44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 21, 2023 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to talk about the budget implementation act. Last month, our government released budget 2023, our made-in-Canada plan for a strong middle class, an affordable economy and a healthy future.
It comes at an important moment for our country. Canada's economy has made a remarkable recovery from the COVID recession. Last year, Canada delivered the strongest economic growth in the G7. This is thanks to the hard work, resilience and ingenuity of Canadians. In fact, there are 865,000 more Canadian workers today than at the start of the pandemic. This shows that our strategy of keeping Canadians healthy and focusing on a jobs-based recovery is working. In fact, we have recovered over 128% of jobs lost during the pandemic, while the United States has recovered only 115%.
In the short term, however, Canada and the world face several headwinds. We face a slowing global economy, high interest rates and inflation. While the inflation rate in Canada has been consistently lower than for our economic peers, that is cold comfort to Canadians who feel the impact on their pocketbook every single day. It is important that we address these challenges. Fortunately, our budget provides a direct response.
It delivers billions of dollars to the public health care system, a prudent investment after coming through the most significant health care crisis we have faced in over 100 years. We go even further by investing in dental care for millions of Canadians, a measure that has already benefited over 250,000 children under the age of 12.
The budget provides important investments to build Canada's clean economy, creating even more good jobs for the middle class while ushering in a new era of economic prosperity for Canadians. In the future, when nations around the world look for new technology to help combat climate change, they will be able to turn to Canada.
The budget offers a responsible fiscal plan that will allow Canada to preserve the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. This means that our country enjoys not only the strongest economic growth, but the strongest balance sheet in the G7, which is why we have retained our AAA credit rating. This allows us to provide new, targeted relief from inflation for those Canadians who need it the most.
I would like to pause here and share my thanks to all members of this House, who unanimously supported the Canada grocery benefit and the immediate $2-billion health transfer, which will help provinces and territories deliver the health services that Canadians deserve. Despite partisan differences, which too often make the highlight reel on the Internet or in the media, I am still encouraged and heartened by the fact that we can find ways to come together in this place and support Canadians when they need it the most.
Having said that, I would like to highlight measures in the budget implementation act that would make life more affordable for Canadians.
In Canada, inflation is coming down. It has actually declined for nine months in a row. It is currently at 4.3%, and the Bank of Canada predicts it will drop to 2.5% by the end of the year. While it is lower than inflation seen in the United States, Europe and other parts of the world, we all know that it is still too high, and it is still making it difficult for many Canadians to make ends meet and put food on the table. That is why budget 2023 announced new, targeted inflation relief for the most vulnerable Canadians, to help support them with the cost of living.
The grocery rebate will help and provide support to 11 million Canadians and families, and it will also provide hundreds of dollars to over 50% of Canadian seniors.
In addition, we are helping the nearly 500,000 students who withdraw funds from their RESP by increasing withdrawal limits from $5,000 to $8,000 for full-time students.
We are helping workers by ensuring that tradespeople get the equipment they need, by doubling the allowable employment deduction for tools. These individuals are critical for building Canada's clean economy and supporting our plan to double the number of new homes built in Canada by 2032.
We are cracking down on predatory lending by proposing to lower the criminal interest rate from 47% to 35%, and we are imposing a cap on charges for payday loans.
Workers will also benefit from automatic advance payments of the Canada workers benefit. This will provide up to an additional $2,461 for a family to help cope with the rising cost of living.
In addition, we are increasing the amount Canadians can earn before paying a penny of federal income taxes to $15,000. Since we have formed government, that is $3,673 more that people can earn tax-free.
Combined with our previous programs, such as child care, the Canada child benefit, student grants and increased investments in retirement security, we are making sure Canadians have the resources they need to cope with global inflation.
We are also committed to helping the provinces and territories achieve better health outcomes for Canadians. The $2-billion Canada health transfer, which was delivered this week, will help deliver the high-quality, timely health care services that Canadians deserve. This funding will reduce backlogs and wait times for surgeries and will improve service levels in emergency rooms and pediatric hospitals. This funding builds on the $6.5-billion one-time Canada health transfer top-ups that the Government of Canada has provided throughout the pandemic, as well as the $196 billion we have committed over the next 10 years. This includes a guaranteed increase to the Canada health transfer of at least 5% for the next five years. With improved data and transparency and more financial resources, we are confident that premiers will have the tools they need to deliver the health care services that Canadians expect.
