Scott Brison

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-38 amends or repeals 70 different pieces of legislation. It is 425 pages of legislative text with 753 clauses.

There has been a lot of focus on the length of the bill. In fact, my party and I are more concerned with the breadth of the bill and the range of legislative changes made by Bill C-38. In fact, that is much more important than the number of words or pages. To put this in perspective, it often takes just a single clause in Bill C-38 to repeal or introduce an entire act.

Proposed in Bill C-38, we now have an entirely new Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in clause 52. This one clause replaces decades of environmental protection and oversight in Canada.

Clause 441 repeals the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act.

Clause 447 increased the old age security qualification age from 65 to 67.

Clause 686 abolishes the National Council on Welfare.

Clause 699 repeals the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act.

Clause 711 introduces an entirely new Shared Services Canada Act.

These are just a sampling of a few of the 753 clauses contained in this legislation.

Under the Conservatives, budget bills have grown tremendously in breadth. These pieces of omnibus legislation have become more complex, affecting widely disparate subjects and putting them into a single bill. At the same time, the Conservatives are limiting Parliament's ability to examine these different topics in several ways: first, by limiting the amount of time we have to examine the legislation before rushing it through committee; second, by limiting the number of expert witnesses we can hear from at committee; and third, by limiting the debate on this legislation in Parliament.

There is another way that the government is operating at committee to try to subvert reasonable debate and quash any dissension to its views. We heard from a number of witnesses who spoke at length in opposition to parts of this legislation. National Chief Shawn Atleo spoke to our committee. Perversely, most of Mr. Atleo's testimony and the intent of his testimony were actually expunged from the report that the committee presented. Contrary to what the researchers provided, the governing members on the committee worked together to ensure that we would effectively expunge any piece of testimony that may be critical of the government's system.

The same was done with Tom Siddon, a former minister of fisheries in a Progressive Conservative government, who said that this legislation would make “Swiss cheese” out of the Fisheries Act and warned us of the remarkably harmful damage to the Fisheries Act that would be rendered by this legislation. Most of the intent of his testimony was effectively expunged from the final report.

Over 600 clauses are included in parts 1, 2 and 4 of the bill, but the finance committee had just over a week to hear from a grand total of 57 witnesses from outside of the government. Most clauses in this legislation were not properly examined by the finance committee or addressed by even a single witness. Simply put, the process to study Bill C-38 was a farce.

Unfortunately, last spring the Conservatives learned that parliamentary process does not seem at the present to matter a lot to Canadians. They also learned this in Ontario with the omnibus bills of the Harris government.

I mentioned last spring that it was this Conservative government that became the first government not only in Canada but in the British Commonwealth parliamentary system to have actually been found in contempt of Parliament by the previous Speaker and House.

Elections are about a lot of issues. Sometimes an issue will resonate with Canadians and sometimes it will not. In that election, for whatever reason, a lot of Canadians did not seem to be paying attention to the fact that we had a sitting government that had been found in contempt of Parliament.

The Harris Conservative government in Ontario repeatedly used massive omnibus legislation. It disrespected Parliament, disrespected taxpayers and got away with it.

The Conservatives have in some ways been positively reinforced for negative behaviour, but things are changing. We are increasingly hearing from Canadians. We are hearing from them through all forms of media, whether it is opinion letters in newspapers, online fora, or in person.

Last evening I was at my home in Cheverie and I took my Gator down to the end of our drive to plant some trees. A fellow on his motorbike out for a Sunday evening drive stopped to speak to me. I had not met this fellow before. He told me that he has paid a bit of attention to politics but has never been involved, but he wants to get involved now. He said this has gone too far, that the Conservative government is out of control. He said that what we are seeing in Ottawa is not a democratic government.

I hear that also from people at the farmers' market in Wolfville. They tell me that the government wants to celebrate the veterans of the Second World War who fought for our freedoms, but they want to know how the government can on the one hand celebrate the sacrifices and commitment of the veterans who fought for our democratic rights and freedoms while on the other hand attacking those same democratic rights and freedoms.

I am hearing that from people in my riding, and I am hearing from members of our caucus from across Canada that increasingly Canadians are noticing and are willing to get engaged and involved to find a better alternative.

This is not esoteric parliamentary procedure stuff that the Conservatives are trying to pretend. This strikes to the core values of respect for Parliament and democracy.

