John Brassard

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, one does not have to be a member of those organizations. If there is a unionized workplace, one has to be a member of that unionized workplace. Therefore, I would suggest that there is no way that the current government is open and transparent when it looks at repealing the bill right off the bat. There is no way the Liberals are like that.

[Canada Labour Code, February 16th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I have been struggling to find some rational reason why the Liberals have decided to introduce Bill C-4 to repeal Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 without any chance of allowing both bills to be tested over time.

I was a proud member of the International Association of Firefighters prior to being elected to this chamber. I started my union involvement early in my career, becoming an executive officer and secretary of our association. After a period of raising our children, I became president of our local for three years. I contributed to our provincial and international association, lobbying on behalf of firefighters and their families with all levels of government.

Our association talked about our issues to those in office and we were appreciative of the time they gave us. We hoped our talks with politicians would be in the backs of their minds when the issues came up, not just in caucus, but around the cabinet table. Political action at the time was more about education than it was about influence. There was no political action funding, no well to draw from, and it was simply a matter of working hard to have our issues understood.

As an association, we strove for better understanding and better agreements for our members. Our members came first. Now, as a member of the House, my focus does not differ. I serve in the House for the best interests of my constituents, many of whom are union members.

Last year, a Forum Research poll showed 62% of Canadians approved of Bill C-377, while only 18% disapproved of it. I am assuming that many who were asked are also union members. The survey also revealed an appetite for even greater transparency with 78% of those surveyed saying they would like to see the bill expanded to include employer groups like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

The labour strategy has evolved. We realize that we can actually influence the decision makers beyond just education. We can actually help candidates and now parties win campaigns.

By funding campaigns with targeted political action funding, we were having an impact. When we started, there was little accounting of how much our union dues were being used for this activity. However, as the request for more direct funding was made, we were able to account for just how much funding was being directed to a political activity and it was quite a lot of money. With the ability to finance massive negative advertising campaigns against a candidate or party, a union's influence has increased exponentially in the modern political age.

Political action funding targeted directly to influence election campaigns is widespread and whether this type of engagement is ratified by the membership at large has become inconsequential.

Prior to Bill C-377, there was virtually no accounting of how much of our union dues were being used for this type of blatantly partisan political activity. To see the effect PAC funding has had, one only has to look back some 15 years in Ontario to see why this is happening now more than ever. As partners of the Liberal government in Ontario, unions have had their way with the government because the borrower is always servant to the lender. They have had the Liberal government's ear and have influenced a vast array of policies and yes, even the outcome of elections in spite of the fact that many union members do not agree with what party that money is supporting.

The union spend over the airwaves in the 2014 Ontario election should make any member of the House and members from legislatures and assemblies from coast to coast to coast blush and take notice.

Members of the House, legislatures, assemblies, and in fact unions across Canada should also heed a strong warning and look at the problems that support for a Liberal government has had on its union members in Ontario.

Failed government policies have resulted in plant closures and lost jobs, lower wages and benefits, and have caused many job and wealth creators to leave the province. Failed government policy has also resulted in choking debt and deficits. That has impacted union members in Ontario with cuts in health services and has impacted their quality of life.

I would humbly suggest that the biggest threat to the union movement and its workers in this country is not Bill C-377, but rather bad government policies. It appears that the federal Liberal government is on the same path as Ontario.

The repealing of Bill C-377 is nothing more than payback for the help the Liberals received this fall. Bill C-377 sought to establish mechanisms of transparency and accountability. I have heard the arguments against it, but the question is a simple one: What is wrong with being transparent and accountable?

A good friend of mine and former member of the House once told me that there is no monopoly on a good idea. The need for transparency in our institutions should be universally accepted in the House no matter which team we play for. Transparency is a good idea and it needs to continue to be one of the hallmarks of our Canadian democracy. It should be about what is good for all workers, and that includes trade unions. Canadian taxpayers accord individual union members deductions to support their unions under the Income Tax Act, that same deduction I benefited from as a union member for 30 and a half years.