The other major investment that Canadians expect is in Canada's plan to grow our clean economy while creating high-paying and sustainable jobs. Budget 2023 builds on over $100 billion of investments in the environment and fighting climate change to position Canada as a global leader. We are well positioned to meet our emissions targets while creating the net-zero technologies the world will demand. We are doing this through the Canada growth fund, through the Canada innovation corporation, and by incentivizing investment in Canada's net-zero economy. These investments will create thousands of high-paying, sustainable jobs from coast to coast to coast while protecting our environment and fighting climate change at the same time.
We also need to fight against money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities. We are proposing to expand the mandate of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to include oversight of federally regulated financial institutions to determine if adequate policies and procedures are in place to protect them from threats to their integrity and security, including from foreign interference. This will include new compliance and intervention tools available to the superintendent and to the Minister of Finance, underpinned by strong safeguards. The bill would also improve the sharing of compliance information between FINTRAC, OSFI and the Minister of Finance. Collectively, these measures will provide oversight to the financial sector and support a healthy and stable Canadian economy.
Speaking of stability, this is probably an appropriate time to outline how budget 2023 would also continue to support the people of Ukraine as they fight for their sovereignty, their democracy and democracy right around the world. This includes a $2.4-billion loan to the Government of Ukraine to support essential services, which brings Canada's commitment to over $8 billion to date.
The BIA would amend the customs tariff to extend the withdrawal of the most favoured nation preferential tariff from Russia and Belarus indefinitely. This means that the 35% general tariff will apply, placing them in the same category as North Korea. In addition, the budget implementation act would strengthen Canada's ability to pursue the assets of those who have enabled Russia's illegal war, and help to finance Ukrainian reconstruction.
Budget 2023 is our government's plan to build a stronger, more sustainable and more secure Canadian economy that works for everyone. The budget implementation act is a foundational piece of this plan, from delivering new, targeted inflation relief for Canadians to helping with higher prices at the checkout counter, building our clean economy and creating good jobs. At a challenging time, in a challenging world, these are important investments to secure a bright future for Canadians and ensure that there remains no better place to be in the world than in Canada.
I implore all hon. members and all Canadians watching this at home to support the speedy passage of this bill so that we can get it working for Canadians as soon as possible.
1507 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we are discussing the budget implementation bill. The fiscal measures announced in the budget are implemented in part in this massive bill, Bill C-47.
Towards the end of this budget bill, they go completely off topic and decide to refer to Charles III as the King of Canada. Division 31 states the following:
The Parliament of Canada assents to the issue by His Majesty of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Style and Titles: Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.
Does my colleague think it makes sense to include this in a budget implementation bill? Should we not vote on it separately instead?
For that matter, do we even need this kind of thing in 2023?
147 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing the intervention of the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
My comments today lead off the comments of His Majesty's loyal opposition on Bill C-47. That is the Liberals' budget implementation bill. The question before us is whether anything in this budget bill will actually be true when we look at the promises of the Liberals compared with the results.
I want to put the record spending in this budget plan into some historical context. I know the Liberals are a little challenged on math sometimes, so please bear with me. I hope they can follow it.
In the federal election of 1968, Pierre Trudeau reassured Canadians that a Liberal government would not raise taxes or increase spending. During the election, he said that the government was not Santa Claus. How did that work out? When Pierre Trudeau became prime minister, real government spending increased from 17% of the GDP to 24.3%. In other words, the federal government's share of the economy rose 42% under Pierre Trudeau. Every single area of federal government spending increased, except defence spending, where Pierre Trudeau cut spending in half as a percentage of the budget. When Pierre Trudeau took office, we spent more on national defence than we did on servicing the country's debt. When he left office in 1984, for every dollar the government spent on defence, we spent $3 on paying the interest on his national debt.
Let us look at this another way. The deficit Pierre Trudeau ran in his last year of office was 8.3% of the GDP. Based on Canada's GDP in 2022, Pierre Trudeau's 8.3% of GDP deficit would be like an annual deficit of $157 billion today. His record was to drive Canada's debt from $262 billion when he became prime minister to $700 billion when he left office. Pierre Trudeau added $438 billion to Canada's debt, almost tripling it. This was from a Liberal leader who said he would not run deficits when he was first elected in 1968 and that the government was no Santa Claus.
