Finance Committee on May 25th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Lawrence, please go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It was my assumption and my belief that all of the parties were committed to 20 hours. As you said, Mr. Chair, we have had a good relationship in the past, so I was counting on that occurring. I certainly made it clear to MP Beech, among others, that 20 hours of testimony was what the Conservatives were expecting. While I certainly was surprised that there weren't meetings scheduled on Monday or even on Saturday or Sunday, which we certainly would have been more than willing to do, my assumption was simply that the chair was going to move back the clause-by-clause study so that we could hear more witness testimony. However, that is obviously not the case.

I would direct to the chair and the clerk that we are given a wide path in what we are able to talk about with respect to a motion. That's meant for, I believe, the very important and very good purpose of promoting democracy. I have certainly been on committees where I've heard Liberal members talk about varied subjects, to which I have patiently listened while perhaps pondering the relevance of the varied issues, but I would certainly never be one to silence the opposition. That's just not how democracy should work.

Quite frankly, I'll remind the members in government that they will not be in government forever, and if they wish to set this precedent, I suspect that it's not a good one for when they will be in opposition. However, that's up to them. The chair's ruling will certainly be on the record if in fact they chose to silence the opposition.

If you want, I am more than happy to talk off the cuff, as it were, with respect to the motion. The motion is, of course, to have an additional 10 hours of testimony.

I have to commend the chair and also the clerks on a terrific job well done. They were able to arrange, in I believe less than 24 hours, 10 hours of testimony, and I believe that could happen again. I know that all parties have provided lists that would more than fill the 10 hours of testimony. I believe that individuals and organizations have even written in. Certainly my inbox was full of individuals, organizations and groups wanting to testify before the finance committee to talk about their various issues and concerns. Ten hours, in my opinion, is just not enough.

I'm surprised that no one has talked about the pre-budget consultation we had, as that did provide the ability for many individuals to talk. The challenge is that those individuals didn't know what was going to be in the budget and weren't necessarily in a great position to provide commentary.

If we want to go back and rewrite history, the reality is that the reason this committee was stalled and stuck in some lengthy debates and discussions was that the deputy leader, Minister Freeland, would not agree to speak for two hours. It's not really my interest to relitigate this debate. However, because it's been brought up by Parliamentary Secretary Beech, among others, I think it's important to note that unfortunately the Minister of Finance has refused to come to committee on three separate occasions. We did not get the opportunity to listen to her testimony, so the Conservatives asked for her to speak for two hours at committee. That is by no means unprecedented. There have been many ministers of finance who have spoken for two hours or more. That seemed very reasonable.

I was actually really stunned by some of the testimony I heard in that short 10 hours. It certainly made me want to hear more. We heard from the food banks, for instance, that individuals at food banks were contemplating medical assistance in dying not because of an illness or injury but because of the status of their personal situation with respect to food and economics. I was absolutely shocked and disturbed when I heard the gentleman from the food banks say—his message to us was quite clear and crisp—that we should be terrified of the situation on the ground. That's a big word to use. I have to commend both individuals from the food banks. They gave some excellent testimony that made me want to hear more.

That testimony was validated, I would say, by the testimony of Philip Cross. Mr. Cross's testimony was extremely well spoken, articulate, intelligent and all based in fact. He said our GDP growth was the worst since the 1930s. Obviously I speak to constituents, so I know that times are tough. Many Canadians are experiencing the worst days of their lives right now. However, to go back to the Great Depression.... That is absolutely staggering. It's staggering.

Quite frankly, maybe that's why the Liberals don't want any more witness testimony. Maybe they've heard enough. Maybe that's why they're refusing to hear another 10 hours, which, at $490 billion, is $50 billion an hour. Surely our time is worth $50 billion an hour. More importantly, the cause of democracy is worth more than 10 hours of testimony.

If we go back to the beginning of this discussion, the Conservatives were clear: We wanted two hours with the Minister of Finance and 20 hours of witness testimony. That is by all means reasonable. In fact, the original motion had us hearing witness testimony on a Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and getting those full 20 hours in. However, that seemed to just evaporate.

As I said, the Conservatives agreed to work collaboratively and congenially. We were appreciative of the Minister of Finance staying for the extra half an hour. We appreciated her giving that additional time. It's unfortunate that she didn't provide any answers in that time, especially when I go back to the testimony elicited by my colleague Mr. Chambers, who asked very reasonable questions of the Minister of Finance.

Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I hear paper rattling. I don't know whether there's a microphone not on mute that should be on mute or otherwise. It's a bit distracting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Let's check for that.

No. It's not in this room, MP Lawrence.

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

Okay. My apologies. I'm pretty sure I heard something.

What we were talking about at the very beginning of this budget process—and Conservatives were clear—was that we wanted two things: 20 hours of testimony and two hours of Minister Freeland's time. We were hopeful that she would engage in a meaningful way and answer simple questions like what the total transfer payments for health were and what the interest payments were. She refused to answer those questions. At least she gave us an hour and 20 minutes or an hour and a half. I'm sure the clerk could tell us exactly how long she was here. We did appreciate her staying for the extra time, but we were still short on what we asked for, which was two hours. I still believe that is an incredibly reasonable request. However, we decided that we'd move ahead. One act of good faith needs to be repaid with another act of good faith, so let's carry forward.

We were certainly under the belief that we would have at least 20 hours of testimony before we would go to clause-by-clause. As I said, I know it's short notice, but the clerks were able to move mountains and get 10 hours in a couple of days, yet in the intervening four or five days, they weren't able to get any, which to me seems strange. As I said, it seems like resources are always there when it's in the Liberals' favour, but when it's not, those resources are not there.

What Conservatives wanted was just to hear more people speak, 10 more hours. This is not a wild request. We're not asking for months and months of debate, or years, or even days. We're asking for hours here. We're asking for 10 more hours of discussion.

I have to say, I think the testimony was really excellent, and there were high-quality discussions. I can't, for the life of me, think why anybody wouldn't want to hear more of those discussions. I go back to Mr. Cross when he was talking about the economic record of this government. It has presided over the lowest GDP growth numbers per capita since the Great Depression. If that's not disturbing, and if that doesn't wake people up and merit more discussion, I don't know what does. With the GDP, it's numbers and data, but it is what's driving the underlying issues that our country and many of us are facing. We heard that it's driving those food bank numbers and that the number of people who are employed and using food banks has doubled.

One of the other stats that were just shocking to me was that one in 20 people in Mississauga has to use food banks. Food banks are hopefully there to be of transitory assistance. Bad things can often happen to good people—issues can happen, or restructuring can happen with employers—and people doing all the right things can get side-swiped by some of the challenges of life. There's certainly no doubt about that. Thank you to all the charitable organizations, including food banks, that are there to help people who get side-swiped by some of life's misadventures and challenges.

However, what is just as troubling, or even more troubling than the transitory use of food banks, is that people who are locked into using them are employed right now. Usually, the solution to not having to rely on food banks and on charity is to obtain employment, but 30% of the people using food banks already have that employment. What is the solution for those people? Normally, the door or the escape hatch out of poverty is employment. Inflation and the cost of living are such that this no longer guarantees a ticket out.

Those issues are worsened by, as I was talking about in the report, the marginal effective tax rate, where we see that folks who are going to work will experience clawbacks and taxation equivalent to as much as 80¢ on the dollar.

If you're a person who's been side-swiped by one of the challenges of life, been pushed down by one of the terrible things that can happen in life—good people, bad events; bad things happen, as I said, every day to great people—your ladder back up economically is often employment, and now it's as if this government has cut that ladder. Nearly half—well, not nearly half but getting close to half—or at least a third of folks using food banks have that employment. They have gone up the first rung of that ladder, but they're still not out of poverty because this government's inflation agenda has driven the cost of living so high that even people with reasonable jobs or good employment are still in poverty. The math is out there. On clawbacks, you're giving up 50¢ per dollar.

As for rent, in my neck of the woods, in Cobourg and Port Hope, you can't find an apartment—if you can find any at all—for less than $2,000 a month. That means that if you're earning $50,000 a year—which used to be a good, solid wage in our country—already you have lost half of your income to housing.

We're then seeing food inflation creep up, and the cost of food is eroding that paycheque even further. Food inflation has been up 10% every month for the last eight or nine months. It's easy to spend $5,000 to $10,000 on food, especially if you're a family. Now you've gone from $24,000 to $34,000. The government has probably taken around $8,000 or $9,000—let's call it $10,000—so now we're up to $44,000 and all we have is a house and food, much less all of the other costs associated with life, such as clothing, transportation and other assorted fees.

