44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 3, 2022 10:00AM
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 52.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 53.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 135.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved:
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-19, in Clause 135, be amended by adding after line 2 on page 256 the following:
“(2.1) Despite subsection (2), the provisions of the Select Luxury Items Tax Act, as enacted by subsection (1), that set out the tax on subject aircraft come into force on a day or days, after September 1, 2022, to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.”
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 136.
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 137.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 138.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 139.
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 140.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 141.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 142.
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 143.
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 144.
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 145.
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 146.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 147.
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 148.
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 149.
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 150.
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 151.
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 152.
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 153.
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 154.
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 155.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 156.
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 157.
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 158.
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 159.
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 160.
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 161.
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 162.
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 163.
Motion No. 34
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 164.
Motion No. 35
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 165.
Motion No. 36
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 166.
Motion No. 37
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 167.
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 168.
Motion No. 39
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 169.
Motion No. 40
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 170.
Motion No. 41
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 171.
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 172.
Motion No. 43
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 173.
Motion No. 44
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 256.
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 257.
Motion No. 46
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 258.
Motion No. 47
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 259.
Motion No. 48
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 260.
Motion No. 49
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 261.
Motion No. 50
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 262.
Motion No. 51
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 263.
Motion No. 52
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 264.
Motion No. 53
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 265.
Motion No. 54
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 266.
Motion No. 55
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 267.
Motion No. 56
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 268.
Motion No. 57
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 269.
Motion No. 58
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 270.
Motion No. 59
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 271.
Motion No. 60
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 272.
Motion No. 61
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 273.
Motion No. 62
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 274.
Motion No. 63
That Bill C-19 be amended by deleting Clause 275.
He said: Madam Speaker, you made a heroic effort at going through all of those. I appreciate you putting them on the floor so we can have a good discussion about them today.
Before I get into the report stage amendments that we have proposed, and some of the experiences at the finance committee, I thought it would be important to have some high-level discussion to get into that, and then I would like to broaden the subject. I am going to be speaking quite a bit about the report stage amendments and the approach the Conservatives have, but I would also hope that hon. members will find most of the speech relevant to the issues we have.
In the movie Glengarry Glen Ross, Alec Baldwin plays a sales manager and tells his sales agents, “ABC: always be closing.” This is a classic movie for people in sales, but I can easily visualize the Prime Minister, at a very similar chalkboard with the finance minister, saying, “ABS: always be spending.” The approach of the current government has always been consistently on that side. There is nothing it cannot find money for, particularly for pet causes of the Prime Minister or his electoral coalition.
The Conservatives want to see proper spending and value for money. We know the value of every dollar the Canadian government receives. By the way, it is getting more revenue than ever. It does not have a revenue problem, as some other parties believe; it has a spending problem. Inflation has increased the revenues the government has. Obviously, we are in a commodities cycle right now where crude oil prices have gone up, so the government is collecting more money than it ever has, and it seems it cannot help itself but find more things to spend on.
Let us go to Bill C-19. I would like to discuss a little of what occurred at the finance committee and what I refer to as the good, the bad and unfortunately the ugly.
For the good, our shadow minister of national revenue put forward an amendment. While the government, through its parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, tried to rule it inadmissible, we followed through with the recommendations of JDRF and Diabetes Canada and brought an amendment that was ultimately accepted by the committee unanimously and will clarify the disability tax credit measures for life-sustaining therapy. That is so incredibly important for parents who have opened a registered disability savings plan. They need to have access to the DTC, the disability tax credit, to have that, so it is a very meaningful measure. There are Canadians right across the country who have opened up these accounts for their children so that when they retire eventually they will have that extra money, because diabetes is a serious illness that requires so much time and dedication, and of course it is very costly to pay for insulin, insulin pumps, etc., so this amendment will clarify that.
I want to thank all hon. members because it is these kinds of amendments that Canadians have sent us here to make sure people have. Diabetes is tough enough, and this makes it a bit easier.
Again, between regimes and provinces we should always be mindful that the Canadian government has to at least make sure there is some fairness, so with this we see a clarifying amendment that will help improve the lives of people with diabetes regardless of where they live in this great country.
Now it is time for the bad. The government has put forward a so-called luxury tax. I would probably call it a well-intentioned, but horribly wrong and misplaced tax. In fact, it should be called a producer tax. I can understand how some members of the NDP and Liberals, or as I call them the “speNDP-Liberals”, would say they want to make sure people are paying their fair share so they can then spend it, but we need to have a balance and the government does not get that. It does not understand, or at least it has refused to understand, that this particular tax will take the sales out of the sail of the boating industry in Canada. If I was a manufacturer of boats right now and had to go to my board of directors and ask if I should be making an investment in Canada, when I see that I am going to be hit by a $2.8-billion hole over the next five years, basically estimated by the Parliamentary Budget Officer as a drop of 15% in sales, I am not going to be making that investment. Why? It is because they are limited to their growth.