I raise this because, as the adage goes, like father like son. By the time Pierre Trudeau left office in 1984, 38¢ of every dollar that the federal government spent was to pay interest on the debt that he had built up. His policies of massive spending led to a rapid rise in interest rates to try to reduce inflation. All that government spending simply made it worse. Interest rates rose to 21%.
Like his father, the current Liberal leader promised Canadians in his first election in 2015 that, even though Canada was running a robust growing economy and had a balanced budget left by the Harper government, he would run modest stimulus deficits. However, in 2019, it would be balanced. The platform that the Liberals all stood on in 2015 said: “We will run modest deficits for three years so that we can invest in growth for the middle class and credibly offer a plan to balance the budget in 2019” and “we will...reduce the federal debt-to-GDP ratio to 27 percent”.
Did he have a balanced budget in 2019, as he promised and as his father also promised in his first term? No, he did not: like father like son. The Liberals produced a $20-billion deficit in 2019. Promises were made, and promises were broken.
Did the Liberals reduce their first fiscal anchor of 27% of the GDP? No, they did not. It was 31% in 2019, so another promise was made and broken.
In the new Liberal budget after 2019, there was no longer talk of a balanced budget. The debt-to-GDP ratio was the new fiscal anchor. It would remain the same during the four years of that fiscal plan, even though that meant they would be spending more. We know that at least the promise to spend more and not to balance the budget was true.
We then had an early and unnecessary election in 2021. What did the Liberal platform say then about promises for the country's finances? There was no talk of balanced budgets until perhaps 2050, but the Liberals did promise to drop the debt-to-GDP ratio from 48.5% in 2021-22. We should remember that in 2019, their campaign promise said that, in 2022, the debt-to-GDP ratio would be 31%, not 48%.
What does the bill project for this year? The budget set the cumulative spending for the next five years at a record $3.1 trillion. We should remember that, in the fall, they promised that the budget would be balanced. However, if these numbers are to be believed, and if they did not add more spending in the rest of their term, they would add another $130 billion to the national debt. The national debt would rise to a record $1.3 trillion. The Liberals project that interest on the national debt would rise from $44 billion a year to $50 billion a year in five years. This is if we can believe the interest rate projections in this budget. That $50 billion in interest is $10 billion more than we spend on national defence.
The budget includes $84 billion in new tax credits for businesses over the next five years. The Liberals project that inflation will be 3.5% in 2023 and roughly 2.1% thereafter. For this to happen, inflation would need to drop from 5.5% now to 2% in July and stay there for the next five years. This is not likely. The $3.1 trillion in spending, with massive deficits, would pour gasoline on the inflation fire. Therefore, these projected inflation rates are ridiculous.
In the last year of the Conservative government, federal government spending was $280 billion, with a $1.9-billion surplus. This year, the budget projects $456 billion in spending. That is up $176 billion, or 63%, since the Liberals took office. The fiscal framework projects the government spending to be $543 billion. This is if there is no further spending in the rest of their term. That is $263 billion more than in 2015, representing a 94% increase in spending. The increase alone is almost as much as the entire 2015 budget. Taxes have risen by $282 billion since 2015. We know it is not a revenue problem, because revenue has gone up by 92%.
At the end of the bill's plan, Pierre Trudeau and the son, the current Liberal leader, will have contributed $1.1 trillion to Canada's national debt. Pierre Trudeau always spent more than he promised. After eight years of the Liberals, the son has done the same. Promises were made, and promises were broken. Canadians simply cannot afford any more Trudeaus.
1149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Mulroney government produced an operating surplus by the second year of its mandate and an operating surplus every year after that. Every prime minister since Pierre Trudeau ran an operating surplus, except for the current Prime Minister.
In terms of pandemics, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that over half the spending done in the pandemic had absolutely nothing to do with the pandemic itself. That is the fiscal irresponsibility of Liberals.
74 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you a secret that I am sure you will keep to yourself. I went into politics because I care about keeping the public finances in respectable shape. I am a member of the opposition and, to put it mildly, I have had my work cut out for me when it comes to opposing the government's management of public funds, which has been anything but sound.
I will give a few examples. The debt-to-GDP ratio was already very high at 42.4%. Because of this government's inflationary measures, which are costing all Canadians dearly, the debt-to-GDP ratio, which was 42.4% last year, has now reached 43.5%. The Liberals will surely say that that is not a lot and that it is normal, but we need to be careful. Let us remember what the Minister of Finance herself said in her budget statement in the House in November, just six short months ago. I would remind members that the debt-to-GDP ratio increased from 42.4% to 43.5% this year.