Then the government decides—

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Confirmation, even on the chair...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Mrs. Roberts, you're not on mute.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Maybe that's where the paper was coming from, MP Lawrence.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead, MP Lawrence.

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

It could very well have been. That's some excellent detective work, Mr. Chair.

We have Canadians who are gainfully employed and who have done all the right things. It used to be that society had a deal with young people, and the deal went something like this: You either go to school or go right to working hard. You get some type of trade or ability to increase your economic value. You work hard. You make the right decisions. You make those sacrifices. You take on that student debt, if you're a student. You go out there, as a young person, and many work 50, 60, 70 or 80 hours to develop their trade or their profession. We know it's hard, and we know it's stressful. Not every boss is a great boss. We know the challenges that you will face, but here's the deal. If you're willing to make those sacrifices, if you're willing to work hard and if you're willing to put your work first and really give everything you can to a trade, a profession or a job, you will have rewards at the end of it. You'll be able to afford a house. You'll be able to raise a family. You'll be able to, maybe, take a vacation once a year.

That deal, according to one witness testimony, is broken. The deal is broken. Young people are working as hard as ever. They are making the right decisions. They are doing the best they can, but they're still ending up in their parents' basement because they can't afford a house. A down payment for housing...the cost of housing is through the roof.

We have a huge gap between the number of houses that are being built and what we need. Housing starts are nowhere near what we need to support the great people of Canada. We need to get rid of the gatekeepers, and we need to get housing built here in Canada. We are leaving many young people with the inability to get their house.

Housing prices—after a momentary dip, when interest rates were skyrocketing—have started to climb again. To get a reasonable house anywhere in an urban centre—or even in the rural areas, where I live—it's up near a million dollars, if not more than a million dollars. It used to be that a million dollars would buy you a mansion. Unfortunately, now, a million dollars buys just a normal house.

On down payments, if you want to put 10% down on a $1-million house, that's $100,000. We go back to that individual who's earning $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000. It's hard to stretch the paycheque just to make ends meet with that income these days, much less come up with an extra $100,000. Some studies have shown that it will take young people five, 10, 20 or 50 years to come up with just the down payment, and then they have to make their payments.

We already had inflation, which was high, and actually just ticked up again in the latest inflation report, and then we add interest rates. We have the cost of food increasing. We have the cost of heating increasing, and then we have the cost of housing.

The interesting part is that the government actually has a solution. It could, right now, if it wanted to, bring down inflation by 10%. That's not me saying that. That's Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He said that 0.4% of the inflation was the carbon tax. At 4% inflation or thereabouts, where we are, we would be able to reduce inflation by 10%. I think that would be a pretty huge accomplishment. All they have to do is walk in and say, “You know what? We're eliminating, or even just pausing, the carbon tax until inflation is under control. Until we have it within the desired range, we will eliminate the carbon tax.” It would be an immediate solution overnight.

As I said, that's not me saying that it would reduce inflation. That's Tiff Macklem, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who, once again, has been generous with his time. We don't always agree with his responses, but at least he has always been willing to come to our committee and talk about the situation.

Unfortunately, Minister Freeland has not. She has declined three invitations. She did come for an hour—I have to be fair about that—but we had asked her for two hours. She did stay a little bit extra. We appreciated that, but there are just so many witnesses. I'm sure that all these members share, as I do...the individuals who would want to come and testify before our committee.

What I would like to hear is with respect to some discussion of this government's war on work. We see effective tax rates that are increasing, higher and higher. Effective tax rates are over 50% for many low-income Canadians. As the C.D. Howe report said, marginal effective tax rates are often higher for low-income people and lower for high-income people, which would seem to be, out of fairness' sake, not the right direction for our country.

As I've said in the past in the House of Commons, I can't imagine how difficult it would be for an individual who has decided to return to work, whether they have children or whether they are a senior coming back to work, getting that first paycheque and seeing that through the marginal effective tax rate they're keeping less than 50% of what they earned. Imagine how dejecting it would be for someone who had worked a hard job, done the hard work and made all the right decisions to then have the government say, “Thanks. We're keeping more than half.”

