Scott Brison

[Government Policies, February 16th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, whether forging documents or hiding them altogether from Canadians, the Conservatives are deceiving Canadians. They are operating an agenda of deception.

When the finance committee asked for the costs of the corporate tax cuts and the U.S.-style justice bills, the Conservatives said “no”. They refused to provide the documents to Parliament.

Why are the Conservatives stonewalling Parliament and why are they trying to hide the true costs of their right-wing agenda from Canadian taxpayers?

[Access to Information, February 14th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, after ringing up a record $56 billion deficit, the Conservatives are now trying to hide the facts from Canadians.

The finance committee has asked for the cost of justice bills, as well as projections of corporate profits, but the Conservatives have refused, falsely claiming cabinet confidence.

Today the Globe and Mail weighed in, saying:

The [Conservative] government uses “cabinet confidence” the way the Nixon administration used “executive privilege.” The Liberals provided projections of corporate profits when they were in government. And it is ridiculous for the Conservatives to maintain that the cost of their law-and-order legislation is a state secret. How is Parliament to judge the wisdom of that legislation if it can’t measure its projected impact in prisons built and guards hired?

Either the requested information exists, in which case the Conservatives are treating Parliament with contempt, or the information does not exist, in which case the Conservatives are incompetent and are treating Canadian taxpayers with contempt.

Either way, Canadians deserve better.

[The Economy, February 10th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, under the Conservatives, Canadian families are being squeezed by record debt levels and rising costs for everything from education to family care. In the past five years, household debt in Canada has grown by 50%.

The Liberal Party believes in and supports financial literacy education in Canada, but the Conservative finance minister is not qualified to lecture anyone on financial literacy. After all, this is the minister who brought in 40-year mortgages with no down payment, helping to create a debt and housing bubble in Canada.

He gutted the federal contingency reserve and spent Canada into a deficit even before the recession began. Because of him, Canada now has a record $56 billion deficit. He spent $1.3 billion on the G20 photo op, wasting money on everything from mini bars to glow sticks. Now he is borrowing even more money to cut taxes for Canada's richest corporations.

At the first class on literacy, we hope that this borrow and spend finance minister will sit in the front row and take plenty of notes.

[POINTS OF ORDER, February 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period the Prime Minister claimed that corporate tax cuts were a priority for the CFIB.

I would like to table two documents. One is a Canadian Press story from today's The Chronicle Herald in which Corinne Pohlmann, the vice-president of national affairs for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, says:

If you look at our website we have our Top 11 in 2011 and corporate tax cuts are not in our top 11.

I would seek unanimous consent to table both that article and the CFIB's website, which clearly say that corporate tax cuts are not a priority for the CFIB, but cutting payroll taxes and investing in learning are priorities for the CFIB.

[Taxation, February 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is misleading Canadians once again. CFIB's Vice-President Corinne Pohlmann has said publicly, “corporate tax cuts are not in our top 11 [priorities]”.

More than 80% of CFIB members will not benefit from the Prime Minister's corporate tax cuts. Instead, small businesses want lower payroll taxes and they need help with training.

Why are the Conservatives giving away $6 billion to Canada's biggest, most profitable corporations while killing jobs and punishing small businesses with an $8 billion tax hike?

[Taxation, February 9th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the CFIB has said that cutting corporate taxes is not a priority for small business. Instead, small businesses want payroll taxes to be held where they are or cut, and they want help to hire more Canadians.

On January 1, the Conservatives ignored small business and hiked the EI tax rate by 5%. Why are the Conservatives punishing small businesses with job-killing payroll tax hikes in order to cut taxes for the richest corporations?

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ensure the hon. member understands that the Liberal Party and the Liberal government believed in corporate tax cuts during times of surplus. In fact, we still believe in cutting corporate taxes when there is a surplus and when we can afford to do it without putting Canada further in deficit.

Today, we are in an unprecedented $56 billion deficit and it is not right to cut corporate taxes further now.

Will the member confirm what the NDP intention is in terms of the vote on this opposition day motion? Will the NDP be supporting the Liberal opposition day motion that says that it is wrong to cut corporate taxes further during times of deficit, or is the NDP position one of supporting corporate tax cuts when Canada is in deficit but opposing them when Canada is in surplus? I find this troubling.

Perhaps the NDP has embraced Reaganomics or the trickle down notion that we are already in debt so let us cut corporate taxes and go deeper in debt. Perhaps Ronald Regan, who recently would have had his 100th birthday, is looking down at all of us today saying that he even convinced the Canadian New Democrats to embrace his voodoo economic policy.

I am not certain. I am always confused by NDP economic policy but this one is particularly troubling. Is it the NDP position today that it will support the Liberal motion or does it support cutting corporate taxes on borrowed money, the Conservative Reaganomic voodoo economic policy?

[Taxation, February 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives increased payroll taxes on every small business in Canada in January. The finance committee has asked the government for projections of corporate profits. The Conservatives say that they are secret and that they are cabinet confidence, but the Liberals published this information on page 83 of their 2005 fall economic statement.

If information about corporate profits was not a secret under the Liberals, why is it a secret under the Conservatives? Why are the Conservatives hiding the real costs of their reckless corporate tax cuts from Canadians?

[Taxation, February 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that corporate tax cuts on borrowed money are not the best way to create jobs. The government's own numbers show that public infrastructure projects are eight times more effective at creating real jobs.

With a record $56 billion deficit and when Statistics Canada has said that any effects of further corporate tax cuts on the Canadian economy will be “trivial”, why will the minister not cancel his reckless scheme to cut corporate taxes on borrowed money?

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, I want to help the hon. member understand the difference between the Liberal position on corporate tax cuts and that of the Conservatives. The Liberals cut corporate taxes during times of surplus when we could afford to do that. We created one of the most competitive corporate tax regimes in the world. Now with a record $56 billion deficit, the highest deficit in the history of Canada, we cannot cut corporate taxes further. It does not make good economic sense.

The hon. member has not said clearly whether or not his party will be supporting our motion today. I would appreciate knowing whether or not he will support it.

If the hon. member does not support our motion that would imply that New Democrats oppose corporate tax cuts when we are in surplus, but support corporate tax cuts when we are in record deficit. I find that troubling, even in terms of New Democrat economic policy. I would appreciate my colleague's answer to that.