Scott Brison

[Income Tax Act, January 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-201, which would provide skilled trades workers with a tax deduction for certain work-related travel and accommodations.

I will be supporting this bill at second reading, so that it can move forward and be examined more thoroughly by the House of Commons finance committee.

Bill C-201 would help skilled tradespeople with the costs of travelling to work. It might help address some of the regional skills shortages that exist in Canada. This is an important issue, with a thriving construction industry being a vital source of good, well-paying, middle-class jobs. It is important that we do what we can to support these workers and their families.

Large parts of the construction industry are involved in short- to medium-term projects, and skilled tradespeople are often required to travel or temporarily relocate for work. In my part of the country and throughout Atlantic Canada we have a lot of workers and tradespeople who travel to other parts of the country to work for periods of time and then return to their families and make money in the meantime, which helps pay their mortgage, their family costs, and expenses in their homes in places like Hants County and Kings County of Nova Scotia. However, among construction workers, the cost of relocating is cited as a significant impediment to labour mobility. Not only would this bill provide tradespeople with some relief from the costs of relocating for work, but it would also provide them with a financial benefit that they or members of their family could spend in their home community, which would help support their local economies at home, such as in places like Kings—Hants.

By helping skilled tradespeople with the costs of travelling to work, Bill C-201 could also help address these regional skill shortages and potentially help to increase Canada's productivity. However, there are some important questions surrounding this bill that have yet to be answered, especially regarding the costs. I would hope the finance committee will be able to study the costs of implementing this kind of measure, once the bill has passed at second reading. It is important for parliamentarians to know how much legislation will actually cost before we make final decisions. As parliamentarians, we have a fiduciary responsibility to our citizens and Canadian taxpayers to fully understand the impacts on the fiscal framework in Canada of our decisions and the legislation we pass.

In the first hour of debate on the bill, the member for Hamilton Mountain estimated that approximately 160,000 construction workers in Canada could benefit from the tax credit in Bill C-201 at a cost of $84 million per year to the federal treasury. Then she estimated that when we consider economic spinoffs and potentially reduced EI payouts, the government could actually save $167 million per year under Bill C-201. On the other hand, the parliamentary secretary to the revenue minister argued that Bill C-201 would cost the treasury approximately $60 million per year at maturity. Therefore, there is a wide disparity in the numbers being cited in terms of what this would cost or potentially save taxpayers.

In cases where private member's bills are expected to have significant costs or impact on the fiscal framework, the finance committee in the past has asked the PBO to calculate what that fiscal impact would be before a second reading vote. However, the PBO has not been able to estimate the fiscal impact of this particular bill. The PBO told my office that it had tried to estimate the costs of this bill but could not. This is why. It stated:

There was not sufficient detail in the bill around the definition of trades persons nor around the details of what constituted travel for the purposes of commuting or for the purposes of relocating, nor was there sufficient data from stats can to allow any meaningful costing of this bill.

Therefore, it appears that Bill C-201 is still lacking details that are essential to providing a meaningful cost estimate, and the PBO has said that its office is having difficulty costing it because of that lack of granularity.

Still that is no reason, necessarily, to throw out the baby with the bathwater on this one, because there still may be some positives in the intentions to provide some level of support to skilled tradespeople and their families, and an opportunity for us to do this. We at the finance committee, perhaps, can pass some clarifying amendments that can help address some of these concerns, can better define “skilled tradespeople” exactly in terms of how we would constitute it for this application, and also more clearly define “relocation” or “commuting expense” so we can actually cost the bill and the PBO can actually cost it.

Another area where we have some questions is around the distance a worker must travel to qualify for a tax deduction. Bill C-201 proposes that a skilled tradesperson would qualify for this tax deduction if the worker travels at least 80 kilometres for work. The threshold of 80 kilometres may result in a large proportion of the benefit potentially going to daily commuters in the Toronto area or other metropolitan areas, workers for whom this credit is not necessarily intended.

