Scott Brison

[Canadian Economy, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member and the leader of the Liberal Party for his speech and also for listening to Canadians, given that we have youth unemployment today that is two times the rate of regular unemployment and that we have 224,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians today than before the downturn.

After having listened to Canadians extensively from coast to coast to coast, which does the member believe would be the higher priority for young Canadians and their middle class families: jobs and opportunities for training for young Canadians, or lower cable rates?

[Canadian Economy, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his new responsibilities.

Today there are 224,000 fewer jobs for young Canadians than before the economic downturn. This high unemployment threatens to rob a generation of Canadians of their potential to contribute and grow in the Canadian economy. Middle-class parents and grandparents are contributing financially to help subsidize this generation, which is why we see record high levels of personal debt. In fact, 43% of Canadian middle-class families have actually had their twenty-something youth living at home for extended periods of time and have been supporting them financially because they cannot support themselves.

Given the challenges faced by young Canadians and middle-class Canadians, why in the throne speech did the Conservatives promise to help Canadians find Franklin but not help young Canadians find jobs and opportunity?

[Petitions, October 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from Nova Scotian citizens on the issue of genetically modified alfalfa.

The petition says that the undersigned citizens of Canada draw to the attention of the House the following: That Monsanto's Roundup Ready genetically modified alfalfa requires variety registration before it can be legally sold as seed in Canada, but it has already been approved for human consumption and environmental release in Canada. It also says that genetically modified alfalfa has been and is currently planted in test plots in Canada, that unwanted contamination from GM alfalfa is inevitable, that organic farming prohibits the use of genetic modification and that the organic sector in Canada depends on alfalfa as a high-protein feed for dairy cattle and other livestock, and also as an important soil builder.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to impose a moratorium on the release of genetically modified alfalfa—

[Employment, June 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's unemployment rate for full-time students is over 20%. Young Canadians are desperate for work experience and they are being pressured into taking unpaid internships, but Statistics Canada is not even tracking the issue.

If someone has a paid job, it is tracked. If someone is looking for work and is unemployed, it is tracked. If someone has an unpaid job, however, there is no data. If they are not being tracked, unpaid internships may be getting railroaded, and that is why Statistics Canada should be tracking unpaid internships.

We cannot address what we do not measure, so why will the government not ask Statistics Canada to start tracking unpaid internships in Canada?

[Main Estimates 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Just economists.

[Jane Purves, June 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Jane Purves was a refreshingly forthright person, a smart straight shooter with a wicked sense of humour. She spent 25 years in the newspaper business, rising to managing editor of Nova Scotia's largest daily, The Chronicle Herald. She was a trailblazer and mentor for women. She served as president of the Canadian Managing Editors Conference and was on the board of the Canadian Press and the National Newspaper Awards. That career in journalism prepared her well for public office.

Elected as the MLA for Halifax Citadel in 1999, she served as minister of education and then as minister of health. The Nova Scotia Community College paid tribute to her work to increase opportunities for youth to enter skilled trades by awarding her an honorary diploma.

Jane was not a rabid partisan, but a politician dedicated to listening, to understanding and to doing the right thing. She had a deep love for her family, her profession and her province. Her passing last weekend at the still-young age of 63 is an enormous loss to Nova Scotia. We thank Jane. We will miss her smarts, her candour, her sense of humour and her commitment to the people of Nova Scotia.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about the changes in tax hikes on credit unions in rural and small town Canada. There are significant challenges faced in regions across Canada, particularly in regions that do not have either mining or energy wealth. We see a demographic trend toward smaller communities, older populations and small businesses.

One thing that has been there for rural and small town Canada, even during these difficult times, is the co-operative movement and credit unions. We are told by the heads of credit unions across Canada that these changes will hurt credit unions significantly.

Does the hon. member agree that these tax hikes on credit unions will reduce capital for small businesses and entrepreneurs in rural and small town Canada and, as such, should be reconsidered and reversed by the government?

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Guelph for his continued hard work on behalf of Canadians in this House.

In the budget, the Conservatives say that cutting tariffs would help reduce cross-border shopping and help reduce the cost of living for Canadians families. The only problem is that they do not cut tariffs in this budget. In fact, they increase. The net increase is around $250 million. The Conservatives cut some tariffs, about $80 million, but they increased tariffs overall by $250 million. That is the net, the difference between the $330-million tariff increase and the $80-million tariff decrease.

