Scott Brison

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, March 27th, 2013]

With regard to the internal services program activity listed in the Public Accounts of Canada Volume II: (a) what was the total net expenditure on internal services for the government for each year of 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012; (b) what was the total gross expenditure on internal services for the government for each year of 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012; (c) what was the breakdown of net expenditures on internal services for each federal department and agency for each year of 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012; and (d) what was the breakdown of gross expenditures on internal services for each federal department and agency for each year of 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and 2011-2012?

[Parliamentary Budget Officer, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Kevin Page, Canada's first parliamentary budget officer. The PBO was created to expand public access to information. Mr. Page was, and remains, perfect for that role. He is a talented economist with a deep understanding of government finances. Canadians knew that they could count on him for the real numbers, whether it was on F-35s, Afghanistan, the sustainability of the OAS or by how much EI rates would actually go up.

As the PBO, Mr. Page consistently defended the right of Canadian taxpayers to know how their money was being spent. He went to court so that the law which would give us that right to information would be enforced. He stood up to protect the vital role of Parliament and its power over the purse, a power that is the foundation of our democracy and our Constitution.

Kevin Page is a public servant in the very best sense of the phrase: always placing the public good before any personal career ambitions. We thank Kevin Page for serving Canadians with such honour and courage.

[The Budget, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, given that there has been significant worsening in employment numbers since 2007 with the global financial crisis and given that youth employment numbers are in fact five points worse in Canada today than they were in 2007, why would this budget freeze federal training dollars at 2007 levels, pre-recession and, in fact, in real terms 10% less if we take into account inflation?

Also, given that we have already heard now from the Ontario and Alberta governments that because of the cost-sharing nature of this proposal for the new jobs training program, they may not be able to participate in a robust way in co-funding this program, does the hon. member, as a member of Parliament from Ontario, believe it would have made more sense for the federal government to sit down with the premiers and the finance ministers prior to the budget to hammer out a policy structure that the provinces could buy into and participate in, as opposed to developing it on the federal side and then imposing it on the provinces unilaterally?

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very difficult question to answer.

The reality is that the member is quite right. This is the least transparent and least accountable government in Canadian history. It has done everything it can to try to stifle and stymie the efforts of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

In fact the government was found in contempt of Parliament by the previous Speaker, Speaker Milliken. It was actually the first government in the history of the parliamentary system within the British Commonwealth to have been found in contempt of Parliament because of its refusal to give the costs to Parliament.

This is not just something that should bother opposition members. It should bother government members who have the same fiduciary responsibility to know the costs of what they are voting on. It is offensive to Parliament. It is offensive to citizens. It is also offensive to taxpayers, who deserve to know how their money is being managed.

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today's debate is on budget 2013. However, I would be pleased to discuss the record of the Liberal government, which eliminated a Conservative deficit while also reducing federal debt and making significant investments in our health care system. We worked closely with the provincial governments at the time.

The current Conservative government is doing the exact opposite, including with its changes to education and skills training.

I remember that last fall, the Prime Minister refused to meet with the premiers in Halifax, which is unacceptable. That type of approach is not good for federal-provincial relations.

I am proud of the Liberal government's record. The current government's approach with the provinces is embarrassing, quite frankly.

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right that the changes to EI are aggressive and could actually hurt some of the most vulnerable in Canada, particularly those living in rural Canada. It is a continued and sustained attack on rural Canadians.

He is also correct that every January when the government hikes up payroll taxes by $600 million, effectively these are job-killing payroll taxes. It is very difficult to try to create more jobs in that kind of environment, particularly for young Canadians.

In terms of changes to EI and some of the attacks on the most vulnerable Canadians, I would also remind the hon. member that the government decided that raising the OAS from 65 to 67 was just fine, even when 40% of the people getting OAS are making less than $20,000 a year and 53% of people getting OAS are making less than $25,000.

This is a meanspirited attack on some of Canada's most vulnerable citizens.

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that jobs in sustainable industries and the green jobs of tomorrow will probably be one of the fastest growing areas of the global economy. They represent a remarkable opportunity and the government does not get it. However, it knows that Canadians want investments in those areas enough to put forth a pittance, $1 million, such that it can talk about it. The government is more interested in talking about these things than actually doing something about it.

Another $1 million into trying to harmonize the regulatory differences or labour code differences between provinces for skills will not accomplish anything, but it enables the members opposite to say they are doing something. It is an all-talk, no-real-action kind of government because it is more interested in the votes than the jobs of Canadians.

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2013]

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?

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2013]

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.

[The Budget, March 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, not only is there no new money for skills training, this budget actually freezes funding at 2007 levels, which was before the downturn. Today the need for training is even greater than it was then. Not just that, freezing the funding at 2007 levels means there has actually been a 10% decrease in terms of real dollars.

The Conservatives were right to call Canada's skills gap a crisis, but why are they being so wrong by putting in no resources to actually address it? Why is spending money on Conservative government advertising more important than investing in today's youth?