I will be speaking later about our inability to get legitimate information from the government about the legislation we are going to vote on, but suffice it to say that by limiting public debate and oversight, the Conservatives are hoping that Canadians will be too distracted by process issues to notice what they will really be doing with this legislation. The Conservatives are trying to distract Canadians with the process issues, and a lot of us have focused on the process issues. The Conservatives are quite happy about that, because they do not think Canadians really care about the democratic institutions that govern us and defend our freedoms. The Conservatives are wrong. They are betting against the goodwill, the good faith and the intelligence of Canadians in the long term.

I want to talk about a couple of the changes being made that the Conservatives are largely ducking responsibility and accountability for. One is the OAS change. The Conservatives are saying that this is really not a cut. They should explain that to a low-income Canadian who is looking forward to becoming 65 to quality for OAS. Let us look at who will be affected by these changes.

Forty per cent of OAS recipients make less than $20,000 a year. Fifty-three per cent of OAS recipients make less than $25,000 a year. The Conservatives are telling Canadians that they will have 11 years to start saving a bit more money. It is pretty hard to tell people who are making $20,000 a year that they have to save more money, and that is effectively what the Conservatives are telling a lot of Canadians.

The Conservatives are telling Canadians that they are living longer, that they are healthier. Lawyers, accountants, members of Parliament or journalists can probably work, if health permits, until 75 or 80 years of age.

My father was a businessman. He worked until he was 82. However, in the case of manual labourers, working in a cold, damp fish plant on a concrete floor every day, on their feet all day; welders; physical labourers; carpenters; or pipe fitters, chances are by the age of 65 their bodies are ready for a break. There was no consideration of these people, the low-income Canadians being affected by this.

The government is quite happy that the issues around Bill C-38 have focused on parliamentary process and not on the actual issues. We have lots of time before the next election to ensure that we get back to those substantive issues with Canadians.

I am hearing from a lot of industries across Canada, and specifically in Atlantic Canada, on changes to EI, particularly from significant employers in seasonal industries, including horticulture. They tell me that these changes could wipe them out, that programs to support seasonal workers are part of the production chain of agriculture and horticulture, not just in Canada but globally. They say that any impediment to the use of seasonal workers or seasonal worker programs in the horticulture industry could wreak havoc on their capacity to be competitive with industries in other countries.

The legislation is also hurting Canada's international brand by tearing up 100,000 immigration applications. The Conservatives are imposing their unilateral decision to reduce health care transfer payment growth to the provinces and territories. They are enabling themselves to target charities with which they disagree. While they are at it, they have eliminated groups with which they disagree, including the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Rights and Democracy, and the National Council of Welfare. What do those groups have in common? Number one, they were set up decades ago. Number two, they reported to governments and would disagree with governments from time to time. Number three, their funding was continued under both Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments, which could accept the principle that governments do not just fund organizations that agree with them. They have a responsibility in a functioning democracy to accept truth from experts, from people who spend their lives dealing with these issues, like the National Council of Welfare that understands the issues of poverty in Canada, or the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

Most people have accepted that we cannot put in silos the economy on one side and the environment on the other, that good environmental policy can actually be good economic policy and that the jobs of the future are going to be increasingly green jobs, including areas of opportunity in cleaner conventional energy in places like the oil sands where we can develop those technologies. Why then, for goodness' sake, would the Conservatives get rid of a government council that has operated for decades dealing with this issue, just at the time when Canada has to deal with the issue of bringing the economy and the environment together?

Bill C-38 reduces the Auditor General's oversight of a number of government agencies. It reduces democratic oversight of Canada's spy agency by abolishing the office of the Inspector General. It eliminates a number of the government's reporting requirements on climate change and public service jobs. It makes changes that some experts are warning us are unconstitutional, like changes to parole hearings.

However, I believe Canadians are hitting a tipping point where we will no longer accept this anti-democratic style and substance of the government. For some time the Conservatives have been starving Canadians and members of Parliament of the information we need to have informed debate and to make informed decisions.

The Conservatives treat Parliament as an enemy, one that they try to starve of information and co-operation. They refuse to provide basic information, for instance about how much legislation would cost. In the fall of 2010, I put forward a motion at the finance committee, demanding that the government provide us with information about the costs of the F-35s and of its prison agenda. My motions were adopted, but the government continued to refuse to disclose the information. I appealed to Parliament through a question of privilege. I argued that MPs have a fiduciary responsibility to Canadians. We must know how much legislation would cost before we vote on it.

