John Brassard

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

I have spoken to many of my constituents with respect to the budget, and to say there is some concern among my constituents of Barrie—Innisfil is an understatement.

I spent nine years on city council in Barrie dealing with various budgets. I was a member of the finance committee.

Budgets are typically forward-looking documents. When I look at this document, and when my constituents who I have spoken to about the budget look at the document, there is one underlying theme that comes up regularly: Who is going to pay for this? To use the Liberal narrative, quite frankly the people who are going to pay for this are the middle class and anyone working hard to join the middle class.

One only has to look at the situation here in Ontario, my home province, to see some of the parallels to the mindset of unbridled spending that the current federal Liberal government has embarked on. They are very similar situations. It should not come as a surprise to anyone that they are very similar situations, because the very people who were running the premier's office in Ontario are now involved in the Prime Minister's Office. The mindset of debt and deficit spending is very evident not just in the budget but in some of the policies we have seen come from the Liberal government.

I would remind Canadians that the Ontario government is the largest sub-sovereign borrower on the planet. It is not second, not third, but the largest sub-sovereign borrower on the planet. The payment on the debt currently in Ontario is third only to health and education. It is an example of unbridled spending and debt that can occur. What we are seeing, quite frankly, is a 2.0 version happening federally that has happened in Ontario. The difference really is that there is just a bigger piggy bank for the Liberals to draw from. Add to that the green program, the unmitigated disaster and the costs associated with that. It is really something we are all going to be looking for. As I said earlier, budgets being forward-looking documents, the question for most Canadians is who is going to pay for this.

When we look at some of the promises the Liberal government made, it promised a small $10-billion deficit. We now know that this year that it is going to be $30 billion. We are looking at $150 billion as we move forward. We also heard about, for example, the revenue neutral tax breaks. We now know that those tax breaks are going to cost Canadian taxpayers $1.7 billion this year and $8.9 billion over the next six years. In fact, we are going to see taxes rise to the tune of $1.3 billion this year and $2.4 billion next year.

When the Liberals talk about the middle class and taxes, when they throw out the talking points and talk in platitudes about the middle class and how they are the party of the middle class, I would suggest, as I have before in the House, that what we are actually seeing is effectively middle-class tax fraud. What the Liberals are imposing on the middle class is tax fraud. It is a shell game.

I have said this before, and I will say it again, to make my point. What the Liberals give, the Liberals take back. We only have to look at the budget to figure that out. The fitness tax credit that most Canadians have used, to the tune $1.19 billion since 2006, is gone. The arts and fitness tax credit Canadians have benefited from, to the tune of $118 million or $119 million, is gone. Income splitting for families like mine, a typical middle-class family, is gone. TFSAs are gone as an option for saving. What the Liberals give, the Liberals take away.

On the issue of the OAS, and I think this is critical to discuss at this point, one of the reasons the OAS age limit was reduced from 67 to 65 was a matter of cost and sustainability.

In 2011, almost $38 billion more would have been spent to sustain the OAS. It would be $108 billion by 2020, and by 2030 it would cost almost $266 billion to sustain. In 2012, the Conservative government chose, in keeping with OECD recommendations, to increase eligibility from 65 to 67. It did this because this measure alone would have an estimated annual spending increase of $11 billion. Again, someone has to pay for that. Baby boomers, those born between 1946 and 1964, represented the largest age cohort in history. They retired. The cost of the OAS program was scheduled to balloon, as I said, to $38 billion in 2011.

When the OAS system was originally designed and implemented, the average life expectancy was much shorter. Today the average Canadian life expectancy is 85-plus. Seniors starting to receive the benefit at 65 will live 20 years more, greatly increasing the costs for working taxpayers.

According to Statistics Canada, the most recent projections estimate that more than one in four Canadians will be over 65 by 2036. When OAS was introduced in the 1960s, the ratio of active workers to pensioners was 7:1. Today, however, it is 2.5:1. That is not enough to support the massive cost to Canadians.

The finance minister himself wrote a book advocating later retirements. In The Real Retirement, he wrote:

If we were to retire three years later than we now do, any concerns about having adequate retirement income would practically vanish. It would also alleviate any shortages in the workforce due to the aging of the population.

Again, we have a finance minister who on one hand understands this but on the other hand, as finance minister, reverses his position. It begs the question: would the Liberals and the Liberal Party run their households the way they are running the country?

