SoVote

May/8/24 7:01:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are debating six words, “Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023,” the short title. The Conservatives moved, at a cost now of $70,000 to Canadian taxpayers, to delete those six words. That is what the Conservatives have put on the table. It is unbelievable. I would ask my colleague from Winnipeg North, through you, Madam Speaker, to stick to those six words the Conservatives want to spend $70,000 to delete.

76 words

Context: House Hansard - 311 - May/8/24

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

May/8/24 7:43:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is really struggling to understand what common sense is, and I see that struggle, but let me help explain, hopefully, and elucidate what we mean by common sense. In the Conservative Party, we do not want to see the government take more of people's money and decide how to spend it for them. We think people should be able to keep more of their own money and decide what they want to do with it. The NDP sees that the people are struggling because of high inflation and high taxes, but its solution is to have the government pay for more things and say, “We're going to give you this for free and that for free”, without appreciating that the money for those “free things” actually comes from somewhere; it comes from taxpayers. Therefore, people have to give more money to the government, which is then used for all of these, in some cases, good things that the NDP is talking about. However, would it not be better if people who were struggling could just keep more of their own money instead of it being funnelled through a government bureaucracy that decides where it goes? Would that not be common sense?

211 words

Context: House Hansard - 311 - May/8/24

Mr. Don Davies

May/8/24 7:44:42 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, the member should know about free things from government, because he gets free dental care, and so do his children. I do not see him giving that back. I have not heard of a Conservative giving back their free dental care yet. By the way, dental care, of course, is not free; it is paid for, but we believe on this side of the House that, collectively, by pooling our resources, we can make sure that every person can get access to primary health care. It is the foundation of our Canadian health care system, so I think that is a wise expenditure of money. More to the point, I have already gone through a couple of examples where Bill C-59 would return money to taxpayers. It would take 5% of the GST off new homebuilding, which is returning money to our home builders. It would take 5% off the GST for counselling services, returning money so that people can maybe afford to get the mental health support they need. What I would ask my hon. colleague is this: Why does he not support the bill, which would return money to important parts of our economy, instead of holding us up and costing taxpayers $450,000 tonight to have this absolutely avoidable and nonsensical debate?

218 words

Context: House Hansard - 311 - May/8/24

Mr. Peter Julian

May/8/24 8:02:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Liberals have continued the infamous Harper Conservative tax treaties. It cost us over $30 billion each and every year. The Conservatives splurged. The Liberals should have reined that in, but they have chosen not to. This means, of course, that many other things the government could be doing are not getting done. I want to ask the member to comment on how there is more Conservative splurging tonight. They are trying to delete six words in the bill that are not substantive at all. The cost to taxpayers tonight will be nearly $100,000 for each word. Conservatives seem to spend like drunken sailors when they have the ability. Tonight they are holding Parliament up, and it is costing us $70,000 an hour for this debate on six words. What does the member think her constituents would think of the Conservative waste of half a million dollars tonight?

152 words

Context: House Hansard - 311 - May/8/24

Mr. Adam Chambers (Simcoe North, CPC)

May/8/24 9:35:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I regret to interrupt this debate, but I believe I have a matter that is pressing and important, which I need to bring to your attention at the earliest opportunity. It relates to an answer I received through an inquiry of ministry, Question No. 2221, in which I partially ask for information from the Canada Revenue Agency. The question I asked reads: With regard to the Canada Revenue Agency and the Canada Child Benefit (CCB), broken down by year for each of the last five years: (a) what was the total number of overpayments that were (i) assessed, (ii) collected from taxpayers who received overpayments following or due to death of a child; and (b) what is the amount of money represented by the overpayments [thereto]? The answer I received, and I will just skip right to the important part, is from the minister herself. It reads: For these reasons, the CRA is unable to respond in the manner requested to Part (a)(ii) and Part (b) (i.e., the amount of money represented by the overpayments...following or due to death of a child). Quite clearly, the minister has said that the government and her department do not have that information. In the budget, the government decided to provide a grace period for parents who have lost a child in terms of collecting child care benefit clawbacks, which is a very compassionate move that I support. It is the reason I asked the Order Paper question in the first place. However, yesterday, at committee, we learned from an official at finance, Mr. Pierre Leblanc, a very accomplished individual, a man who I believe is always forthright when he appears in front of committee, that the government had suggested in the budget that this measure would cost $15 million. It was a very specific number. I wondered how the government arrived at the costing for that $15 million, because the CRA had said that it was not sure how many parents had their child care benefits clawed back, according to the Order Paper answer I received. This is a brief snippet of the interaction I had with Mr. Leblanc. I said, “I think there are officials from CRA here today. I'm very interested in the measure with respect to the grace period for child care benefits for six months, after the unfortunate death of a child. There's a very specific number for the costing of $15 million. I'm curious as to how the number was arrived at. Is the Department of Finance relying on CRA data in order to provide a costing for this measure? Specifically, I want to know whether the Department of Finance received from CRA data in order to come up with the $15 million estimate.” Mr. Leblanc said, “Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his question. The answer is yes. We receive, as part of our ongoing responsibility for advising policy on the Canada child benefit, detailed administrative data on who receives the Canada child benefit. One of the pieces of information we receive as part of that is eligible children who have passed away during the year.” The last part of Mr. Leblanc's answer was, “I mean, that's where you get the number of about 1,500 children per year. Basically, using the average Canada child benefit amount, that's how we arrive at the $15 million over the five-year period.” As I say, I believe this civil servant to be a very accomplished individual and to be very truthful in his answer, and I appreciate his openness and transparency. However, it exposes, yet again, perhaps on purpose or maybe by omission, a minister who has potentially misled the chamber and myself. In terms of some supporting arguments to support my claim, I would refer to the Hansard of December 16, 1980, at page 5797, where the Speaker says: While it is correct to say that the government is not required by our rules to answer written or oral questions, it would be bold to suggest that no circumstances could ever exist for a prima facie question of privilege to be made where there was a deliberate attempt to deny answers to an hon. member.... My last recommendation for you, Mr. Speaker, to consider, which I think is quite an analogous situation to the one we have here today, is from December 6, 1978. The Speaker ruled in favour of a prima facie question of privilege after the member for Northumberland—Durham raised a question of privilege on a charge that he had been deliberately misled by the former Solicitor General. Bosc and Gagnon begins, “Acting on behalf of a constituent who suspected that his mail had been tampered with,” and I will skip along to the relevant points. It reads: [The Solicitor General said] the RCMP did not intercept the private mail of anyone. However, on November 1, 1978, in testimony before the McDonald Commission, the former commissioner of the RCMP stated that they did indeed intercept mail on a very restricted basis... Here we have, once again, as has been mentioned in a question of privilege by my hon. colleague from Calgary Nose Hill, a deliberate or potentially deliberate attempt by the government to frustrate the ability of members of this place to get factual information with which we are trying to make policy to improve the lives of Canadians. I think this is very concerning. This is not the first Order Paper question through which I believe I have received a misleading and inadequate response. However, it is a question that I am now bringing to you in order for you to do some additional research. I am happy to provide these documents. The transcript is not yet posted from committee yesterday, but it will be soon. I certainly appreciate your willingness to allow me to make this point on a question of privilege at the earliest opportunity. However, it yet again underscores that there seems to be an attempt to not provide information to members of this chamber with fairly factual questions for which we know there is answers. The wonderful civil servant has admitted that they had the data I was actually trying to get, because I wanted to propose a similar policy position. I hope you take this matter very seriously. I appreciate your indulgence here this evening. If I am successful, I hope that you will consider sending this matter to the procedure and House affairs committee.

1097 words