Scott Brison

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour is a passionate and effective advocate for early learning and child care and skills development, and he is making a great difference in this place.

I would like to get his opinion on the following quotation by Jay Myers, President of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, on the corporate tax cuts back in the budget of 2008. It was in a press release by the CME at the time. Jay Myers stated then:

This budget worries me because it sends the message that a reduction in corporate tax rates is the silver bullet for the economy. That gets you in the game. But, it doesn’t give you many chips to play with as other nations are encouraging investments in technology, innovation, and skills.

I would appreciate the hon. member's view on the CME's perspective in 2008 that we are not investing enough in skills development in Canada.

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the parliamentary secretary to her new responsibilities.

The parliamentary secretary did not speak of the Conservative government's record of big borrow and spend government. She did not discuss the fact that her government increased spending by three times the rate of inflation and actually put Canada into deficit before the economic downturn. It burnt through a $13 billion surplus and put Canada into deficit before the downturn. She did not talk about the $1.2 billion that her government wasted on a three-day G20 conference, or the $16 billion that it wants to spend on untendered fighter jets, or the $13 billion it intends to spend on prisons.

The parliamentary secretary did not discuss her government's failure to present Canadians with a real plan, a credible plan, to eliminate the deficit and get us back into surplus, and that is what the International Monetary Fund and the Parliamentary Budget Officer have said. There is no real plan.

The member quoted a couple of folks during her speech. I would like to know if she agrees with the following quote from the chief economic analyst at Statistics Canada, one of her own government economists, Philip Cross, regarding the impact of more tax cuts:

--is going to be relatively small, given the huge flow of money driven by other forces.

Also, I would like to know if she agrees with Don Martin who said:

How a government, which has emptied the public purse far into the future, ratcheted up the deficit to historic highs and bloated the bureaucracy to unprecedented size can stand for re-election as a conservative-friendly government is beyond me.

I would appreciate the member's response to both those quotations.

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It is clear that the well-being of Canada's middle class is not a priority for the Conservatives. We believe that it is also important to make investments for seniors, particularly in light of current demographic changes. There will be more seniors, and it is very important to invest in our health care system now, across Canada, and to be prepared to invest more in the future, particularly with the accord negotiations in 2014. It is very important to work with the provincial governments to make investments.

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party certainly believes in competitive corporate tax rates. That is why the Liberal government, under Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien, cut corporate taxes from 29% to 21% during times of surplus.

It is a fundamentally different argument to cut corporate taxes during times of surplus, when we can afford to do so, and to cut corporate taxes during times of record deficits, when we clearly cannot afford to. That is the difference between cutting corporate taxes in the past, when we had those surpluses, and today.

Today we need to protect Canada's fiscal capacity to invest in the priorities of Canadians in the future. The reality is that putting Canada further into debt today to cut the corporate taxes of some of the most profitable corporations in Canada will not create more jobs, but will create more debt and lead to higher taxes in the future.

It is morally wrong to pay for today's tax cuts on borrowed money, which will force the next generations of Canadians to pay higher taxes for reduced services. It is bad economics and that is why we are defending the Canadian people against this kind of misguided economic policy of the Conservatives.

[Business of Supply, February 8th, 2011]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the Government’s decision to proceed with cuts to the tax rate for large corporations fails to address the economic needs of Canadian families, and this House urges the Government to reverse these corporate tax cuts and restore the tax rate for large corporations to 2010 levels in the upcoming Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member from Brossard—La Prairie.

The Liberal Party has a history of prudent fiscal management and balanced budgets. Under the previous Liberal government, deficits that had persisted for decades were finally eliminated by Prime Minister Chrétien and finance minister, Paul Martin. The books were balanced and Canada posted nine consecutive surpluses.

The Chrétien and Martin governments put prudent financial measures in place, including the $3 billion annual contingency reserve, otherwise known as the rainy day fund. We made sound investments in public infrastructure, in research and development and in people. The Liberals listened to and worked with the provinces. Historic health and social transfer agreements were reached, giving the provinces long-term, predictable funding that enabled them to make investments and provide the services that Canadian families and our aging population needed.

Within this environment of sound fiscal management, the Liberals cut personal and corporate income taxes. I believe in personal and corporate income tax cuts and so does the Liberal Party. In fact, the Liberals cut the corporate income tax rate from 28% to 21% in four years as part of the largest income tax cut in Canadian history. However, as Liberals we did so sensibly, during times of surplus, never risking the public treasury or the programs that Canadian families depended on.

What a difference five years under the Conservatives has made.

