Debates of March 22nd, 2013

Pensions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I table a petition signed by residents of all ages from Winnipeg North. The petitioners ask the Prime Minister not to raise the age to qualify for OAS from 65 to 67. They want to ensure the government does not do anything to diminish the importance and the value of Canada's three major seniors programs: OAS, GIS and CPP.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1161, 1164 and 1167.

Question No. 1161

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

With regard to the Government of Canada, what is its net worth: (a) as a whole for each fiscal year since 2005, broken down by (i) assets, (ii) liabilities; and (b) broken down for each fiscal year since 2005 by department, agency and crown corporation by (i) assets, (ii) liabilities?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada’s net worth, or accumulated deficit, broken down by assets and liabilities for each fiscal year since 2004-05 can be found in Table 1.2, Government of Canada Detailed Statement of Financial Position, on page 1.17 of volume I of the Public Accounts of Canada 2012, available on the Public Works and Government Services Canada website at http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/recgen/cpc-pac/index-eng.html.

Supplementary information regarding the government’s assets and liabilities, including a breakdown by department, agency and crown corporation for certain categories of assets and liabilities, can be found on an annual basis in sections 4 to 10 of volume I of the Public Accounts of Canada.

In addition, departments, agencies and crown corporations publish annual financial statements which provide further details of their assets and liabilities. These financial statements are available through departments’ and agencies’ annual departmental performance reports and crown corporations’ annual reports, which are available on their respective websites.

Question No. 1164

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

With regard to the $20 million Southern Ontario Fund for Investment in Innovation: (a) how many companies, which the government is aware of, have received loans; (b) what companies have received loans; and (c) what was the amount of each loan?

[Gary Goodyear, Conservative, Minister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), two loans funded by the Southern Ontario Fund for Investment in Innovation, SOFII, have been announced, and more will be publicly announced in the future. Commencing April 30, 2013, all loans approved under SOFII will be disclosed on a quarterly basis on the websites of the organizations delivering SOFII, those being the Eastern Ontario Community Futures Development Corporation Network and the Western Ontario Community Futures Development Corporation Association. FedDev Ontario’s website will have a link to the website listings of approved SOFII loans.

With regard to (b), the projects announced include Konrad Group Inc., located in Toronto and Peterborough, which received an Eastern SOFII loan, and Voices.com, located in London, which received a Western SOFII loan.

With regard to (c), Konrad Group Inc. was provided with a repayable interest-bearing loan of $500,000; Voices.com was provided with a repayable interest-bearing loan of $500,000.

Question No. 1167

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

With regard to the transportation costs incurred by Lockheed Martin to bring a F-35 model from Fort Worth, Texas, to Ottawa, Ontario, and back to Fort Worth, Texas for the purposes of a press conference held on July 16, 2010, during which the Minister of Defence announced the government's intent to procure F-35s for the Royal Canadian Air Force: (a) did the government or any of its departments, agencies, or crown corporations reimburse or pay any amount of the transportation cost to Lockheed Martin; (b) if so, what was the total amount paid or reimbursed to Lockheed Martin or the contractor responsible for transportation; (c) on what date or dates was it paid; (d) who authorized the decision to reimburse Lockheed Martin for the transportation costs; (e) on what date was this decision taken; (f) what were the terms of the agreement between Lockheed Martin and the government to share the transportation costs; and (g) on what date was it signed?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, Lockheed Martin paid for all transportation costs for the F-35 model featured at the press conference held on July 16, 2010, in Ottawa. The Department of National Defence did not incur any costs for the transport of the model.

