Did I hear “oh no”? I thought I was gaining friends. I'm sensitive that way.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am recalling, though, some discussion from Tuesday night about the question of whether this bill of the finance minister is or is not an omnibus bill. Maybe this is a question that we could pose as an important question for the minister, if the Minister of Finance comes for two hours.
There was some claim that it wasn't. I obviously believe that a finance bill is about the government raising money, expending money and borrowing money, and that things outside of that are actually bills related to other matters.
That's why we call them omnibus bills.
I know that all the members on the government side love this document, “A New Plan for a Strong Middle Class”, which is the 2015 platform they ran on. I'll read from page 30 of what it says. It mentions one of the best prime ministers Canada has ever had, that being Stephen Harper, saying, “Stephen Harper has also used omnibus bills to prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals.” That was the perspective of the Liberal Party then, that this prevented Parliament from properly debating proposals. I know that most Canadians will be shocked to learn that the Liberal government said, “We will change the House of Commons Standing Orders to bring an end to this undemocratic practice.”
That's probably why some of the government members objected to me calling this an omnibus bill, but as I pointed out, there are amendments to the Canada Elections Act in this bill. The Canada Elections Act is not a question of spending, borrowing or raising money, but apparently that is not considered an omnibus element under the promise of the Liberals in 2015 to end that practice.
I can understand that maybe that's what is making the minister feel uncomfortable in coming. Perhaps I'm being generous, because I actually think it's the content of the bill, not so much in the sense of the inability, or the ability, of her to actually defend in Parliament—in Parliament, where truthfulness is everything—why her document and why her economic statement said we would have a balanced budget only six months ago in Parliament. She said that to Parliament, tabled the document in Parliament, made it available to Canadians, and yet, at the end of the day, only six months later, she...or somebody within the government told her that's no longer our plan: We're going to go back to our plan that we've been following since we got into office. It's not the one we promised in 2015, where we would only run small budget deficits and would balance the budget in 2019—no, no.
But that's what was promised. The minister probably doesn't like being reminded of that. Either she or the collectivity of the cabinet, or perhaps the Prime Minister's Office, didn't free Freeland to live up to that promise—or "Bill no more”, the previous guy—when they now say, well, we're going to balance it again. They went back to their 2015 promise in 2022 and said, okay, well, on what we've been saying in the last six or seven years, where we weren't going to balance the budget, we've now been convinced that we're going to balance the budget. Now the budget that gets presented to Parliament proposes no balancing of the budget.
These are questions that need to be asked on behalf of Canadians. It's not as if there is a revenue problem, because there's 63% more revenue coming in to the Government of Canada today than there was when this government was elected in 2015. If you believe this plan...and remember that none of these budget plans have ever been met that the Liberals have put in. Much like the climate change plan, none of these budgets have ever been met. If you believe this plan, by the end of the five-year fiscal framework government revenue will have gone up 92%.
I've told a few stories in the last few hours before this committee to bring people back, but regardless of age, most people in this committee and most people watching are familiar with a group called The Beatles. I presume that most people are. I'm a fan. I've always been a fan. It's one of my favourite groups. They had, if you recall 1971, billboard top hits—34 top tens and 20 number ones.
In that mix was a song called Taxman. Every time I hear it, I think of the current Prime Minister.
I won't do justice to the way John Lennon sang it, although he did not write it, but it goes like this:
One, two, three, four
One, two
One, two, three, four
Let me tell you how it will be
This was about the Labour government of the 1960s in Britain. That's what this song was written about.
There's one for you, 19 for me
The “me” here is the government.
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five percent appear too small
That's the 5% you get to keep that you earned.
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat
That one has a special resonance right now. “I'll tax the heat” could have been a carbon tax.
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
Well, we know that the carbon tax impacts the cost of shoes, because it requires rubber, which requires oil and gas. Every stage of manufacturing a shoe has a carbon tax applied, which is increasing inflation.
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
I think that's the platform of the Liberal Party.
'Cause I'm the taxman
Yeah, I'm the taxman
Don't ask me what I want it for