There were also some other issues with respect to the small business tax cut. On the issue of infrastructure, and I spoke about this before, while money sits to be handed out, people sit, as jobs cannot be filled unless projects begin, and projects cannot begin until the funding has been received.

The government can now, today, get this money out in a fair and equitable manner. We have seen members of the Liberal Party out and about in their communities making funding announcements.

One of the things the Liberal Party ran on was fair and equitable infrastructure investment in the country. Granted, it has made significant investments, but there is one way we can get that money out the door quickly, one way we can get the money out that is equitable. In fact, Mayor Nenshi, this past weekend, at FCM, spoke about the issue of the gas tax being a way to get that money out the door.

If the Liberal government wanted to, rather than delay, and already we are starting to see delays in the construction season due to the fact that the money is not going out the door, it could use the gas tax revenue. There is an existing formula in place.

I know that in my city, the city of Barrie, we receive $8 million a year in gas tax funding. The criteria is already set. The accountability system is already set for that gas tax money. In fact two weeks ago when I was in Vancouver, I met with the president of FCM. I met with the president of LUMCO in my role as urban affairs critic. Universally, every single one of them has suggested that the gas tax is the proper source for ensuring that infrastructure money is put out the door in a fair and equitable manner.

This budget, as I said earlier, is a shell game. I have statistics. I can show third party assessments of this budget and how it does not benefit wholly the middle class. I would suggest, finally, that the ones who benefit the most from the Liberal budget are in fact parliamentarians with respect to tax reductions. I think the same thing that holds in Ontario will hold true three and a half years from now. My constituents are looking at this, and I know that others across the country who voted Liberal did not vote for this.

[Income Tax Act, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise here today to speak in support of the bill.

I am actually quite shocked that the government will not be supporting its own private member in this particular situation, given the nature of the bill to potentially save lives across this country.

Certainly on this side of the House, we value life, and we value the ability of individuals to help people in certain situations where this an emergency. I can speak to this on a first-hand basis, given that I spent 30 and a half years as a firefighter. I am trained in first aid. I am trained in CPR. I am trained in AED. I have seen first-hand the impact that training can have, not just with myself, but with my colleagues, and several thousands of colleagues across the country, who are trained to act, in particular those who are not paid professionals and are there when people need them.

Therefore, to spend 10 minutes of one's speech talking about the implementation of the budget, which I think we are dealing with tomorrow, I find a little disingenuous. I certainly understand my colleague for Cariboo—Prince George standing on a point of order, particularly when the parliamentary secretary was focused on his government's middle-class tax fraud. However, I will say that given the experience I have had, that is why I rise in support of this private member's bill.

I will give members an example of how helping people in an emergency situation is beneficial. Just after I was elected to Parliament, I think it was my second trip to Ottawa, I was heading home back to Barrie—Innisfil. When driving down Bank Street, there was someone who was hit by a car. My medical gloves are never too far away, and I stopped, as one would expect, to help this individual until the fire department and ambulance showed up. This is really what the bill is speaking to. I will also say that in Barrie—Innisfil, we have a tremendous amount of experience with respect to AEDs.

I want to spend a bit of time talking about Chase McEachern. For those in this country who do not know Chase, he was a hockey player from Barrie and a prolific goal scorer. At the age of five, he scored 130 goals while he played for the Vaughan Kings Minor Pewee AAA team in the Greater Toronto Hockey League.

In 2005, at the age of 11, after being injured while playing a pick-up football game at school, he went to the emergency room where doctors found that Chase's heart was beating up to 150 times a minute. He went by air ambulance to The Hospital for Sick Children and underwent a cardioversion, in which doctors returned his heart rhythm back to normal with a small electric pulse. Chase was able to return to school and continue playing hockey, but this time under doctor's orders while wearing a heart monitor.

It was at that time that Chase started a campaign to make AEDs mandatory at hockey arenas and schools everywhere, because he realized that heart problems did not just affect older people. Chase, in fact, wrote to Don Cherry. He got Don Cherry involved by writing the hockey commentator a letter asking for his support, and, in what has become legend, Don Cherry actually brought it up on Coach's Corner.

Sadly, before the campaign had a chance to fly, Chase collapsed during gym class and was rushed to hospital where it was discovered that he had suffered severe brain damage due to a lack of oxygen. After a heartbreaking six days on respirator, his parents made the decision to take him off of it.

