John Brassard

[Income Tax Act, March 7th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-2.

I realize that we are near the end of the debate and the vote is coming tonight. Oftentimes when we prepare for these types of things, a lot of what we want to say has already been said. We have heard some good arguments from both sides of the House, but I happen to think that the arguments from this side have been more persuasive.

I have tried to break this issue down to its simplest form, and its simplest form is this. If I were standing in a Tim Hortons in Stroud or Alcona or if I were at Big Bay Point or in Huronia, in Barrie, how would I explain Bill C-2 to the residents of my riding? I would simply start by saying that it is a shell game. I have often used the term “liberalnomics”. If one were to define “liberalnomics”, it would be accurately reflected as a fiscal policy of saying that things will add up when they do not; a fiscal policy that equates to playing pin the tail on the donkey in the dark, where a government keeps missing its targets; and a fiscal policy in which, if government members made decisions using their own money, they certainly would not make the same types of decisions they are making, including those that appear in Bill C-2.

Who is going to pay for this? That is the question we need to ask. The Liberals said they were going to give middle-class Canadians a tax break by making taxes fairer. They said they would cut the middle-class tax bracket to 20.5%, and they certainly have done that. However, they also said that this plan would be revenue-neutral. All of the speeches that have been presented by members on our side, even information that has been presented to us by the parliamentary budget officer, have indicated that a $1.7 billion deficit will be created by this plan this year and effectively an $8.9 billion deficit over six years. This plan would benefit the top 30% of wage earners. How would I explain this to the people of my riding if I were standing in Tim Hortons?

This may not be a great example for this side to use, but it is an example nonetheless and it comes from Mr. David Macdonald, who is senior economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. In an article in Maclean's magazine Mr. Macdonald, through a study, said that 1.6 million families making $48,000 to $62,000 a year would see roughly $51 a year in tax savings; and for those families making $62,000 to $78,000 a year, they would be making $117 in tax savings. I would define those figures as the middle class, and Mr. Macdonald did as well.

Then Mr. Macdonald moved into an interesting category that he defined as the upper middle class, and I think most of us would agree with his definition. Those Canadians who make $124,000 to $166,000 a year would see a benefit of this middle-class tax decrease of about $521 a year, while those making $166,000 to $211,000 would see a tax saving of $813 a year.

How would I explain that to my residents if I were standing in Tim Hortons? I would simply say to them that this middle-class tax decrease would benefit every single member of the House of Commons more than it would affect those who need it the most.

We have heard the finance minister stand up many times in the House during question period and say that nine million Canadians are going to benefit from this. If the parliamentary budget officer's estimates are correct—and there is no reason to think that anyone in the House would discount them—that means for those nine million Canadians, the amount of deficit that they would have to pay is equal to about $164 each. If I were to explain to my residents in Barrie—Innisfil, with an average median household income of $69,000 in Barrie and $66,000 in Innisfil, that the maximum amount they would get as a result of this middle-class decrease would be $51 but the expectation would be that they would have to pay $164 for the amount of this deficit, not one of them would think this is a good deal.

Yet the Canadian government is running around, because of this election promise, saying that nine million Canadians will actually benefit from it, when in fact, every member of the House knows that it is Canadians who pay the price.

Based on Finance Canada's estimates, the new Liberal tax plan amounts to an average of an extra $6.34 a week for those who qualify, merely a head of cauliflower with the way the prices are today.

The other thing Bill C-2 talks about is the reduction of the TFSA from its current amount down to $5,500. In fact, 11 million Canadians took advantage of the TFSA. My wife and I, who I would classify as middle-class Canadians, and my kids who are in university have used TFSAs as a savings and investment vehicle. It is a tool that lessens the dependence on government. It gives people options. To reduce it just does not make sense because it puts Canadians in control of their future if they choose to do so.

Recently, my financial planner talked about TFSAs and he was quite concerned about the fact that we would see a reduction in them. He told me the story of a 22-year-old student who had invested the maximum amount in a TFSA, which was now worth $220,000. That individual will be able to take that out tax-free and use it for whatever purpose he or she chooses to use it for. The purpose of the TFSA was all about that.

