Scott Brison

[Income Tax Act, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-399, tax credits for volunteers' travel expenses.

I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Repentigny for introducing the legislation. I appreciate having the opportunity to discuss ways that we, as a Parliament, can better support volunteers and encourage volunteerism.

I will start by talking about some of what has occurred in recent years, particularly around tax measures to help volunteer emergency service workers or firefighters. There has been a consensus across party lines on some of the measures that we should recognize the important work of, for instance, emergency service volunteers, those who risk their lives in order to protect and make communities safer.

As part of that discussion, the Liberal Party proposed a $3,000 refundable tax credit for volunteer firefighters. We made it refundable deliberately. The reality is that if these tax credits are not refundable, it means, perversely, that the lowest-income Canadians, Canadians who need the support the most, do not actually qualify and do not receive the benefit.

Earlier today we had a discussion on income inequality and the growing gap between rich and poor in Canada. The reality is that, to a certain extent, non-refundable tax credits can exacerbate that and make it worse by disqualifying, technically, the lowest-income Canadians who need the help the most.

For instance, we proposed a refundable family caregiver tax credit, which would have benefited all Canadian families providing care to relatives with health issues, in some cases palliative care and in other cases long-term medical issues. The Conservatives introduced, instead, a non-refundable tax credit, which looks like they are doing the same thing, but in reality it is not a lot of resources because it does not apply to a large segment of the population, the people who need the help the most.

What the government has become very effective at doing is establishing boutique tax credits that are non-refundable. They do not take a lot of money out of the federal treasury because they do not actually help a lot of people, but it looks like they are taking action.

People come to my office who are quite disappointed. They expected these new tax credits would somehow benefit them, only to find out that because of the fact they had low incomes, they did not qualify.

Let us take, for instance, a senior citizen on a modest fixed income who drives for Meals on Wheels. If the tax credit being proposed today as part of this legislation is non-refundable, that senior will not benefit because he or she is not paying taxes now. Just to make it clear, a refundable tax credit also benefits people whose incomes are so low that they are not paying taxes. A low-income senior who drives, for instance, for Meals on Wheels is still incurring expenses to volunteer. In fact, those expenses represent a very significant portion of his or her income. He or she still has to put gas in the car to get to the volunteer site or pay for public transit.

That brings me to the design of the tax credit under Bill C-399.

Bill C-399 would establish a tax credit to help volunteers defray some of the travel expenses they have because of their volunteer work. Unfortunately, the tax credit potentially established under Bill C-399 is non-refundable. We hope this could be addressed and corrected as part of the legislative process. Perhaps if this were to get to committee, it could be part of the discussion.

We support sending Bill C-399 to committee so we can discuss, among other things, design issues, including making the tax credit fully refundable.

We have a concern about the growing number of non-refundable tax credits. We believe it is in some ways exacerbating the issue of income inequality in Canada. These tax credits fail to meet the fairness test. It just seems wrong for the government to protect its own bottom line by deliberately excluding the most disadvantaged Canadians.

Beyond the non-refundable nature of the tax credit, Bill C-399 sets out some interesting parameters. To qualify for the tax credit, one must do a minimum of 130 hours of eligible volunteer work and so one must make at least 12 trips that tax year. For the purposes of Bill C-399, this would involve travelling a minimum of one kilometre from home to wherever it is one does their voluntary work.

In terms of the monetary value of the tax credit, Bill C-399 establishes a minimum value of $500 and a maximum value of $1,500. With a 15% federal personal income tax rate, the proposed tax credit would translate into a benefit of between $75 and $300 for the volunteers who qualify.

Finance Canada has estimated that Bill C-399, as it is currently written, would cost about $130 million per year. However, officials were basing their estimate on past data and assuming that there would be no change in behaviour as a result of the new tax credit. They assume that this tax credit would not encourage new volunteerism or enable existing volunteers to travel more extensively.

Officials used data from the 2010 Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating, which shows that 1.2 million Canadians would meet the criteria of performing at least 130 hours of qualified volunteer work. They assumed that the average volunteer who had about $430 of travel expenses would be eligible for a tax credit under Bill C-399. They also assumed that the average volunteer would claim a further $500 in weekly travel expenses based on an average claim of 15 kilometres a week at 55¢ per kilometre.

The officials then estimated that one-quarter of the 1.2 million volunteers would not get any benefit from the proposed tax credit because it would be non-refundable and these volunteers would not make enough income to qualify. However, using the Department of Finance's own numbers, we extrapolated that it would cost about $40 million to make this non-refundable tax credit into a fully refundable tax credit, which would benefit all low-income Canadians who would be currently excluded.