When the Conservatives were elected, they inherited a surplus of $13 billion from the Liberal government. But after increasing spending by 18% in three years—three times higher than the inflation rate—the Conservatives plunged Canada into a deficit before the financial crisis even hit.

They increased the size of government by a whopping 40% in just four years while, at the same time, with their ill-advised, economically stupid tax policy, they gutted the government's capacity to pay for the programs that it was spending on. The Conservatives borrowed and spent their way toward a record $56 billion deficit, the largest in Canadian history.

While the finance minister is now promising to balance the books by 2015-16, the truth is that he has no credible plan to get Canada there. It is no wonder that the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the IMF both report that the finance minister will not be able to keep his word and balance the books.

In fact, after five years of the Conservatives' borrow and spend agenda, the IMF and the PBO believe that the Conservatives have given Canada a structural deficit. Structural deficits are bad for business. They create uncertainty. With ballooning debt levels, the public's ability to sustain investments in infrastructure and social programs like health care and education are imperiled. Persistent deficits also create higher taxes for the future as tax bills get deferred and higher interest costs are factored in. The best thing that the government can do to improve the business climate in Canada is to get back to balanced budgets.

We must bring Canada back to a balanced budget.

There is also a moral imperative for the government to prepare for the large demographic shift facing our country and its people. We have a rapidly aging population that will place greater demands on our health care system. At the same time, more and more Canadians are looking to retire, at least those who can afford to, so there will be fewer people in the labour force paying taxes.

Under the Conservatives, we are also seeing both higher unemployment numbers and, at the same time, higher labour shortages. We have jobs without people and people without jobs. The need to invest in learning and training has never been greater.

With record deficits, an aging population, increased demands on health care and education and a shrinking tax base, this is no time for the Conservatives to gut Canada's fiscal capacity with corporate tax cuts on borrowed money, corporate tax cuts we simply cannot afford right now.

As cost-sharing agreements with the provinces get ready to expire in 2014, why are the Conservatives gutting the federal government's fiscal capacity now, right before negotiations are set to start with the provinces on important health care and social transfers?

There is no pressing need to cut corporate taxes further at this time. Canada already has a competitive corporate tax rate. It is 25% lower than the U.S. rate and the second lowest in the G7.

It is also clear that corporate tax cuts are not always the most effective way to create jobs. The Conservatives' own numbers show that when it comes to creating jobs and economic growth over the last two years, a dollar spent on public infrastructure has been eight times more effective than a dollar spent on corporate tax cuts.

Last week, the chief economic analyst at Statistics Canada, Philip Cross, described any impact of further corporate tax cuts on Canada's economy as “trivial” and “relatively small”, given the huge flow of money driven by other forces.

With Canada's weakened fiscal position under the Conservatives, coupled with the fact that Canada's corporate tax rate is already comparatively low, it is bad policy for the government to borrow even more money to pay for further corporate tax cuts we do not need and cannot afford at this time. We are calling on the government to restore the corporate tax rates to 2010 levels so that we can balance the budget and invest in the government programs that Canadian families depend on.

Right now, Canadian families are finding it difficult just to make ends meet. Canadian families are paying 29% more for out-of-pocket health care expenses. Over 40% of family care givers are using personal savings just to get by, just to survive.

Under the Conservatives, household debt is at a record high. The typical Canadian family now owes $1.50 for every dollar of disposable income. Personal bankruptcy rates are up by 33%. Students are also facing a personal debt wall as nearly two-thirds of parents think they will not be able to afford post-secondary education for their children, and 16% of low income students already plan to delay their education because of high student debt.

That is why the Liberals would cancel the most recent corporate income tax cut and use that money to reduce the deficit, put us back into surplus and to invest in the priorities of Canadians, helping Canadians with the rising cost of living, family care giving, saving for retirement and access to post-secondary education.

The Conservative finance minister has in the past supported delaying planned corporate tax cuts. In 2002, as an Ontario cabinet minister, the minister voted to delay corporate tax cuts that he himself had announced the year before. He did so because of a financial downturn related to what he referred to as “extraordinary circumstances”.

The Conservatives' record deficits and fiscal mismanagement have once again presented Canada with extraordinary circumstances. That is why I moved the motion, which reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government's decision to proceed with cuts to the tax rate for large corporations fails to address the economic needs of Canadian families, and this House urges the government to reverse these corporate tax cuts and restore the tax rate for large corporations to 2010 levels in the upcoming budget.

