Scott Brison

[Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, October 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-45, the second budget implementation act. This is yet another massive omnibus budget bill, which is 414 pages in length with 516 separate clauses amending more than 60 different laws. It is simply too big for Parliament to consider properly in just a short period of time. The Conservatives are counting on us rushing this through at record speed and they are trying to avoid real scrutiny in this Parliament.

The Conservatives are continuing their reckless abuse of power by using these huge omnibus bills and underhanded procedural manoeuvres to force unpopular policies through. They are doing this despite public outcry from coast to coast to coast. They are using this so-called budget bill to gut the Navigable Waters Protection Act, redefine aboriginal fisheries and amend the Indian Act without consulting first nation communities, despite the government's constitutional responsibility and duty to consult. They are using this so-called budget act to shield the government from lawsuits by creating loopholes in Canada's environmental laws and retroactively changing the Customs Act. They are eliminating the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission and implementing an overhaul of the Canadian Grain Commission.

These are just a few examples of elements of the bill that are significant and have nothing to do with the fiscal policy of the government, which is actually what a budget and a budget implementation act ought to be focused on. The Conservatives are rushing through these changes so that Canadians will not realize what has happened until it is too late. They have established a pattern of overwhelming our democratic system with overloaded budget bills that have nothing or little to do with the actual budgets themselves.

Buried in these massive bills are a number of mistakes. In fact, the Conservatives are already using Bill C-45 to correct mistakes they made in Bill C-38 last spring. The mistakes range from poorly written transition provisions in the new environmental assessment law to reinserting protections in the Fisheries Act that were mistakenly or inadvertently erased, to clarifying rules for approving foreign investments in our banks. These were mistakes in Bill C-38 in the spring. They slipped through the cracks because they were in a huge omnibus bill that denied Parliament the opportunity to thoroughly study and more importantly, not just to study but ultimately to vote on these changes individually.

Now the Conservatives want to fix some of these mistakes with measures in yet another omnibus budget bill that they want to rush into law. In this budget implementation bill the Conservatives are breaking promises made in budget 2012. The Conservatives want to use Bill C-45 to take public policy decisions that are contrary to what was in the budget in 2012. It is a farce when the Conservatives say that everything in Bill C-45 can be found in the budget. The reality is that some of what is in the legislation is completely opposite to what was promised in the budget of 2012.

Page 146 of the budget states that “[O]ver the next few years, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board...will continue to set the rate” for EI premiums. However, Bill C-45 explicitly gets rid of the board's authority to set EI rates.

Here is another example. Page 268 of the budget keeps the Hazardous Materials Information Review Commission, but Bill C-45 actually eliminates the commission altogether. We all remember how earlier this year the Conservatives broke their promise not to cut old age security.

It is also important to realize what is not in Bill C-45. Despite the size and breadth of this omnibus budget bill and the promises it breaks, Bill C-45 is remarkable as well for what it does not address. There is nothing in the bill to address some of the most serious challenges facing Canada. Canadians have identified growing income inequality as one of the biggest challenges facing the country, but there is nothing in Bill C-45 to address growing income gaps. There is nothing in Bill C-45 to address growing gaps between the provinces.

Canada's resource-driven recovery has increased, in fact, inequality among the regions in many ways. While it is positive that we have all of these natural resources, they are largely concentrated in a couple of provinces and the gap between those provinces in a resource-driven recovery and the other provinces is growing. I will give an example.

A province like Alberta is increasing education spending dramatically and I commend it for doing that. Investing in education is a good thing. At the same time, Nova Scotia's provincial government is cutting funding for public education by 30%. Therefore, it is not just a question of income inequality, it is a question of equality of opportunity. This is where we need a robust federal government that is working with the provinces, meeting with the provinces and ensuring that we do not see today's income inequality become tomorrow's inequality of opportunity.