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, if Questions Nos. 1162, 1163 and 1165 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Question No. 1162

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

With regard to priority employment appointments in the federal public service: (a) for the period of June 1, 2011, to January 30, 2013, how many people were hired and of these how many were (i) casual employees, (ii) term employees, (iii) indeterminate employees; (b) how many members of the Canadian Forces have been medically released and (i) how many of these qualified medically released members have applied for a priority employment appointment, (ii) how many have received a priority appointment, (iii) how many were still on the priority employment appointment list when their eligibility period expired, (iv) how many were hired by each government department; and (c) what measures are being taken to extend this program to account for the large number of temporary and contract workers employed by the government?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1163

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

With regard to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) in the federal riding of Random—Burin—St. George’s, broken down by year, community and totalled for the riding, from 2002 until present: (a) how many RCMP officers were there; (b) what were the total expenditures of the RCMP; (c) how many open positions went unfilled; (d) how many RCMP officers were transferred outside the riding; (e) how many RCMP officers were transferred to the riding; (f) does the government or RCMP have any plans to decrease the number of RCMP officers; (g) how many incidents requiring the RCMP occurred; and (h) what are the terms in the agreements between the RCMP and each community?

(Return tabled)

Question No. 1165

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

With regard to the Montmagny, Quebec, company PurGenesis, how much funding has the government provided PurGenesis since fiscal year 2008-2009, per year, up to the current fiscal year, by department or agency, initiative and amount?

(Return tabled)

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is that also agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government, and of the amendment.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When the House last left this question on the motion, the hon. member for Kings—Hants had eight minutes remaining in the time for his remarks, and of course the usual ten minutes for questions and comments that will follow.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kings—Hants.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was in budget 2006 that the Minister of Finance actually brought in 40-year no-down-payment mortgages to Canada, and that had a significant effect. By the first half of 2008, over 50% of new mortgages issued in Canada were 40-year mortgages. His decision to introduce U.S. style loose money mortgages to Canada actually changed the culture of borrowing and lending in Canada.

Now we have record debt levels and a softening housing market, and Canadians are looking to the government for leadership. Budget 2013 will not help middle-class families who are struggling. Instead, the Minister of Finance's recent demand that banks increase mortgage prices will only make it harder for middle-class families to make ends meet.

I will give an example. Increasing the mortgage rate from 2.89% to 3.09%, which is exactly what the Minister of Finance asked Manulife to do, would actually cost someone with a $400,000 mortgage an extra $12,000 over the next five years. That is an extra $12,000 that a Canadian family would have to set aside and it would add an extra $12,000 to the profits of banks or financial institutions, simply because the Minister of Finance decided to meddle in mortgage prices, trying to undo the damage he did with his loose mortgage policies in his first budget.

Unlike the Conservatives, a Liberal government would never have jeopardized the economy and Canada's housing market with a risky mortgage scheme. Unlike the Conservatives, the Liberal Party and Liberal governments have a strong record of economic and fiscal competence. It was a Liberal government that turned a $43 billion deficit that it inherited from the previous government into nine consecutive budget surpluses and paid down more than $80 billion off the national debt.

Today, a Liberal government would prioritize measures that would kickstart the economy and help create jobs. Thanks to the hard work of the 1990s, the Government of Canada's finances are strong enough to allow some flexibility. We could support economic growth now and still balance the budget in the medium term. We could afford to freeze EI premiums in order to protect Canadian jobs.

We could afford to remove the 2% funding gap on post-secondary education for aboriginal Canadians. In fact, we cannot afford not to. Aboriginal Canadians represent not only the youngest and fastest growing population in Canada, they are also the most economically and socially disadvantaged. In fact, only a third of young aboriginals are graduating from high school, and that is why it is horrendous that the government has not devoted one penny in this budget to K-to-12 education for aboriginal youth.

A Liberal government would also end the Conservatives' wasteful and ineffective advertising campaign. The government's spending has exceeded half a billion dollars of Canadians' money on Conservative ads. We see economic action plan ads every night on TV, even during the most expensive airtime, such as NHL playoffs, Super Bowl and the Oscars. A Liberal government would introduce new rules to ensure that government advertising is non-partisan and provides real value for taxpayers' money.