I encourage the member for Repentigny to consider such a revision to Bill C-399. The initiative is worthy of the consideration of the House. I hope the proposed legislation will receive second reading so we can more closely examine the proposal and consider making it fully refundable.

It is important for us, as parliamentarians, to recognize the vital contributions that volunteers make to Canadian society. We should not base that recognition on how much money is in their wallet. There are a lot of low-income Canadians who, if we were to move forward with this kind of measure, would deserve the same benefit. However, because they are low-income, they would not benefit by the bill in its current form as a non-refundable tax credit.

Those are some of my thoughts and I hope government members see their way to support taking the bill to committee so we can have a more fulsome discussion on how we can strengthen our support mechanisms in the tax system and other direct support for volunteerism in Canada.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the question raised by my colleague from Quebec.

It is interesting to hear a member from Quebec recognize the role of the federal government and the opportunity for that government to work with provincial governments to develop progressive policies, such as a national daycare system. This is another example of how we do not see the Constitution as a barrier to productive discussions leading to progressive policies.

It is possible to work with each provincial government to develop such programs. I hope that we will be able to do that in the House, that we will be able to discuss innovative ideas and develop progressive policies no matter which party we belong to.

I really appreciate the member's question.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledged in my remarks that no party has a monopoly on the solutions and the responsibility for this issue. Income inequality and inequality of opportunity have grown over 30 years under successive provincial and federal governments of all stripes. If the hon. member wants us to consider individual measures, his government ought to stop putting them and everything but the kitchen sink in omnibus bills that force members of the opposition in some cases to vote against measures that we may agree with.

I acknowledge that the working income tax benefit is actually helping people get over the welfare wall. It is one that was introduced by the member for Wascana when he was finance minister. It was embraced by the Conservatives. That is a good thing.

This is not a partisan debate. The member has trouble participating in non-partisan debates. This is a serious debate about the future of our country and whether or not we are going to continue to be the kind of country where people have a shot at success regardless of where they are born and that we continue to be a country where equality of opportunity is an underpinning of our social network and values.

[Business of Supply, September 25th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue. In fact, in a recent survey around three-quarters of Canadians indicated that income inequality is one of the top economic issues that we have to deal with as governments and politicians.

This is not a partisan issue. Income inequality has grown in Canada on a secular basis over the last 30 years. It has grown under Progressive Conservative governments, Liberal governments and Conservative governments. It has grown under New Democrat provincial governments. It has grown under Liberal and Parti Québécois provincial governments in Canada.

While this is not a partisan issue, it is an important one. It is one that we should have a debate about and talk about what we as federal leaders can do, working in conjunction with provincial and municipal governments and leaders in Canada.

The reality is that there has been an acceleration in the gap between the rich and the poor in recent years in Canada and throughout the industrialized world. This is not an ordinary economic downturn and recovery cycle; it is a global economic restructuring. It is one where resource rich countries like Canada benefit disproportionately from the global demand for their natural resources.

However, within Canada, there will be growth in the gap between have and have-not provinces exacerbated by the provinces that have those natural resources versus those that do not.

The reality is that this is not something that the federal government or provincial governments can do alone. We need to work together.

The reality is that there are some types of government programs that can help with issues of income inequality. The working income tax benefit, which was introduced in the last fall economic statement of the Liberal government and embraced and continued under the current Conservative government, is a measure that both governments can claim responsibility for. It is a good policy. It is the kind of policy that can help break down the welfare wall, that barrier to those people who want to work but lack the economic incentives to do so.

If we believe in that kind of public policy, we ought also recognize that tax credits for disability, or for children in sports or music or cultural activities or for caregivers, ought to be refundable. Because of the perverse nature of non-refundable tax credits, it the poorest of the poor, the people who need these benefits the most, who do not qualify for them.

The changes to OAS, again, are an example. If we evaluate who receives OAS, 40% of the people receiving OAS make less than $20,000 per year and 53% make less than $25,000 per year. There is a disproportionate hit to those with the lowest incomes. We all have to consider that when we are making decisions in Parliament.

I believe that the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mark Carney, said it best when he remarked in regard to inequality that, “The people who say it's not an issue are wrong, and the people who say it's an issue and who want to create class warfare are wrong. The focus needs to be on ensuring equality of opportunity.... It's a massive issue; fundamental to society. It's not right that big swaths of society become discouraged and marginalized.”

