Finance Committee on May 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Ms. Chatel, you have a point of order.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Yes, I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I want to remind the honourable member that we are discussing the motion, and hopefully, it will be adopted. The purpose of the motion is to invite the Deputy Prime Minister to appear before the committee next Tuesday, which she has agreed to do. The motion also seeks to have the committee hear from all the other stakeholders who wish to comment on the bill. The more we delay hearing from them, the more we delay consideration of this important bill.

I want to remind the honourable member that that is the possibility being debated. We would like the Conservative members' agreement, so the committee can meet with the Deputy Prime Minister.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chatel.

Again, we'll do a refocus here. What we are debating right now is the amendment and now the subamendment to the amendment of the main motion, which is that the Minister of Finance be invited to appear for two hours on the bill and that this appearance be scheduled on or before May 18, 2023.

MP Morantz, go ahead.

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

Mr. Chair, with the greatest of respect to Ms. Chatel, I am directly on point with debating the subamendment because the subamendment is about requesting that the finance minister appear before this committee.

As part of that debate, we need to be free at this committee to explain why. That's what I'm doing. I'm explaining why it's so important. I will keep explaining why it's so important, notwithstanding any points of order, interruptions or any tactics any of the other members might have to try to muzzle the Minister of Finance from coming to this committee. That's what is happening here, Mr. Chair.

I will wear it as a badge of honour that members of this committee are trying to interrupt me in making this very important, fundamental case to the functioning of democracy in this Parliament, which is that the finance minister appear at this committee to talk about her own budget.

Getting back to my earlier point, that particular budget implementation bill had a provision about the deferred prosecution agreements. From that, a major scandal for this government ensued. The Prime Minister was found to be saying things like the story in The Globe was untrue. Of course, we found out that it was true. We found out that he was in fact pressuring the then-Attorney General to grant his friends at—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

There's no relevance of SNC-Lavalin to the subamendment to the amendment to have the minister come before committee.

This is ridiculous. We had to listen to a discussion of eels for many hours. I'm not going to listen to a diatribe on all past things that the Conservatives were not happy about.

If he would like me to reread the amendment that they have proposed, I'm happy to do that. I'd love to hear his comments about their subamendment to the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Dzerowicz.

We'll go back to MP Morantz.

Again, MP Morantz, we're talking to the subamendment to the amendment to the main motion, which is that the Minister of Finance be invited to appear for two hours on the bill and that this appearance be scheduled on or before May 18, 2023.

MP Morantz.

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

I am happy to reread the motion into the record for the member, Mr. Chair, but I will not be muzzled in making my case as to why the Minister of Finance should appear, because that is what this subamendment to Mr. Blaikie's amendment specifically speaks to.

What we're talking about here is that the minister be invited to appear for two hours such that “if the Minister of Finance has not appeared by May 18, 2023 amendments to Bill C-47, notwithstanding subparagraph (b)(i), be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 11:00 a.m. ET the business day following the Minister appearing at Finance committee for a duration of no less than 2 hours.”

That's a very reasonable request, Mr. Chair.

My point is that I'm trying to make the argument, if the members opposite will allow me to, but if they want to continue to interrupt, I'm fine with that too.... They can speak for as long as they like. That's what democracy is about. We talk to each other and, hopefully, we resolve things. That's why it's called “Parliament”, Mr. Chair: We parley.

That's what I'm trying to do, and I'm trying to make the point that this particular provision led to a massive scandal, and that's why these types of bills are problematic. It's not just my saying that: It's the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said it's undemocratic. He said he wouldn't do it anymore and, like so many things that he says he won't do, he ends up doing them anyway.

We have all these parts of the budget bill that have nothing to do with the budget that really should go through the proper scrutiny of Parliament, be introduced in the House, go up for debate, be voted on by the committee, debated in committee, perhaps amended in the committee and sent back, but no. They're throwing everything but the kitchen sink in here.

I asked the question when the public servants were here, by the way. “Is there any one company that might benefit from any provision in this bill?” Do you know what they said, Mr. Chair?

Nothing.

Let me say that again.

Nothing.

That's the response I got, Mr. Chair. It was very informative.

I just think that it's incumbent on the finance minister to come here. There are very serious questions here.

