Scott Brison

[Main Estimates, 2017-18, June 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we are making important investments with which I believe the hon. member would be in agreement. Investments in public transit and green infrastructure are part of these estimates. She mentioned the Naylor report. There are investments in the post-secondary institutions strategic investment fund, the SIF fund, which is specifically investing in post-secondary research infrastructure across Canada. She mentioned women. There is investment in social infrastructure to help families, including social housing. As a government, we have provided to low-income and middle-income families, through the Canada child benefit, a remarkable boost. A low-income single parent making $30,000 a year would be $6,000 better off under our plan.

We are investing in a lot of the priorities she says she supports, and I take her at her word, but she is not talking about those investments. Let us get back to talking about some of the specific investments we are making.

She has talked about making the budget and estimates process more transparent. I agree with her, and that is why we are moving forward with, and have in fact implemented, purpose-based budgeting in some departments, though we want to do more; reconciliation of cash in accrual accounting to make it easier for not just parliamentarians but Canadians broadly to understand the process; and results-based reporting for departments, including a new departmental results framework that focuses on what the departments are investing in and what they are actually accomplishing.

She also mentioned the sequencing of the main estimates. She mentioned that we should be doing things more like other governments. Perhaps she was referencing the private sector. In no other environment does it really make sense to have the main estimates before we have the budget. One of our proposals is that we have the budget and then we have the main estimates following the budget, such that it reflects the priorities of the government and we can have legitimate debate in the House on the main estimates and have the main estimates really mean something. Would she support that kind of change?

[Main Estimates, 2017-18, June 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the House tonight and participate in this debate. However, I found it curious that the hon. member, who had been a member of the previous government, has a very selective memory when it comes to the fiscal record of that government.

The Harper government inherited the best fiscal situation of any incoming government in Canadian history, a $13 billion surplus. During the good times, that government not only eliminated that surplus, it put Canada into a deficit before the 2008 financial crisis. It then went on to add $150 billion to the national debt, and all we got out of it were a few gazebos and a fake lake. We also had the worst growth record under that Harper government that we had since the Great Depression.

The Liberals are making in investments, implementing progressive tax cuts, and providing Canadian middle-class and low-income families with the help they need right now. That is working. That is why we have had better growth in the last six months than we have had in 10 years in Canada, and the creation of 250,000 new jobs.

Why is that hon. member opposed to the kinds of important investments that can move Canadian families forward and build more livable communities and a more competitive economy?

[Government Accountability, June 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to respectfully correct the hon. member. He said that I had been a Conservative. In fact, I had been a Progressive Conservative. Since that party dropped the “progressive” moniker, both in name and reality, I chose to join a party that I am very proud of, the Liberal Party, which continues to give me the opportunity to serve and work on behalf of all Canadians, even the hon. member.

[Government Accountability, June 2nd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we have a great respect for the work that the parliamentary budget officer does on an ongoing basis. We work closely with the parliamentary budget officer, and we will continue to do so.

It is notable that in terms of his work with the Department of Finance, he was provided with the information requested. That happened for the budget decisions and the budget decision-making process that occurred under our government's mandate. We provided that information. Finance did provide that information to the parliamentary budget officer.

I appreciate the congratulations from the hon. member as part of the class of—

[Taxation, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, since December 2015, Canada's unemployment rate has dropped to 7.1%.

We have created 250,000 jobs in the past six months. Our plan is working well and that is why we must continue to make investments and create jobs for the middle class.

We will do what is fair for all Canadian families. Our tax measures benefit those who need the help the most.

[Taxation, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, we have lowered taxes for the middle class. We have made important investments in infrastructure in every community in Canada. Frankly, it is very important to continue to invest to stimulate economic growth and create jobs for the middle class across Canada. We will continue to do so.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, it is clear that there have been 16 hours of debate in the House on this matter. There are amendments both from this place, the House, and the other place, the Senate. There have been four committee hearings at which 25 witnesses were heard, but that is also built on the consultations done across the country under the previous government by the RCMP, which I understand were quite extensive. That being the case, we are in a situation now where it is important to proceed. It is over two years since the Supreme Court decision, and we are moving forward with amendments that reflect the will of both this House and the Senate.

We look forward to the enactment of this legislation, which would provide RCMP members, for the first time ever, with the collective bargaining rights they deserve.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the important work she did on sexual harassment in the RCMP. It was pioneering work at the time. She undertook an important leadership role.

Every member of the House, regardless of partisanship, understands it is absolutely essential that the RCMP be a healthy workplace free of harassment and sexual violence. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness feels strongly on this and he has acted. He has worked with the RCMP and the commissioner. Our government is absolutely committed to whatever steps are necessary to ensure RCMP members, trainees, and employees feel safe and respected among their colleagues and supervisors.

Reports that describe similar serious and long-standing concerns relating to harassment within the RCMP make it very clear there has been a real problem that needs to be addressed. As a government, we are seized with this.

The issues identified bring significant cost to the victims' well-being and health and to the reputation and credibility of the RCMP. It is absolutely essential that we not only act to protect the health and well-being of members, but also defend the reputation of the RCMP on which Canadians depend to provide security, safety, and law enforcement across our country.

I again thank the hon. member for her continued work on this. Our government takes it seriously and will continue to take it seriously.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, one of the findings of the consultation was the desire among RCMP members to have one national union representing them. Ultimately, that decision will be made by them. It is important we move forward to enable that to occur.

For the leader of the Green Party, with whom I have worked for a long time and for whom I have tremendous respect, the Supreme Court decision was over two years ago and the previous government did not act. This is significant legislation and it is complex legislation. This would be a significant step forward for the RCMP. We look forward to moving it forward.

There have been 16 hours of debate in the House. Committees of the House have reviewed the legislation. The Senate has been active as well. We have accepted amendments from the House and the Senate. The member will recall that accepting amendments was not something the previous government did. We believe in constructive relations and the acceptance of amendments, which can have the potential to strengthen legislation. We are actively engaging Parliament, both the House and the other place.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the legislation has received over 16 hours of debate in the House. Four committee hearings have heard from 25 witnesses. Our government has accepted amendments from both the House and the Senate. I cannot remember the previous Harper government accepting amendments from the other place or from opposition parties.

We believe the time has come to act, to respect and respond to the Supreme Court decision of January 2015, and to do so in a way that not only respects the Supreme Court decision but also the broad consultations conducted with the RCMP.

I know the New Democrats, as a party, have a strong belief in collective bargaining rights. For the first time ever, this will provide the RCMP collective bargaining rights and the opportunity to be represented by a union or potentially unions. It was clear in the consultations that there was a desire to have a national union representative. This is a significant step forward, and I look forward to us making that step together as Parliament.