For instance, workers who commute between Barrie and Toronto travel 96 kilometres each way, and those who commute between Guelph and Toronto would travel 95 kilometres each way. We would want to have this discussion. Is that the intention of this bill? Perhaps it is, but I am saying that there may be some definitions of what defines appropriately a commute for financial benefit considered under this bill. These are areas where there are good roads, infrastructure, strong or reasonable public transit, which help to facilitate a daily commute more so than that which would exist in other areas of Canada that do not have the same highly evolved infrastructure. Therefore, the finance committee may want to consider establishing different thresholds, depending on geography and infrastructure, instead of having one across-the-board threshold when it comes to how far people must travel to qualify for this benefit.

We may want to look at examples from other jurisdictions. As I mentioned before, a thriving construction industry in Canada is an important source of good jobs and incomes for Canadian middle class families, and we can no doubt all talk about individual stories of workers who have travelled great distances for work. I know in my father's case he was not in the construction trade but he drove 52 miles from Cheverie to downtown Halifax every day for work, for decades. Today, I know the local construction workers in my home community of Cheverie drive into Halifax every single day on sometimes terrible roads in awful conditions in the middle of winter, leaving their homes at 5 a.m., driving home in the evenings, leaving before dawn and getting home after dark, and piling into cars with their lunch boxes and their thermoses and their gear ready to go to work, driving over these rough roads in terrible conditions, every single day from Cheverie, Bramber, Walton, Scotch Village, and all our local communities.

Part of the discussions around this bill will enable us to talk to the people in our own communities who commute long distances every day, and particularly people in skilled trades whom we need to support in any way we can. I appreciate the challenges facing the construction industry in areas where there are serious labour shortages, but we need to ensure this bill is targeted in such a way that it actually addresses those issues.

Improving labour mobility in Canada would lead to greater productivity and more prosperity for Canadians. At the same time, we must be careful not to drive a critical mass of young Canadians out of economically disadvantaged communities that need them. We have to monitor this and we have to craft public policy carefully.

Canada is experiencing very uneven economic growth. There is a strong connection between our growing provinces and the existence of natural resources. We need national strategies around the extractive sector in oil and gas and the related construction industry if we are going to ensure that the prosperity is shared across Canada and enjoyed by all Canadians, regardless of where they are from.

This bill could perhaps help to address some of those inequities and help young Canadians see some of those opportunities. However, we will have to delve into those details on a more granular basis at the House of Commons finance committee.

[Employment, January 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we lost 46,000 jobs in December alone. Young Canadians have lost 264,000 jobs since before the downturn.

When it comes to prosperity, Canadian households are struggling under record levels of personal debt.

The Minister of Finance has added $158 billion to the federal debt. That means that the average Canadian family will have to pay over $18,000 more in future taxes just to pay for the Conservative debt.

How can the Conservatives boast, when 2013 saw no jobs, no growth, and more debt than prosperity?

[Employment, January 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, for Canada, 2013 was a write-off for jobs, growth, and prosperity. Of Canada's net new jobs, 80% were part time. There were only 19,000 net new full-time jobs for the whole country. Under the Conservatives, the number of jobless Canadians has grown by 21%. In terms of growth, the U.S. and U.K. economies are growing faster than Canada's.

Will the upcoming budget finally include a real plan for jobs, growth, and prosperity?

[Employment, January 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, young Canadians have 264,000 fewer jobs than before the downturn. Yesterday, on behalf of those young Canadians, I asked the Minister of Finance to admit the problem and to include a real jobs plan for young Canadians in the upcoming budget. However, the minister laughed off the question and said the status quo “serves young Canadians well”.