The finance minister came here in November to talk about the fall economic statement, so here's one of my questions. If she would agree to come to committee, I might ask her this question. She said that in 2027-28 she forecasted a surplus. That was music to the ears of Conservatives. We thought that maybe the Liberals were finally taking fiscal responsibility seriously. They actually forecasted—this is just in November—a $4.5-billion surplus.

Imagine my surprise—and I'm sure my colleagues were surprised—when the budget showed up five months later. It seemed, by the way, that before the pandemic—and I want to say this, Mr. Chair—a billion dollars seemed like a lot of money. Now, it seems like we're throwing around billions of dollars with reckless abandon, but here we are.

We had a promise of fiscal responsibility: a surplus of four and a half billion dollars by 2027-28. I know the members on this committee are very much aware of that commitment.

Then the budget comes. I flip open to the chart and look at 2027-28, trying to see if maybe it's even better. Maybe they found a way to run an even larger surplus. What did I see? In that same year, a $14-billion deficit is forecast, with no balance in sight.

This is why this motion is so important. This is why it's so important for the finance minister to come here for the two hours that we're requesting, as stated in this motion. We're asking that provided that if the Minister of Finance has not appeared by May 18

amendments to Bill C-47, notwithstanding subparagraph (b)(1), be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 11 a.m. eastern time, the business day following the minister appearing at the finance committee for a duration of no less than two hours.

On this subamendment, I want to make a very important point. If I can put my hands on the motion we had, as the precedent....

Here's an interesting one. There was a motion introduced at the official languages committee. It said:

That, in relation to the consideration of Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts

There are two in particular:

...amendments to Bill C-13 to be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 11 a.m. [eastern time] the business day following the last meeting with the ministers and departments.

If my colleagues in the Liberal Party want to argue that they don't want to set a precedent, I have news for them: It's been set. Marc G. Serré, a Liberal member, actually moved this motion. If the members opposite want to make the argument, “Well, we don't want to set a precedent. We don't want to create a condition precedent to the Minister of Finance coming here. That's just not right”.... They did it themselves in the transport committee. That motion passed in the transport committee.

We're saying the same thing, namely, submit it to the clerk in both official languages no later than 11 a.m. eastern of the business day following the minister appearing at the finance committee for a duration of no less than two hours.

I don't know what the problem here is, Mr. Chair. It makes me wonder, when the Minister of Finance has only been in the House six times this year. Despite three invitations from this committee, she has ghosted us. She came for one hour last fall and presented a forecast of a surplus into 2027-28. That disappeared, along with her, in the 2023 budget. We need to get on with our task of finding Freeland and passing the subamendment, the amendment and the subamendment, in order to get her here to answer these very important questions.

Now, I think I'm going to take a bit of a break from the microphone, at this point in time, Mr. Chair.

However, I would like to indulge...if I may ask one question of the clerk: Would they be so kind as to add my name back onto the list, in case I have further epiphanies—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Morantz, I'll put your name back on the list.

There you go.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Masse is up next, then MP Dzerowicz, then MP Chambers. I'll just go through the list: Then it's MP Perkins, then MP Morantz again.

MP Masse, congratulations on the Ojibwa national park.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the support of the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I did a lot of running in that park.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Nice. I appreciate that. Thank you for the support we received from all members of all parties. I appreciate it.

I want to intervene briefly as a New Democrat to say that we won't be supporting the subamendment because it is very similar to the amendment before. I know that you've ruled that it's different, which is fine with us, but at the same time it's consistent with the policies of delaying what needs to take place.

For some history here, it was the Harper administration that started bringing in ministers for one hour. That was not the case before. The tradition of the past has been that ministers come here for two hours.

I don't know why a minister wouldn't want to come for two hours, actually. My experience in this format has been that ministers, once they know their file, actually can exceed almost any opposition member's attempts to do certain things in many ways because they have the last word and the control of the mike. I don't know why the government would be hesitant with two hours.

However, I do understand where it comes from. In fact, there was a time when parliamentary secretaries weren't at committee. That was brought in by the Paul Martin administration. It was consistently handled...and continued all the way through the Harper administration to the one we have now.