I have heard in my own riding that many of these manufacturers are receiving phone calls from the Americans to locate their facilities there. They are offering to give them land, build them buildings and give them tax incentives.
I see MP Ste-Marie here who has cited over and over the devastation this could cause. Pardon me. He is a great MP, and I will rescind that comment. The member of Parliament for Joliette has cited multiple times how important the aerospace industry is in Quebec, and this is something I have heard from my other Conservative colleagues in Quebec.
This is a bad tax, and we oppose it wholeheartedly. The government should be helping manufacturers to bring jobs and opportunity to this country, not sending it somewhere else.
The next thing I would say that is bad is the Competition Act changes. These Competition Act changes are not endorsed by any industry stakeholder. We had one witness who said we should not let perfection be the enemy of the good. Everyone, including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and I have never seen this before, but the Canadian Chamber of Commerce came to the committee and effectively said—
1902 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, simply put, regarding the Competition Act changes, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce officials could not even articulate a position because they literally said there was so much occurring in these provisions that they could not say anything other than to please stop, wait and consult so the industry could fully understand what the government was intending to do with these changes. I have never seen that before.
I am addressing the good, the bad and the ugly. The ugly part was I have never seen a finance minister present a bill to the House of Commons to have it referred to committee where it was chopped apart by committee. The HUMA committee recommended unanimously to cut the EI provisions. There was amendment after amendment. I have never seen a finance minister who has been so impacted who presented a bill and had blood on the proverbial floor from it.
I think this is indicative of the approach of the government. I think the finance minister is probably too busy with her other duties as deputy. I do not blame her for that: I blame the Prime Minister, so I would ask the Prime Minister to start considering his approach on finances and his approach to giving almost all the portfolios and almost all the responsibility to a minister who already has more than she probably can do. I would imagine other finance ministers would probably say that being given deputy and finance is too much for any one minister.
I would like to finish with a few points on finance ministers in general. The list of people, groups and organizations that have expressed serious concerns that the government has lost its way is growing by the day. We have unprecedented criticism coming from former Liberal finance minister Bill Morneau. I cannot recall a finance minister so fresh out of the job casting serious concerns over the actions of the Prime Minister and his successor.
As David Hurley commented on Twitter, it is something he has never seen before. As we know, Bill Morneau has publicly stated that the Liberal government is not focusing on economic growth, that it is letting politics get in the way of progress and that a lack of emphasis on long-term economic growth means the country will have some difficult times and face difficult choices in the year ahead.
Conservatives have been saying consistently that the government always focuses on cutting up the economic pie. It focuses more on redistribution than actually growing the pie so that more support can be given for our social safety net, for Canadians and for prosperity. However, the government is ideological, as I have said: always be spending. That is against the interests of our country.
We have many difficulties in this country from inflation. People are having difficulty putting food on the table. Groceries are at 10%. The last time we saw inflation this high was when we had another big tax-and-spend, divisive, inflationary prime minister in the 1980s. The government seems to be following the same agenda. Instead of growing the pie, as Conservatives have consistently said, let us see investment happen here. Let us see jobs and opportunity here. Let us make sure that we fund our programs and services like health care properly. Instead, the government again chooses to lard up and send the money out indiscriminately without having a value for dollar and without having a sense of putting money into the economy to make our economy grow, so that Canadians can be assured of their prosperity. They are now concerned about it.
The government has taken us back to the worst parts of the 1980s, and I fear for what comes next. Conservatives will be standing up for Canadians to help them to feed their families and to make sure programs in Ottawa are working better. I hope the government changes its tune.
654 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that member is an enabler of that “always be spending” kind of philosophy. On this side of the House, we see the calls from the premiers. My premier, John Horgan, has said publicly, on behalf of the Council of the Federation and on behalf of all premiers, to not start new programs such as dental and other programs that are already being provided by the provinces. He said please give them the money to increase the health care transfer because more Canadians are convinced our system is not working. I have people calling me about doctors. They are not asking for more spending on programs that make the member and his Prime Minister feel good about themselves.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Joliette for his contributions in the House and at the finance committee. I will 100% say that the amendments that were put forward today by Conservatives encompass his suggestion that the government and the finance minister are too occupied with other issues and that they are putting forward terrible taxes, including a tax on producers that will see hits to jobs and the economy. Therefore, we have suggested to delete, delete, delete so we can take a pause and actually consult with industry. Whether it is its changes to the Competition Act or its so-called luxury tax, the government is headed in the wrong direction. We are presenting amendments to put it right.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we actually put an amendment in to force the government to have the installation date of January 1 for the coming into force of the ban on foreign speculation in our residential real estate market. That member supported it, so I want to thank him for that.