How can the minister tell young Canadians and their families that they are served well by the loss of 264,000 jobs under his watch?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to the United States (U.S.) Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA): (a) when was the government first made aware of this legislation and how; (b) what steps has Canada taken since the legislation's introduction in the U.S., broken down by year; (c) during the consideration of this legislation in the U.S., did Canada make any representations to the U.S. government and if so, (i) when, (ii) by whom, (iii) to whom, (iv) on what dates, (v) by what authority (vi) with what desired effect (vii) and with what outcome; (d) how many individuals in Canada will be affected; (e) how was the figure in (d) calculated; (f) how many Canadian citizens residing in Canada are U.S. persons under FATCA; (g) how many Canadian permanent residents are U.S. persons under FATCA; (h) how many applications for permanent residency is Canada currently processing from persons who are or will be treated as U.S. persons under FATCA; (i) broken down by province and territory and status, how many persons in Canada are projected to be affected by FATCA; (j) how was the figure in (l) calculated; (k) how many Canadian financial institutions will be impacted by FATCA; (l) how was the figure in (k) calculated; (m) how many non-financial Canadian entities will be impacted by FATCA; (n) how was the figure in (m) calculated; (o) what consultations has the government undertaken with respect to FATCA's impact on persons resident in Canada; (p) what consultations has the government undertaken with respect to FATCA's impact on financial institutions; (p) what consultations has the government undertaken with respect to FATCA's impact on non-financial entities; (q) what estimates and studies have been undertaken with respect to the consequences of a 30% withholding of U.S. sourced income to financial institutions; (r) when did the studies in (q) occur and what were their conclusions; (s) how much has been spent evaluating FATCA's impact on Canadians; (t) broken down by department, how was the figure in (s) determined; (u) what estimates have been undertaken with respect to FATCA's cost to implement for Canada and with what conclusions; (w) for the five years starting 2014, how much is FATCA implementation expected to cost (i) Canada Revenue Agency, (ii) the department of Finance, (iii) the department of Justice, (iv) other government departments, agencies, boards, or tribunals; (x) broken down by year and cost from 2010-2020, what is the total financial impact of FATCA implementation expected to be on Canadian taxpayers; (y) how were the figure in (x) obtained; (z) what outside legal opinions has the government sought with respect to FATCA's compatibility with Canadian law; (aa) when were the opinions in (z) sought and at what expense; (bb) have unsolicited legal opinions been sent to the government regarding FATCA; (cc) how many opinions in (bb) have the government received, (i) on what dates, (ii) with what conclusions, (iii) with what impact on the Government's actions; (dd) has the government assessed the possibility of not acceding to FATCA in any way and, if so, with what conclusion and with what cost to Canada or to Canadians when compared to accession; (ee) how much has been spent on negotiations surrounding FACTA, broken down by year and expense; (ff) which individuals from the government have negotiated on Canada’s behalf regarding FATCA; (gg) what has the Minister of Finance's personal role been with respect to FATCA negotiations; (hh) what has the Minister of National Revenue's personal role been with respect to FATCA negotiations; (ii) what has the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ personal role been with respect to FATCA negotiations; (jj) what plans or strategies has Canada developed regarding enforcement of any FACTA related agreement with the United States; (kk) what penalties will there be for U.S. failure to meet any of its negotiated obligations; (ll) has the litigation risk regarding any FATCA implementation agreement been evaluated and, if so, (i) how, (ii), when, (iii), by what means; (mm) broken down by department and agency, and with specific record numbers and titles, what briefing materials and files have been developed regarding FATCA; (nn) what measures are in place to assess the lawfulness and legality of any implementation of FATCA in Canada; (oo) have any future public consultations with respect to FATCA implementation been planned and, if not, why not; (pp) what is the projected impact of FATCA on the Bank of Canada; (qq) what efforts has the government made with respect to informing financial institutions of their obligations under FATCA; (rr) what efforts has the government made with respect to informing non-financial entities of their obligations under FATCA; (ss) what efforts has the government made with respect to informing individuals residing in Canada of their obligations under FATCA; (tt) has Canadian non-compliance with FATCA been assessed as a possibility and, if so, to what extent; (uu) has FATCA been raised in discussions between Canada and countries other than the U.S. and, if so, (i) with which countries, (ii) at what level(s) did the discussion occur (iii) on what dates (iv) in what forum (v) and with which individuals from Canada participating; (vv) have any studies or analysis taken place with respect to FATCA’s impact on immigration to Canada by persons subject to this legislation and, if so, with what conclusion; (ww) has the Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. raised the issue of FATCA in any discussions and if so, (i) which discussions, (ii) on what dates, (iii) with what desired goal; (xx) has the American Ambassador to Canada raised the issue of FATCA in any discussions and if so, (i) which discussions, (ii) on what dates, (iii) with what outcome; (yy) has the government considered the correspondence of Peter Hogg regarding FATCA and if so, (i) with what impact on policy development, (ii) with what conclusion; and (zz) what steps will the government take to minimize any infringement of Canadian Charter rights by any implementation of FATCA?