As well, on riders.... I come from an area, as you know, Mr. Chair, close to the American border, so we call them riders to a bill. Those are things that are added into a bill. That was originally done, that I know of.... I know that in the history of Canada it's been done before. That was done through the Martin administration on a couple of issues, like immigration and so forth. Then it became a regular practice during the Harper administration. It became routine. In fact, many of those things that were added later on lost court cases. It became quite extreme. In fact, they used closure over 100 times in the House of Commons with one hour of debate.

For us, we want to see this get moving. I remember when the current Prime Minister supported the minority Harper administration over a hundred times without getting amendments to bills.

As New Democrats, we came here to make Parliament work. We want to see this get done, especially for dental care. My riding has some of the highest child poverty in Canada and some of the highest numbers of single mothers, as well. You may not think that Windsor, being right on the Detroit border, would have these types of consequences because of the type of wealth that we do sometimes have, but the reality is that we also have a significant issue over poverty. We're eager to see these results because we're also going to be moving into seniors and persons with disabilities.

One of the first motions I lost in the House of Commons back in 2002 was to create a bill that would actually have environmental contaminants and human health looked at. We have such a high rate of disabilities in my region because of the industrialization and the pollution. It's not only from our auto industry, which we have done ourselves, but also from the Ohio River valley, the toxic streams and rivers, and the Great Lakes, where we haven't treated it properly. There is a high rate of thyroid cancer. We actually outperform in the number of children born with disabilities and so forth.

We won't be supporting this. We hope the government finds two hours for the minister to come here. At the same time, I don't think the most important thing for Canadians is a few hours here at committee. I don't remember if, in any of the eight elections I've been in for.... I've done my filibuster at a couple of committees and I've seen this come and go at different times, but I don't remember many people raising that as a serious issue for them and their families at this point in time.

I'm hopeful that we'll get this going because there's a lot of work to get done. I do respect the fact that they want the minister here for two hours. I wish, though, that they wouldn't have brought this practice in because we probably wouldn't be here today at this debate if that were the case.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Masse.

Now I will go to MP Dzerowicz.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thanks so much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say that the impression one can get if one's listening to this filibuster is that the minister has been invited to the finance committee a number of times and that she hasn't appeared.

The minister has appeared at this committee at least four times during this Parliament. She has come here for every BIA as well as other key government legislation, and the clerk started this meeting by indicating to us that she is on record indicating that she will appear before us on May 16. She didn't indicate for how long, but she's never been here for less than an hour, so I should think that that's important to state.

I'd also like to state that it doesn't matter which committee you're on; it is very typical for ministers to be invited a number of times and quite often. It is not typical for ministers to accept every single invitation, but I don't want anyone to think that the minister has not appeared before this committee, that she has not appeared a number of times before this committee. She has. She has appeared before every important legislation—sorry, I want to say all legislation is important—but she has attended for every BIA and other important government legislation.

I also want to reiterate that we do agree with the amendment by MP Daniel Blaikie:

That the Minister of Finance be invited to be here for two hours on the bill and that this appearance be scheduled on or before May 18th, 2023.

We very much agree with that, and again, as I mentioned, we don't know how long the minister will stay, but we know that she has never been here for less than one hour. In fact, I have been here, Mr. Chair, at this committee when she has spoken for more than an hour. She has been here for more than an hour.

I also want to address Mr. Morantz's claim that he is being muzzled with our points of order. I don't think that we're trying to muzzle him or anybody else in any way.

We've heard quite a long speech around eels for many hours, which has absolutely no relevance to the BIA or to the federal budget 2023. We want to make sure that we keep the arguments on point and to the subamendment, the amendment, the BIA or federal budget 2023.

The last thing I want to reiterate is because, again, Mr. Morantz keeps on talking about how there's a whole slew of things in the BIA that have no relevance to federal budget 2023. I want to state one more time for the record that every measure in the BIA appears in the text of federal budget 2023, so they are absolutely relevant. We are not just putting things in there. I don't want Canadians to think that we're trying to fool them in any way. I think that we are trying to be accountable. Part of the reason we want to send it to various committees of key subject matter experts is to make sure that subject matter experts are on it and that they give feedback to this committee.