About a century ago, American author and journalist H.L. Mencken wrote that complex problems had simple, easy to understand wrong answers. He may as well have been referring to the idea that budgets balanced themselves or that the Government of Canada could foster economic growth by simply injecting mountains of taxpayer money into the economy.

Government stimulus spending and workers alike can succeed. However, bad public policy, one based on pin the tail on the donkey approach, Liberalnomics, sees companies rushing for the border and everyone else heading straight to the unemployment line. That is exactly the road that the people in my home province have found themselves travelling on over the past 13 years and Canadians are sadly following the same disastrous route under the current government.

Tax breaks that do not help those who need it the most and they create deficits that are not needed. That is Liberalnomics. That is how I would explain to the residents of my riding why I am not supporting Bill C-2. It does not help those who need it the most. It gives members of Parliament a bigger tax decrease than most Canadians, and I will not support it.

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the debate all day, and I keep hearing the same thing over and over. I want to remind all members of the House that EI is meant as a temporary measure to overcome circumstances. What Canadians want most is employment. They want to work. They do not want to be on EI.

The way that the NDP motion reads, it says that for 360 hours, which is a short period of time, people can collect employment insurance for 50 weeks a year. What people want to do is to work for 50 weeks a year. They do not want to collect employment insurance.

I ask the hon. member to provide us with a jobs plan. Provide us with some ideas on how we can get Canadians working, as opposed to putting them permanently on EI, as the NDP would propose with this motion.

[Employment Insurance, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, one of the fascinating things about this place is how Canadians come together. For many members in the House who do not know this, the member opposite and I went to high school together and were in the same grade, although we do not share the same views on politics. I am not quite sure what went wrong in high school for the member opposite.

However, this is the second time I have heard this morning about reducing costs to both employees and employers. When we reduce the cost of employment insurance, we run a risk, especially given the fact that the government has talked about enhancing employment insurance. Could the member answer how those reductions in cost to employers can meet the demands of her government in improving employment insurance costs?

[Employment Insurance, February 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of her speech, the member mentioned the fact that her party has consistently stood up for Canadian workers.

One of the things that I believe Canadians want is to work. What this motion proposes is two months of work for, effectively, one year of EI. It is important to have that social safety net as a temporary measure for difficult situations. However, I would be more curious to hear the member's position on supporting jobs and job growth for Canadian workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great question.

Part of the challenge, when we are relying on other coalition partners to provide air support to our troops in a combat mission, is the fact that we have communication problems. In fact, in the past, we have seen some collateral damage when coalition air strikes have affected our members and in some cases have killed members of our forces.

Would it not be better if we had some continuity? Would it not be better if we had our CF-18s fighting with our troops?

I think the resounding answer to that is yes, and Canadians believe that as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I should have shared my time with the hon. member across the floor and not the member for Calgary Nose Hill. However, I appreciate the member's comments on this.

The challenge is that this is obviously still an active combat situation. It is a combat situation that the Liberals will not even mention is a combat situation.

The fact is, we need a comprehensive effort that includes the CF-18s to protect the troops on the ground. In my statement, I mentioned the significant role the CF-18s have played. Why can we not keep them there? The only reason we are not keeping them there is because of a campaign promise.

I go back to a campaign mention that was discussed during the recent campaign. We often talk about humanitarian efforts. We have to have humanitarian efforts. However, humanitarian efforts without protecting the people we are providing humanitarian aid to means that we are dropping supplies potentially on slaughtered people. That is why we need the CF-18s to continue.

I was not in the House, but I am reminded that the Liberal Party did support, in the past, the mission to Afghanistan and to Libya, as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise that I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this motion, and I want to begin by sincerely thanking the men and women who so proudly serve in our Canadian Forces. I am often reminded, in my many interactions with CFB Borden, as is the member for Simcoe—Grey, both in my capacity as a city councillor in the past in Barrie and now as a member of Parliament for Barrie—Innisfil, of the proud tradition of military contribution from my region in central Ontario to the causes Canada has contributed to with respect to military engagement throughout our country's history. I am also very proud to be an honorary member of the Grey and Simcoe Foresters regiment.