I think Governor Carney has nailed it, frankly. We have to focus on equality of opportunity. We cannot guarantee equality of outcome. However, we can work together to ensure equality of opportunity.

If we look at this, I believe one of the successes of the U.S. economy multi-generationally was the sense of hope, that one could be born into any station in the United States and have a shot at success.

I think one of the reasons why the U.S. economy is, and probably will continue to be, stagnant for some time is that people have lost that sense of hope, that capacity to grow and develop and for their children and someone else's children to succeed.

If we think of the drivers of equality of opportunity, where are the best opportunities to break multi-generational poverty?

I was just at the Canadian Council of Chief Executives' conference at the convention centre here in Ottawa. There was session focused on education and learning. They were talking about lifelong learning. They were talking about restoring the honour of trades. They were talking about early learning and child care.

These are CEOs of the biggest companies in Canada who were talking about how to address some of the issues, the drivers of equality of opportunity, and they were talking about early learning and child care and how important they are.

A federal government cannot act on early learning and child care alone, but there is no constitutional barrier to a federal government working in partnership with the provinces on that issue. I served in a cabinet where we signed agreements with every province and territory on early learning and child care. We committed federal funds and we worked co-operatively, because it is a national imperative. Quebec has a good system and I congratulate it and several Quebec governments for having implemented a program that has helped to strengthen equality of opportunity and upward mobility.

It is not just good social policy; it is good economic policy. The reality is that there is no area of educational investment that will yield more bang for the buck in its impact on people's success in the future and their growth economically and socially than in the years before they even get to grade 1 or the primary grade in the public education system.

These are the issues we should be talking about in this House, not pithy partisanship. We should be talking about ideas on how we can work together across party lines and with provincial governments to address these issues.

Let us look at the issues of aboriginal and first nations. It is not economically or socially sustainable to have the fastest growing and youngest population in the country as the most economically and socially disenfranchised at the same time. In the House, as politicians we have to develop the kinds of ideas and solutions, the head start programs, the early intervention programs, that can help save a generation of young aboriginal and first nations youth.

We also have to engage non-aboriginal Canadians in this discussion. Part of responsible politics is pedagogy. We have to engage non-aboriginals and we have to tell them that they in fact have as much interest in seeing young aboriginals and first nations members succeed as the members of those first nations communities themselves. If we do not address the issues of what is going on in aboriginal and first nations reserves, it is not only a social time bomb but also an economic time bomb for our country.

These are the kinds of issues we should be talking about when we talk about equality of opportunity. What we now see in Canada is a resource-driven recovery and a gap between resource provinces and non-resource provinces.

Alberta is investing massively in education, and I congratulate it, as that is exactly the right thing to do. Alberta has a progressive premier in Premier Redford out there.

At the same time, my province of Nova Scotia is cutting investment in public education by about 30%, because of budget issues.

One of the things that came out of the meeting of Canadian Council of CEOs today was that one of the CEOs was saying that an Alberta CEO has as much interest in the education system in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland as he does in the Alberta education system. The future workforce in places like Alberta and Saskatchewan could very well come from places like Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

In fact, there is a vested economic interest, not just in those provinces but across the country, in strong education and in working with the provinces to ensure that they can afford to invest in that fundamental underpinning of equality of opportunity: strong public education.

One area we should be looking at, whether we are talking about learning and lifelong learning or restoring the honour of the trades, is the German model of apprenticeship and skilled trades. Germany has a robust economy, and they have not had the same growth in income inequality that we have had in Canada. One of the reasons is that in Germany they have never lost the honour of skilled trades.

Over the last 30 years in Canada, we have lost the honour of skilled trades. We need to restore that. We have to work with apprenticeship programs. The federal government and provincial governments need to work hand in hand to deal with this issue.

The economic and social returns of dealing with income inequality and equality of opportunity issues today is one that can yield huge benefits for future generations of Canadians, and that is why this is an important issue that we should be engaged with in Parliament.

[Petitions, September 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions from Canadians, including constituents of mine, in support of motion M-312 to confirm that every human being is recognized by Canadian law as human by amending section 223 of our Criminal Code in such a way as to reflect 21st century medical evidence.

[Hants County Exhibition, September 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the organizers of the Hants County Exhibition, which continues this weekend in Windsor, Nova Scotia. The exhibition was first held in 1765. It is the oldest agricultural fair in North America. It is operated by the Windsor Agricultural Society.