[Employment, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in December, young Canadians lost another 12,000 jobs. There are 264,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians today than before the downturn.

Canadian youth struggle to find work, and Canadian parents struggle to pay the bills. Instead of wasting millions of tax dollars to advertise a jobs program that does not even exist, will the Minister of Finance admit there is a problem and commit to a real jobs plan for young Canadians in the upcoming budget, or is he so out of touch with young Canadians and their struggling middle class families?

[Employment Insurance, December 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance used to call EI a job-killing payroll tax, but according to the PBO, the Conservatives are keeping EI taxes “higher than necessary” in 2015 and 2016.

If the Conservatives kept their promise to set EI taxes at a break-even rate, the EI taxes would fall significantly in 2015. With a sluggish Canadian economy, why are the Conservatives breaking their promise by freezing EI premiums at an artificially high rate until the end of 2016?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2, December 2nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak today to Bill C-4, the government's latest budget implementation bill.

The bill fails to address the very real challenges faced by the middle class in Canada.

This bill does little to help middle-class families in Canada.

First and foremost, this bill does nothing to create good paying jobs for Canadians. Middle-class Canadians are worried about their finances. They ought to be, because they face record levels of personal debt, amounting to $1.66 for every dollar of annual income. They are struggling to make ends meet when interest rates are low. They are petrified to think of what will happen in the future if interest rates start to rise at some point.

One of the driving forces behind this accumulation of household debt is the direct financial subsidization of adult children who cannot yet make it on their own. These are young people between the ages of 25 to 35 who are living at home and unable to pay rent. In fact, 43% of Canadian families have directly financially subsidized young people who have lived for extended periods of time at home with them because they cannot make ends meet. Young Canadians have been left behind during this so-called economic recovery; they have 225,000 fewer jobs than before the downturn.

Bill C-4 does nothing to help young Canadians find jobs, even though the youth unemployment and underemployment rates are higher than they were before the recession.

Instead of supporting job creation for young Canadians, a number of items in Bill C-4 would put existing jobs at risk. This bill phases out the labour-sponsored venture capital corporation tax credit. These venture funds help small business start-ups grow and create good jobs for Canadians. They are particularly important in Quebec.

All of the chambers of commerce in Quebec are against these changes.

However, it is important to realize that the impacts of these labour-sponsored funds and investments, many of which are based in Quebec, benefit small business across the country, in start-ups, technology companies, biotech, cleantech, and certainly the jobs of tomorrow.

The provinces that have labour-sponsored venture capital funds include B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Bill C-4 would cut the tax incentives for those labour-sponsored venture capital funds by half, endangering not only their business model but also the businesses that rely on that venture capital to grow and create jobs.

The government has said that the reason it is doing this is because it is bringing in the VCAP, the venture capital action plan, The problem is that the VCAP is not up and running yet. Therefore, the government is actually destroying one source of venture capital, the labour-sponsored venture capital source, without having a new program that is running. It is creating a vacuum in funding. That funding is extremely important to create innovation, commercialization, and jobs of today and tomorrow for young Canadians, exactly the kind of jobs we ought to be focused on.

Again, this is like the government with its jobs training program that it introduced shortly after the last budget. In fact, it is still not running. It forgot to talk to the provinces. Therefore, there is no jobs training program. It spent millions of dollars on advertising it, but there is no program. This is a government that invests money in self-promotion, but does not get the job done when it comes to putting in place the kinds of measures to create jobs, good training and to close the job skills gap. The government is more interested in promoting activities as opposed to getting the job done.

In terms of the mining sector, Bill C-4 reduces tax incentives for Canadian mining companies, which will severely hurt Canada's competitiveness in an important global industry where Canada is seen as an international leader. Canada's mining sector is an important source of good paying jobs for Canadians. These measures in Bill C-4 would put Canadian jobs, particularly in rural and remote communities, at risk. These are communities that are struggling. Rural Canada is struggling. This is no time to reduce the support for and incentives for investments in mining, particularly at a time when the mining industry faces huge challenges globally.

