Finance Committee on May 7th, 2024

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

How many?

[Lindsay Gwyer]

I think there are maybe eight or 10 or so from the finance department.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

There are eight or 10 finance officials here to answer questions on a bill.

Again, for all the many people who are watching this meeting right now, I think it's important for them to understand that this bill is another omnibus budget bill from this government. It's 659 pages long. It has 468 clauses. This committee meets roughly only twice a week for two hours, so we need every possible moment to examine this document and/or ask the questions that people expect us to ask. We have all these excellent officials here today who have the answers to our questions, and now we've been stopped from asking them, over a self-centred, overbearing, centrally planned Liberal motion that basically tries to neuter our ability to ask questions about this massive document.

It's very, very disappointing, Mr. Chair, and I certainly echo the comments of all of my colleagues.

I think one of the things that the Liberal members.... Maybe because Mr. Turnbull is new to this committee, he's forgotten that more people voted for Conservatives in both the 2019 and the 2021 elections than for Liberals and that in fact they're not a majority government. They're a minority government, and they can't just dictate to the committee what it is we're going to study and when we're going to study it. That has to be worked out.

If there is some reason that they can't modify this motion to come to an acceptable arrangement, I think that's on them. They need to work in the spirit of collaboration and reach across the aisle, as Conservatives do every day, but they're just not willing to. They have deluded themselves into thinking that they're still a majority government, but they're not, and of course they won't be government much longer—everyone knows that—so they're bringing in these heavy-handed motions to try to map out the agenda for their government in their dying days to try to basically get through as much harmful legislation for Canadians as they possibly can.

I have a lot of questions. I have questions about the small business rebate. I have questions about the journalism tax rebate, the short-term rental adjustments, the underused housing tax and the alternative minimum tax. However, I'm being basically prevented from asking my questions of officials because of this heavy-handed motion.

Those are basically my comments, Mr. Chair. I think that Canadians watching will be as appalled as I am at the heavy-handed tactics of the Liberal members on this committee and will understand that they are not provided with the benefits of having their elected officials ask questions of finance officials about this 659-page omnibus budget.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Morantz.

I have MP Lawrence and then MP Davies and MP Dzerowicz.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I have a quick technical question for the clerk.

If I make a motion to adjourn, I still get the floor even if I'm unsuccessful. I get to continue. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

On a motion to adjourn, there is no debate. It will go directly to a vote.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

No, I mean after the vote: Do I get the floor back? I'm sorry if I didn't clarify.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

If it were defeated, yes, you would get the floor back, because you have the floor.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you.

I move to adjourn the debate and I ask for a recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I'll carry on—

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We have a point of order.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

There's a lot of intellectual capacity in this room right now. I recommend that we allow our witnesses the opportunity to leave if they choose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I think we're going to keep the officials here.

Go ahead.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am really disappointed that the Liberals did not choose to circulate the motion beforehand. In having discussions and negotiations before with Mr. Terry Beech and Ms. Bendayan—as well as Mr. Baker, I might add—I've never had that happen, not once in about two years on this committee now.

In fact, once the chair and I got in a bit of a tiff and he said to me, “You have my phone number. Give me a call.” Maybe Mr. Turnbull simply didn't have our phone numbers, but I think that's probably not correct.

He did not even give us a chance to circulate that motion, and now we're wasting time. We've proven through that vote on the adjournment that neither the NDP nor the Liberals are serious about doing the people's business. Instead, they want to bicker about the schedule on the time of our civil servants.

As Mr. Chambers said, there is a lot of intellectual capacity over there, and I would like to see their time spent in a more value way than in hearing the machinations, discussions and arguments of parliamentarians over relatively trivial matters such as scheduling.

The reality is that the Conservatives have been constructive, if not co-operative. On the fall economic statement, I don't remember a budget bill passing as quickly as that one did. I can't remember one in recent history, even going back to majority governments. Even though Conservatives did not agree, we certainly did our democratic duty by pointing out the weaknesses, and we were constructive if not co-operative, as I said.

This motion is definitely striking a different tone, and of course it will have consequences. There is just no way that.... It has certainly the trust I had in building trust with the members on the other side.

Just to put some context to the issue of where we are and why the Conservatives are extremely skeptical about the impact of this budget, it's because the Liberal government didn't just get elected today. The Liberals aren't in opposition. They've been in government for the last nine years, and we've seen an economic lost decade. That means zero economic growth per capita. That is a scary place to be.

That means our standard of living has not increased in 10 years. Sure, they'll point to the pandemic and other issues as to why this should have happened, but this isn't the case in many of our direct comparables. For example, in the United States, the GDP per capita has gone up 50%, while ours has gone up a paltry 4%, so we're in the midst of a lost decade here.