Nevertheless, just six months ago, the finance minister said, and I quote, “let me be very clear. We are absolutely determined that our debt-to-GDP ratio must continue to decline and our deficits must continue to be reduced.” I will talk about that shortly.
She also said, “The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe must [and will] be paid down. This is our fiscal anchor. This is a line we will not cross. It will ensure that our finances remain sustainable.”
Her words are almost lyrical. They are words that I, for one, would have spoken with honour and dignity. However, the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, who is second in command in this government and a contender for the top job, as everyone knows, said one thing and did exactly the opposite when the budget was tabled two weeks ago. That is what we are seeing with every number and every word in this omnibus bill that we are debating today.
The promise on the debt-to-GDP ratio has not been kept, and the debt-to-GDP ratio has gone up. The finance minister was so proud about a balanced budget at the economic update. She boasted that the budget would be balanced in five years and that there would even be a $4.5‑billion surplus. That is hogwash, because exactly the opposite is happening. This year, the deficit is more than $40 billion, which is completely unacceptable.
I would remind the House that those folks over there got elected in 2015, eight years ago, on what was admittedly a bold promise. They promised a shift to the left, and they have definitely delivered on that. They promised that if a Liberal government was elected, it would run small, strategic deficits for three years and return to a balanced budget in the fourth year. What happened was the exact opposite. The Liberals have run huge deficits over and over again, and the budget is far from balanced.
Balanced budgets are important. We cannot spend our lives, as individuals and families, perpetually living on credit. Sooner or later, we have to pay off our debts. If we do not pay now, we will have to pay eventually, or our children will be left to pay the price. A deficit leads to a debt, which leads to a bill that we pass on to our children and grandchildren, who will have to pay the price because we are living beyond our means today. Canada's debt is now $1,220,000,000,000. That is a lot of zeros. That is fitting, since there are a lot of zeros on that side of the House. Seriously though, Canada's debt is $1.220 trillion, which works out to $81,000 per family.
Every family now has $80,000 in debt that will be passed on to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, who have not even been born yet but who will have to pay it off. Today, we are spending $43.9 billion to service the debt compared to last year, when it was half that, $24.5 billion. That is a huge amount. It is double the budget of the Department of National Defence. I will repeat, this is money being sent to banking institutions to pay for past spending, not for any direct services to Canadians.
It is irresponsible to live beyond our means. Is it any surprise that this is happening, when we know that the leader of this government once said that deficits balance themselves? As far as I can tell, he is the only person on the planet in a position of authority who has made such a silly comment. Deficits do not in fact balance themselves.
The government's money does not grow on trees. The government has no money. The government gets its money from Canadian workers. That is something we must never forget.
Now, about taxes, we know that the carbon tax is going up. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed, this directly affects all families. It costs them more than they get back from the government. The PBO says it could cost the average family between $402 and $847 more.
The Prime Minister and the minister boasted that they had listened to the Liberal caucus, that they had listened to members speaking out on behalf of their constituents. Guess why? They wanted to make sure that the tax hike on alcohol would not be too high. I am not going to judge them for not wanting to raise taxes on alcohol too much. They are within their rights. I just wish these members would show the same concern over the debt, the deficits and the bills we are leaving to our children and great-grandchildren.
We also see this government announcing income tax hikes. The increase amounts to $305 for workers earning an average of $66,000. The Canada pension plan will cost them an additional $255. Employment insurance will cost them another $50.
When we look at the key elements affecting all Canadian families, be it taxes, the deficits or the debt, and we look at the overall numbers, such as the debt-to-GDP ratio, we see that this government has failed to do its duty to ensure responsible government. These people have never had a balanced budget. They have never paid attention to public spending. On the contrary, they continued to spend recklessly.
I want to share an anecdote. There is a section on Facebook called “Memories”. We can open it to see our memories. Facebook then shows us what we did last week or in previous years. This is the time of the year we debate the budget, so, every day, Facebook reminds me of the speeches I made or the questions I asked. The hallmark of this government is that it has no control over spending, it has no idea when it will return to a balanced budget and it always spends without restraint. However, when the Liberals were elected in 2015, they said that they would balance the budget by 2019. They did not do that. Six months ago, the minister projected a return to a balanced budget in five years. That is not happening.