This is not just a responsibility we have as opposition members of Parliament. It is very important that the members of Parliament in the government recognize that the Conservative MPs have the same job description that we do. We have the same fiduciary responsibility to taxpayers and to citizens and to our electors to know the cost of the legislation we are voting on. To vote blindly, without even demanding that information, is to not do our job. That is effectively what the Conservatives are failing to do when they are complicit with a government that starves Parliament of this vital information. The Conservative MPs are failing to do their job. By denying us that information, the government is denying Canadians this information.

That is why we see today that the Parliamentary Budget Officer, appointed by the Conservatives, has been pushed to the limit where he is not being given information on legislation from the government. He asked for simple information on the impact of cuts over the future fiscal years. He received the response that the government cannot provide him with that information. A legal opinion came out this morning that the law the Conservatives are breaking is section 79.3 of the Parliament of Canada Act. We have a government that is actually breaking the law. This law gives Parliament, through the Parliamentary Budget Officer, free and timely access to any financial or economic data. Who brought in that law? I think it was the Conservatives. It was part of their Accountability Act. So they make the law and then they break the law.

The reality is that the Conservatives, many from the Reform Party background, rode into Ottawa on this white horse of accountability, defending the interests of Parliament against the executive, defending the interests of the taxpayers against those who would not defend their interests here in Ottawa and those who would not provide them with information on legislation. Now it is the Conservatives who are quashing all that. The reality is that the Conservatives, who won an election promising openness, transparency and accountability, are the least open, least transparent and least accountable government in the history of Canada.

We have a responsibility. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has a responsibility to do his job. He takes that seriously. He has asked for information, not on his own behalf but for Parliament, so that members of Parliament can do their job. Our parliamentary system relies on hon. members to act honourably and it expects that members of Parliament's questions will be answered fully and completely. However, when MPs ask substantive questions to ministers or even to officials at committee, these questions are routinely evaded or ignored. Even order paper questions are now ignored. Shortly after budget 2012 was released, I submitted several order paper questions, seeking a government-wide breakdown of financial information in the three most recent budgets. I believe I am the only MP to have done this. The response from the government was basically “no”. In fact, it sent me a copy of the table that I referenced in my request and asked for more detailed information. It simply sent me the table, to add insult to injury.

In disrespecting Parliament and members of Parliament, the Conservative government is disrespecting the Canadians who chose the Parliament. It is in disrespecting Parliament, and not giving us the cost of legislation, that the government is disrespecting taxpayers.

We will have, in the coming years, an opportunity to debate with Canadians some of the substantive and deleterious impacts of this legislation on the lives of Canadians. It is very important that we fulfill our responsibility as MPs to defend this Parliament against a tyrannical government that no longer cares about Parliament and the democratic rights and freedoms of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the hon. member as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and, as such, a member of the finance committee as we undertake our work on the study of income inequality now that the House of Commons has overwhelmingly supported my motion on income inequality. I do look forward to working with her , and with members of all parties on the finance committee to address this important issue.

My question for the parliamentary secretary is about the issue of accountability, transparency and respect of Parliament. This morning, the Parliamentary Budget Officer came forward with a legal opinion, which had been sought, that actually says that the government is breaking section 79.3 of the Parliament of Canada Act in its refusal to provide detailed information on the impact on the fiscal situation of the cuts that the government is proposing to make.

The government is refusing to give members of Parliament and the Parliamentary Budget Officer the detailed impacts of the legislation we are passing on the fiscal situation, such the impacts of spending initiatives and the impacts of cuts.

Today we have an unprecedented situation where the Parliamentary Budget Officer has attained a legal opinion that the government is actually breaking section 79.3 of the Parliament of Canada Act.

Why is the parliamentary secretary not actively defending the interests of Parliament to have this information before we vote on this kind of legislation? Why are the Conservative members of Parliament complacent and comfortable voting blindly without knowing the impacts of this legislation on Canada's fiscal situation?

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, June 14th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe my vote was counted on this one.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 11th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, that is an important question because income inequality is a growing issue in Canada. It is important to say that this is not a partisan issue. It has grown over the last 30 years under different governments of different political stripes. Provincially, governments from the Parti Québécois to NDP, Liberal and Conservative, the issue of income inequality is not a partisan issue and we ought not approach it as such. I am concerned about certain measures in the budget, particularly around OAS, because they will hurt some of Canada's most vulnerable citizens, the lowest income citizens.

There have been some measures over the years which both Liberal and Conservative governments have put in place that have actually helped on the issue of income inequality, helping people get over the welfare wall. I will cite one.

