- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Simcoe North
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $121,028.17
- Government Page
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 5:12:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the government is applauding the disability program. It over-promised and under-delivered.
If we want to talk about line items in the budget, let us talk about debt servicing costs. Debt servicing costs are now the exact same amount that the GST is to require. I have a bunch of friends I like to see on Fridays at Frank's compound, Waxy and Frank. Those guys go for lunch once a week. Now, every time they get a bill that has GST on it, they are paying interest on the debt.
There might be some good things in the budget, but people do not buy a house because they like the curtains.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/19/23 5:32:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is a great question.
First, on child care, as far as I understand there is not one child care provider in my riding who is offering $10-a-day day care.
Second, let us talk about what we would do differently. Do members know what the biggest waste of $500 million a year is? It is interest-free loans for students. Why? It is because it costs $500 million a year and we could give that money to low-income students so they can obtain an education. In fact, the government took grants for low-income students from $6,000 to $3,200 and claimed it was an increase. That is definitely not something we would have done. We could have given that $500 million to low-income students to obtain an education.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 3:00:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister also said, “The pandemic debt we incurred to keep Canadians safe and solvent must [and will] be paid down.” Even just a few months ago, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the budget would be balanced. That is another promise made and another promise broken.
Now the government is adding $4,300 in new spending and debt for every household in Canada, and there is no balance in sight. Why do the broken promises keep costing Canadians so much?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/22 2:45:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General stated that the process the government relied on to distribute COVID benefits led to $4.6 billion in overpayments to ineligible individuals, and at least another $27 billion that needs to be investigated.
How much of this $32 billion can taxpayers expect to recover? How much money is the government going to spend in administrative costs to recover money for taxpayers?
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's intervention. I hope he took a break over the summer and was not here speaking the whole time. It is not surprising to hear his voice again in this chamber.
My question is relatively simple. The member claims, as do many other members of his party, that this would help hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty, which may be true. Has the Department of Finance booked any amounts of money for this program, or do we still not know how much the program is going to cost?
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 2:43:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as gas prices soar across the country, the government's response is tone deaf and even at times condescending. It shrugs off astronomical gas prices, even though federal taxes contribute to inflation. It says the carbon tax rebate outweighs the cost, but we know that is just not true. The majority of Ontario families are worse off, businesses that ship goods are worse off and farmers do not get a rebate. They are worse off by thousands of dollars a month.
As we listen to the government talk about how good high gas prices are, the question is simple: How high does it want them to go?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/4/22 1:14:42 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member makes a number of interventions and I find many of them helpful, because it allows me to answer some of these questions quite clearly.
We would not know where all of the money is that is collected, because the government does not really, in a transparent way, show us this. It also does not indicate the cost of administering the carbon tax and rebate program that it has introduced, but I would welcome the opportunity to look at that.
Let us remember that, if a carbon tax is supposed to affect and change the behaviour of Canadians by increasing the price, what we have just seen in the last year, with prices for fuel increasing by 40% to 50% in some cases, is accomplishing what the carbon tax is supposed to accomplish. The carbon tax is, in many ways, just redundant and salt in the wound for many Canadians who can least afford its increase.
163 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