I want to commend the president, Andrew Woolaver, and its entire board of directors, as well as David Coombes, the manager, for their tireless efforts.

Visitors to the Hants Country Exhibition can enjoy crafts, horticulture, horse shows, ox pulls, beef and dairy cattle displays, and competitions.

The exhibition is a great celebration also of the 4H movement. As someone who grew up in 4H, I know first-hand the important role that 4H plays in developing leadership for young people in rural Canada.

The exhibition will celebrate its 250th anniversary in three short years. I want to invite everybody to Windsor, Nova Scotia to visit the Hants County Exhibition. We welcome everyone to join us as we celebrate the important work of our farmers and the extraordinary success of this premier agricultural event in Windsor, Nova Scotia, the birthplace of hockey.

[Peter Lougheed, September 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I first met Peter Lougheed in 1997. His civility and humility put this newly elected 30-year-old MP at ease. A few years later I sought his advice on a speech I was about to give. He told me it was too partisan and too negative. He took a pen and proceeded to cross out the words that were beneath the kind of politics that he believed in. I was reminded of that yesterday as I listened to members' thoughtful statements paying tribute to Mr. Lougheed as well as to some other statements in the House that engaged in the kind of petty partisan politics that Mr. Lougheed rejected.

Peter Lougheed said that he was a Canadian first, an Albertan second and a partisan third. In this House we should all be Canadians first and partisan second. There would be no better tribute to Peter Lougheed than to follow his example of decency and civility in public service by raising the bar of debate in this House and throughout Canadian politics.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Guelph for his hard work on this file and his hard work as an exceptional member of Parliament for the people of Guelph and the people of Canada.

I can also say that these cuts to CAPP come at a time when the government is saying that it will communicate vital information to those Canadians who are out of work on job opportunities twice a day every day.How will it do that? It will do that via the Internet even though 30% of rural Canadians do not have the capacity to access the Internet.

These CAPP sites are important. I know in my riding there are lines, in parts of the day, for people to have access to these CAPP sites. On these changes to EI, the government is saying that people should not worry about it, that it will contact people twice a day. What if people do not have access to the Internet? What if they do not have a computer? The reality is that a lot of Canadians do not own a computer or cannot afford access to the Internet. A lot of Canadians are living in poverty and it is often those people to whom the government is saying it will communicate new jobs opportunities twice a day.

There is a real inconsistency and a logic gap. On the one hand the government is saying that it will cut the CAPP programs that aid low-income Canadians in their ability to access the Internet. On the other hand, it is saying that it will communicate job opportunities to low-income Canadians twice a day through the Internet. Let us try to square that one.

That is another reason that the government is off-track when it comes to helping low-income Canadians. It is another reason that I think this whole issue of poverty and income inequality is an issue the House of Commons finance committee will be studying in great detail coming up. I am looking forward to this day, as are my Conservative colleagues I am certain. These are issues that are important to Canadians. These are issues that we will delve into as part of the House of Commons finance committee in the coming months.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, we shall agree to disagree as to whether the process at the finance committee was a legitimate one. Suffice to say that testimony, contrary to the government's position, was magically expunged by some invisible hand that government members were able to exert during that process.

The reality is that there are substantive problems with the budget. I mentioned a couple, including the OAS, the changes to EI, among others, and including accountability and oversight.

On the changes on environmental oversight, we have several former presidents of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, CAPP, who have said that the NEB operates well. They were saying that it has operated very well. These changes would gut that process such that the decision-making would not be at the NEB level. It would be at the minister's office level. The capacity to actually politicize the decision-making process is not good for the economy and is not good for the environment. When I say that it is not good for the economy, what I mean is that when a predictable process, which is public servants who are doing their jobs as part of that NEB approach, is taken away and it is made more political that creates some real problems.

I have no difficulty with the streamlining of environmental process and regulation. I think that can be fair and good for business and the environment at the same time. However, I do have a concern about the government's politicizing of the environmental approval process, which would be the effect of this legislation.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 18th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the hon. member's question.

According to business leaders in my riding, there will clearly be a negative impact on businesses and their ability to survive, particularly in the tourism and agricultural industries. I am hearing that it will be very difficult for these industries to stay in business.

When I speak with business and industry leaders in my riding and elsewhere, it is clear that there was no consultation process before these ideological changes were introduced. When the government makes decisions without consulting anyone and adopts a completely ideological mindset, it creates a lot of crises—not just for workers, but also for businesses—regarding the possibility of increasing the number of jobs in the future.