What is wrong with transparency and disclosure? I suggest the only thing wrong with transparency and disclosure is if there is something to hide. During the election, because I was a candidate for a party that brought in Bill C-377, I heard from many fellow union members, who had been hearing from their executive and leadership how bad Bill C-377 was for labour. When I asked the members of my union and others I ran into at the door what was so bad about it, the only answer they could come up with was that it was intended to bust unions.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Laws similar to the one brought in by the previous government exist in other countries and the union movement in those countries has not been busted. Repealing Bill C-377 does not promote an open and transparent system. Quite the contrary, it puts unions and union leaders back in the shadows, keeps memberships in the dark, and does not follow the principles of our democracy.

On the issue of Bill C-525, union certification and decertification votes can be highly charged political events that can cause union members to be intimidated by a process that exposes one's views. It can cause stress and fracture relationships. Why should they not be held in secret ballots and why should someone not have the right to keep their views tightly held to them, and them alone? Bill C-525 eliminated coercion, removed intimidation, and mirrored the right of every Canadian who casts a ballot to be entitled to cast their votes in secret and to vote with their conscience.

On February 3, 2016, my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent asked a question in the House of the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour and she responded on behalf of the Liberal government. He asked, “Yesterday the Prime Minister said, in answering a question I asked him, that Bill C-525 is undemocratic. Can the minister explain to this House how it could be undemocratic to have a secret-ballot vote?”

Her answer to the chamber was, “it is undemocratic because the process used by the previous government did not include consultation. They did not go out into our community and apparently did not even consult with employers.”

How much consultation has the government held on repealing these acts other than to meet with those writing big cheques to the Liberal Party caucus? How much consideration is being given to allow fairly recent legislation to take root?

The U.S. passed a union transparency law in 1959, the labour-management reporting and disclosure act, or, as it was better known at the time, the union members' bill of rights. The act was intended to protect and promote democratic processes and democratic rights of union members, including the freedom to vote at meetings, to express any argument or opinions, and to voice views upon union candidates and union business. The legislation stood the test of time for nearly 40 years, before Congress made some amendments to modernize it.

The bill before the House today is not sound legislation. It is more about paying back political favours and less about the strength of unions in this country. It is not in the best interests of Canadians, and I urge all members of the House to see it for what it is and reject it as a step backward.

[Canada Labour Code, February 5th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am personally insulted by some of the inclinations shown here that this is an attack on transparency and accountability.

I spent thirty and a half years as a union member. In fact, I was a union president. One of the things our members often talked about was the issue of accountability and transparency. It is the cornerstone of democracy. It is the cornerstone of democracy in this House and in this country. It is also the cornerstone of democracy within the labour movement.

What does the hon. member have against another layer of accountability and transparency within the labour movement? My members did not have a problem with it. I do not understand why she would.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the Liberal Party is accountable to the House. We have been receiving information through the House and there are also plenty of media reports out there.

I go back to the example I gave of the middle-class tax cut, the shell game that the Liberals are playing with the middle class. We will be paying for a $1.4 billion deficit as a result of that, yet the Liberals went through the election campaign saying that their tax cut for the middle class would be revenue neutral. We are starting to see those numbers mount. As my colleague from Durham stated earlier, a deficit of many billions of dollars is projected to be incurred throughout this term.

It will be up to Canadians to decide in four years when they look at the Conservative plan and the Liberal plan who had the best fiscal plan for managing our economy. People will be awakened in four years.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, going by the information that is in front of us, it is clear that what the motion talks about is that our government has left a surplus. It is time the Liberals started recognizing that.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, clearly I am not stating things that I think are false. The document speaks for itself. It is time the Liberals start recognizing this and stop the rhetoric, stop blaming the previous government, when the document does show a surplus is there.

The fact is that the Liberals have been piling onto the debt with some of the decisions they have made early on. Many times over the last several months I have heard in the House about the middle-class tax increase. The Liberals went through the election saying that it would be revenue neutral when in fact this year there will be a $1.4 billion deficit piled on to any other problems that may exist. Over the course of the next nine years, almost $8.9 billion will be run into deficit because of the decisions the Liberals have made with that middle-class tax cut.