Earlier, my colleague gave a history lesson about the 15th Prime Minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau, father of the current Prime Minister. I want to talk about what happened next. In 1972, the Liberals won a minority government under Pierre Trudeau. The Liberals struck a deal with the NDP to keep them afloat for a while. This arrangement lasted until 1974. All of a sudden, a measure was rejected, leading to an election. When the election was triggered, the Liberals said they would not introduce price and wage controls to bring down inflation. After being elected on July 8, 1974, however, they did just that a year later. As my colleague said earlier, like father, like son. They say one thing and do another.
In closing, I move the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C‑47, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, since the bill fails to end inflationary deficits, high taxes, and the war on work, measures that would allow Canadians to bring home powerful paycheques, lower prices, and affordable homes.”.
1457 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/21/23 11:46:21 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, while the opposition members continue to focus on the Prime Minister, we are focused on Canadians and making sure that life is more affordable. How are we doing that? We are doing that through programs like child care and dental care. We are investing in health care to make sure that premiers in the provinces and territories have the resources they need to deliver the health outcomes that Canadians expect. We are doing all that while having the strongest fiscal framework in the G7. That is what responsible government does and what good ideas look like.
98 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C‑47, the 2023 budget implementation bill.
This Wednesday, the House unanimously passed Bill C‑46, which does two things. It doubles the amount of the July GST cheque, called the grocery rebate, even if there is no GST on groceries, and it unconditionally transfers $2 billion to the provinces for health.
When the government introduced Bill C‑46, my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I wondered why the government was doing that. The GST credit is issued in July. Introducing the bill on Wednesday and quickly passing it will not speed anything up. The same is true for the health transfers. We know that Ottawa is not providing sufficient funding for health care. The bill included $2 billion, and it was fast-tracked. That is fine, but we did not understand why the government did that. We figured that it was probably trying to set a trap for the Conservative Party.
However, on seeing Bil C‑47, I was thrilled. We were thrilled. We understood why the government presented Bill C‑46 on Wednesday, with its $2 billion for health and $2 billion for the special GST credit payment. Essentially, Bill C‑47 duplicated this. The government tabled Bill C‑46 and we passed it, thinking that the government would delete the corresponding amounts from Bill C‑47, the budget implementation act, but it did not.
This approach is unprecedented and historic. When it tabled the bill, the government announced it had good news. It told us it wanted to do a little extra for health. It announced $2 billion on Wednesday, and then $2 billion in Bill C‑47, given that it did not remove the clause that had been passed in Bill C‑46. The same thing goes for the GST credit, a payment totalling $2.5 billion. Bill C‑47 contains another payment totalling $2.5 billion.
I was therefore extremely surprised and pleased to see that those measures are back in Bill C-47, which is before us today. The government did not remove them from the omnibus bill, despite the fact that Bill C-46 was passed earlier this week. With Bill C-47, the provinces will therefore receive $4 billion rather than the announced $2 billion and the less fortunate will receive a second cheque, ostensibly for groceries.
We are taking this on good faith. We are assuming that the government did not make a mistake here, that it is really saying that the less fortunate should receive a second cheque to help them deal with inflation and that the $2 billion for health care is to be doubled because so little funding has been provided for that. I commend the government's approach on that. I cannot presume that this is a mistake, even if it is completely unprecedented. There was no press release or communication from the government to announce this good news. It was really after we had passed Bill C-46 that we saw the text of Bill C-47 and realized that the government had doubled these two support measures. We are really delighted about that.
Of course, given the needs in health care, the government is not doing enough. The $2 billion is not enough. The agreements reached with the provinces do not meet the needs. In early 2015, the federal government was funding 24% of health care spending even though it should have been funding 50%. We have learned that the government will still be funding 24% of health care spending 10 years from now. That is not enough.
This speaks to the question of the fiscal imbalance. While the federal government continues failing to carry out its role, despite the additional $2 billion, it is buying up jurisdictions. I would remind members that dental care is a health care issue, which is a provincial jurisdiction. As I was saying, this speaks to the fiscal imbalance. Why is the government not adequately funding provincial health care systems and buying up areas of jurisdiction by creating a new health care program?
That is unacceptable, and we will continue to demand that the government carry out its role in health care and that it respect jurisdictions.
As everyone here knows, the political system that was adopted in 1867 was a federation. Although Sir John A. McDonald wanted a legislative union with an all-powerful Ottawa, the compromise was a federation where each level of government would be equally sovereign, with its own areas of jurisdiction. With this government, which is underfunding health care and always trying to buy jurisdictions, we are left with a legislative union. This is not the spirit of the federation. Instead, it is predatory federalism, as a former Liberal health minister in the Quebec government once said.