With that, I also would like to state that we do not support that subamendment, and I'm really hoping that we can move on and get back to hearing from witnesses on the BIA, then hear from our Minister of Finance and move forward with federal budget 2023.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Dzerowicz.

Now we go to MP Chambers.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate everybody's comments so far.

I agree with Ms. Dzerowicz. The minister has been here three or four times, however that hasn't been on invitation of the committee. That has been because the minister has to appear to advance legislation through the committee.

In fact, the minister has been invited on three separate occasions: twice for 90 minutes, once for 120 minutes, and I believe one other time for the inflation study, which has an open invitation for three hours, i.e., for 180 minutes. The minister has been invited to come to the committee for 480 minutes and the committee is supposed to accept 60 minutes next week to satisfy the number of outstanding requests. The only reason the minister is appearing is to advance the budget legislation.

I actually think that maybe we've been a little unfair to the Minister of Finance. After having listened to my colleague's interventions, I think maybe the minister actually does want to come. I think the minister wants to come for two hours but it looks like more and more now that the Prime Minister's Office doesn't want the deputy finance minister to appear before this committee often.

I actually think the minister wants to appear, so maybe instead of “finding Freeland”, it should be “free Freeland” because clearly the minister and Deputy Prime Minister....

I have an incredible amount of respect for the Deputy Prime Minister. She is in a very tough position: inflation is raging three times over the target. She's obviously very accomplished. She's very smart. Maybe the Prime Minister's Office is worried about leadership politics starting to enter the fray.

The Prime Minister is being attacked from multiple angles. We have other cabinet ministers starting their leadership campaigns. Maybe the Prime Minister's Office is trying to prevent the de facto leader of the upcoming leadership race from getting more exposure. Or maybe, someone on another leadership campaign has convinced the Prime Minister's Office to not allow the finance minister to appear before committee.

I have full belief in my colleague from Windsor, Brian Masse. I believe he said it best, that ministers, when they know their file, can bat around any questions from any parliamentarian here quite easily. The minister has done that on a number of occasions. She's quite capable of it.

Now having listened to the debate, I think I owe the finance minister an apology. I think she wants to come here but she's not able to come. Maybe it's her who is being prevented from appearing before a committee for a whole bunch of reasons that have nothing to do with the budget bill.

I would submit to the committee that there are also multiple ways to resolve this impasse. I agree that we should start to talk to stakeholders. We could have done that if we struck the clause-by-clause part of the motion in the original motion by Mr. Beech. I also accept or support the subamendment by Mr. Blaikie. It's something I've advocated for here, but there is that saying, “Fool me once, fool me twice, fool me three times”.

Again, perhaps our frustrations on the committee as members of the opposition have been misguided. I think, perhaps, we should be encouraging the Prime Minister's Office to free Minister Freeland and allow her to come to committee, share her talents with us and defend her government's record. She's very capable of doing that.

I don't know why the Prime Minister's Office is not allowing the Deputy Prime Minister to appear at a finance committee meeting for more than an hour. I think they're very concerned about the leadership politics that are starting to enter the discourse.

I have full faith that the minister wants to come. I hope she will be allowed to do so. I think we could give some comfort to the committee if she could confirm the time when she is available. I suspect that this will also have to be vetted by the Prime Minister’s Office.

You know, we hearken back to the days of the controlling Harper PMO. Well, let me tell you, there has not been a Prime Minister's Office more controlling than the one we currently have. They actually vet every single chief of staff hiring. That didn't happen in the last government. For all the talk about Prime Minister Harper's PMO being so controlling, there isn't anything that gets done in this town without the okay from the Prime Minister's Office.

I'm actually more imploring those individuals and the staff members of the government to plead with the Prime Minister’s Office that the Minister of Finance be allowed to shine at this committee and answer questions from parliamentarians and from Canadians. I believe there are multiple ways to broach this impasse. I look forward to other thoughts from my committee members.

I will end on a point about the subamendment. I do agree that it does create a challenging precedent, but that precedent was created by the languages committee, which was supported by Liberal members at the time. I appreciate the chair's ruling that this subamendment is admissible. It is not substantially similar to the one previous. The other previous motion included asking multiple ministers to appear. It is unclear to me, as a member of this committee, what the will of the committee was when we voted that down. Was it that we didn't want both ministers to appear together? Was it that we didn't want the finance minister to appear? Was it that we didn't want the Minister of Public Safety to appear? It's unclear to me what the will of the committee was when we voted that down.