This growing divide between the provinces is a major issue in Canada. In the last 12 months, over 40% of Canada's new full-time jobs were in just three provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland and Labrador. These are the provinces with the greatest wealth of natural resources. It is where we can find 40% of the new jobs, but only 15% of the population. Provinces without resources are losing workers and being forced to slash funding for social programs. These are the programs that ensure equality of opportunity for the next generation.

There was a time when the Prime Minister said he would meet regularly with the premiers to discuss these types of issues. There was a time that ministers of intergovernmental affairs were senior members of the cabinet. People like the right hon. Joe Clark served as an intergovernmental affairs minister in the Mulroney government. Lucienne Robillard was a former minister in the provincial government in Quebec. The member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, a very senior expert on intergovernmental and constitutional affairs, was a minister of intergovernmental affairs.

Under the Conservatives, the minister of intergovernmental affairs is, effectively, a minister without portfolio. The minister of intergovernmental affairs does not have any standing in the Conservative government. That is not purely a reflection of the current minister, it is a reflection of an attitude toward the provinces that pervades the government.

The Prime Minister's refusal to meet with the premiers, his my way or the highway approach, has created a vacuum of federal leadership on these issues. Now we have a budget bill with no serious plan to work with the provinces on programs that would deal with issues such as income inequality and the growing inequality of opportunity, programs like a national early learning strategy or a national lifelong skills development strategy or federal leadership in working with the provinces to restore the honour of skilled trades, which is something that is incredibly important in Canada at a time when we have people without jobs and jobs without people.

Despite the uncertainty of the economy and the enormity of the challenges we face as a nation, there is precious little in Bill C-45 to help create jobs for today and jobs for the future. In fact, the spring budget bill actually made income inequality worse with cuts to OAS and EI. Bill C-45 would actually cut the very programs that encourage job creation and help our economy grow. It would cut SR&ED tax credits.

We have heard from industry, the science community, the biotech community and the manufacturers that the SR&ED program is important. The government would actually cut it. It would kill the corporate mineral exploration and development tax credits, which is dangerously short-sighted at a time when it is difficult for the mining and junior mining industries to raise money.

It also would kill the Atlantic investment tax credit for oil, gas and mining at a time when the Atlantic Canadian economy is still facing significant challenges. It would do nothing to address Canada's dangerously high levels of household debt. The fact is that for every $1 of annual income, Canadian families have $1.63 of household debt.

There is nothing to address these major and important issues that are actually related to the fiscal priorities of Canadians in the budget bill. Instead, the Conservatives are addressing a lot of other issues that have nothing to do with the fiscal reality of the country or the fiscal priorities of the government.

[Budget Implementation Legislation, October 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is tokenism to divide the budget bill for study but not for voting. It is like a thimbleful of respect for Parliament in a sea of contempt. If it is possible for the Conservatives to divide the budget bill for study, why is it not possible to divide the budget bill for voting? Why can we not apply the same principle, if in fact the Conservatives have any principles when it comes to respect for Parliament?

[Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, October 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, in budget 2006, the finance minister introduced to Canada U.S.-style 40-year mortgages with no downpayment. This failed policy helped lead to record Canadian consumer debt levels. Now the minister says he wants to privatize CMHC.

With record household debt and weakening housing prices, why would the Conservatives privatize the CMHC and give up a key federal lever in the housing market? Why do the Conservatives seem so intent on following failed U.S. economic policy?

[The Environment, October 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberal Party proposed a plan to separate the cuts to MPs' pensions from the budget bill and to fast-track these cuts into law. We are pleased that the Conservatives have supported our proposal.

Will the Conservatives now agree that changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act should be separated from the 443 page budget bill and put into their own separate bill? They agreed to fast-track the cuts to MPs' pensions, a Liberal plan. Will they agree to the Liberal plan for separate legislation?

[The Environment, October 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are endangering our lakes and rivers with their changes to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. In 2009, they changed the act by adding a five-year review clause.

Why are the Conservatives making these changes before getting the results of their own review?