As a result of that tragedy, the Chase McEachern Memorial Fund aims to have an automatic external defibrillator or AED in public places, such as community centres and arenas. It is a legacy from this tragedy that Chase's parents, his father John, have carried on in Chase's memory.

Since 2006, over 12,000 AEDs have been put in these places because of the Chase McEachern memorial fund. In fact, just two weeks ago, on May 16, I attended a CPR and AED training session in Barrie at Georgian Chevrolet that acted as not only a free training session that was put on by Mr. McEachern and others, but also to benefit the Chase McEachern memorial fund. This Sunday, there is a golf tournament at Angus Glen to help support the fund.

Imagine an 11-year-old boy having that great an impact on our country and having 12,000 AEDs in place.

I also want to highlight as well the significance of the Simcoe County public access defibrillator training. Since 2006, Simcoe County paramedics have trained 11,485 people in first aid, CPR, and the use of an AED since the start of our program, with 1,307 people trained in 2015. Fourteen public access defibrillator saves have been made since the program started. In 2015, the latest statistics show that three people have been saved by public access defibrillators.

To suggest that this is not a priority is misguided for the government. I heard the hon. parliamentary secretary speak about tax credits and the fact that the government would not support them. When we look at some of the impacts that tax credits have had, particularly on the issue of life safety like this, there should be no doubt that this is something the government should consider. We on this side of the House support it.

One of the things I want to focus on with respect to tax credits and the significance they have to people in our country is the fitness tax credit. I do not think any of us would be against this. The fact is that the health and fitness of our children is paramount to the future of our country.

From 2006 to 2015, $1.13 billion in tax credits have been claimed by Canadian families just with the fitness tax credit alone. That has meant that middle-class families have been able to put their kids into sports and receive tax credits. I have spoken about this before in the House, but in my situation, with four children, the tax credit has made it much easier for me to put my kids into fitness activities. On the arts side, between 2011 and 2015 tax years, Canadians have claimed $190 million in credits. These credits have been wiped out, yet they directly impacted Canadian families.

This private member's bill would not only impact Canadian families and potentially save some lives, but it would be an incentive for people to train in first aid, CPR, and the use of automatic external defibrillators.

In some of the talks we have had, it is my understanding that right now only 18% of Canadians are current in their first aid and CPR training. If there is any way at all that they can be given an incentive to continue on with that training, I do not see that as an issue.

The bottom line is that we want people to act in the event of an emergency. We want them to be able to render assistance until first responders are able to arrive. Oftentimes in first aid and CPR training we talk about the golden hour, the golden 15 minutes, where one can actually make a difference in somebody's life by starting CPR and first aid.

I am proud to say that just yesterday, the first outside automatic external defibrillator was delivered in Barrie, Ontario.

It is so important that people not only know first aid or CPR, but it is so important to give them the ability to train on AEDs. This private member's bill would do that. We on this side of the House are very supportive of the bill. I thank the member for Cambridge for bringing it forward.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Yellowhead for his speech. I think all of us in the House, and all Canadians for that matter, should take note, given the fact that he has 35 years of experience with the RCMP and he knows what he speaks of. Until any of us have walked in those shoes, or those of any RCMP member across this country, I think we should be listening to the members.

In fact, what we saw through the committee process was that there were not enough members of the RCMP coming forward, for many reasons, to talk about what they wanted to talk about, and that is, at least from many of the emails that I am getting, the right to have a secret ballot.

The hon. member spoke to this specifically in another question, but I would like his view again, and perhaps he would like to add more with respect to younger members of emergency services, and I will not specifically direct it to the RCMP, and the influence that older members, those who are in positions of authority and rank, can have with respect to younger members through intimidation, and in some cases it could be coercion as well, to vote in a manner in which they did not intend for the purposes of pleasing somebody else. I wonder if the hon. member can speak to that a little bit more.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I do not think anyone on this side of the aisle is actually arguing about the RCMP's fundamental right to unionize. We are clearly arguing for the right for each individual member of the RCMP, as we would fight—as I would fight, as I did fight in Bill C-25—for the individual right of a member to have a secret ballot for union certification.