[Privilege, February 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I believe Canadians will have to rely on technology to find that information by Googling corporate profits before taxes and simply restricting that search to Finance Canada.

Not only have these projections been previously disclosed, they were disclosed by the Department of Finance itself under the previous Liberal government in November 2005.

The Standing Committee on Finance has an unambiguous and unlimited right to access the information it has ordered from the government.

As pointed out in the Speaker's ruling of April 27, 2010:

—procedural authorities are categorical in repeatedly asserting the powers of the House in ordering the production of documents. No exceptions are made for any category of government documents, even those related to national security.

In that ruling it was also noted that at page 281 of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, fourth edition, it states:

But it must be remembered that under all circumstances it is for the house to consider whether the reasons given for refusing the information are sufficient. The right of Parliament to obtain every possible information on public questions is undoubted, and the circumstances must be exceptional, and the reasons very cogent, when it cannot be at once laid before the houses.

O'Brien and Bosc, at page 83, refers to a list of types of contempt of Parliament. Included in that list is:

without reasonable excuse, refusing to answer a question or provide information or produce papers formally required by the House or a committee;

In its replies to the committee, the government has said that it cannot provide the information the committee has ordered because of cabinet confidence. On what grounds is this information covered by cabinet confidence? On this matter, the government has been completely silent. No cogent reason or reasonable excuse has been provided. Instead, the committee has been left guessing.

What we do know is that in 2005, the previous Liberal government recognized that the projections of corporate profits before taxes were not covered by cabinet confidence. Such projections are not considered a cabinet confidence when, as is the case with Finance Canada's revenue model, these projections are used by the department in a manner that is not exclusively related to cabinet operations.

Therefore, what has changed between 2005 and today? On what grounds is the government claiming that these projections are now a cabinet confidence where before they were not?

With respect to the costs of the justice bills, we know that due diligence would have required that cabinet consider the cost implications of each of these bills before making a decision to proceed with each bill. Particularly today with a record $56 billion deficit, we would hope the government would carry on this type of due diligence.

We know that under normal practice, an analysis of the cost implications of each justice bill would have been included with a memorandum to cabinet prepared for each bill.

Section 69 of the Access to Information Act tells us that such analysis and background information is not a cabinet confidence if the cabinet decision to which the analysis relates has been made public.

Furthermore, in the Ethyl case, the Federal Court has been clear. This analysis and background information can be severed from a protected document and disclosed.

Legislation goes to cabinet for a decision before it is introduced to Parliament. The very act of introducing government legislation in Parliament is a public declaration of cabinet's decision to support that legislation. Therefore, the cost estimates for the justice legislation are no longer a matter of cabinet confidence.

Page 137 of O'Brien and Bosc states from a report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in 1991:

It is well-established that Parliament has the right to order any and all documents to be laid before it which it believes are necessary for its information.

...The power to call for persons, papers and records is absolute, but it is seldom exercised without consideration of the public interest.

The previous government recognized that it was in the public interest to publish projections of corporate profits before taxes. How would bringing these projections under cabinet confidence serve the public interest? The fact is that the public interest is not served by this change in the government's application of cabinet confidence.

In his testimony before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on February 1, 2011, the Parliamentary Budget Officer offered recent examples of where the public interest was served by the government's publishing details on additional planned resources for government programs and spending restraints before Parliament was asked to provide the financial authorities.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer went on to note:

This raises the question as to why the application of cabinet confidence with respect to restraint measures appears to have changed in a relatively short period of time.

Withholding the requested information from the committee clearly does not serve the public interest. In fact, withholding this information impedes Parliament's ability to fulfill its duty, responsibility to scrutinize the estimates, and to hold the government to account.

With that in mind, the government's claim that the requested information cannot be provided to the committee is without merit. Furthermore, the government's refusal to provide the information constitutes a breach of the House's privilege.

The government's refusal to provide a reasonable excuse as to why this information should be withheld also constitutes a contempt of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by quoting from your April 27, 2010 ruling on the question of privilege surrounding the provision of information to the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan. You said:

In a system of responsible government, the fundamental right of the House of Commons to hold the government to account for its actions is an indisputable privilege and in fact an obligation.

In this case the House of Commons' efforts to hold the government to account have been unduly frustrated by the government itself.

I am therefore prepared to move an appropriate motion if, Mr. Speaker, you find a prima facie question of contempt.

[Privilege, February 7th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege in relation to the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

In our system of responsible government, the government must seek Parliament's authority to spend public funds. Parliament, in turn, has an obligation, a responsibility to hold the government to account and to scrutinize the government's books.

