44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2024 10:00AM
- Jun/13/24 6:42:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board talked about providing clear insight into spending in the departmental plans and the estimates process, as well as transparency on all government spending, yet the departmental plans and the departmental results show that almost one-quarter of departments had zero targets set and zero dates set to achieve such targets.
How is Parliament supposed to be providing oversight and proper vetting of spending when the government itself is not even providing targets for the spending or what it plans to achieve in the spending on fully one-quarter of its programs?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:58:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am looking at the main estimates, and Public Safety is asking for $1.6 billion, yet when I look at its departmental results, it failed to achieve 54% of its goals for the year. Why should Canadians trust the Liberal government to continue such spending, $1.6 billion, when it is failing over 50% of the time?
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 7:00:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the record. If the member looks at the public accounts, she will see that the spending actually started to drop in 2015, as soon as the Liberal government took over. There were cuts to public safety and also to CBSA. As the member talked about safety in the community, I noticed one of the failures of the government was that it set a target of 5,200 police-reported crimes for 100,000 population, yet it actually ended up with 6,625. That was a 27% higher number of police-reported crimes than what the Liberals targeted. Why is the government failing to protect its citizens?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 7:16:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in the main estimates, there is over $46 billion just in interest payments on the debt of the government. Could the member explain some of the things that Canadians could use that $46 billion for instead of paying off wealthy bankers?
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 8:55:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his talk.
Obviously, we are going to disagree on a lot of things, but one thing I want to bring up is the most recent Auditor General report on housing on reserves.
The Auditor General noted many things with regard to CMHC. CMHC was relying on data that was 20 years out of date. CMHC had been warned, but it refused to get updated data, which left Alberta, Manitoba and several other provinces severely underfunded. The reserves with the poorest housing conditions were given the least amount of funding per capita, because CMHC was not following up to get proper data.
The application process, even though CMHC had been warned since 2017 that it was too onerous on smaller, poorer reserves, was ignored, and this onerous application process was continued. Then CMHC did not track whether the work done on the housing actually met building codes.
These items noted by the Auditor General had all been going on for a long time, yet somehow the government managed to find millions and millions in bonuses to reward the failure of this parliamentary secretary's department. Why?
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:23:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on the main estimates. One of my favourite parts of being an MP in Ottawa is the estimates process. Some MPs have other priorities when they are in Ottawa, such as speaking endlessly in the House, like my friend from Winnipeg North, or perhaps taking the family on the taxpayer's dime to Quebec, but for me, it is the estimates.
King Edward, when calling the model Parliament in 1295, started the original estimates process. He stated, “what touches all should be approved by all, [and it is also clear] that common dangers should be met [with measures] agreed upon in common.” King Edward was the first estimates geek, and I am very pleased to follow in that tradition. He put forward a plan basically asking permission to spend taxpayers' money. At the time, it was to go to war with the Scots and the French, which may or may not have been great ideas, but he at least brought forward the plan to start seeking permission from the common people before spending their money.
Today's estimates process is the modern equivalent. It is broken down into four parts. There is the government expenditure plan; the main estimates; the departmental plans, which lay out the government's priorities for the money it is asking for; and, of course, the departmental results, which measure the results after the money is spent. The departmental plans, as I mentioned, lay out the justifications for all the money that is spent. The results are obviously what the government achieved or, with this government, did not achieve with the money spent.
The most recent year that we have departmental results for shows the government failed to achieve 49.7% of its targets. We think of the rapid growth in spending by the government, yet it failed 50% of the time, but that is a big improvement for the government when, over two years ago, it failed 51% of the time.
I want to go over some of the departmental results, some of the plans of the government and what it is seeking in the estimates this year. Public safety, for example, is seeking $1.6 billion. The departmental results show that, last year, it achieved 46% of its targets, which makes one wonder how it can justify asking for continual money from taxpayers when it failed Canadians so badly. I will give some examples.
On the percentage of the population that thinks the government of Canada respects individual rights and freedoms, it set a goal of 70%, but it was only 46% of Canadians. On the percentage of partners that believe Public Safety Canada provides effective policy leadership and operational coordination on national security, keeping in mind we are in a foreign interference crisis right now, it missed by about 40%. As I mentioned earlier, on the police-reported crime rate per 100,000 of population, it had it at 5,200 per 100,000 and it came in at 6,600, which is 27% higher. As part of the estimates process, the government presents the departmental plans and says how it is going to spend taxpayers' money, but it is clear the government is failing.
On indigenous services, it is asking for $21 billion in the estimates. The results for last year was that it achieved 16.9%. If we think of the crisis and the issues regarding indigenous peoples, it achieved 16.9% of its goals, a failure rate well above 80%. I have a couple of examples. On the percentage of first nations housing that is adequate as assessed and reported annually by first nations, it had a target of 70%. The result from the government was unspecified. It does not even know the result of its spending.