Recently the Leader of the Opposition rose in the House and suggested that the Prime Minister was disrespecting Parliament by ending air strikes against ISIS before MPs could even vote on the matter. His answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question was clearly at odds with his own stated promises while on the campaign trail. Promises to run an open and transparent government and to respect parliamentarians are a distant memory, having been replaced with disdain for the members opposite and an attitude that we are on a need-to-know basis only.

It should be abundantly clear to all in the House that the Prime Minister does not feel it necessary to consult with MPs on matters of national security or on any other issue, for that matter. While in campaign mode, the Prime Minister told Canadians that he was going to be different, and now it is obvious that the sunny ways rhetoric was just talk to gain power. Instead of openness and transparency, the government's modus operandi appears to be keeping Parliament in the dark, with no clear plan on the horizon.

Notwithstanding the Liberals' delusions of grandeur after capturing 39% of the vote in October, Canadians deserve answers on Canada's mission against ISIS, and they demand to be heard on the direction we are heading.

The government's motion talks of refocusing Canada's military contribution in Iraq and withdrawing our CF-18s while maintaining air force surveillance and refuelling capabilities.

Operation Impact was launched to help stop ISIS from taking more territory and to destroy whatever capabilities it had built up. As of Feb. 3, Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18 aircraft had eliminated more than 300 ISIL targets and had liberated up to 25% of territory taken by the Islamic jihadists. Bombing runs by Canadian fighter jets have provided vital cover for those battling ISIS on the ground, like the Kurdish forces, which have repeatedly requested that Canada's bombing activities continue.

Our international partners also asked us to stay in the air combat mission. In a radio interview just last month, the Minister of National Defence confirmed quite succinctly exactly how our allies feel about Canada's role when he said, “Of course they want to keep our CF-18s there”.

Our pilots are among the most skilled on the planet. They are the best of the best, and our allies have specifically requested that they continue. Instead, the government arbitrarily removes our greatest capability in this fight.

I understand that many on the other side may feel that by pulling out our CF-18s from the bombing mission we are somehow claiming higher moral ground, but they are just fooling themselves if they think fuelling up other nations' planes for bombing runs and finding targets for them on the ground is any more or less moral. What it will do, however, is make us far less effective.

Our brave pilots who carried out those vital missions safeguarded countless innocents on the ground from the advances of barbarism. That was their contribution. That is the narrative. To suggest otherwise undermines those efforts and brings dishonour to our men and women who wear our uniform so proudly.

The Conservative caucus stands steadfast with our military members, and so do Canadians. Sixty-three per cent of Canadians say they would either like to see Canada continue bombing ISIS at its current rate or go further and increase the number of bombing missions it conducts. Forty-seven per cent say withdrawing CF-18s from the mission will have a negative effect on Canada's international reputation, while fewer than one in five, just 18%, say it will have a positive one.

Public opinion was very important to the Liberal Party during the campaign season, so why now, since it has seized the brass ring, is it deaf to the voices of Canadians? Why is this ill-conceived election promise any more important than the laundry list of election promises already broken?

Whether it is promising to resettle 25,000 government sponsored Syrian refugees by the end of 2015, promoting revenue-neutral tax changes that were anything but, or assuring Canadians that we would not be saddled with more than $10 billion a year in deficits, promises, clearly, are made to be broken by the government.

The government is also not being completely transparent with Canadians when it comes to our contributions in the air in the anti-ISIS mission. The motion the government put before Parliament makes no mention at all of the deployment of Griffon helicopters in this region, and many questions exist about the Liberals' plans.