In terms of employment insurance rates, the Conservatives claim that the proposed changes to EI rates are going to be good for the Canadian economy. Certainly extending the EI hiring credit is an initiative that we do support, but this credit has been in place for three years and young Canadians are still struggling to find good work. Clearly, this measure is not strong enough to kick-start the economy, particularly in terms of opportunities for young Canadians.

However, Bill C-4 also freezes EI rates, which at first glance may seem like a good idea. When EI rates are going up, it may be good for small businesses and good for workers to freeze EI rates. We now know that the EI account will be balanced in 2015 instead of 2016, and ultimately would be able to start falling after that, left to its own devices.

The problem is that the Conservatives had promised to set EI rates at a break-even rate as soon as the EI account is balanced. However, Bill C-4 actually breaks that promise by freezing EI rates until the end of 2016, instead of them being allowed to fall naturally commensurate with the account being in balance.

As a result, Canadians will pay an extra $5.6 billion more than what is required to balance the EI account. That is an extra $5.6 billion over two years that we should be using to keep in the pockets of Canadians and Canadian small businesses in order to create jobs during a time of significant unemployment and underemployment in Canada.

This legislation has a large number of measures that have nothing to do whatsoever with the budget or the fiscal framework. They do not belong in a budget bill. This legislation amends the rules for appointments to the Supreme Court. With Bill C-4, the Conservatives created this farce whereby the finance committee was tasked with making decisions on the selection process for the Supreme Court of Canada. What is next? Are we going to be having members of the justice committee making decisions on government-wide fiscal policy?

Bill C-4 amends the Conflict of Interest Act to allow cabinet to designate one person or class of persons as public office holders or reporting public office officers.

We have even heard from the Prime Minister's former chief of staff, Guy Giorno, who was so concerned about this part of Bill C-4 that he wrote to MPs on the finance committee. This is what Mr. Giorno had to say about the measures in part 3, division 15, of Bill C-4:

Cabinet's power to designate new public office holders and reporting public office holders would be unlimited and far-reaching. The bill would place no restrictions on cabinet's power to designate individuals and classes of individuals as subject to the Act. Virtually anyone could be designated as subject to the Conflict of Interest Act at any point during his or her employment or tenure in office.

The government has not indicated who, if anyone, might be designated if these provisions are passed and come into force. The Budget is silent on this point. In fact, the Budget Plan did not even suggest that the Conflict of Interest Act should be amended.

Mr. Giorno makes some very clear points as to why this may be the wrong direction, but the finance committee is not the best committee to actually deal with this kind of issue or the process around the appointments to the Supreme Court.

The changes to the Labour Code in the bill ought to have been dealt with at another committee. They were broad, sweeping and controversial and ought not be dealt with by the House of Commons finance committee. Again, there are changes to the numbers of members of the veterans review board. The government continues to demonstrate disrespect for Parliament, parliamentarians and the people who elect us. Conservative members and opposition members have a responsibility to defend their right to do their jobs and to study legislation.

[Taxation, October 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, credit unions, like the Victory Credit Union in Kings—Hants, are important economic drivers for rural and small town Canada. It makes no sense for the Conservatives to raise taxes on credit unions by $75 million. In Manitoba alone, this will be a loss of $5 million to credit union owner-members. In Steinbach, it is going to cost citizens there over a million dollars.

Why are the tax-and-waste Conservatives ripping off the credit union owner-members of Steinbach for over a million dollars? Why the attack on rural and small-town Canadians?

[The Economy, October 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada has joined with the IMF in downgrading Canada's growth numbers, which are now an anemic 1.6%. This year, in fact, U.K. and U.S. growth numbers are 50% higher than Canada's.

Canadians, especially young Canadians, are being left behind. There are 224,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians today than back in 2008. Why are the Conservatives more interested in helping find the Franklin expedition than in helping find jobs and opportunities for young Canadians? Why are the Conservatives so out of touch with middle-class Canadian families?