If we take into account the fact that the Conservatives would be increasing tariffs on middle-class Canadian families by $250 million, using their own words and their own logic, this would increase cross-border shopping to the detriment of Canadian small businesses in border communities, and it would increase the cost of living for Canadian families.

The Conservatives are aware of the fact that they would be increasing tariffs and increasing taxes on just about everything the middle-class Canadian families need, but they are trying to hide it. They are trying to do it by stealth. They are being unaccountable.

By moving forward with time allocation today in the House, Conservatives are further reducing that accountability to Canadian families, Canadian citizens and Canadian taxpayers.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when we were studying some of the changes to the governance of labour negotiations for crown corporations that are made in this legislation, it was raised by several witnesses that they had been called in the past to appear before House of Commons committees but never the finance committee.

That was something we heard from a number of witnesses who noticed that instead of being called before the human resources committee to discuss issues around labour and governance around labour, which would have made sense, they were being called before the finance committee. Here we were at the House of Commons finance committee where we were supposed to be studying and focusing on fiscal questions, budget questions, and we were forced to be generalists and to opine on legislation that falls outside of the purview of either our expertise or the committee's mandate.

It is not enough to have some studies done at other committees, they should be able to vote on the individual provisions at those committees wherein the expertise lies.

[Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1, June 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, before being so rudely interrupted by the weekend, I was saying that the Conservatives' latest budget would raise taxes by a whopping $3.3 billion over four years, and a number of these tax measures are included in this budget implementation act.

Bill C-60 would attack Canada's rural economy, with tax increases on credit unions. It would take more money out of small communities that are already struggling, and it would make it harder for small businesses in rural and small-town Canada to get the credit they need to grow and create jobs.

This is what David Phillips, president and CEO of Credit Union Central of Canada had to say:

The income tax increase on credit unions...is growth limiting. It deprives credit unions of income that might otherwise be used to support the growth of the credit union by building its capital base. The credit union will...have less capacity to make loans to small business, fund community economic development, and meet member needs.

It disregards the federal government's desire to support small business in local communities...

...it's really a tax on growth.

It is a tax on growth in rural and small-town Canada.

Garth Manness, the CEO of Credit Union Central of Manitoba, said:

...it is no exaggeration to say that some...may begin to question the future viability of credit unions in many communities in rural Canada. Not only could people be left without access to a nearby financial institution, [but] valuable and stable jobs at the credit unions could be lost.

Many of Canada's smaller rural communities face persistently higher unemployment rates and a rapidly aging population as younger workers move to cities for stable jobs. It is illogical for the Conservatives to go ahead with this tax hike on credit unions and diminish an already-limited source of investment in these rural and small-town communities.

On top of hurting small businesses that rely on credit unions, Bill C-60 would attack 750,000 Canadian small-business owners with a new tax hike on dividends. This legislation would even raise taxes on safety depot boxes. Perhaps what is most offensive is that Bill C-60 would actually punish victims of crime by adding GST or HST to health care services they need to establish their case in court.

The Canadian Psychological Association remains concerned that Bill C-60 would add GST and HST to mental health services, including psychological assessments. This is what Karen Cohen, the CEO of the Canadian Psychological Association, said when she appeared before the finance committee: “If passed without clarification or amendment, Canadians will now have to pay taxes on certain psychological services that were once exempt”. She provided a number of examples of Canadian patients who would now have to pay GST on mental health services, and went on to say:

It's important to note that this isn't a pocketbook issue for psychologists. It's not the psychologists who have to pay this tax. It's going to be hard-working Canadians who have a health need that is not met by Canada's publicly funded health care system.

A psychological assessment can cost thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket fees. The amount of money at stake for Canadian patients is not trivial.

While it may be true that the Conservatives' latest omnibus budget bill is less omni-busive than either Bill C-38 or Bill C-45, it is still deeply flawed, and we see the government now moving closure to ram this through the House of Commons without respect for Parliament and without proper scrutiny. This bill would threaten the independence of the CBC; it would raise taxes on hard-working Canadian families.

We proposed at committee some constructive amendments to address the very legitimate objections raised by Canadians during the committee's studies, but the Conservatives would not listen to reason. They have been deaf to the concerns of Canadians on this, and I expect Canadians will return the favour to the Conservatives in the next federal election.