Will the Griffon helicopters be outfitted for combat, or will they be sending our pilots into a combat zone unarmed? What precautions will be taken to protect our helicopter pilots from incoming RPGs or other surface-to-air missiles? If the helicopters are to be used primarily for transport, would it not make more sense to send Canada's CH-147F Chinook heavy aircraft airlift helicopters? Lastly, was the deployment of the Griffon helicopters ever discussed with our coalition allies, or are they on a need-to-know basis, just like opposition MPs in this House and the public at large?

This motion also mentions the desire to improve the living conditions of conflict-affected populations and to help build the foundations for long-term stability. While I am sure that all members of the House and Canadians right across the country would agree that these are worthy goals, how does the government plan on achieving them?

This region is a quagmire. It is the poster child of instability. Terrorist attacks carried out by ISIS in Syria just this past weekend left another 166 dead on the streets of Damascus and Homs.

How does one improve living conditions and build foundations for those living in a theatre of perpetual war and violence? Running away from our allies does not make these people safer; it makes them even more vulnerable. Until the dust settles and ISIS is destroyed, constructing housing projects in a war zone is the last thing on anyone's mind right now.

The motion before us declares a refocusing of our role, and it also puts our military in more danger. The defence minister describes this ISIS plan as an expansion with greater risk. The Chief of the Defence Staff, General Vance, is on record as saying that the lives of the men and women of the military are actually at greater risk.

Is this what the Prime Minister meant when he told the Leader of the Opposition that Canadians elected them because they knew best how to deal with the Islamic State? Did he tell Canadians that our troops would be put in greater harm's way once he became Prime Minister? I think we all know that the answer to that question is a resounding “no”.

I received a letter from a relative a couple of days ago. He was a member of our armed forces and served in special ops protecting high-level targets in Afghanistan. He agrees with the opposition and the public that pulling our planes out and putting more boots on the ground to train and assist is a mistake. He feels that there could be dire consequences from training and arming civilians in the region. He reminded me how the United States trained and armed a group of civilians to fight the Russians in the late 1970s and how many in that group became the Taliban and al Qaeda. He pointed to the training of civilians in the years after 9/11 and how many joined ISIS after receiving that training and those weapons from U.S.-led training operations.

He wrote to me, “...history shows that the people we train today can be our enemy tomorrow. We can't just arm a group of people and then when the conflict stops expect them to return all the weapons we gave them, forget the training we gave them, and then lead a peaceful life. The only thing it inspires is more conflict and less resolution”.

The motion before the House today is not sound public policy. It does not put us closer to defeating ISIS; it puts us further away. It does not improve Canada's standing in the world; it diminishes it.

I urge all members of the House to see this motion for what it is. It is a step backwards. It abandons our allies and the innocent people caught up in the middle of this conflict.

I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but I think passing this motion and pulling our CF-18s out of this fight will ultimately result in Canadians possibly, and I pray to God that we do not, paying the heaviest of prices with the blood and treasure of our sons and daughters serving in our armed forces.

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, as my hon. colleagues from Quebec know, I am constantly working on and trying to improve my French.

I want to pick up on a point that my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable brought up. As I read the BDS website, in translation it speaks very clearly to the fact that this meeting was a show or sign of solidarity in front of the member for Outremont. My hon. colleague said that this was, in fact, just a gathering, but the website clearly states that it was a show of solidarity in front of the member for Outremont.

I want to ask the member whether her recollection of what happened is unclear and whether, in fact, her party was in solidarity with this group.

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see anything that would protect the rights of union members. In fact, in a lot of cases, the money that is being spent by union leaders across this country is really unknown, and not even at the grassroots union membership level do they have the ability to find that information out.

I would also suggest that one of the challenges with this is the fact that a lot of the money that is being spent is not going to who the actual union members are supporting. It is actually going to other parties that those union workers do not support.

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, when I look at Bill C-377, I look at the issue of transparency and accountability. I think the members of the previous government did a very good job at making sure that the union members were aware of where their money was going and how it was being spent. This was what it was about. I do not begrudge that.

I find it kind of funny that the hon. member would be talking about polling, and our polling, when in fact they are the ones who do most of the polling to find out exactly how people are thinking.