In the fall of 2005, in the last mini budget of the Liberal government, we introduced something called the working income tax benefit. We were defeated a few months later, in January. However, the Conservatives brought the working income tax benefit back. I believe that tax benefit helps people get over the welfare wall. That is an example where two governments of different political stripes both believed in the working income tax benefit. That tax benefit can actually help address the issue of income inequality and barriers to progress faced by low-income Canadians. That is an example of the kind of best practice where we can work together across party lines in the House.

On Wednesday night, I believe we are looking at 5:30 p.m. for the vote on my private member's motion on income inequality. It simply calls for the House of Commons finance committee to study the issue and report back to the House on not only the causes of income inequality but also some of the measures that can potentially help it, including best practice models and policy ideas from other countries, to address the issue. I certainly hope we see a good level of support from all parties for the bill. It is a good opportunity for us to work together on an important issue.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 11th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that question very much.

I share the hon. member's concerns. A reduction in government accountability for food safety is a very serious issue. This is another case where the government is making potentially very significant, negative or dangerous changes without involving experts or hearing their testimony.

I agree completely with my colleague on that.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-38, the 425-page omnibus budget implementation act. It would, among other things, gut Canada's environmental laws; break the Conservatives' election promise by raising the age of eligibility for OAS from 65 to 67; create uncertainty for businesses, workers and seasonal industries with changes to EI that attack rural Canada, Atlantic Canada and the provinces; and that would hurt Canada's international brand by tearing up 100,000 immigration applications.

Bill C-38 imposes the Conservatives' unilateral decision to reduce health transfers to the provinces and territories. It allows the Conservatives to target charitable organizations they disagree with.

It would wipe out groups such as the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Rights and Democracy and the National Council on Welfare. All of these groups have one thing in common: over the last 30 years, and in some cases more, these groups were independent. They were funded through the government, but they took independent positions based on evidence that was sometimes contrary to the governing party, which was, in some cases, Liberal governments, in other cases, Progressive Conservative governments. However, the current Conservative government is the first government that actually de-funded these groups simply because they disagreed with the governing party.

Bill C-38 would reduce the Auditor General's oversight on a number of government agencies, including the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Northern Pipeline Agency. It would reduce oversight on Canada's spy agency by abolishing the office of the Inspector General. It would repeal the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act. It would eliminate a number of the government's reporting requirements on climate change and public service jobs. It would make changes that experts warn are unconstitutional to parole hearings.

The finance committee spent a few days studying the legislation since the House last debated the bill. A finance subcommittee was struck to examine part 3 of the bill, which was focused on environmental measures. However, this study took place while the environment committee was travelling to Alberta and Nova Scotia, which limited the ability of key MPs with expertise on the environment to participate in the Bill C-38 study.

The subcommittee's report on Bill C-38 was a disgraceful whitewash. The main report did not include any reference to public opposition to the bill, with the exception of a single reference that completely misrepresented the testimony of former Progressive Conservative fisheries minister, Tom Siddon. Mr. Siddon, who was the fisheries minister from 1985 to 1990 in the Mulroney government, said:

They are totally watering down and emasculating the Fisheries Act.

They are really taking the guts out of the Fisheries Act and it’s in devious little ways if you read all the fine print...they are making a Swiss cheese out of [it].

That was said by a former minister of fisheries, a Progressive Conservative activist and minister.

Mr. Siddon was part of a group of four former fisheries ministers, two Liberal and two Progressive Conservatives, who wrote a letter warning the government of the disastrous effect the bill would have on our fisheries.

The subcommittee's report endorsed the changes made to the National Energy Board despite having heard from witnesses who were overwhelmingly opposed to these changes.

Today, Barrie McKenna's article in the The Globe and Mail argues that Bill C-38 undermines:

...the NEB’s authority and independence [and] turns back the clock on five decades of credible resource regulation.... The omnibus bill gives Ottawa carte blanche over as many as 750 decisions a year. That is a lot of authority for Canadians with their X mark in the voting booth to grant a cabinet dominated by one man. It delegitimizes the NEB and injects needless uncertainty into the process.

Furthermore, industry was not calling for a lot of these changes. In fact, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, CAPP, stated that the NEB plays “a very important role in ensuring that we’ve got [a] secure, reliable, affordable energy supply for Canadians, and sustainably develop our abundant energy resources”.

The main finance committee studied parts 1, 2 and 4 of the bill. We heard from officials and a total of 57 witnesses on the 636 clauses contained in parts 1, 2 and 4. To be blunt, the study was a farce. The committee's timeline was rushed, leaving us unable to examine many aspects of the legislation.

