madam Speaker, electoral reform is very serious for all democracy, not only internationally but also domestically. One of the things we did as an improvement was to get union and large corporation donations, which were there before, out of the system. In the past, foreign subsidiaries used to make massive donations to political parties.

In addition, we have even seen electoral issues domestically. We cannot forget that in 2011, we had the robocall scandal with the Conservative Party of Canada; later we had Dean Del Mastro led away to jail for electoral issues. Most recently, even some of the campaigns for electoral leaders have had interventions.

With regard to the international component, what other countries is the hon. member concerned about? What about the diasporas and other groups that are perhaps going to be blamed for some of the interventions by other state governments? I think it is important to recognize that we could have victimization of some individuals just because of the actions of politicians opening themselves to this; at the end of the day, foreign governments are really responsible, not Canadian citizens.