44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2024 10:00AM
- Jun/13/24 9:22:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He spoke about the importance of growing the economy. When the Progressive Conservative Party was in office, Brian Mulroney increased the capital gains inclusion rate to 75%. That was in 1990.
In 2024, the Conservative Party is saying that that is not a good idea. At the time, Mr. Mulroney justified that decision by saying that the goal was to stimulate the economy, so I would like my colleague to explain why it was a good idea to increase the capital gains inclusion rate to 75% in 1990, but today he is opposed to increasing it from 50% to 66%.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:22:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think that farmers, seniors, home builders and small business people in Quebec would agree that this capital gains tax increase would kill jobs. Regarding what happened 40 years ago, the hon. member is a young fellow. I am not sure he was born quite yet in 1984. That was a different time. I am very proud that we are standing against this job-killing tax increase, which is going to absolutely destroy investment and entrepreneurship in this country.
81 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 9:33:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am going to ask this question again because unfortunately the member did not answer it earlier. There is a $1.6 billion investment for the city of Port Colborne in the region of Niagara. Asahi Kasei is going to create almost 1,000 jobs. The budget does contain incentives. It also contains monies for secondary planning to satisfy infrastructure requirements.
With that said, a “no” vote by the Conservatives for the 2024 budget means there is not support by the Conservatives for this project. Once again, yes or no, are the Conservatives prepared to support this budget and, therefore, prepared to support the city of Port Colborne and the company, Asahi Kasei, which is going to come in and invest $1.6 billion in the community?
131 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 9:35:14 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I want to remind members that they have an opportunity to ask questions, so if they have other things to add, they should wait.
I want to ask the honourable parliamentary secretary to withdraw the last word that he said about the hon. member.
45 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:35:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I withdraw it.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:35:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked a lot about the importance of the sound management of public money. Obviously, we agree with that. We are trying to make sure that the money is invested wisely.
We saw the scandals involving McKinsey. The government uses outside firms a lot. Recently, in committee, I asked the government a question. Given that the government hired more public servants, it should be able to find the resources to provide services to citizens internally, but it is still using outside firms more. Why is that?
It is rather odd for the government to say that it is using outside firms because the expertise was not available internally, when it is hiring more public servants.
I would like my colleague to comment on that.
130 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 9:37:32 p.m.
- Watch
Uqaqtittiji, I appreciated the member's question earlier when a Liberal MP failed to talk about indigenous housing, but I do want to talk about taxation. For example, rich oil and gas CEOs are getting richer. Many of the oil and gas companies are exempt from carbon tax. Suncor only pays one-fourteenth of the carbon tax, compared to Canadians.
I wonder if the member agrees that oil and gas companies like Suncor should be taxed so that we can make sure that those kinds of investments coming into the general revenue could go towards projects like the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link project, which is a very important project that would help Nunavut communities get off dirty diesel.
118 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 9:39:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, maybe we will just start on a very collaborative note with, I am sure, a comment that all members in the House will be unified on. I want to say, “go, Edmonton Oilers”. They have tied it up in the Stanley Cup, in the third game of the series. It is good to see the Oilers score a goal and tie it up. I am really hoping that they come out on top tonight.
I am very pleased to rise in the House to discuss the main estimates for 2024-25 and the supplementary estimates (A) 2024-25. This year's main estimates present a total of $449.2 billion in budgetary spending, with $191.6 billion to be voted on. Non-budgetary expenditures of $1.2 billion are also presented.
The voted amounts represent maximum “up to” ceilings or estimates and may not be fully spent during the course of the year. Actual expenditures will be included in the public accounts after the end of the fiscal year. The estimates family of documents, which include main estimates, supplementary estimates, departmental plans and departmental results reports, in conjunction with the public accounts, provide Parliament with detailed information about spending plans, expenditures and achieved results. The main estimates support the government's request for Parliament's approval of expenditures that were already planned for in previous decisions, including federal budgets.
The main estimates are followed by the supplementary estimates, which seek incremental approvals that are typically tabled three times a year: in May, in late October or early November, and in February. The financial information in the estimates is presented to support an appropriation bill that seeks parliamentary approval for expenditures that will be incurred throughout the year.
Through the supply bill, the government requests Parliament's approval for the planned spending proposals that are detailed in the estimates.
Before I continue, Madam Speaker, let me just remind you that I am splitting my time.
This year's main estimates call for a total of $449.2 billion in budgetary spending, of which $191.6 billion will be in the form of grants. Of the 129 organizations presenting funding requirements in the main estimates, 11 are seeking more than $5 billion in voted budgetary expenditures. Here are a few examples.