We were not given the chance to hear from a single witness outside of the government on a large number of the issues. For instance, we did not hear from any municipal leaders, despite the impact of Bill C-38 on communities.

The main finance committee did not hear from any witnesses from aboriginal groups, even though this bill proposes a number of changes that will impact them directly, such as changes to the First Nations Land Management Act. Parliament has a responsibility to consult with Canada's aboriginal peoples before making these changes.

National Chief Shawn Atleo did appear before the subcommittee. He said:

To date, first nations have not been engaged or consulted on any of the changes to the environmental and resource development regime proposed within Bill C-38....In its current form, part 3 of C-38 clearly represents a derogation of established and asserted first nations rights. If enacted, it will increase the time, costs, and effort for all parties and governments, as first nations will take every opportunity to challenge these provisions.

That testimony, by the way, before the subcommittee was expunged from the subcommittee's report, which the government of course controlled and basically wrote at the committee level.

We did not hear from any railway companies, even though Bill C-38 would increase their share of costs for railway crossings by 500%. The government did not allow us enough time to conduct a proper study of this bill.

The finance committee heard from only one witness on the issue of the changes to the oversight of Canada's spy agency, outside of government officials. That was Paul Kennedy, a former senior assistant deputy minister at public safety, responsible for national security activities and former chief counsel to CSIS, who called these changes to CSIS “sheer insanity”.

The finance committee only heard from one witness on the changes to parole hearings who described the changes as unconstitutional. The Canadian Bar Association also wrote to the finance committee to warn us that these changes in Bill C-38 were unconstitutional.

Many of the witnesses we did hear from were overwhelmed by the sheer volume of the changes in the bill. Tyler Sommers of Democracy Watch told the committee:

I don't think that anyone, to the best of their abilities, could represent their constituents when there's a 500-page bill that affects virtually every aspect of Canadian society.

The issue here is not just the length of the bill; it is the breadth of the bill and the number of sweeping changes that are totally unrelated. The reality is we have an environment committee with members of Parliament, with expertise in the environment. We have an aboriginal northern affairs committee with members of Parliament, with an expertise in that area.

If we broke down this bill and not only enabled individual legislators at the committee to study the changes and the legislation in separate bills, but ultimately to vote on them, we would actually be respecting democracy and we would be respecting Parliament. However, the Prime Minister is not interested in that.

In terms of some of the changes on old age security and EI, the government is targeting some of the most vulnerable Canadians. Old age security changes are being rushed through. The Conservatives are saying that we should not to worry, that they will not take effect for 11 years and that if people are 53 years old, they can start saving more money. For goodness sake, 40% of Canadians make less than $20,000 per year. How are they supposed to save money on that? Who gets OAS? The reality is that 40% of the people getting OAS make $20,000 a year or less and 53% make less than $25,000 a year.

This is targeting Canada's most vulnerable. It is an affront to democracy and it is an affront to Canada's most vulnerable who will pay a price for this neo-conservative agenda, which is not well thought out and is an attack on some of Canada's lowest-income people, an attack on rural Canada and an attack on Atlantic Canada.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act, June 11th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, there are significant changes to the regulatory oversight for our petroleum energy industry in the legislation. In today's Globe and Mail, Barrie McKenna argues that the bill actually undermines the NEB's authority and independence and turns back the clock on five decades of credible resource regulation. He says “The omnibus bill gives Ottawa carte blanche over as many as 750 decisions a year”.

Further, he quotes the president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, CAPP, as saying, the NEB, as it existed, “play a very important role in ensuring that we've got [a] secure, reliable, affordable energy supply for Canadians, and sustainably develop our abundant energy resources”.

The industry supported the NEB as it existed, so why is the government making this change and reducing oversight?

[Study on income inequality, June 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I thank members from all parties who have expressed support for Motion No. 315.

Canadians do believe that the growing income inequality in Canada is an incredibly important issue. In fact, they believe that members of Parliament ought to be serious about studying it and addressing it.

The motion simply asks that the finance committee study the issue, make recommendations and report back to the House. During the study, we will have the opportunity to review Canada's system of income taxes and income support in order to understand how they may be contributing, inadvertently and unintentionally, to income inequality. We will be able to identify some of the gaps in the systems. We will be able to look at some best practices across Canada in terms of provincial governments that may be doing things well, in some cases, and look at other countries that have been able to combine innovative economic policy with progressive social policy. Finally, we would be able to propose solutions to help combat this growing issue of income inequality and equality of opportunity in Canada.