There are some measures in budget 2013 that we have been calling for, and as such are willing to support. Last year, I tried to amend the budget bill to increase the maximum threshold for the hiring credit for small businesses from $10,000 to $15,000. We warned the government that continuing to freeze the threshold at $10,000 was punishing small businesses near that threshold and creating a perverse situation that encouraged them not to go over it and hire more people.

The Conservatives were too stubborn to support our amendment last year, but I am glad to see that it is in their proposal exactly as we proposed it a year ago. Freezing EI rates for all businesses would have been even better, but fixing the hiring credit for small business is better than nothing.

We have also been asking the government to listen to the manufacturing sector and extend the accelerated capital cost allowance for at least five years. The Conservatives have partially listened and extended the program for two years, which is better than nothing.

Last November, on the eve of Black Friday, my colleague from Cape Breton—Canso stood in this House and asked the Minister of Finance to reduce tariffs on hockey equipment. He asked the government to get rid of this $20 job-killing hockey tax, and we are pleased that the Minister of Finance has listened to the Liberal member for Cape Breton—Canso.

Despite these individual measures we cannot support the overall direction, or perhaps lack of direction, in budget 2013. Instead of delivering measures to kickstart the economy, the Conservatives are making short-term spending cuts their priority.

Instead of introducing a real plan to create jobs, budget 2013 would increase job-killing EI taxes, freeze money for training at 2007 levels and cut new funding for infrastructure.

Instead of cutting Conservative waste, the budget would devote even more money to advertising the government's economic action plan, with this year's television ad campaign beginning mere hours after the finance minister delivered his budget speech.

With this in mind, I move, seconded by the member for Winnipeg North, that the motion be further amended by adding the following:

That the amendment be amended by adding after the words “hospital parking” the following:

n) imposes three more job killing employment insurance tax hikes by 2016 taking an additional $4 billion out of the pockets of Canadians;

o) does not provide a dedicated waste water infrastructure fund to help municipalities meet the new federal waste water regulations;

p) fails to bring the provinces together to create a supplemental voluntary Canada Pension Plan;

q) downloads new costs onto the provinces and territories to pay for job training;

r) provides no new funding for critical water and waste water needs in First Nations communities;

s) fails to provide a comprehensive approach to addressing mental health needs of Canadians;

t) fails to expand the scope of the Last Post Fund to include post-Korean War Veterans;

u) fails to restore funding to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for search and rescue;

v) fails to find the funding to keep open the Experimental Lakes Areas, the world renowned freshwater research facility;

w) fails to restore funding to the Interim Federal Health Program for refugee health care;

x) does not renew the critical Extended Employment Insurance Benefits Pilot Project; and

y) commits even more funding to wasteful partisan advertising.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised at the volume of positive comments that the government has been receiving as a result of this wonderful new economic action plan 2013.

My question for the member is, when we hear from organizations such as the Engineers Canada, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Canadian Council of Chief Executives, the National Association of Career Colleges, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, George Brown College, the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, and I could go on and on, saying this is a great addition to the plan that has been put in place by this government, that has made us number one in the G7 in job creation, in growth, et cetera, why on earth is that member and his party prepared to vote against these folks?

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

Mr. Speaker, I hear from Canadians all the time, including my constituents. I hear from parents who are worried about the future of their children and grandparents who are worried about their grandchildren.

The fact is that youth employment numbers are five points worse than they were five years ago in 2007. That is why it is unacceptable that in this budget the government has frozen federal funding at 2007 levels. In real terms, that represents a 10% cut because of inflation. Beyond that, we have a significantly worsened employment situation today than we did in 2007, after a financial crisis.

This is the question the hon. member should be answering to what could be a lost generation of youth in Canada. Why is the government doing less today to invest in skills and training than it was doing in 2007, prior to a global financial crisis? Why is partisan government advertising of over $600 million more important to the government than investing to protect and create opportunities for young Canadians?