[The Environment, October 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are imperilling the health of our lakes and rivers without due parliamentary process.

Buried in yesterday's 443 page budget bill is a complete re-write of Canada's Navigable Waters Protection Act. There is nothing in the March budget that talks about gutting the federal protection of our waterways.

Why are the Conservatives pushing this through in a massive budget bill and ignoring the legitimate concerns of Canadians? Why are they putting Canada's world-famous lakes and rivers at risk?

[Food Safety, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the recall of XL beef is now across Canada and into 41 American states. The Conservatives' delayed response and bungling of this file have damaged the reputation of Canadian beef and threatened thousands of Canadian jobs.

As a growing number of Canadians and Americans are afraid to eat Canadian beef, what is the government's plan to restore the international reputation of Canadian beef and to save Canadian jobs?

[Valley Pumpkin Festival, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, Windsor-West Hants in Nova Scotia is known as big pumpkin country.

The Valley Pumpkin Festival is now under way and on October 14 our annual pumpkin regatta will take place on Lake Pisiquid in Windsor.

The race was founded in 1999 by Danny Dill, the son of the late Howard Dill who developed the world's largest pumpkin variety, the Dill's Atlantic giant.

Dill was affectionately known as the pumpkin king. He was a four-time world champion pumpkin grower.

The regatta features competitors from Nova Scotia and across Canada who race pumpkins across the lake. It is preceded by the parade of pumpkin paddlers in support of the Children's Wish Foundation.

I wish to give a big thanks to festival committee president Dana Taylor, members, volunteers, major corporate sponsors Q104, Home Hardware and regatta organizer VanEssa Roberts.

I congratulate Windsor-West Hants, big pumpkin country and, of course, the birthplace of hockey.

[Foreign Investment, September 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the proposed Nexen sale to CNOOC, to ensure long-term net benefit to Canada, is the government requiring that Canadians make up the majority of the Nexen board and that there would be Canadian representation on the CNOOC board?

Further, Canadian banks continue to face significant barriers to growth when doing business in China. Is the government leveraging on the Nexen discussion to attain greater access to Chinese markets for the Canadian financial services sector?

[Reflecting the Realities of Canadian Artists Act, September 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing forward this proposal. It is helpful for us to debate changes to the Canadian tax system because the reality is that we have not had a meaningful study or evaluation of our personal tax system in Canada since 1971 with the Carter commission. The reality is if we were to try to find one word that would sum up what has changed in Canada since 1971 in terms of the Canadian and global economies, that word would be “everything”. Therefore, we do need a meaningful study, review and reform of the Canadian personal tax system.

Unfortunately, we are having these kinds of one-off discussions around the tax system due to the lack of leadership on the government side to take this important issue seriously and have a meaningful debate and discussion about changes that would build a fairer tax system and, potentially, a more globally-competitive one at the same time.

The parliamentary secretary said that the tax system should be based on fairness. He also said that we should not be picking winners and losers. I cannot help but go back to those comments and reflect on recent Conservative government policy in some ways, because he is saying that the taxes should be based on fairness and that we should not be picking winners and losers.

Recent boutique tax credits introduced by the Conservative government, whether for volunteer firefighters or family caregivers or, going back a bit further, the disability tax credit, discriminate against the lowest income Canadians because they are non-refundable tax credits. As such they do not benefit low-income Canadians. That is not consistent with the idea of a tax system based on fairness. I also do not think it is consistent with the idea that we would not pick winners and losers. The reality is that the Conservatives are picking winners and losers and the losers are low-income Canadians, which is absolutely inconsistent with the principles the member just articulated.

If we simply made those tax credits refundable we would include low-income Canadians in the category of Canadians and Canadian families who would benefit from them. I would ask the parliamentary secretary and the government to reflect on that. If fairness is the principle, if not picking winners and lowers is the principle, then we ought to at least make those tax credits fully refundable to start.

