Scott Brison

[Infrastructure, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, experts like David Dodge, the IMF, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce all agree that we need more public investment in infrastructure. Now we can add Governor Poloz to that list. This week he called infrastructure “a key ingredient in our economic growth story”. He said that with interest rates at “a generational low”, the “missing ingredient” is government and the certainty government can provide.

Governor Poloz is right. Will the Conservatives listen to Governor Poloz and to David Dodge? Will they reverse their 90% cut in planned infrastructure spending this year?

[Employment Insurance, November 6th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are spending more than half a billion dollars on the small business job credit without doing their homework. Yesterday, finance officials admitted that they had not done any internal analysis on how many jobs would be created. The PBO has done its analysis, and it has confirmed that only 800 jobs will be created, at a cost of $700,000 per job. Why is the government spending half a billion dollars of taxpayers' money without doing its homework?

[Taxation, November 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I saw the light and I followed the guidance of my better angels who told me that income splitting would only benefit 15% of Canada's wealthiest families. When I learned that, I knew it was wrong, as did Jim Flaherty. Beyond that, in the riding of Yellowhead one out of every five families with children is a single parent family.

Why are the Conservatives taking away a $2 billion tax credit that actually helps single parent families to pay for a $2 billion income splitting scheme that leaves these vulnerable families behind?

[Taxation, November 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the late Jim Flaherty said, “I think income-splitting needs a long, hard analytical look...to see who it affects...because I'm not sure that, overall, it benefits our society”. Perhaps Mr. Flaherty was thinking about the people in his riding. There are 5,700 single parent families in the riding of Whitby—Oshawa that will not get a dime from income splitting.

Why are the Conservatives going ahead with this $2 billion regressive income splitting scheme that does nothing to benefit single parent families?

[Taxation, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Jim Flaherty did not believe that this was a progressive measure and that is why he opposed it.

In fact, there are over one and a half million single-parent families in Canada. These families got help from the child tax credit, but they will not get a dime from this income splitting scheme.

Why are the Conservatives scrapping a program that helped single parents and replacing it with an income splitting scheme that will leave these single-parent families, some of Canada's most economically vulnerable families, out in the cold?

[Taxation, November 4th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are replacing the child tax credit with a regressive income splitting scheme. Both cost about $2 billion a year, but the child tax credit helps significantly more families. It helps single parents and it also helps families where both parents earn similar wages. The Conservatives' new income splitting scheme will leave these families out in the cold.

Why are the Conservatives scrapping the child tax credit and taking this money away from single parents just to pay for their regressive income splitting scheme?

[Taxation, October 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I said a few stupid things when I was a Conservative. That is why I joined the Liberals: so I would no longer have to say stupid things.

Income splitting does nothing to create growth or strengthen the economy. It costs the provinces over $1 billion a year, which is money that will be taken out of health care and education, and it puts the federal government back into a structural deficit, according to the PBO.

When will the government listen to reason and scrap this bad plan?

[Taxation, October 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the late Jim Flaherty said, “I think income-splitting needs a long, hard analytical look...because I’m not sure that overall, it benefits our society.” He was right.

The Conservatives may have tinkered with their scheme, but it still does nothing to help 86% of Canadian families. It will not help the 1.5 million single parents who are struggling, but it will cost billions of federal and provincial dollars.

Will the Conservatives listen to the late Jim Flaherty and experts across Canada, and will they scrap this tax scheme?

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, October 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, if the temporary foreign worker program were ever being used to bring in professional dancers, I would certainly express concern, particularly if there was a lack of gender balance.

Beyond that, let us be very clear. The temporary foreign worker program, on a limited basis, worked quite well for a long period of time. It has grown massively under the current government and is being used in areas where it was never intended to be used. Historically, if we look at temporary foreign workers in the horticulture or agriculture side, it is something where everyone acknowledges, and not just in Canada but elsewhere, there is a legitimate role for temporary foreign workers.

What we have been troubled by and what makes no sense is the skyrocketing of the use of temporary foreign workers in areas of high unemployment, for example, in the Windsor, Ontario area, and the threat and the very real risk of it depressing wages in those areas. What we believe ought to happen is that we consider temporary foreign workers policy as part of an overall immigration strategy, and we restore the opportunity and the linkage between people who come here to work as part of our production chain of products, goods and services, with immigration.

If we look at Manitoba, it has done a great job of immigration. There were approximately 16,000 new Canadians who moved to Manitoba last year, compared to the 2,000 in my province of Nova Scotia. Manitoba has a whole-of-government approach. One of the things they do there is streamline the process and make it easier for people who come here to work to move on to permanent residency and then on to immigrate to Canada.

As a country, we ought to look at the Manitoba model. We need more new Canadians. We need to attract them, not just to work on a temporary basis but to become full partners in progress and citizens of this country.

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2, October 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke recently with Mayor David Corkum, the mayor of Kentville in my riding, he stressed the need for infrastructure investment. He also stressed the need for us to take investing in social infrastructure, such as housing, seriously.

There is a strong role for the federal government. This is certainly not the time for the federal government to cut by 89% planned infrastructure spending for next year. It is doing that, again, to pad the books on the eve of an election. It may be good politics. It is bad economics.

The reality is that, if we listen to David Dodge or the OECD or the IMF, with bond yields at historic lows, with real interest rates actually negative, we have an historic opportunity to invest in Canadian infrastructure, to create jobs today and to improve Canada's competitiveness tomorrow. We heard that from the former deputy minister of finance yesterday, Scott Clark, at committee.

Beyond that, we have the greatest concentration of expertise in the design, construction, and financing of infrastructure in the world resident in Canada in our pension funds. Let us work with them to invest in fixing Canada's infrastructure and create good jobs here in Canada.