Debates of Feb. 5th, 2013

Employment Insurance

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the problem comes down to the fact that the minister did not consult people in resource regions where the economy depends on seasonal employment. Nor did she consult with people in cities. A reform, she calls it! No, it is a direct attack on workers everywhere.

Another example is that a large majority of workers in the cultural industries such as television, film and music are freelancers who have to turn to employment insurance from time to time. They are what she calls frequent claimants, or, as she actually likes to say, “bad guys”.

Why has the minister chosen to ignore the reality of workers in cultural industries?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, our government made it possible for self-employed workers to have access to special employment insurance benefits.

Our government, for the first time in our country's history, has voluntarily provided self-employed workers with access to parental and sickness benefits. But the opposition voted against helping those people.

Government Spending

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have no money for the unemployed, but they have plenty for their propaganda. Conservative advertising expenses have mushroomed, increasing by 72% since the recession.

Instead of spending millions of taxpayer dollars to sell oil pipelines, they could have used that money for infrastructure, training for unemployed workers or programs for unemployed youth. Lots of talk, but no walk.

Instead of leading people to believe that they are taking action, why do the Conservatives not put money into programs?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, the government is responsible for informing Canadians about the important programs and services offered to them.

The government has this responsibility, and advertising is an essential means for informing Canadians about important issues, such as temporary stimulus measures, tax credits and public health issues.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that the government is showing all the discipline of a teenager with their parents' credit card with regard to propaganda.

This shameful spending spree reached its peak last Sunday when government ads were blanketed over the Canadian coverage of the Super Bowl. Tax dollars are being diverted from creating jobs to spend on Conservative government “feel goodery”.

Can the minister tell Canadians how many tax dollars were actually spent on government advertising during the Super Bowl, or have the lights gone out on accountability?

[Tony Clement, Conservative, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, what I can say from the last reported amount presented to Parliament is that we spent $83.3 million on essential advertising, which is a lot less than the $111 million spent by the previous Liberal government in its last year of power.

When it comes to credit cards and lights out, I can tell the hon. member that his party's plan for a $21 billion carbon tax means that nobody will have any lights on.

The Economy

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in budget 2006 the Minister of Finance cited the U.S. housing bubble as a positive example for Canada:

Households’ willingness and ability to spend accumulated housing wealth—through equity withdrawals and mortgage refinancing—have been a major contributor to the growth....

On page 88 of that budget, the minister brought in changes that led to the introduction of U.S. style 40-year mortgages with no down payment here in Canada.

Does the minister not understand that it was the loose credit policy he introduced in Canada, the U.S. style mortgage policy, that helped create the housing and personal debt bubble we have today in Canada?

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member opposite has observed, our housing market has been faring much better than the U.S. residential mortgage market over the past few years, and that is in part because it has been well managed.

We have restricted the availability of insured mortgages four times over the course of the past several years, which has encouraged some moderation in the market. The Superintendent of Financial Institutions has also encouraged some moderation in the market and Canadians themselves have shown some moderation, particularly in the past year.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, before the minister tightened mortgage rules, he loosened them, and the minister's easy credit helped drive consumer debt and housing prices to record highs.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Kings--Hants has the floor.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, The Economist magazine calls Canada's housing market whoppingly over-valued.

Today we learned that the average Canadian owes a record $27,000 in consumer debt on top of mortgages, yet in Davos the minister denied that rising mortgage levels and personal debt are a real problem in Canada.

When will the minister admit there is a real problem here? When will he admit that he created--

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Minister of Finance.

[Jim Flaherty, Conservative, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, we watch and we monitor the residential housing market carefully, which is why we have intervened four times during the course of the last four years.