Let us talk about the dental care program. We expected to see the new dental care program that had been announced in the budget in Bill C-47. Instead, the program that was announced last fall is being retained, but union members are being told that they will not have access to it. Bill C-47, which is before us today, issues directives concerning dental care. People who have group insurance are being told that, because they are unionized, they will never have access to this coverage, that they are not eligible for the program. This sends a clear message to unions and union members. That is what is new about dental insurance in Bill C-47.
This is a mammoth bill of over 400 pages, and it amends 59 statutes in addition to the Income Tax Regulations. It is huge and affects so many different sectors. I will come back to that shortly.
Normally, a budget implementation bill is supposed to implement the budget so as to put in place measures that were announced. However, something quite surprising was hidden near the end of the bill, and it is not a budgetary measure. I am referring to division 31, on royal titles. I will read an excerpt. Here is what it is written in the budget implementation bill:
The Parliament of Canada assents to the issue by His Majesty of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada establishing for Canada the following Royal Styles and Titles:
Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.
What does that have to do with the budget? This is not the right place to do that. What does that kind of language have to do with democracy in 2023? I wonder. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois does not share that approach. Why hide it at the end of a budget implementation bill?
The Speaker often reminds us never to disrespect His Royal Majesty, by the grace of God. Is slipping this clause in at the end of the budget implementation bill not tantamount to disrespecting His Royal Majesty, Charles III? I am just wondering. Obviously, in light of past decisions and the procedures of the House, I understand that I cannot ask the Speaker to remove this clause. The request would have to come from the government, and obviously, I implore the government to make it.
I have more to say about the monarchy. Right now, as soon as the government makes an appointment by order in council, which it certainly seems to be doing here, parliamentarians can call the appointee to appear before a parliamentary committee in order to examine that person's qualifications. Given that Bill C‑47 proclaims “Charles the Third, by the Grace of God King of Canada and His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth”, what could be more appropriate than to call him to appear so we can examine his qualifications before finalizing his appointment?
That is a question that needs to be asked, and I am asking it here. In my opinion, division 31 on the monarchy does not belong in this budget implementation bill.
In the budget, there is an important division on the allocation of $80 billion in funding over 10 years for the green economy. We expected to see details on how the tax credits, the refundable credits, would work, but there is nothing in there about that. It is our understanding that this should involve negotiations with the interested parties. However, Bill C-47 gives us an idea of how the government intends to manage those amounts, and it is very worrisome. Through a legislative amendment, the government is creating two institutions that will be responsible for administering the amounts it plans to invest. This money will be removed from parliamentary oversight. Unelected officials will be responsible for selecting the projects that receive support but will not be accountable to anyone. There are no clear criteria.
Is that a good approach? Is it a good idea to give billions of dollars in taxpayers' money to people who are not accountable to anyone? Does that not just open the door to the arbitrary granting of subsidies based on ties with these anonymous decision-makers and the political stripes of the proponent?
Those are questions that I have.
Parliament wants accountability. Members are here to represent the people. When the government decides to use the resources it collects from the people, even if it is to invest in the transition, there needs to be accountability. That accountability is owed to the House and to the committees that report to the House. The approach set out in Bill C-47 will not provide for that accountability. There will be no accountability, and we find that very concerning.
For years, we have been asking that the government stop subsidizing oil companies. Will this money make that happen? That worries us. Think of all the subsidies that go to the nuclear industry. Is Canada's nuclear industry an example of green energy? I think not. Is that what the small modular nuclear reactors are going to do? There is also carbon capture, and so on. These are the questions we have, and we have not gotten any answers. In committee, I questioned the Department of Finance and they said they would tell us how the money would be spent. After two or three reminders, we are still waiting for answers. It is very worrisome.
Today is Earth Day. Bill C‑47 contains very little on environmental protection. It includes an amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that will encourage oil companies to take their time tackling climate change. At present, the carbon tax paid by major emitters is available to fund green projects in the province where it was collected. If oil companies do not propose any green projects, they lose this money at the end of the year. This approach encourages them to move quickly.
However, Bill C‑47 encourages them to take their time. If the bill passes, the money will be set aside for future use. The government is ensuring that oil companies will not lose any money if they do nothing to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. We know that municipalities lose their infrastructure funds if they do not complete their projects by the end of the year. However, oil companies lose nothing if they do nothing. Is this double standard acceptable? I obviously believe it is not. The answer here is clear.