We need to hear the testimony of these individuals. We need to hear about the marginal effective tax rates and explain what that means. I raised this issue in the House of Commons in question period. I brought the idea that many Canadians, low-income Canadians, are actually paying a marginal effective tax rate of over 50%. It was responded to with jeers of disbelief, if I might put it politely, on the other side. Clearly, there needs to be some education, because this is not me saying this. Eminent think tanks like the C.D. Howe Institute and the Fraser Institute have discussed this a number of times.

So I sit here in disbelief and await the hypocrisy we'll get from the other side when they are in opposition and they start raising the issues of democracy. I remember all the cries of the NDP about time allocation and closure and the need for democracy. That seems to have all faded away. It's pretty much inexplicable that anyone would think that 10 hours of witness testimony would be sufficient and that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance would only have to testify for an hour.

Democracy, I believe, demands that people have their voice, especially when this is not a small matter. This is a critical time. From Philip Cross we heard that we have the lowest rate of growth per GDP since the Great Depression. The cause of that is no doubt this government's inflation-fuelling deficit spending. What does this government decide to do? Well, there's more inflation-fuelling deficit spending. Even just since the introduction of the budget we've seen an increase in inflation. Sure, people say, “Well, the budget isn't in effect yet,” but of course markets and individuals act as much on expectations as they do on reality, so perhaps we already see the market baking into the inflation that this government will create here.

When we look at the importance of this budget, $490 billion is going to go out the door, and we're going to see an additional $60 billion in new spending, $40 billion in net new spending. We have what at best, I guess, you could call forecasts in which the government claims they will be reducing expenditures at some point in the future, but, by the way, those don't come into place until 2027 or 2028. Also, there are no plans as to how those reductions will be achieved. This would be, I think, fertile ground on which to hear expert witness testimony about how the savings could be generated and whether they're even viable or feasible at all.

When we look at this process, it's literally just 10 more hours of witness testimony that we want to hear. We have, in my opinion, some of the best and brightest minds from around the world who come to testify before us in the finance committee. Oftentimes, our panels are around five individuals representing a number of organizations, which represents to me about 50 individuals or so. That's 50 new perspectives that could be provided to this debate and to this discussion. We'll continue to have that discussion and that debate over witnesses to underscore the fact that there's a need to hear from these brilliant individuals.

Normally, some of the smartest women and men across our country are invited to these committee hearings, and surely they could add value. I don't understand how the Liberals could think that these individuals would not provide value to our committee, but obviously that's the case. Maybe, as I said, the concern is that they don't want to hear more from the food bank saying that this situation is terrifying, that people are asking for MAID because the situation is so bad, or that this is the worst economic time since the Great Depression. Maybe that's what the Liberals are afraid of hearing. For my part, I certainly would want to hear more testimony.

I believe that one of the areas we need to focus on is reducing the marginal effective tax rate for low-income Canadians. It simply is not right that high-income earners are paying less than low-income earners in terms of marginal effective tax rates.

With the chair's indulgence, I would like to share with you some highlights. I'm hoping MP Beech is okay with this. This is a table from “Commentary No. 632”. The heading is “Participation Tax Rates for a Stay-at-Home...Parent Contemplating Taking on Paid Work, by Province and by Number of Children”, so this is if someone wants to return to the workforce.

If you live in the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador and you have one child, your participation tax rate, which is the tax rate you'll face if you're a stay-at-home parent and you want to return to the workforce, is 38%. If you have two children, it is 46%. If you have three children, it is 54%. If we go to the great province of New Brunswick, the situation gets even worse: for one child, it's 42%; for two children, it's 49%; and for three children, it's 56%.

In the beautiful province of Quebec—La Belle Province—you'll see that with one child, your participation tax rate is 53%. This is from the C.D. Howe report. For two children, it's 60%, and for three children, it's 66%. That is incredibly high. If you are living in the wonderful, beautiful, fantastic province of Quebec and you're a mom or dad of three and you've been staying at home with the kids and now you want to return to work, you're going to keep 44¢ on every dollar. That doesn't include the costs of the carbon tax, HST and property tax. All of those government intrusions are in addition to this.

In my own province of Ontario, you'll see that the numbers are these: for one child, 40%; for two children, 54%; and for three children, 59%.

Now, what's really disappointing.... Maybe even stronger language such as “disturbing” could be referenced. My first example is that the first parent's income is $45,000 and the second parent gets a job for $20,000. Just to be clear, the first parent is already making $45,000. The stay-at-home parent now wants to return to work, and they want to make $20,000 a year. Those would be the effects.