There is $10.9 billion for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada to modernize Government of Canada structures to enable indigenous people to build capacity and to support their vision of self-determination, and to lead the Government of Canada's work in the north.
There is also $6.2 billion for Veterans Affairs Canada for the care, treatment and re-establishment, in civil life, of veterans, and for the care of their dependents and their survivors.
There is $5.9 billion for Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to improve conditions for investment, to enhance Canada's innovation performance, to increase Canada's share of global trade and to build a fair, efficient and competitive marketplace.
There is $5.8 billion to the Office of Infrastructure Canada, and this covers a whole range of infrastructure. I have seen quite a lot of investments in my community, and I know the member for Pickering—Uxbridge would also agree that our region has gotten a lot of benefit out of the active transportation routes that connect our region. Having those routes and the investments in those routes have really been a blessing for our communities, and we hear about it from our stakeholders; I know I do. The trail system at the waterfront in Whitby has gotten a complete revamp, which is great to see.
With respect to public transit, we have a bus rapid transit route that has had major investments that members on the government side, in our region, have fought hard for. Those investments are connecting our region with a public transit system that is modernized and rapid, and it allows people to get across our region seamlessly. Those active transportation routes that I mentioned also connect with the public transportation routes, so of course, people can ride their bicycles, can get on a bus and can go right across Durham region. They can even connect with the GO Transit and can get right to downtown Toronto, which is great to see. I thought I would just highlight those as key investments in our region.
There is $5.6 billion for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for much-needed housing infrastructure. This is another area in which we have seen considerable investment in our region, and it is dramatically contributing to solving the affordable housing challenges that we see all across Canada.
Funding in these main estimates allows the government to provide a wide variety of programs and services to Canadians, as well as supporting other levels of government, organizations and individuals through transfer payments. The majority of expenditures in the 2024-25 main estimates are transfer payments, payments made to other levels of government, other organizations and individuals. Certainly, we know those transfer payments are important for many of the health care services, social services and many other services that Canadians take advantage of all the time. Transfer payments make up approximately 63% of expenditures, or $283 billion. Operating and capital expenditures accounts for approximately 26.6% of expenditures, or $119.7 billion, while public debt charges are approximately 10.4% of expenditures, or $46.5 billion.
Forecasts of statutory spending are included in these estimates to provide additional information on departments' total estimated expenditures. Of these forecasts, $257.6 billion is for budgetary expenditures, including the cost of servicing the public debt. This amount does not include benefits paid for the employment insurance operating account or expenditures legislated through the Income Tax Act, such as the Canada child benefit. The 2024-25 main estimates reflect updated forecasts published in the 2023 fall economic statement.
Significant changes in statutory budgetary spending from the 2023-24 main estimates include an increase in public debt charges from $37.8 billion to $46.5 billion; increases in major transfer payments, most notably elderly benefits, which have gone from $76.6 billion to $81.1 billion; the Canada health transfer, which has gone from $49.4 billion to $52.1 billion; and fiscal equalization, which has gone from $24 billion to $25.3 billion.
There is an increase in the Canada carbon rebate, formerly called the climate action incentive payment, from $9 billion to $11.4 billion. This would obviously be distributed to all the federal backstop provinces, and Canadians will get those rebates. There is an increase in the payments for the AgriInsurance program, which has gotten significantly bigger, growing from $243 million to $1 billion. Net statutory expenditures of $1 billion are forecast for loans, investments and advances, reflecting an increase in net loans dispersed under the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act.
There has also been a major initiative to refocus government spending. Canadians expect transparency from their government, and they have a right to know how public funds are spent. Through our financial reporting, our government is committed to spending taxpayers' money transparently, efficiently and prudently while getting results. The government has been reporting on its efforts to refocus government spending since fall 2023, beginning with supplementary estimates (B), which presented reallocations in government spending of $500 million based on previous spending in travel and professional services.
The main estimates continue to report on the amounts that are being reallocated in the next three years, providing a total for each department and for the government overall. Departmental plans include further details on the ongoing reductions, including implementation plans by department. In fact, it is one of the most important things we do as a government, which is why we undertook a spending review within the main estimates and supplementary estimates.
In budget 2023, we made a commitment to refocus government spending and to ensure prudent fiscal management, and that is exactly what we are doing today. I hope all members of the House will quickly support the main estimates and supplementary estimates.
1352 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
- Jun/13/24 9:50:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I know that Conservatives often have trouble understanding that the world changes and things evolve over time.