We have record food bank usage and we have people who are struggling to get by. As I said, these Liberals didn't get elected last week; it's been nine years.

I beseech them to just go out and talk to their constituents. How many of them think they're better off than they were in 2015? I'll tell you that if I walk around my neighbourhood, there won't be many people who say, ”Yes, I'm doing better than in 2015”, and I'm not being partisan. This is just the reality of it.

Under Prime Minister Harper, we had balanced budgets, we had housing that cost literally half as much, we had rentals that were half as much, we had food prices that were under control and we had a much stronger economy. We actually had economic growth, whereas under this Liberal government, we've seen surging food bank usage.

As Mr. Chambers alluded to, we have more and more statistics coming in about the challenges Canadians have. We can certainly look at statistics, but I don't even need to look at the numbers that would, no doubt, validate the anecdotal evidence.

However, when I go out in the constituency and I talk to folks, I can't tell you how many heartbreaking stories—and I mean this in all seriousness—I have to hear about person after person who has simply more month than money, whether it be the single mom who has to use a food bank, even though she has a job—and I've had those conversations—or the young couple who got married and, with great excitement, bought a house, getting ready to start their family—but then their mortgage went from a little shy of $3,000 a month to $9,000 a month, and they had to sell their house and basically go to zero again on their finances for a house.

Canadians are struggling out there. You guys talk about how this budget is going to be this magic panacea, but you've done that for nine years now. I have heard how budget 2022 or budget 2021 or the budget in 2016, 2017 or 2018 was going to magically solve all of Canada's problems. Well, guess what? We're here now. Look outside. Times are tough.

Unemployment is creeping up steadily. It's up to 6.1% and climbing. Inflation still remains outside the Bank of Canada's set range. So we have high inflation. We have interest rates that have climbed to record high levels and remain high, and I can't believe we actually haven't had more coverage or more questions about how the Governor of the Bank of Canada—or its board, more correctly—was telling us that he hasn't decided whether interest rates will go up or down, but the Prime Minister is saying he guarantees that interest rates will come down.

That should not happen in a G7 country. You shouldn't have the leader of the executive telling the independent central bank what it's going to do. That just should not happen, and we still haven't received, and I haven't received, an explanation. I've asked the government about this with respect to who is right— the Governor of the Bank of Canada or the Prime Minister—and I have still not received an accurate explanation.

I'm fresh off the prayer breakfast this morning. It was a great event, and I heard the Prime Minister's remarks and of course those of the leader of the opposition, as well as those of some other notable individuals. I'm actually taken by some of the humility the Prime Minister showed at the prayer breakfast and I wish some of his MPs would exemplify some of the words the Prime Minister brought to the prayer breakfast with respect to realizing that we need co-operation, that this is teamwork and that we are in troubled waters.

As the Prime Minister said at the prayer breakfast, we are in troubled waters. We are facing significant challenges, whether they be the affordability crisis or climate change, and they require teamwork, but in this instance we've been given an ultimatum motion. I don't know what else to call it. It's certainly heavy-handed, and as I said, I've been negotiating and working on negotiating for the better part of two years now through many different budget bills, and I've never seen this. I've never seen the government plop something on the desk and say, “Take it or leave it.”

We're not asking for anything extraordinary here. We just want to talk to the officials who have come prepared. They always give excellent testimony and they always do their best, and it's very enlightening for me to have those discussions. That's all that Conservatives want to get accomplished. We'll work away at this. We still have many hours of testimony to hear. There's no need for this heavy-handed motion. We can work together, negotiate a solution and find a way so that Conservatives can be the voice of the voiceless, those single moms who are struggling to get by, those business owners who are seeing their lifetime of hard work evaporate in front of their faces and those homeowners who have seen their mortgage payments go up sometimes two or three times.

We need to get that out, and I don't apologize for that. We need to be the voice for those who are struggling, the most vulnerable in our society, but we can do it in a constructive way. This heavy-handed technique is just not helpful. It limits debate. It limits our ability to fight for those who aren't in Ottawa.

I was elected by the 100,000 folks from Northumberland—Peterborough South, soon to be Northumberland—Clarke, and I'm here to represent them. I said that Conservatives have been constructive throughout the fall economic statement, and we have been constructive here.

We were having a great discussion. I very much appreciate some of my colleagues' questions with respect to the global minimum tax. I think it's a rich area for discussion and debate. Quite frankly, it's a technical discussion that requires a lot of the expertise we have here today in order to inform Canadians, because most folks don't get up in the morning and think, “You know what? What I'm going to talk about today is a global minimum tax regime.” However, it would certainly have an impact on our ability to fund social programs. It would also have an effect on our economy. Canadians need to be more aware of these issues. Who better to bring to that discussion than some of our terrific civil servants, who are able to carry that discussion?