I would suggest to the hon. member, as I suggested earlier to the House, that it is a fundamental tenet of democracy to have secret ballots. When we go to the polls, we do not raise our hands when we vote. We walk behind a screen and cast our ballot in secret. Given the fact that it is that fundamental tenet of democracy, I would say that on the basis of union certification the same should hold true.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I completely understand with respect to union certification. There are other aspects with respect to secret ballots that do happen within unions, but one of the fundamental things that is important for members opposite to understand is that, by virtue of paying their union dues, they are members of a union and have a right and duty to fair representation. As the president of a union, I can speak to that. The fact is that no one should be intimidated, coerced, or influenced in any way as to whether or not they will decide to join a union. Every other aspect that follows is different from this.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 30th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George for sharing his time with me today.

I rise to speak to Bill C-7, but I would first like to thank all members of the RCMP for the incredible service they provide to our country not just from coast to coast to coast but across the globe. RCMP members are stationed all over the world, and they provide incredible service to our country and its residents. I am 100% supportive of the RCMP for what it does. I have tried to encourage my son to become an RCMP officer because of the pride and tradition the RCMP brings to our great country.

I would like to start with just how we arrived at this point, and my hon. colleague brought this up earlier. Since 1974, RCMP members have worked under a non-unionized labour relations regime in which the staff relations representative program, the SRRP, has been the only body recognized by management that represents the interests of employees. Despite the consultative role of the SRRP, management has the final word with respect to HR matters.

Section 2(1)(d) of the Public Service Labour Relations Act excluded RCMP members from unionizing. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada that the existing labour relations program violated the rights of RCMP members under section 2(d), freedom of association, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In the ruling in January 2015, the government was given one year to pass new legislation. In January 2016 that deadline was extended to April 2016.

Bill C-7 would allow members of the RCMP and its reservists to collectively bargain. According to the bill's summary, it would create a process for an employee organization to acquire collective bargaining rights for members and reservists and include provisions that regulate collective bargaining, arbitration, unfair labour practices, and grievances.

The certification of unions speaks to the three requirements it must meet. It must have a primary mandate, the representation of employees who are RCMP members. It cannot be affiliated with a bargaining agent or other association that does not have a primary mandate of the representation of police officers, and it cannot be certified for any other group of employees.

Bill C-4, and this is what I find to be somewhat disturbing, would strip employees of their right to a secret ballot, and I will speak more on that later on. On the certification and decertification of unions, the combination of Bill C-4 and Bill C-7 would leave RCMP members without a secret ballot vote on future union drives, and it runs contrary to my view, that of giving workers the right to a vote that is free of intimidation prior to being forced to join, pay dues, or be represented by a bargaining agent.

With respect to collective bargaining, the bill would restrict what is up for bargaining. The collective agreement cannot include any term or condition that relates to law enforcement techniques, transfers, appointments, probation, discharges, demotions, conduct including harassment, basic requirements of RCMP duties, uniform order, or dress.

Given the unique nature of the RCMP, there are several aspects of that part of the bill that I certainly agree with, such as postings, uniforms, demotions, conduct, etc., and the increase in the size of the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to 12 from 10 and the requirement that at least two of those members have knowledge of police organization. It also speaks to dispute resolutions and grievances.

As I said earlier, one of the things that is somewhat disturbing to me is the fact that there would be no requirement for secret ballots.

The legislation was really watered down when it came to Parliament. I supported it at second reading because I thought there was more work that could be done at committee, and I was very glad to see that there was. With respect to clauses 40 and 42 of the legislation, it was actually amended, in large part because of a push on the part of our Conservative members of the committee.

With respect to the legislation itself, obviously this side of the House respects the Supreme Court of Canada decision. One of the things we do not respect, and I do not personally respect, concerns the right of an individual to have a secret ballot. I was president of a firefighters' union for 30 and a half years. I can say that everything was done with a secret ballot. I believe fundamentally and principally in the right of an individual to maintain a secret ballot, especially in an organization like this, because one of the unique natures of being a police officer or a firefighter, particularly a young firefighter or police officer, is the fact that one is on a career path and often some of the decisions made can have an impact later, on every aspect of one's career.

As the member for Durham said, it is one of the fundamental tenets of democracy. All of us in this House have been elected as a result of a secret ballot. The Speaker of the House was elected on a secret ballot. Leaders of political organizations are elected on a secret ballot. The irony of this whole thing is that, as I stated in my comments, not only are RCMP officers charged with protecting us domestically and protecting Canadian interests around the world, but they often go into new democratic countries and are there to ensure that the democratic process is adhered to. I think that is sometimes forgotten around here. Many times, RCMP officers will go to new democracies in Africa and in Europe and will actually be there to ensure that individuals' right to a secret ballot, free of intimidation, free of coercion, free of influence is ensured in those democracies. The irony I find in this whole process is the fact that RCMP officers are not being given the very right that they go and protect in faraway lands. That to me is a complete irony.