I would suggest that the Liberals are piling on the debt, not the Conservative Party. They need to stop blaming us for their mistakes.

[Business of Supply, February 4th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in favour of this motion.

I rise with complete objectivity, not being a part of the previous government. I am, however, very proud in the way the country's finances were run by the Conservatives. That is why I am a Conservative and why I believe the Liberals need to acknowledge the truth in the Department of Finance's report. I also believe that the Liberals have to stop blaming the previous government for the mistakes they are now making and the mistakes that many people in my riding know they are making.

I would first like to thank the independent, non-partisan officials from the Department of Finance for their hard work and evidenced-based analysis for the most recent “Fiscal Monitor”, as well as the deputy minister and his team. I want everyone who works in the Department of Finance to know that this Conservative Party and Canadians respect the work they do. We know they do it well. The Conservative Party trusts the information they provide as the truth. We know the work they do is not political. It is a shame, really, that the Liberals are using their efforts for their own political gain.

The people of Barrie—Innisfil and from ridings across Canada expect the government to act in their best interest when it comes to spending taxpayers' money. The most important part of fulfilling that fiduciary obligation is to balance the books, just as Canadians have to balance their own household budgets on a monthly basis.

Seniors are especially vulnerable and hard hit when the cost of goods and services and taxes rise. In Barrie, 18% of residents have reached the age of 60. In Innisfil, 14.5% of the population are 65 or older. When a senior in this country has to make a decision between heating and eating, we know that something is structurally wrong.

It is important to deal with the facts when it comes to managing the economy. The reality is, the previous Conservative government paid down $37 billion in debt before the great recession. Once that global financial tsunami hit our shores, a conscious decision was made to run deficits over the medium term. A comprehensive plan was put in place, and the previous government stuck to it.

Members from other parties were screaming for more and more spending, but a balanced approach was taken. The Department of Finance's official findings of the budgetary surplus of $1 billion for 2015-16 is a clear vindication of the Conservatives' strong leadership on the economy through nearly unprecedented tumultuous economic times. It is also relevant to note that the parliamentary budget office has also substantiated that the surplus was received.

It is interesting as I sit on this side and listen to government officials talk about the parliamentary budget officer. It is amazing what they used to say when they were in opposition about the PBO. The current President of the Treasury Board said, “That office has become indispensable, both to us as parliamentarians and to Canadians, who want to know what their government is doing with their money.”

The current Minister of Foreign Affairs, on April 29, 2013, said, “No one can deny that the Parliamentary Budget Officer produced some excellent analyses. Instead of shooting the messenger, the government should have listened to and respected what he had to say.”

The current member for Scarborough—Guildwood said, “Mr. Speaker, in November 2008 the PBO predicted a deficit, the minister a surplus. The PBO was right, the minister wrong.”

At another time the member said, “the PBO tests the numbers against internationally recognized verifiers.... the PBO spends his money on peer-review panels rather than on spin and re-announcements.”

It is amazing to me how things can change once the government changes.

The studied, measured approach was an important reason why the deficit was reduced from $55.6 billion at the height of the great recession to a projected surplus of over $1 billion by 2016, which we now know was achieved.

Our rural areas, small towns, growing cities, and large urban centres all require targeted plans to stimulate the economy and promote economic innovation.

I am proud to be a member of a party that has a record of lowering taxes every year after coming into office. This made Canada competitive and allowed job-creating businesses to thrive. The former government recognized the best way to grow the economy and help create more jobs was to keep taxes low and to achieve a balanced budget.

The Liberals have not been clear on their plans regarding finances and the economy for Canadians. The new government must present a pro-growth agenda that involves tax cuts, free trade, and key investments in manufacturing, innovation, and infrastructure to get more Canadians working and earning more.

Since the election, I have been reminded by business leaders in my riding that their money is portable. One employer with 2,400 employees has told me point-blank that if taxes, debt, and deficits grow in this country and that burden falls on companies like his, he will seriously consider moving his operations. Money is portable.

