- 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/24/23 2:38:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, how can the government expect Canadians to file their taxes by the deadline if they cannot even get their questions answered?
The government knew when the contract was up. It knows when the tax-filing deadline is. How much money will it cost taxpayers for the government to end the strike?
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/7/23 2:07:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on April 1, the government is increasing the excise tax on alcohol, beer, spirits and wine by over 6%.
As if inflation is not hurting Canadians enough, now they have to dig deeper in their pockets to enjoy their favourite libation. It is expected that this would cost taxpayers, Canadians, consumers and businesses $125 million more next year. It is enough to drive one to drink.
The excise tax affects all producers, big and small, including local breweries such as Quayle's Brewery in Oro-Medonte, and the entrepreneurs who are just starting out, who will now have to manage a higher cost.
Why does the government not just pause the tax hike, even for just a year, or cap it at a reasonable level when inflation is out of control? It needs to put a cork in the escalator, free the beer, and let Canadians enjoy their favourite spirits without having to dig deeper in their pockets.
What would Bob and Doug McKenzie have to say? They would say, “Stop hosing us, eh.”
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/2/23 3:03:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of fiscal mismanagement, the Liberal government is not even hiding it anymore. It has now decided it no longer needs to accept the advice of the Auditor General, who says $27 billion in COVID support payments need to be investigated. Instead, the CRA says it is not worth the effort.
Will the government take the advice of the independent Auditor General, or does it believe it is not worth the effort to recover money for taxpayers?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/22 2:46:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Auditor General said very clearly the postpayment verification process is anything but rigorous.
The problem is that taxpayers are now on the hook for these billions of dollars they may never receive back. This is the same failed process the government is relying upon when distributing its new dental and rental benefits.
Will the government admit it had no controls and finally put some controls in place before it distributes any more government money?
81 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