Specifically, if this meeting hadn't been ambushed by the Liberals' heavy-handed motion and if we had been given the opportunity to ask more questions, I would have loved to talk a bit more about the Panama papers and the CRA's failure to fully investigate and convict some of Canada's most egregious tax evaders. In a lot of ways, journalists did a lot of the work of the Canada Revenue Agency. While this government seems intent on getting their pound of salt—and I might say quite successfully—from the middle class, the super-wealthy, under this Liberal government over the last nine years, have done quite well. They continue to do quite well, whether it be by moving dollars offshore or, as the Prime Minister has done, by putting their money in trust funds to avoid higher rates of taxation.

We could have had a very substantive discussion about the bill. Quite frankly, I really enjoy some of the technical discussions and getting into the weeds. I know other members do. It's getting underneath the hood, finding out what is wrong and coming up with specific technical answers with respect to some of these budgetary moments.

Another area I would have loved to talk about is the employee ownership trust tax exemption. I think the employee ownership trust is, at least in theory and the big picture, a very good idea. It's been implemented in a number of countries around the world, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, I believe, with pretty good results. The whole idea behind that is to encourage business owners and allow businesses to flourish by having their business go on to those who have sweated, toiled and built the business into what it is. It has generally, as an approach, had conservative, liberal and socialist support because it hits on many different elements. I can remember learning, back in my MBA, that the likelihood of a business making it from one generation to the next is actually very low. I think it's around 20%. To make it to a third generation is actually in the single digits. Allowing employees to have ownership is beneficial both to the business owner and to the employees as they go forward.

I would have loved a technical discussion about that. Unfortunately, the technical briefing—which I know our civil servants worked very hard on—came right on the heels of our doing clause-by-clause study for the fall economic statement, so I wasn't able to dig into the BIA much in the technical briefing. Therefore, I was very much looking forward to the testimony today and to digging into those commentaries so that I could do my job as a member of the finance committee and a parliamentarian and fully understand these provisions and be able to explain them.

The other area I'm looking forward to talking about—and I don't believe it's in part 1, 2 or 3—is the Canadian entrepreneurs' incentive with the lifetime capital gains exemption.

What this adds is an additional portion of reducing it from an inclusion rate, or I guess a future inclusion rate—we'll see when the capital gains bill comes in. This contemplates that being in place, reducing it from 66% to 33%, but has a number of different criteria on that. I was curious as to how that would actually be technically input as well.

All this is to say, Mr. Chair, that I'm extremely disappointed in the parliamentary secretary. Maybe he's new to this, Chair, and just doesn't understand how this can work and that we can collaborate. I would put in front of him the references of Mr. Terry Beech and also maybe even the deputy leader and Minister of Finance, who, yesterday in question period, actually was quite kind and said that she respected me. She did, then, say something disrespectful about me, but she did say that she respected me. Maybe he could talk to his boss about what she thinks of me and what type of negotiating partner I could be. This motion didn't even give the Conservatives an option to negotiate.

I would be remiss, too, if I didn't talk a little bit about the NDP. I was very pleased and, I guess, maybe proud of the relationship I had with Mr. Blaikie, and hopefully he would say the same thing about me. Although we disagreed on about 97% of everything, especially when it came to economics, he was always conducting himself honourably. We certainly had some lengthy negotiations. Those didn't all come to fruition, but he was always up front with me. Certainly I felt as though he wanted to do things the right way.

I don't really know Mr. Davies. I know his reputation of being a solid parliamentarian. I'm a little surprised that Mr. Davies didn't come and talk to us about this motion before. Clearly the NDP and the Liberals have already talked about it. They are coalition partners. I did know Mr. Blaikie to actually be quite independent, and he would not fall hook, line and sinker for what the Liberals were feeding him. I'm a little challenged by the fact that Mr. Davies didn't come to us with a discussion before the fact so that we wouldn't have had to go from zero to 90.

Quite frankly, I guess I could comprehend the actions of both the NDP and the Liberals if the Conservatives were being obstructionist, and perhaps they felt in their own way that it was essential for them to move forward with this and that the Conservatives would obstruct.

The fall economic statement was both constructive.... We just have to look at the clause-by-clause study, where, at Mr. Davies' request, we actually started grouping the clauses and expediting them. We were under no obligation to do so. Actually, when you look back at the time on debate during clause-by-clause consideration, the Conservatives actually had the lowest amount of time of all the parties, with the exception of the Bloc Québécois. We were actually very expedient in making our comments and expressing our disappointment with the fall economic statement while, once again, being constructive.