Recently, this government impeded the work of the Standing Committee on Finance by hindering its attempts to better understand the federal government's budget projections.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 108 empowers committees to send for persons, papers and records. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, describes Parliament's right to order the production of documents as a right that is “as old as Parliament itself”.

On November 17, 2010, the Standing Committee on Finance passed a motion ordering the Government of Canada to provide the commitment with five-year projections of total corporate profits before taxes and effective corporate tax rates from the 2010-11 fiscal year until the 2014-15 fiscal year, inclusive.

The November 17 motion also ordered the government to provide the committee with certain financial information pertaining to justice Bills C-4, C-5, C-16, C-17, C-21, C-22, C-23A, C-23B, C-39, C-48, C-50, C-51, C-52, S-2, S-6, S-7, S-9 and S-10.

Among other things, the motion specifically requested:

detailed cost accounting, analysis and projections, including assumptions, for each of the bills and Acts, conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Guide to Costing.

The motion established a deadline of seven calendar days, which ended on November 24, 2010.

On November 24, the Department of Finance replied to the committee with the following. I will read the department's response in its entirety. It stated:

Projections of corporate profits before taxes and effective corporate income tax rates are a Cabinet confidence. As such, we are not in a position to provide these series to the Committee.

The government provided no further information to the committee before the deadline.

On December 1, 2010, one full week after the deadline, the committee received a letter from the Department of Justice regarding projected costs of the justice bills. Again, I will read the department's response in its entirety. It stated:

The issue of whether there are any costs associated with the implementation of any of the Government's Justice bills is a matter of Cabinet confidence and, as such, the Government is not in a position to provide such information or documents.

On December 7, 2010, after the government had refused to provide the information ordered by the committee by the established deadline, I provided the committee with written notice for a motion by which, if passed, the committee would draw the attention of the House to what appeared to be a breach of its privileges.

On December 10, 2010, perhaps in response to the written notice I had written on December 7, the committee received an additional response from the Department of Finance.

In its response, the department stated:

To the best of its knowledge, the Department of Finance has determined that “series” or projections of corporate profits before taxes or the effective corporate income tax rates have never been previously disclosed. These projections are from a comprehensive economic and fiscal projection that constitutes a Cabinet confidence. As a result, the Department of Finance has not been in a position to provide these "series" to the Committee.

This response appeared somewhat dubious. For, if any member of the House or if any Canadian wishes to Google the phrase “corporate profits before taxes” and restrict their search to the domain of the Department of Finance's website, he or she would get exactly two results: the HTML and PDF versions of “The Economic and Fiscal Update” from November 2005, in which they would find, on page 83, that the previous Liberal government had actually published projections of corporate profits before taxes from 2005 until 2010.

At this time, I would like to seek unanimous consent to table page 83 of “The Economic and Fiscal Update” from November 2005.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 7th, 2011]

And then there was Ronald Reagan.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have never heard the hon. member in fact say anything against the tyranny of FARC or of the violence that it has continually committed on the people of Colombia and the fact that it has been housed in Venezuela. In fact, Hugo Chavez's Venezuela houses FARC and from Venezuela FARC is attacking the people of Colombia. The member and his party sit back and applaud Chavez. They believe Chavez is their folk hero when he is a cancer on Latin America.

We have a responsibility to work with President Martinelli in Panama, President Santos in Colombia and with democratic regimes in that region, those who understand the importance of free people and free economies to allow people to prosper and move forward.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, February 3rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the hon. member. I basically disagree with everything he says because he is usually totally misinformed. It reminds me how important it is to have a party in the House of Commons that is not right of centre like the Conservatives or left of centre in the economic hinterland like the NDP. It is good to have a good politically centrist, economically pertinent and informed and socially progressive party like the Liberal Party in the House.

I do not know where to start. It is tough.

First, in terms of Colombia, 82% of Colombians support the government of President Santos. Only 6% of Colombians voted for anti-trade candidates in the last election. The Colombian people support free trade.

Second, the murders that he is referring to have often been committed by FARC, his ideological soulmates, and by drug traffickers. If he is serious about protecting trade unionists and teachers in Colombia, he should provide legitimate economic opportunity to the people and help wean them away from those terrible drug lords and drug trade, which for many people in Colombia, in fact for 40 years, represented the opportunity.

I find it interesting that the hon. member never talks about FARC. He never talks about his ideological soulmates, the Marxist-Leninist FARC in Colombia, that has been murdering people. He never talks about the murderous Hugo Chávez in Venezuela. He never talks—