I would answer the member's question by saying this: Our government has paid a lot of attention to refocusing government spending, which amounts to a refocusing of $15.8 billion in spending by 2027-28. That is a pretty significant amount of refocused government spending, which I think we can all agree is a good thing. It is good, prudent fiscal management to look at how the government is spending its money and to ensure that we are refocusing those funds in areas where we can get better results for Canadians. That should be acknowledged by all parties as a positive thing.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:51:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about many things, obviously, including international trade. He talked about the importance of improving our performance in international trade and increasing our markets. That is good. There is Canada's Indo-Pacific strategy. I think it is important to make every effort to diversify our markets.
My question has more to do with respecting existing international trade agreements. It is good to invest money in developing markets, but when we sign agreements, it is also important to stake one's claim and stand up for oneself when things are not working.
For many years, the agreement with Europe put us at a disadvantage with respect to agriculture, when supply-managed quotas were being offered freely. At that time, we were supposed to make gains, by selling meat, beef and pork. However, that did not happen because the Europeans do not accept our way of cleaning the carcasses even though it amounts to what they do over there.
Will his government finally come up with something tangible, not just fine words, to free up these markets? The situation is outrageous.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:52:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite. We both served on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for quite some time, and I always appreciated working with him.
At the time, we had talked about international trade and the impacts on the supply-managed sector. I note that, in the study we did, we saw that there was very little impact at the time. I think there was some concern with respect to the dairy industry, which did not amount to being a whole lot of impact, but we did a study on it. I know the member felt strongly about that work, and we undertook that work together.
It is important that we protect our supply-managed sector for sure. Obviously, Canada is one of the top countries in the world in terms of having the most international trade relationships and agreements. I think this serves us all well with respect to being able to access those markets.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:53:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one thing my colleague talked about was the health transfer to the provinces. Health care is something I am hearing about from my constituents more than anything else, and they are worried about its privatization.
The original plan under the Canada Health Act was that the federal government would pay 50% and the provinces would pay 50%. It has been a long time since that has been the case, yet the member is making it sound as though it is a really great thing that we are hitting 26% or 30%. That is not what we were supposed to do.
Is there a plan within the government to increase the health transfers so we can make sure that health care remains a public, universally delivered program?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:54:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will say that our government certainly stands behind wanting to preserve a publicly funded health care system. Obviously, we have renegotiated the Canada health transfer, which was increased quite significantly, to the tune of approximately $200 billion. It is a significant increase from past iterations of that agreement. I note that we also signed bilateral agreements with provinces and territories, which added additional funds on top of that, with four main priorities. I could go into those if the member wanted.
I would just say that we are very much aligned with the intentions of the member's remarks, and we look forward to seeing provinces and territories use those funds—
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:55:38 p.m.
- Watch
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 9:55:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as we approach the end of this session, I am reflecting on where we were nine years ago.
I was a Conservative candidate in Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. We only had one child; how easy life was then. Moreover, we were getting ready for a fall election. At the time, Stephen Harper was prime minister. He was a steady hand, an economist in office, but Liberals were promising real change. Well, it turned out that real change was the only promise that the Prime Minister kept.
After nine years, how different our country looks. There are tent cities everywhere; there is crime, chaos and a dramatic increase in drugs, as the government pursues radical and dangerous policies that give away taxpayer-funded drugs to those struggling with addiction. The national debt has more than doubled. There has been dramatic growth in public spending both inside the public service and on external contracting.
There was a time, nine years ago, when it was unheard of for a prime minister to be convicted of breaking ethics laws. Now we are at a point where RCMP investigations into government corruption seem to be the norm. After nine years under the Prime Minister, with the escalation in violent crime, in debt, in a dramatic growth in inflation and costs that people face, yes, indeed, he brought real change. However, it is not the kind of real change that anyone wanted.
The Liberals are trying to create fear around what a new government would mean. Would a new government mean lower taxes or a return to common-sense criminal justice policies? Would it mean restoring Canada's principled stands and respect in the world, where we do not just make announcements but actually follow through on commitments to our allies? I think Canadians are now looking for a principled government that restores common sense and reverses the dramatic, debilitating real change agenda of the extreme Prime Minister.
Members across have asked what the Conservatives would cut. We would cut McKinsey, the green slush fund and arrive scam. We would cut the corrupt middlemen who are taking money for doing nothing. We would cut Canadians' taxes so that they could keep more of their hard-earned money. We would reverse the government's extreme tax-increase agenda. We would make taxes lower, simpler and fairer. This is what we would cut: We would cut the crime, we would cut the corruption, and we would cut Canadians' taxes. This is exactly what a Conservative government would deliver.
After nine years of the extreme, radical, so-called real change agenda of the Prime Minister, which has doubled our debt, increased violent crime and undermined our credibility in the world, we need a restoration of common sense in this country. We need it now more than ever.
I am pleased to be voting against the government's agenda and looking forward to another election where we can restore the Conservative common sense that this country had nine years ago.
503 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