Canadians have shown some moderation, in particular in some of the more volatile markets in Vancouver and in Toronto in the condo markets. We have seen some welcome moderation. This is good. This is the kind of thing that we were hoping would result from that actions taken not only by the Government of Canada but also by the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

Pensions

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the average Canadian's debt hit $27,485 in 2012, a 6% increase. In response, the minister began wagging his finger and lecturing Canadians on the merits of slashing debt and investing wisely. But while investing for one's retirement is wise, the minister forgets that many struggle to raise their family and to put food on the table today. PRPPs and TFSAs are useless for many Canadian families.

When will the minister stop his finger wagging and work to improve pension security for working class families struggling to make ends meet today?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, this is a great opportunity to talk about the benefits of pooled registered pension plans.

We are working with the provinces who are our partners in this. We have worked well with them. They are planning on bringing forward their legislation to match ours. This will provide an opportunity for over nine million Canadians who do not now have a workplace pension plan to be able to save for their future, and that is very important.

Public Safety

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I talked about the Conservatives' friend Arthur Porter on December 5, 2012, they dodged the question to avoid accountability.

But the scandal regarding the management of public funds in the construction of the MUHC continues to grow, and the public wants answers.

Millions of dollars vanished into thin air, millions that should have been used to care for patients. Strangely, this is the same Mr. Porter the Conservatives had appointed to head the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

What unique qualities does this individual possess that allowed him to be entrusted with such a crucial position by the Conservatives?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, Arthur Porter submitted his resignation from his position as chair of the Security and Intelligence Review Committee. We accepted his resignation. The allegations that Mr. Porter is facing do not have anything to do with his former responsibilities.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, accepting his resignation is all well and good, but he should never have been appointed.

Either the Conservatives were negligent in the screening process or they deliberately ignored his dubious past. They can try to wash their hands of the matter today, but for years Mr. Porter was their friend and contributed to their election coffers.

The Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board were quite happy to parade around with Mr. Porter for years. In short, the Conservatives rewarded him at every opportunity.

So, either they made a mistake or they were rewarding him for services rendered. Which is it?

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Porter resigned. We accepted his resignation. The allegations that he is facing have nothing to do with his former responsibilities.

Ethics

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if someone attempted to receive EI they were not eligible for the government would come down on them like a tonne of bricks. But when Conservative Senator Mike Duffy attempted to procure a health card in a province he does not live in, so that he could hit up the taxpayer for a $30,000 housing allowance he is not entitled to, the government calls him a loyal Conservative. Ordinary Canadians might consider this fraud, but the Conservative government is a government where cronies can do no wrong.

Why the double standard? Why will the Conservatives not hold their cronies in the Senate to account for ripping off the taxpayer?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, for a number of weeks we have heard the hon. member advocating in the House a double standard for himself compared with other people. We certainly do not hold by that. In fact, we do have a clear standard on this. All people on both sides of the House recognize that all parliamentarians are expected to maintain residences in their home region and the national capital region. We know that the Senate is reviewing those rules and making sure that they are applied properly and are appropriate.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what happened to those Reform Party zealots who promised that they would clean up Ottawa? They sit obediently behind the Conservative House leader who has been doing back-flips trying to cover up the fact that the Minister of Finance broke the law and is trying to pass off Mike Duffy as a constituency rep. This is absurd. This is a guy who was caught falsifying facts and sticking his hand in the taxpayer's pocket.

Do we really believe that the Conservative cronies in the Senate are going to make him pay the money back? No one believes that. The question is whether they are going to show some sense of accountability and make this guy pay back the $30,000-plus. Yes or no?

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Senate is responsible for those rules. It has its own committee that is reviewing them and all the senators subject to them, to ensure that the rules are indeed applied properly, as we all expect they will be.

The Economy

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while the NDP calls for job-killing taxes on business, our government is getting results for the economy, creating over 900,000 net new jobs created since the worst of the recession, with 90% of them full-time. Our economic action plan leaves more money in the hands of entrepreneurs to hire more Canadians and grow their businesses, not tax them out of business like the NDP.

In recent weeks, many Canadian retailers have announced their intentions to expand, something that the NDP has not bothered to mention. Can the world's best finance minister update the House on these good news announcements?