Now I want to speak specifically to Bill C-427 and the idea of income averaging for artists, because it is important to realize that all of our cultural artists, such as musicians, painters, sculptors and authors, face huge challenges and tremendously cyclical income curves over the period of their careers. They will work for years and not make any money, and then one year will have a really good year and be in a top marginal tax bracket. That is why I think we should move this to committee and have it studied. It is important to realize that this is an important issue for our cultural community, that the current system, as it stands, is not fair and that changing it to reflect the incredible variance in incomes of cultural creators makes a lot of sense.

Where I would agree in some ways agree with the Conservative parliamentary secretary is that we ought to consider income averaging in other areas. However, his idea is that if we are not doing it for everyone right now then we cannot do it for anyone. I think that is wrong. Income averaging in the cultural community can actually create a model that can ultimately be applied more broadly.

I will give an example. A few years ago I met with a constituent who I think had a grade 7 education. He was a physical labourer who had been injured in the workforce. After that injury, he went to workers compensation in Nova Scotia to apply for compensation.

He fought for his compensation for four years and ultimately was compensated. I think at the time he got over $100,000, which at that time put him in the top marginal tax bracket. As such, he was taxed at the highest marginal tax rate, after having had basically no income for four or five years. In that case I would argue that having been deprived of his income or capacity to work for those years because of a workplace injury and then having received a lump sum cheque to compensate for that lost income, he ought to have been able to qualify for income averaging.

I am using that example not as a reason why we should oppose the bill but why we should both support the bill and consider income averaging more broadly. That is where I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Heritage. There are other groups within society that could benefit from this.

That brings me back to the original point. Why are we not having a more thorough discussion on the need to reform our Canadian tax system and taking a look at issues of fairness? For example, yesterday in the House we debated the issue of income inequality and equality of opportunity. There are direct impediments in our tax system to equality and upward mobility. Moreover, there do exist areas where members of the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Bloc would agree. These are some areas where if common sense were applied to the Canadian tax system, it would yield a simpler system. We could actually have a simpler tax system.

I understand the argument that this bill would create a more complicated tax system, but it is difficult to understand the Conservatives' point that they are opposed to any complications in the Canadian tax system when they continually introduce boutique tax credits, which actually further complicate the Canadian tax system. I studied taxation in university, and I remember it was an open book exam. I remember the size of the textbook. The Canadian tax code was pretty voluminous way back then. I shudder at the thought of what the Conservatives have done to that puppy since 2006.

The reality is that income averaging for artists makes sense. That is why in 2008, in our Liberal platform, we actually called for this. We said:

Support for Canada's arts and culture must also extend to support for artists themselves. That is why a Liberal government will provide income averaging for artists drawing on the inspiration of Quebec's income-averaging provisions. This will ensure that the tax system will better reflect the peaks and valleys of the artistic work cycle. This is an important tool for helping this country's writers, artists and musicians continue to excel.

Of course, Quebec has led the way on this. I have been acquainted with and introduced to the Quebec culture by having married a Quebecker. Prior to that, as an anglophone born and raised in Nova Scotia, I was not aware of groups like Les Trois Accords, or films like C.R.A.Z.Y., or La Grande Séduction, or programs like Tout le monde en parle, as an example. What I am very much impressed with and what I think all Canadians can learn from is what Quebec has done to support, foster and strengthen culture. I say this because when two million Quebeckers watch Tout le monde en parle on a Sunday night, it is a lesson to the rest of us as to what happens when we actually get behind a cultural entity. The reality is that there is a network of stars that far too many anglophone Canadians have not had the opportunity to enjoy and be immersed in. Having married into a Quebec family, I have had that great luxury and privilege.

We can learn from what Quebec has done in this area. I thank my colleague from the province of Quebec for having brought this forward. He is someone with great experience in this area. I hope that the Conservatives actually demonstrate some flexibility in recognizing that we can learn from this and move forward. This can be a start toward a fairer tax system and perhaps income averaging that can apply outside of cultural areas in the future.