In my view, the amendment is admissible. I think the chair agrees with that, on the advice of the clerk. I'm happy to support this subamendment. I look forward to seeing the Minister of Finance here next week for two hours when we break this impasse, but we could move to committee study with stakeholders on Thursday through a few different paths. One, we agree to the subamendment. If that's not going to happen, two, we get confirmation from the finance minister that she will be here for two hours, after she is approved to do so from the PMO. Or three, we actually strike the requirement to move to clause-by-clause starting on May 18.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll pass the floor to the next speaker.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chambers.

I have MP Perkins and then MP Morantz.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess I'm in agreement with MP Chambers on the issue of the evolution of “finding Freeland” to “freeing Freeland”, but I want to start by speaking to the question of whether or not everything in this bill has to do with the country's finances. I appreciate that some members may think that, but if you bear with me, I'll just read you the sections of this omnibus bill to let you know—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I want to correct for the record that I had indicated that every measure in the BIA appears in the text of the budget. That's just to let you know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Dzerowicz.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you. I appreciate the clarification.

It's clear I'm drawing a huge crowd here today, so I'll continue.

The budget implementation act, tabled in Parliament on March 28, amends the following items. It amends the Income Tax Act and other legislation. It has provisions around the GST and the HST. A number of these are directly related, obviously, to the country's finances, but not all of them are, in my view.

The next part is “Amendments to the Excise Act, the Excise Act, 2001 and the Air Travellers Security Charge Act”. Of course, the Air Travellers Security Charge Act is a critical element of the country's finances. Obviously, it's important to consumers, but I'm not sure that it is part of a budget.

Division 1 of this legislation makes changes to the Excise Act and Excise Act, 2001 with regard to alcohol products. We know that's related to the automatic escalator provision that the Liberals imposed in the budget on all the libations that Canadians consume that have an escalator attached to inflation. We, as Conservatives, were demanding that the escalator be suspended or removed, and the government has changed its position and limited the increase to a mere 2%, so all of those increases that you saw on April 1 in a lot of our liquor boards across the country are thanks in part to this change.

Division 2 says, “Air Travellers Security Charge Act (Charge Rates)”.

Part 4, as it's put in, has various measures and amendments to the Bank Act and amendments to private sector pension plans.

Division 3, as it's called, has “Measures Related to Money Laundering and to Digital Assets and Other Measures”.

Division 4 is “Preferential Tariff Programs for Developing Countries”.

Division 5 is “Removal of Most-Favoured-Nation Tariff Treatment for Belarus and Russia”. I think that's something that's long overdue.

Division 6 is “Non-application of Sections 27 and 27.‍1 of the Bank of Canada Act”.

Division 7 says that this is making amendments. They're actually not amendments. Division 7 has to do with the creation of a brand new act called the Canada innovation corporation act, and that act has a whole bunch of provisions.

Normally, this would be a separate piece of legislation to go before Parliament so that it could be scrutinized on its own when you create a new multi-billion dollar Crown corporation, but apparently buried in this omnibus bill is a series of changes, or creation that includes everything from the designation of the minister, which I understand is the Minister of Industry.... “Continuation and status”, as they're called as part of this act, have been created by this.

It outlines every act of Parliament and the purpose and function of creating this Canada innovation corporation. It sets out the board, the chief executive officer and employee structures. It has what it calls miscellaneous provisions, restrictions on directives, disclosure of information to federal institutions and payments out of a consolidated revenue fund—because it wouldn't be a new Liberal program if it didn't have lots of taxpayer money going into it. There's a financial year and establishing that, requiring it to have quarterly financial reports and annual reports. It also has transitional plans, as every act of Parliament does that changes an existing act.

Division 8 is “Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act”, which amends the Canada Health Transfer.

Division 9 is “Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act”, which deals with equalization and territorial financing.

Division 10 is “Economic Sanctions”. Again, economic sanctions aren't necessarily what you would see as standard in a budget bill. Needless to say, we need upgrading to have more teeth in the ability to have more powerful economic sanctions against the rogue state Russia and its illegal war, but the budget bill is being used to make those changes, rather than a separate piece of legislation, which would be the norm.

