Scott Brison

[Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, April 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada jobs grant that the government has negotiated with the provinces and territories may have some merit in terms of engagement of the private sector and the decisions around investments in training and skills, but the reality is that the labour market agreements with the provinces were funding organizations and initiatives that perform a completely different set of tasks than that of the Canada jobs grant. For instance, in Nova Scotia there are organizations, such as Community Inc, PeopleWorx, Hants County Community Access Network, and the Valley Community Learning Association, which help people with literacy skills. These are organizations that help people upgrade their literacy to get their GED high school equivalency in order to pursue post-secondary education. The end of these labour market agreements and the stopping of the federal funding will mean that these organizations, and the vulnerable Canadians who are helped by them, will no longer receive that vital support.

Does the parliamentary secretary recognize that while the jobs grant may help some people, there will be a lot of vulnerable Canadians left behind by the ending of funding for the labour market agreements? Will the government restore that funding, certainly for a period of perhaps two or three years, in order to transition these groups to other funding mechanisms?

[Pensions, March 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot afford inaction and indifference from the Conservative government.

When the provinces proposed higher CPP premiums to improve Canadian pension incomes, Conservatives called it a job-killing payroll tax, but when the Conservatives keep EI premiums artificially high just to pad their books to create a phony pre-election surplus, it is okay. It is fair game.

Why are higher payroll premiums okay if they help Conservative politics but not okay if they help Canadian pensioners?

[Pensions, March 31st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian middle-class families are worried about retirement. Recently a Department of Finance Canada report prepared for the minister states:

In the long run, expanding the CPP would bring economic benefits. Higher savings will lead to higher income in the future and higher consumption possibilities for seniors.

Will the minister listen to his own department's advice and research? Will he listen to the provinces, and will he finally work with the provincial governments to strengthen CPP for Canadian families?

[Pensions, March 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the junior finance minister just told the House that the Conservatives are actually opposed to artificially high payroll premiums, but that is exactly what they are doing with EI premiums. They are keeping them artificially high in order to pad the books before the next election to try to have a surplus.

Why is it unacceptable to have higher payroll premiums to ensure the retirement security of Canadian families, but it is acceptable for the Conservatives to use higher payroll premiums to pad their books for some surplus on the eve of an election?

[Employment, March 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, there are 265,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians than before the downturn. Students looking for summer jobs are pressured into unpaid work just to get the work experience. This hurts students and it hurts their middle class parents who are struggling to pay the bills; but instead of tracking unpaid work, the Conservatives continue to ignore the problem. They cannot manage what they do not measure.

Will the new Minister of Finance and the government finally ask Statistics Canada to start tracking unpaid work, so we can actually make the investments to solve this problem for young Canadians and their families?

[Infrastructure, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that money is largely back-end loaded. In fact, on April 1, the fund will be cut by almost 90% and it will not return to today's levels until 2019.

We still have communities with crumbling roads and bridges, overcrowded public transit, and outdated water treatment plants. To fix these problems, communities are going to have to hike property taxes, and that will hurt middle class families.

Why is the finance minister forcing communities to hike their property taxes or just to wait five years to fix crumbling infrastructure?

[Infrastructure, March 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the new finance minister to his role, where he is going to be deciding how much the government will invest in infrastructure.

On April 1, federal infrastructure funding is set to be cut by 90% because his predecessor made this cut to try to balance the books before the election.

However, these cuts will hurt middle class families, who will face rising property taxes.

Would the new finance minister reverse this cut, put middle class families first, and fix our crumbling infrastructure?

[Taxation, February 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, when I think about balanced budgets, I rarely think of the minister.

Yesterday the minister dismissed the Conservative election promise on income splitting. He said he is not sure that it benefits society. He said that other priorities should be acted on before income splitting, but the employment minister disagreed. He said, “We keep our election promises. We made this commitment to do this policy in the next budget”.

Does the finance minister still speak for the government on tax policy like income splitting, or is it now the employment minister who speaks on fiscal policy for the government?

[Taxation, February 13th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Finance attacked the Conservative policy on income splitting. He said, “I'm not sure that overall it benefits our society” and “I think income splitting needs a long, hard analytical look by our think tanks”.

This analysis has already been done, in fact, by the C.D. Howe Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Now that the analysis by think tanks has actually happened, does the minister agree with these think tanks that income splitting would do nothing for 86% of Canadian families, and that “it’s an expensive tax gift for the rich”?

[The Budget, February 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we must absolutely work with provincial governments on important economic and social issues. Of course, we must also respect provincial jurisdictions.

The Conservative government refuses to meet with provincial governments and to work with them on issues that are important to our country. The Conservative government obviously does not respect provincial jurisdictions. It is rather strange to see a Conservative government take this approach.

The Prime Minister gave a speech in Quebec City during the 2006 election campaign. He said that he would work with the provincial governments and would always respect provincial jurisdictions. That is utter nonsense, since the government and the Prime Minister do not respect provincial jurisdictions.