The Conservatives are very concerned. We also heard from the Bloc Québécois that those parties not in a coalition government want the opportunity to explain to the Canadian people the challenges around this budget.

As I said, I sometimes feel that we are in an alternative universe, that the Liberals somehow believe this is the first day they have to govern, every day, like in Groundhog Day. This is going to be the day. This is going to be the budget bill. This is going to be the thing that changes.

Well, guys, we keep going further into debt. Our GDP doesn't keep growing. We don't keep hitting our climate change targets, except for, I know, during the pandemic when the economy was shut down, guys. If you want that, it's yours.

Whether it be climate change, whether it be food bank usage, whether it be the GDP or whether it be growth, we continue to go down. Things get worse and worse and worse and worse and worse. Then you come to us and say, “Why don't you help us make it worse faster, Mr. Lawrence? Why don't you do that?”

My apologies to the interpreters. I get a little excited.

Look at your record. Your record is abysmal. Philip Cross, noted statistician and former head of Statistics Canada, said that this is the worst economic record since the Great Depression. If you look at the GDP per capita, you see that we're actually in our seventh quarter of negative GDP per capita. There's a strong argument that we should measure recessions on total GDP. Our GDP is masked by our high population growth, so it looks higher than it actually is. If we look at the GDP per Canadian, the economic output per Canadian—the prosperity of each Canadian, in other terms—we see that we have had seven quarters of decline. We would be in one of the longest recessions since the Great Depression if we measured GDP per capita. While Canada is not in a recession, Canadians most certainly are.

You can probably excuse my frustration when I hear folks say, “This budget bill will be the one. This is the magic pill. This is the magic bean that will make everything all right.” Well, I have now been elected for close to five years, as it were, and I've heard, through multiple budget cycles, that this piece of legislation is the one that will finally help Canadians. The reality is that when I go back to my constituents, they are consistently worse off because of this federal government.

The carbon tax is absolutely crushing Canadians. It increases the cost of home heating, fuel and food. Of course, we heard the demagoguery with respect to the carbon tax. The Liberals will say that Canadians get back more than they pay, but that's not true. The Liberals play a shell game with words.

With respect to the carbon tax, there are two different types of costs that Canadians focus on. One is the fiscal cost. That's the direct impact. That's what you pay for the carbon tax at the gas pumps, etc., and what you get back in terms of a rebate. The other part that the Liberals don't acknowledge is the economic impact. What does that mean? Well, a cascading effect happens when farmers and business owners pay carbon tax. When a farmer pays carbon tax, because they are price-takers and not price-givers, that cost will get passed on to the consumer. Literally everything in the grocery store, because it all had to be transported, has a hidden carbon tax in it. Therefore, when you add the fiscal and the economic impacts, more than six out of 10 Canadian households are actually losing money.

That's a shell game that Liberals will play. They'll just talk about the fiscal financial impact without talking about the economic impact. The truth is that you have both. All Canadians are facing both the fiscal financial impact and the economic impact. When those things are added up, in every province the average household is at a net loss position. That's the reality of the carbon tax and what Canadians are playing against.

It also gets to the fact that because of stretching the truth in arguments like that, we really need to dig into that and understand it. You can understand why Conservatives want to have discussions, and lengthy discussions, about the budget. It's important for us to understand it.

Ultimately, there's nothing magical about me, Jas, Adam or Marty, but we are the representatives. Our office is magical. All of our 338—soon to be 343—offices are magical, because they represent the voice and the will of the people. That's what separates Canada from many other places in the world that don't have rights or that don't have the ability to vote in or vote out their leaders.

When we look at that office, you can certainly feel free not to respect me or other Conservative members, but you should have respect for Parliament. Parliament is the very base of our democracy, and it's critical that we are given the time to understand legislation. This bill is over 600 pages, and it modifies or amends hundreds of other pages.

To fully understand this legislation will take hours and hours and hours of study. There is no doubt that there will be commentary from across the country from different organizations and various industries. I don't think that it's an exaggeration to say that every single Canadian will be affected by this budget in some way or other. Conservatives want to get this right.

Right now, we would like to be sitting here and talking to officials, as we were constructively doing before the parliamentary secretary brought forward a motion that he kept in secret, unwilling to share and discuss it with Conservative members—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull, on a point of order.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I don't want to cut off the soliloquy there, because it was very good and very well spoken, even though I agree with almost nothing that the member said, but I didn't keep this motion in secret. It's exactly identical to what we've discussed.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, what's the point of order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Your point of order, MP Turnbull, is what?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

What rule in the book is he relying on for his point of order, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Turnbull, what is the point of order?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

The point of order is that the member is claiming something that is untrue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay, thank you, MP Turnbull.

We have—