Division 11 is “Privileges and Immunities (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Act”. Apparently, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, other than paying our fees, is a budget element. Generally, that act would be amended on its own.

This is why we call it an omnibus act. It's because it's amending lots of acts that have nothing to do with the country's finances. What they have to do is.... Since they were mentioned in a written document somewhere, that apparently justifies putting them in an act all together.

Division 12 says “Service Fees Act”.

There are amendments in division 13 to the Canada pension plan.

Division 14 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act, another act where you could do that separately under that act as a separate piece of legislation, not in a budget bill.

There are amendments to the Canada Labour Code. I know my colleagues will be shocked to learn that a budget bill is used to amend the labour code. It's an omnibus bill at a classic definition if there ever was one.

Not to be outdone by Canada Labour Code changes, division 16 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Of course, we all know that the Immigration and Refugee Act claims and refugee protection are always classic things included in a budget. We always think of the money in and the money out that a government spends and that amending the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is a critical part of whether or not the government balances its budget or not.

Division 17, again, not to be outdone by the previous one, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act claims and refugee protection, division 17 amends the same thing, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act sponsorship applications. Sponsoring immigrants is clearly not a budget item, but it's thrown in this act because it's mentioned in a written document tabled in the House.

Division 18 concerns the College of Immigration and Citizenship Consultants Act. Well, well, well, more amendments. More amendments to how we regulate and manage immigration consultants in our system. There is nothing to do with revenue in or revenue out, but that's apparently a budget item under this government.

Then it's amendments to the Citizenship Act. Yes, of course. What we say and how somebody gets sworn in as a citizen is always something that comes top of mind when we're talking about a budget.

Then there's the the Yukon Act, division 20.

Division 21 is the oceans protection plan; now we're going to have some fun. As members know, in addition to my afternoon and evening appearances at this committee, I sit more formally on the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and I'm the vice-chair of the industry committee. I was getting questions even earlier today about why speak to elvers? There are amendments here to the Oceans Act, which is clearly an issue the government seems to think merits budget attention.

Last time I checked, elvers... As a reminder for those who weren't here the other day, they're baby eels. They're not as cute as seals, but they're worth an awful lot more—help me here—$5,000 a kilogram they're sold for. We have massive amounts of poaching and illegal fishing going on, but the oceans protection plan is being amended here through a budget bill. It's not money in, money out, but yet more amendments to acts of Parliament unrelated to our financing.

As an aside, I got yet another email this morning from the elver fishermen complaining about the minister's statement yesterday that she thought that arresting and seizing 123 kilograms of elvers was great enforcement. That seizure of elvers represents one poacher's day on one river since the closure has happened, so it's not really great enforcement when there are thousands of poachers who have caught in some estimates over 10,000 kilograms of illegal elvers.

In fact, yesterday found in the Tusket River in Digby were 30 pounds of dead elvers because the rocket scientist who was poaching elvers didn't realize that things you take out of the ocean, if you want them to stay alive, actually have to stay in water. So that's sitting there. The information from the poacher was given to the RCMP, which was the context in which I was talking about elvers before, because we were dealing with a subamendment on the appearance of the public safety minister before this committee and how he should be held accountable for the fact that the police forces of Canada, the RCMP, are not enforcing the law on these issues.

I won't go on too much more on fisheries, although I note MP Beech is fascinated by everything, including the importance of our lobster fishery.

Division 22 is the Canada Transportation Act, which is yet more relevance that comes top of mind when I think of a budget.

Division 23 is air travel complaints. We know how important it is and how bad it's gotten for Canadians in terms of their air travel service and the growing complaints. It is a good thing that there are more provisions being put forward by the government to improve the ability of Canadians not only to get answers, but to get paid when airlines cancel their flights and do things that are against the interest of the consumer. That is a good thing, but air travel complaints should be a bill on its own. Because of its importance, it should not be buried in this massive omnibus bill.

The bill makes changes to the Customs Act. I know this is getting dizzying, but there are a few more pages of acts that are left here to read out.