On the percentage of recommended number of sampling weeks of public water systems in first nations communities that were monitored for bacteria, it missed its goal by 11%. On the percentage of cultural and recreation assets inspected in the last three years with a greater than fair condition rating, the goal was 55%. It achieved 39%. However, the government paid out 94% in bonuses for their executives and managers. There were $3.65 million in bonuses for an 83.1% failure rate.
Public Safety paid out 92% of its executives to fail over 50% of its targets. The CRA spent $17 billion and failed on 51% of its targets. This is the same CRA that the Auditor General noted failed badly in the oversight of pandemic benefits. It paid out $27 billion of taxpayer money to ineligible businesses. We have the government doing a tax grab right now with the capital gains tax, which is going to cripple small businesses and farmers to raise $20 billion over four years, but here we have $27 billion paid out to large businesses and corporations that were ineligible.
There are other failures. For complainants answered within five business days of the receipt of their complaint, the target was 95%, and 61% was achieved. For the percentage of taxpayer service complaints that CRA resolved within one month, the target was at least 80% and the result was 37%. I know every MP in this building has a constituency office that is overrun with complaints that people cannot get through to the CRA. However, that is okay because the government paid out 98% of the CRA's executives with bonuses for the failure. For the percentage of low complexity objections resolved within 180 calendar days, the target was 85%, and 39% was achieved.
National Defence had $31 billion in spending. Departmental results met were 27.8%. For the percentage of force elements that are ready for operations in accordance with targets, the target was 100%, which is great, but the result was 61%.
This one is staggering. For the percentage of personnel who were victims of discrimination, there was actually a goal set. We would think it would be zero tolerance for discrimination. There was a goal set to have 9% of its staff be discriminated against, but it managed to achieve 15.7%. That is about one in every eight people within DND feeling that they were discriminated against. However, the Liberals paid out bonuses to 91% of executives in DND.
Anyone who has worked in the private sector would know that, for harassment, they do not set a goal of having at least 9% of their staff harassed. They set a goal of zero. It may be impossible to achieve 0%, but they do not set a goal of having one out of every 11 employees discriminated against and then pay out 91% of the executives for achieving that. However, that is the Liberal government.
ESDC spent $98 billion and failed 51% of its targets. For the percentage of travel documents and other passport services processed within standards, it missed by 22%. The percentage of in-person passport applications processed within 20 days was missed by 36%. The percentage of passport applications submitted by mail and processed within 20 business days was missed by 7%. However, the percentage of other Randys who received elicit government contracts was 100%. The executives got 93.3% bonuses paid out.
Health Canada was almost $9 billion. It failed 51% of the time. For the percentage of domestic consumer product recalls communicated to Canadians in a timely manner, the target was at least 90%, and the result was 71%, which means, for 30% of recalls that are related to health, the government does not communicate in a timely manner. In this stage of the Internet, they could just post it on Twitter. However, that is too much for the government, but it is not too much to pay 95% of the executives bonuses.
I will just touch very quickly on one of my favourites. Environment Canada had $2.7 billion. The government failed 60% of the time, although it almost achieved a 100% cover-up rate for the carbon tax cost. The department was exposed by the Auditor General for making up fantasy numbers for the net-zero projections for hydrogen projections. What did it do? It paid out bonuses to 94% of the executives.
There are plenty more reasons I will not be supporting the main estimates. Paying out bonuses for failure is not the way to go.
1398 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:34:36 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am glad the parliamentary secretary for Transport Canada asked that question. It gives me a chance to comment about Transport Canada, where 97.8% of their executives got bonuses.
ICAO, which is the international body that oversees safety at our airports and transport safety, has ranked Canada below Somalia for safety at the airports. We used to have the highest airport safety in the world. We now, under this member's leadership, actually have airport safety lower than Somalia's, but the government pays out 97% bonuses; that is the Liberal government at work.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:36:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the items brought up in the Auditor General's study on McKinsey was a concern that she brought forward, that the government had actually trained public sector employees to do a certain task, and then it ignored those trained employees, only to go out and sole-source a contract to McKinsey.
The system under the current government is clearly broken, whether it is paying off McKinsey, Liberal friends at Deloitte or KPMG, while at the same time ignoring the in-house talent. It is silly, and it should stop. The government should do a full review on every penny spent and given out to those management contractors. Instead of shovelling out taxpayers' dollars, it should be serving taxpayers and not its friends at McKinsey.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:38:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the government wastes so much money. Very easily, we could look after the needed project that the member mentioned. Whether it is cutting back government money to Liberal friends at McKinsey or to the green slush fund, or, as the Auditor General noted, the $7.8 billion for green projects to corporations that were not eligible and did not qualify but got the money anyway. We have projects that need to be looked after, and if the government could manage its house better, we could certainly find the resources to cover the project that the member mentioned.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:49:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the estimates are generally put together around January and, of course, tabled later. Between January and when the most recent supplementary estimates (A) came out, the government found out that it owed an extra $1.9 billion in interest on the debt, so it has come to Parliament asking for this money.
How is it that the government is so out of touch and so bad at math that, within just a short two-month period, it miscalculated $1.9 billion in interest payments on the debt?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
