Scott Brison

[Employment Insurance, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, if the Larsen's plant had closed in September, the workers would have received additional EI benefits under the program for long-term workers, but the program ended in September and the Conservatives did not renew it. The jobless situation in this area is worse now than it was last year when the workers would have actually qualified under this program.

How can the Conservatives justify billions for planes and prisons and next to nothing for the good, hard-working people who have spent years and decades working for Larsen's in Berwick?

[Employment Insurance, December 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last month Maple Leaf Foods announced the closure of Larsen's plant in Berwick, Nova Scotia, leaving nearly 300 people out of work. Many of these workers have been at Larsen for over 20 years and some of them have never ever drawn EI benefits. The jobless numbers in this area are now worse than they were last year.

Will the minister extend the program for long-term workers so the people at Larsen, who paid into EI for years, can now get the full EI benefits they deserve?

[Business of Supply, December 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his wise words today and his passionate defence of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The charter of rights was brought in, in 1982. I was 15 at the time and of course did not really understand or recognize the impact the charter of rights would have on my life. However, if Trudeau had not done what he did when he did it, I probably would not be doing what I am doing here today.

I think it is important to recognize that leadership on these issues makes a real difference.

After being elected in 1997, I sat in this House and had an opportunity to vote for same-sex benefits, pension benefits, for federal government employees. That was a charter issue that forced the issue here on the floor of the House of Commons. I watched as the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance, the predecessors to the Conservative Party, voted against it.

I then watched the same-sex marriage debate, again a charter issue brought to this House based on the charter of rights, and the Conservatives voted against it.

Then I saw the Conservatives, after the 2006 election, actually bring back to the House the same-sex marriage issue, once again a charter issue.

My question for my colleague is, does he find it a little odd that the Conservatives say they support the charter yet, in this House, every single time they have an opportunity--

[The Economy, December 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, which forecast is the minister speaking of, Thursday night's or Friday morning's?

The minister has met every deficit target he has ever set. He has no plans to return Canada into the balanced budget produced by the last Liberal government.

Now that the minister seems to agree with the Parliamentary Budget Officer that a balanced budget in five years is unlikely, Canadians want to know, when will the budget be balanced and where is the minister's plan to get it there?

[The Economy, December 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is the Minister of Finance who promised Canadians a surplus and then gave them a record $56 billion deficit. Now the finance minister's forecasts are getting more and more erratic. On Thursday night he promised a balanced budget in five years, but on Friday morning he woke up, changed his mind and said it could take longer. What changed overnight to trigger the minister's latest deficit flip-flop?

[Government Spending, December 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, unemployment in Canada is two points higher than when that finance minister took office.

The finance minister killed a Liberal bill to protect disabled pensioners. His latest move to cut low-income seniors benefits will put many seniors out on the streets.

We know that the minister is on the record in support of putting the homeless in jail. Is that why he is saying no to low-income seniors and disabled pensioners but yes to spending billions of their tax dollars on U.S.-style mega-prisons?

[Government Spending, December 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, a new report from Global Insight tells us that Canada is actually falling behind the already weak U.S. economy. More Canadians are out of work and are struggling with record levels of personal debt.

The same finance minister who lectures Canadian families about risky spending has allowed costs for Conservative ministerial staff to explode by seven times the rate of inflation.

Why is he ballooning Conservative office budgets while leaving Canadian families out in the cold?

[Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act, November 30th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very difficult question. He is asking for just a couple of examples of Conservative hypocrisy in this regard and, frankly, it is really tough to narrow it to just one or two examples.

This has been a government whose stimulus package has been a political stimulus package. It has been looking for political stimulus. The poll numbers are around 30%. The Conservatives cannot get above that. It is like that country music song Looking For Love (in All The Wrong Places).

This is a government that has been more interested in counting signs than in counting jobs. This is a government with a fetish for signs but a disinterest in creating real long-term jobs and opportunities for Canadians.

There is only one thing I would quarrel with in terms of what the hon. member said. He said that this government has been as bad as any government in terms of its spending, in his view. I would say that this government has been worse than any government in history.

I can remember when we were in government, the Liberal government under Paul Martin as prime minister. There was an expenditure review committee of cabinet. I was part of that committee. In fact, it was chaired by the member for Markham—Unionville. We actually worked to reduce government spending on a department by department basis. We went through items of departmental spending line by line. We worked with the public service in a very constructive and respectful way to find areas of lower priority where we could re-prioritize, areas where there may be some waste or duplication, with the goal of getting the best value for taxpayers while providing the best services for citizens. That is when we were in a $13 billion surplus. Respect for taxpayers, respect for hard-earned tax dollars, is not something we just do when we are in deficit. It is something we do with every hard-earned dollar we receive from the Canadian people.

I am very proud of the fact that the member for Wascana, when he was the finance minister, was the last finance minister in Canada to actually reduce government spending. I think that is a good thing. Whether we are in surplus or in deficit, we have to do that. It is morally the right thing to do, because people work so hard. Canadians work so hard to pay their taxes and they are just barely getting by. It is an insult to them to do anything but that.

The member used to be a provincial member in Manitoba. I would add that it is something that provincial governments, in some cases provincial NDP governments, in some cases provincial Liberal governments, in some cases provincial Conservative governments, have to do. The buck stops with them. The buck stops with provincial governments. The buck stops with municipal governments.

As we enter this period of health and social transfer debate, discussion and negotiation, in the coming years, with provinces with record high deficits and the federal government with record high deficits, we are going to have to watch every penny on behalf of Canadian taxpayers.

[Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act, November 30th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my hon. colleague's question and I completely agree.

It is ridiculous to increase taxes on jobs during a recession. It makes no sense. Doing so would be pure nonsense. I do not understand why the government is going ahead with a plan that will raise taxes on jobs in January, when finding a job anywhere in Canada is already very challenging for most people.

It is ridiculous. It is bad for small businesses, it is bad for the economy and for entrepreneurs, and it is bad for workers and the unemployed. This is not the right time for it.

[Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act, November 30th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, from a historic perspective and from an international perspective, I think many smart governments over time have used periods of crisis to make bold decisions that in the long term were very beneficial for their citizens.

If we look at stimulus packages in the U.S. in the past, the Hoover Dam is an example of a stimulus package that is still producing energy in the U.S. The GI bill in the U.S. was probably one of the most successful examples of stimulus in terms of providing education for people returning from the war. Many people believe that the GI bill in the U.S. was instrumental in creating the baby boom. In Canada, if we look at soldiers returning from World War II, investments in their education was a form of stimulus.

There are examples both in the past and in other countries where governments have taken a crisis and created an opportunity. But when the Conservative government was faced with a global financial crisis, its first instinct was not to bring in a budget and an economic package to benefit Canadians. Its first instinct was that the global financial crisis was a great time to put the boots to the opposition.

I agree with the hon. member that the government's instincts are usually to find political advantage, not to try to create a national or global advantage for Canadians.