There's the National Research Council Act. This is a granting council. Some of you may not know it gets a lot of money—$1.6 billion or $1.8 billion a year. An additional $1 billion was given to it in last year's budget. It makes amendment to the act of the National Research Council. You don't need to change the act of the National Research Council if you're simply giving it more money. If you are changing or altering its mandate and its role, this omnibus bill is making changes to that. It's not to the flow of money. The flow of money would be in a budget bill, but changes to the National Research Council in terms of its act and its mandate should be on its own in another act.

There are changes to the Patent Act. Wow, I always think of changing the Patent Act in a budget bill. I always think that's a money item. It is a money item for those who have patents or for those who are filing patents.

I checked through this. There have been studies by the industry committee recommending that this country and this government adopt a patent box. It's a preferential tax rate for those who have patents to encourage the development and ownership of intellectual property. When I checked through division 26, which is on the Patent Act, I did not see the government creating a patent box.

[An hon. member]

Really?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

No, I didn't. Unusually, I didn't see it spending more money. I saw just standard amendments.

Division 27 is on the Food and Drugs Act for natural health products. Again, there's no money in or out; it's not additional money. It's a change to an act of Parliament. This is why we call these omnibus bills, in spite of the objections from some.

Division 28 is Food and Drug Act amendments again. It's for cosmetic testing. I automatically think of cosmetic testing as an issue you would have in a budget bill since it involves whether or not we have a balanced budget. Oh, wait. No, it doesn't.

Division 29 is the "Dental Care Measures Act". There are a whole bunch of things in here. It's part of the costly coalition's agreement to have a dental care act. I'd say the fourth party in the House, who signs this NDP costly coalition, allowed itself to be sold short on this since, in essence, it's just a tax rebate. It's not actually a dental plan, as Canadians would come to think of it.

Division 31 is the "Royal Style and Titles Act". That always come to mind when I talk about a budget. In fact, my understanding on the royal style of the Royal Style and Titles Act 2023 is that this extensive budget measure that obviously is thought of as a key budget component puts a snowflake on the crown of the sovereign for his symbol in Canada.

I always think of snowflakes as uniquely Canadian. I don't think snowflakes are anywhere else. There are more pejorative terms that snowflake is used for. It might be a snowflake effort to make the crown more politically correct and woke, but I don't think putting a snowflake on the crown—on a printed crown, not on a real crown because it would melt; it's a symbol of a crown.... I always think of that as a budget item.

In the titles act, they changed the title to the “King” of some of the things that we grant the king in Canada.

We have a new king. I'm sure lots of Canadians watched the pageantry of Canada's head of state being crowned—an important period in time. There were no snowflakes in London, at the time—not that I could see falling. However, apparently, if you live in Minnesota, Colorado or Washington.... Maybe they have snowflakes, too, but apparently our government thinks it's unique to Canada and should therefore be put on the symbol of the Crown. Obviously, it's an essential budget item.

A BeaverTail could have been put on. Yes. There has been some debate by well-known Liberal Warren Kinsella this past weekend, on Twitter, about whether or not people should line up for BeaverTails, a style of deep-fried dough with sugar that is quintessential to Canadians, and quintessential to Ottawa, too.

An act respecting the Royal Style and Titles Act, 2023....I mentioned this.

Division 32 is the "Canada Growth Fund”. That's sort of an oxymoron. It's another one of these programs the government creates that have mediocre results. There's one, it seems.... I live in danger of fall economic statements and budgets. Every time there's a budget, there seems to be a need to create another multi-billion dollar agency that is as effective as the Infrastructure Bank, which, I understand, still hasn't made any significant contributions to Canada's infrastructure. The Canada Infrastructure Bank was supposed to attract all this private sector money.

The Canada growth fund is supposed to create yet another fund focused on.... Well, I don't think the minister quite knew, when she was before the Senate committee and was asked about it. She still doesn't know, but it will have its own act, its own fund, its own board, and lots of bureaucrats around to theoretically dole out Canadian money for some sort of growth. It's not quite clear, but maybe it's a growth in paper—a growth in the size of government, which we know has gone up by 80,000 people since 2015.

If you recall—those who tuned into my first intervention on this—in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, they have, in three years, grown from 10,000 to 15,000 people.