As Canada's official opposition, the Conservative caucus is proud of its record of lowering taxes during its time in government. In fact, Conservatives reduced taxes over 200 times, saving the average Canadian family over $6,600 per year. Those pocketbook-saving measures included roughly $2.7 billion in annual targeted tax relief directly for the benefit of seniors and pensioners.

The Conservative caucus has always made lower taxes a priority. The Conservative Party has always recognized the importance of Canadians keeping more of their hard-earned money in their pockets. During the Conservatives' time in government, we removed over one million low-income Canadians, including 400,000 seniors, from tax rolls completely. We increased the amount that Canadians can earn before paying federal income tax at all, and we reduced the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%. We reduced the GST, we increased basic personal income tax exemptions from $8,148 in 2005 to $11,327 by 2015. We removed the $10,000 limit that applies on the amount that caregivers can claim under the medical expense tax credit on behalf of certain dependants.

Under the Conservatives, the federal tax burden has been the lowest in half a century. We are the party of lower taxes, lower spending, and strong economic management. The Liberal Party, on the other hand, is the party of big government, big deficits, and certainly big rhetoric. However, the numbers do not lie. If the Liberals run huge deficits, it will be their doing, and theirs alone. They will not be able to point to the previous government, as they so often do. The PBO and finance department are clear that the new Liberal government is beginning its mandate in the black due to hard work of the Conservative Party.

Unfortunately, the lack of tangible, clear economic plan for the party opposite spells doom for Canadians. The Liberals' laundry list of election-time promises point to a government that tried to be all things to all people in order to get elected. Their lack of details in governing signals the inevitability of economic instability, massive job losses, and higher taxation for all Canadians.

In their arrogance, the Liberals are running around this place and in Canada thinking that Canadians endorse their financial plan to place us deeper into debt and place us in a deep structural situation. I have news for them. There may have been other reasons why they got elected, but this is not one of them. Canadians, by nature, would not pile on debt or put their families into deficit or debt situations purposely and I do not believe they expect their government to do that either. I believe in that in all that I am.

In closing, I encourage all members to support this motion. Our economy is not a game. Choices have consequences. The stakes are high. By voting against this motion, the government would be signalling that it does not have any confidence in the employees at the highest levels of Finance Canada.

If the Liberal government does not trust its own officials, how can we expect it to prepare the budget or manage the finances of Canadians moving forward?

[Employment, February 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, meanwhile, Ontario, the once proud economic engine of Canada, languishes as a have-not province under an incompetent Liberal government at Queen's Park.

Ontario has half a million people looking for work. Young people, like my kids, face especially dismal job prospects. Add to that, Ontario is pressing forward with a job-killing payroll tax scheme that will cost 54,000 jobs.

Is the government's plan to grow jobs in Ontario simply to hire Kathleen Wynne's staff to run the office of the Prime Minister? Is that all it has?

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to go back to what the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville said.

All day today, during the course of this debate, we have heard support for pay equity on all sides of the House. We have heard some of the aspects of what the Conservative government did to advance the status of women in our country over the course of the last 10 years, as has been well said by my colleagues on this side of the House. However, there are a couple of challenges that we face, but the main one is our being pigeonholed by section (c) of the motion that somehow neglects or fails to recognize the work that has gone on over the past several decades, the past 100 years, of advancing women's issues in this country by all sides, whether Liberal or Conservative governments.

Would the member talk to her caucus and the mover of this motion consider taking that part, section (c), out of this? We can have talks with our caucus, but this is what is causing us a major concern right now.

[Business of Supply, February 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat appropriate that today is Groundhog Day, because we are hearing the same comments over and over again.

On this side of the House, as the official opposition, clearly we have stated that we are in support of pay equity. What we are not in support of is adding another layer. We have heard from members on this side of the House, male members on this side of the House, who have sat on the status of women committee, which is a fully constituted committee, who have said over and over again that it is eligible to look at and deal with this issue.

Why would we want to establish another committee to look at an issue that a fully constituted committee is eligible to look at again?