When it comes to express entry, the government was trying to give the Minister of Immigration unfettered powers. Through a good process that this member and his party critic engaged with in good faith, they presented an option that improves the bill. It would make sure that the Minister of Immigration cannot pick people willy-nilly through groupings of his own decision. We should all be concerned when we delegate our authority to a minister because that minister or another minister in the future may use it in a way that is contrary to the will of Parliament.
Therefore, I appreciate the member's bringing forward clarifying amendments to make for a proper public process of consultation of what the minister has to do before he or she can identify groupings for the purposes of the express entry program. That is good for Canada.
193 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, wow, there is so much to unpack there. This member has supported the government through thick and thin. We all need our loyal soldiers, but by the same token, let us just take a look at a few things.
First of all, under the current Prime Minister, there has been more debt added to our national debt than under any prime minister alive. This member continues to follow the “always be spending” ways of the Prime Minister. In fact, when he talks about child care, this member continues to mistake leadership with cutting cheques. In British Columbia, one of the first provinces to adopt this new national program of theirs, we still do not have $10-a-day day care, and the government cannot actually say when it is going to do it. It might take years. The member keeps conflating action with spending.
This is something the former finance minister said: “there’s no real sense of urgency in Ottawa, about our lack of competitiveness. It’s like we’re the proverbial frog in the pot and not realizing what’s happening to us as the heat gradually increases”.
When will the frog get out of the pot?
209 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/22 11:30:01 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the last time Prince Edward Island had inflation as high as 9%, it was in the 1980s when there was also a big-borrowing, tax-and-spend, inflationary Liberal prime minister in office. The regional breakdown is even worse in Charlottetown and Summerside, clocking in at a breakneck speed of 9.5%. The rising cost of fuel is only outpaced by this “always be spending” Prime Minister.
Will he stop taking Islanders and their MPs for granted, and give them and all Canadians a break on GST at the pumps?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/22 12:19:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his ongoing work to make sure that the government is both accountable and responsive.
The use of agile systems to run procurements is something that has long been discussed. Members should be prepared, because I am going to shock them: Sometimes industry cannot read the mind of the government. There are so many things the government can do.
The member did talk about the Phoenix pay issues. Could he maybe just give us an example of how those processes could have been improved through agile processes?
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/22 12:27:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House to speak.
Today, I would like to talk about agile procurement processes.
Before I get into the substance of the debate, I would like to say, first of all, that the Auditor General's role is extremely important. Anyone who wants can show appreciation for that role, where time, energy, human ingenuity and, I am sure, robust discussions happen so that Canadians can know that there is a proper value-for-money auditing of government programs and services.
We know that, as a country, we have tremendous difficulty when it comes to procurement. Part of that is institutional and part of it, I would say, has to do with a lack of leadership. It is a difficult task, and the Auditor General comes to this place and tables a report to make the system better. The government accepts the recommendations, but it is not about just saying “We accept them.” It is about whether or not the recommendations get the proper scrutiny or the political pressure to actually see those recommendations implemented.
For anyone in this place to rise and say that we should not be discussing things like agile procurement processes, given the failures of the government to effect the change that is necessary so that we can move past the process issues, I think, is not ideal. We should be talking about these things, because they cost billions of dollars, and when they fail, they fail Canadians.
The Phoenix payroll system, some people might say, was brought in by the previous government. Those processes were brought in, but the ultimate decision to initiate, overruling the advice given by IBM and others to this government that the system was not prepared and that there would be problems with the system, lies fully on the government's decision to start it.
Now, I am not going to relitigate that whole issue, but it does point out a very recent example where Canadians were hurt hard. We had public servants who, in effect, were unable to give the proper information to CRA and who were unable to feed their families or pay their mortgages. If any members in this place try to diminish today's debate on concurrence, that is on them. They are trying to avoid the accountability and the expertise brought forward by the Auditor General.
When the Auditor General says that she is “frustrated” about things like veterans wait-lists, when she and her office have made repetitive recommendations, accepted by government, but have not seen the subsequent improvements, I can understand how frustrating it is. We make recommendations to the government on a regular basis, and it does not accept any of them. The Liberals actually say things like, “We have nothing to learn”, yet they ultimately have to do it, such as the decision on Huawei. It was this side of the House that said that the government needs to stand with our allies in saying “no way” to Huawei, yet the government did not listen.