Why is it that the Liberal government would ensure we are seeing not just a continuation of Bill C-4 in Bill C-7 with respect to the secret ballot? That is up to speculation, but if one were to be a good speculator, it could be nothing more than just political payback to the promises that were made to the union leadership with respect to the last election, which was that there were going to be secret ballots.

Having been a union president myself, I have first-hand experience and I can say that there is some element of intimidation, especially, as I said earlier, with young police officers or young firefighters. They sometimes do not know what they do not know. When they get into a situation where they are voting or are in a process of unionization, it can be intimidating for young firefighters. In my involvement in the firefighter movement, at one point I was intimidated by the process of which I was not really aware. The fundamental right of the secret ballot is something that is Canadian. It is not just something that belongs in this legislation for RCMP officers, but it is something that is fundamentally rooted in Canada.

There are several aspects of this legislation that we are supporting but one that we cannot support, based on a fundamental principle of having a secret ballot. The fact that it is not in this legislation is something that I cannot support. I support 100% our RCMP officers, the men and women who protect our country and Canadian interests abroad, but this legislation in some ways is flawed, and I cannot support it.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned at the beginning of his remarks that this was the third time he spoke. I have been in the House every time he has spoken, and he has done so with passion, conviction, and a forthright nature.

I want to ask the hon. member again about the secret ballot. In a question from the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra referenced that the secret ballot had seen a decline in unionization, and studies had shown that. If we use that logic, that is the only reason why the union movement has declined, I would suggest it would more so be the will of the members, which can be even greater under a secret ballot system. As the hon. member for Durham has said, a secret ballot is the tenet of democracy.

Could the hon. member expand on that, particularly the decline of union movement and the fact that union members are free to express their voices?

[Income Tax Act, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member touched on a really important part of what the budget is about. We on this side of the House have often said that it is actually a Liberal shell game that says the middle class is going to be getting more than what it will. There is no definition of what the middle class is.

In fact, when it was broken down in a recent Maclean's magazine article, David Macdonald, who is with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, said that there are roughly 1.6 billion families making $48,000 to $62,000 that will see their tax bills trimmed by, on average, just $51, and as the income goes up, those earning $62,000 to $78,000 will only see a $117 saving, and there will be a $521 saving for the average family making $124,000 to $166,000.

What is important to understand is those making $166,000 to $211,000 will get a tax break of about $813. That benefits what I would classify as the upper middle class. Everybody in the House is going to be getting a bigger tax break than what I would truly classify as a middle-class family.

I want to ask the hon. member how he feels about this Liberal shell game.

[Income Tax Act, May 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his speech this afternoon, and I really respect and honour his parliamentary experience.

I do not have enough confidence to speak or ask a question in French.

I will do it in English, if members do not mind.

I want to focus on the debt and the deficit situation. My home province of Ontario is currently experiencing $313 billion in debt. In fact, the third-largest department in the Ontario government is the payment on that debt.

Of course, we all know that many in the former Ontario Liberal government are now running the PMO, so we are just transferring that debt and deficit ideology into the federal government, and obviously access to a bigger piggy bank.

I want to ask my hon. colleague, given his experience in government, what impact significant debt and deficit can have with respect to the impact on middle-class Canadians going forward.

[Criminal Code, May 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as a new member of the House I am extremely disappointed with respect to the government's actions. Like all new members in the House, the expectation among my residents in supporting me to come to this great place was that I was going to be able to extend my voice in the debates. As we have seen by the actions of the government, what amounts to effectively a basic dictatorship, debates have been stifled in the House.

I want to remind Canadians and I want to remind the government exactly what it said, what it handed to the Governor General in the throne speech. It is proving not to be worth the paper it was written on now. The throne speech said:

Canada succeeds in large part because here, diverse perspectives and different opinions are celebrated, not silenced. Parliament shall be no exception. In this Parliament, all members will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit. For here, in these chambers, the voices of all Canadians matter.

Further on in the throne speech, it says:

And to give Canadians a stronger voice in the House of Commons, the Government will promote more open debate and free votes, and reform and strengthen committees.

Four times now, with Bills C-6, C-10, C-15 and now C-14, we are seeing debate thwarted. Why the hypocrisy on the part of the government? All Canadians deserve to know.