Still on the subject of transition funding, today we learned that Volkswagen is going to get $13 billion to build a plant in Ontario. The Conservatives were right to ask how much each job created would cost. We know that a transition is needed, but we are wondering why the green economy and batteries are going to Ontario. We thought Quebec was at the forefront given the subsidies and the entire ecosystem we have in place. Why did this project not go to Quebec? Why is Quebec not getting its share? We have questions for this government.
The infrastructure put in place does not allow for accountability, and that is unacceptable. Another unacceptable aspect has to do with EI. As we know, the Employment Insurance Act requires that the EI fund not run a surplus or deficit on average over seven years. Since it ran a huge deficit during the pandemic, it must run a huge surplus every year in the years to come.
Last year, the government grabbed nearly $2 billion that belonged to employers and workers. We are talking about unionized workers. The same thing happened again this year, and the budget calls for another $13 billion to be taken away by 2030. Barring an amendment to the Employment Insurance Act to shift the pandemic deficit to the consolidated fund, we are talking about $17 billion that the government intends to take from the pockets of EI fund contributors. This means that it will be impossible to reform the system to make it more accessible. There is nothing in Bill C-47 to prevent this tragedy. It is unacceptable.
The government has been announcing employment insurance reform since 2015. The announcement is understandable. Six out of 10 workers who lose their job do not have access to EI. The system is broken. Bill Morneau told us, at the beginning of the pandemic, that EI would not help people to keep buying groceries, that the system was no longer working and that it needed to be replaced. They brought in CERB, which was flawed and more expensive. They are still trying to recover some the money owed to them and so on. This story is not over. We need a new system and fast. The government has been talking about this since 2015, but there is still nothing. There is nothing for eliminating the pandemic deficit, either. Increases are going to keep climbing and the system will continue to work poorly.
Let us talk about other aspects of employment insurance. EI should be able to rely on a real appeal mechanism. What we understand from Bill C‑47 is that the appeal board is the same as the one in Bill C‑37. We will look at the details, but we want to reiterate that we need a real appeal mechanism. This extends by one year the measures for the targeted areas during the spring gap, but 60% of people who lose their job still do not have access to it.
We are talking about a 400-page document that amends 59 statutes and the Income Tax Regulations. It has 39 divisions. The Prime Minister promised not to do that anymore. When we get this, we are given a tight deadline in which we have to go through it all, try to understand the legislative language, which is really difficult, consult with all of the stakeholders in Quebec who might be affected to see what they think, and analyze it all. That is a lot. It is very difficult. The government promised in 2015 not do to this anymore. Once again, it is going back to its old ways. We are going to continue looking into this further to see what else might be hidden in there.
Let us look at some examples. The bill enables the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to increase the deposit insurance coverage limit by $100,000, an amount decreed by regulation by this government, but only for one year. In April 2024, he will no longer have that power. Why? Do the Liberals want to introduce another bill? What is this about? We need to look into it. Is the paper version that was given to us as parliamentarians the right version?
Last year, I worked with the paper version only to realize in the end that several dozen pages were missing. I asked the Speaker about it and he told me that the digital version takes precedence over any other. Why bother printing it then, if it is not the right version? That is worrisome.
We are obviously concerned about regional flights, which are very expensive. The increase in fuel prices has pushed the price of flights even higher in the past few years. Instead of proposing measures to make regional flights more affordable, Bill C‑47 would considerably increase the airport security tax. The cost of both international and regional flights will increase. We think this is wrong.
Despite all the pages, measures and laws, there is nothing for seniors or for housing even though the current situation requires that we provide support for seniors and housing. There are many things missing in this bill.
2823 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is deeply concerning. Is the government doing a good job of managing public finances? The answer is no. The government is not paying attention to the cost of the services that it is providing.
I will give some examples. Issuing a passport costs four times more than issuing a driver's licence when Quebec does it. Processing an EI claim costs two and a half times more than processing an application for social assistance in Quebec City. Resources are badly managed. Nonetheless, the Parliamentary Budget Officer identified what is indirectly a fiscal imbalance by pointing out that the flexibility is here in Ottawa. Instead of funding, say, health care in the provinces, the government is increasing the number of programs and interfering in jurisdictions. That is unacceptable.
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