Now, getting back to agile procurement, for those who are not necessarily familiar with the term, let me bring out what the Auditor General had to say: “We found that the way in which procurement teams collaborated with private sector suppliers on proposed IT solutions needed improvement.” Suppliers reported that they “should regularly confirm that their procurement activities support the business need.” I will sum it up by saying that agile, versus the status quo, is bringing industry in early and developing ongoing understanding and objectives.
This subject reminds of a story right out of a book called The Death of Common Sense by a lawyer from New York. He gave the example of a public servant in New York in the late seventies and early eighties. This person was told he needed to put in place a procurement process for a new bridge. The gentleman at the time said, “Let's bring in industry.” He brought in industry, asked how they would do this and then was very quiet.
Some of the larger firms said they would do the traditional process and laid out what that would be, which was at great cost to the taxpayer and was a very lengthy process. One of the participants said they would not do any of that. They said they would build the bridge by using the natural characteristics of the route, which would save on time and money and get the bridge built much faster. The error the public servant made, after bringing the bridge developer back in a second time, was giving the contract directly to that person.
That bridge was built two years ahead of schedule at half the cost. Why? It is because rather than coming in with a prescriptive approach, wherein the government thought it had the perfect solution, and saying to industry to build a big bridge that would cost millions of dollars, go way over budget and take extra time, someone simply asked, “How would you do this?”
Now, the public servant was ultimately fired. Yes, he was fired, because he did not follow the procurement rules at the time. There is a great saying from the book The Peter Principle: The first to go in any organization are the hyper-competent and the hyper-incompetent. If someone is terrible at what they do, they are gone. If someone is incredible at what they do, they are gone.
That is the example I would like to put forward today because agile procurement takes a very similar approach. For example, instead of government saying what it thinks, we should go to industry, bring them in early and hear the proposals. That is not what the government is doing.
The government has been criticized as being too prescriptive and not necessarily taking advantage of the new technologies. This might shock some Liberal, NDP and Bloc members, but the government is not always a leader when it comes to new technology. We need to talk to the experts, and unfortunately the experts are in industry most of the time. They understand the technology and what it can and cannot do. Unfortunately, even when IBM said to the government not to press start on the Phoenix pay system, the government ignored the advice.
This report is incredibly complex. It is important for us to acknowledge that we need to move from the current procurement process to the agile process laid out in this report. I invite Canadians to go to the Auditor General's website. It is the first report of the latest batch. I would ask Canadians to take a look at it to see the contrasting approach. I really do hope the government will draw upon it.
I am a big believer in Canadian industry. I am a big believer in the notion that we can reinvent government, especially when it comes to procurement processes. However, we need a government that embraces change.
The government, with its so-called deliverology, has not delivered when it comes to procurement. I certainly hope it listens to our Auditor General. It may not listen to me, and that is okay and I understand it. Sometimes I do not want to listen to myself either. However, it is so fundamentally important that we start to address these processes, because procurement is one of the things that hold our government back.
While I am on my feet, I move:
That the debate be now adjourned.
1269 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/22 1:23:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I said during my speech that we should be taking the Auditor General very seriously. Although there were recommendations the government said it would agree to, it has not followed through on all of them. We need to do a better job with procurement in this country.
The interesting thing is that this member just voted against my motion to end debate, so we are continuing to debate the thing that he is upset about because we are not supposed to be debating it anymore. This is the House of Commons, and the member knows the rules. He can put forward motions and have them accepted or rejected. I just did that. He voted against it. He wants to continue debate, apparently.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/22 1:24:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have said before that the procurement system in this country has not worked well. It is something that is a challenge to us. We must do better. I would point out that the PACP report states that the Office of the Auditor General found that ESDC:
had not established a clear governance structure for the Benefits Delivery Modernization program. In 2019, an independent review found unclear accountabilities and gaps in the program’s formal processes for decision making. In response, the department developed a draft governance framework but by the end of [the] audit period, it was still not formalized—even though the department had selected and awarded a pilot contract to a supplier for the program’s core technology in December 2019.
The government says that it accepts all recommendations by the Auditor General, yet does not take action. This report is an important road map for a better way to handle procurement, particularly by using agile procurement processes.
166 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/22 1:26:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very happy we can get into the guts of this particular report in debate.
Recommendation 3 is on “engaging senior officials for complex procurements”. This relates to the Treasury Board. It recommends:
That the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat provide the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts with reports outlining the progress made with regard to ensuring that governance mechanisms are in place to engage senior representatives of concerned departments and agencies for the Next Generation Human Resources and Pay initiative, as follows....
A number of dates follow and they are in the report.
We need to continue to scrutinize the government and hold it to account when it says it will do something. When it comes to things like the Phoenix pay system and procurement, the government talks a good game but does not walk one.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