During my first intervention on the motion, I discussed our moral responsibility as parliamentarians to address the issue of income inequality and equality of opportunity. Today, I would like to lay out the business case and why it is good for business to address income inequality.

We have heard from economic voices, including the Conference Board of Canada, the Rotman School of Management dean, Roger Martin, and the Bank of Canada governor, Mark Carney. All have warned us that income inequality could limit Canada's economic growth and threaten sustainable prosperity.

While inequality can be bad for society, it can also be bad for business as it comes with great economic and social costs. The real threat to the economy and to society is when income inequality becomes so great that it starts to threaten equality of opportunity.

As American Nobel Prize winning economist Joe Stiglitz has said, “growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity”.

Canada benefits from good public education, public health care and a strong society safety net. These essential foundation blocks of equality of opportunity are key to why we are doing better than some other countries. Along with our natural resource sector, our natural wealth, it is our people and giving our people a good start with good education and good opportunities are the keys to economic growth and sustainable prosperity.

However, not all Canadians have access to the tools they need to prosper. For instance, aboriginal and first nations communities have the fastest-growing and youngest population in Canada, but they are also Canada's most economically disadvantage and socially disenfranchised population. If we fail to address this issue faced by our aboriginal peoples, this is a demographic, social and economic time bomb.

All Canadians have a responsibility and a vested interest to narrow and eliminate the gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians. The long-term social costs of inequality and loss of opportunity are far more costly than the measures to address it.

I will put it another way. Looking out for the other guy is not just good for the soul, it is good for business. Business should also be concerned that the public could lose faith in a market-based economy if they no longer have hope for economic and social success. When people lose faith in the system, they can be drawn to class warfare and to economically dangerous anti-market policies, and that could be really bad for business.

The issue here is too serious a problem and too important an issue to allow partisan politics to get in the way of finding solutions. The fact is that this is a problem that has grown under federal governments and provincial governments of all party stripes. No one party has all the answers and no one party is to blame.

I am not naive enough to believe that a study of this issue will fix the problem, but it is a start because we need to understand the issue better and we need to move forward toward building public policy that will address growing income inequality.

In contemplating how to vote on Motion No. 315, I hope that members will be guided by their hearts, their heads and their desire for good public policy.

Earlier tonight, a Conservative member spoke of the working income tax benefit. That actually was introduced in the last Liberal budget in the fall 2005 by the then finance minister, the member for Wascana.

We are pleased with the working income tax benefit that the Conservatives continued to maintain in their fall budget. That is a case where two parties, two governments, worked together on an issue to address inequality.

We can work together across party lines in the House. The start will be on the vote for Motion No. 315. I will appreciate the support and Canadians will appreciate the support for this first step toward addressing this important issue.

[Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act, June 7th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the pooled registered pension plan is a small step that would provide another vehicle for savings. The NDP is quite right in pointing out that it is not an actual pension plan, but it is another savings vehicle.

Another idea that could be implemented to strengthen the option of the pooled registered pension plan and help keep fees competitive would be a voluntary supplemental Canada pension plan that would give Canadians, on a voluntary basis, the opportunity to invest in what is a Canada pension plan fund that is well-managed, well-diversified across asset class, well-diversified geographically and sectorally and also has a very low management fee because of the scale of it.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, CFIB, has endorsed and supports the Liberal proposal of a voluntary supplemental CPP, as has the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, CARP. It would not lead to a significant or big increase in payroll premiums at a time of high unemployment, which is the concern the minister has expressed about the New Democrat proposal. However, it would help keep fees low for the financial services companies providing options in terms of pooled registered pension plans.

Will the minister express the government's view on this option that the Liberals have put forward, which could co-exist with the pooled registered pension plan and is endorsed—

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 5th, 2012]

With regard to Budget 2012: (a) what is the breakdown of each portfolio’s review base in Table 5.1 by department, agency and organization; (b) where the full budget of the department, agency, or organization is not included in the calculation of a portfolio’s review base in Table 5.1, (i) which components of that department, agency, or organization are included in that review base and which are not, (ii) for those components included in the review base, what is the breakdown of their funding by vote or statutory authority; (c) what is the breakdown of expected savings in Table 6.7 under Budget 2012 reductions in departmental spending, for each department, agency and organization in each of the fiscal years 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and ongoing; and (d) how does the answer to (c) for each department, agency and organization reconcile with the annual breakdowns included in Annex 1 of Budget 2012?