The disturbing fact is in looking at higher income levels. Say the first parent's income is $120,000 and we're going to have the stay-at-home dad or mom come back to the workforce to make $50,000. Remember that in the first scenario the numbers were 38%, 46% and 54%. That's the low-income scenario. In the high-income scenario, it's 33%, 35% and 37%, in the great province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That's a shocking number. What a disincentive to work it is when the government is taking more than 50¢ on every dollar.

Let's go back to the beautiful province of Quebec. Once again, the first parent's income is $45,000. The second parent says they're ready to go back to the workforce and they're going to make $20,000 a year. In Quebec, that individual would face tax rates of 53%, 60% and 66%. If the first parent who's working outside the home right now is making $120,000 and the second parent who wants to return to the workforce is expecting to make $50,000, those numbers drop from 53% to 37%, from 60% to 40%, and from 66% to 45%.

This is clearly an inequity in the tax system. It is a disincentive, and it's discouragement. It's the appropriation of money from the most vulnerable in our communities, from those who quite frankly are doing all of the right things. Like all Canadians, they're incredibly hard-working and are getting back to work and making investments to get that great job, and then the government is saying, “Thank you very much; we're going to take more than 50¢ on the dollar.”

It's heightening an economic challenge that we have on the macro scale of things as well. We heard testimony on tourism and hospitality from Ms. Grynol, and I think she said that the pre-eminent challenge that hotels and other tourist-related businesses are facing is labour shortage. Perhaps that's not shocking, given the barriers that this government is putting in the way of people working—the disincentives they're putting in place.

A great relief valve to the labour shortage would be the return to work of seniors who have retired and who may want to return to work, whether it's out of necessity or just wanting to make sure that they have additional security, or maybe they want to do something extra for their grandchildren. Low-income seniors are often facing marginal effective tax rates of over 50%. Not only is it incredibly unfair to our lowest-income workers—many of them seniors, many of them parents—but it's also hurting our economy.

In my own riding, in the town of Cobourg, one of the hoteliers told me that they have overwhelming demand. Their challenge is that they simply don't have the labour, so they cannot sell out all of their rooms because they don't have the support people necessary to run the hotel.

Mr. Chair, could you tell me who's next on the speaking list?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Next is PS Beech.

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

Thank you very much.

I appreciate that, and I look forward to his remarks.

An interesting statistic is the impact of the participation tax rate, inclusive, when we look at the expenses overall in a household and the cost that it generates for families. If we actually look at the share of families with children by marginal effective tax rates from 1985 to 2022, according to this report, we see that a larger and larger portion of this tax burden—

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Chambers, go ahead.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to confirm this. Could you reconcile your speaking list with the clerk? I just want to make sure there's no misinterpretation of who's next. I believe Mr. Morantz and I had our hands up. I just want to give you a moment to confirm with the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chambers.

Just before that point of order, I did.

It is PS Beech, MP Lawrence, MP Morantz and MP Chambers.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You're welcome.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm normally in the committee room. Post-COVID, I rarely do it virtually, but as this is a constituency week, I am back in the great city of Cobourg. Just for clarity, how does the recognition happen? Is it the first person with their hand up? Is there preference given to those in the room, or is it just the eye of the chair? What are the rules on that, if you'd be kind enough to share?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Lawrence, I do my best to put the order in as it should be, and that is based on what I see in the room and as I look to the screen.

As I see it, next we have PS Beech, MP Lawrence, MP Morantz and then MP Chambers.

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

Okay. It was just a point of clarity. So, as it catches your eye, whether it be virtually or in the committee room, the person who gets there will get there first. That's fine, and that's fair.

I want to talk a little bit about the share of the stay-at-home parents' participation tax rate. Before 1985, there were nearly zero individuals who paid more than 50%. In fact, in 2010, it was still a very small percentage; it was less than 10%, by my read of this graph. However, as we get to 2022, that number dramatically increases. We've seen an increase and a creep-up of the marginal effective tax rates for lower-income workers. As I said, this can often be more than 50%. On occasion, it can be greater than 80% for low-income earners, meaning they only get to keep 20¢ on every dollar they earn, which is incredibly disappointing and also incredibly demotivating to Canadians who are simply trying to go out there and work hard. It also has real challenges for us as we face a labour challenge. We should be doing everything we can to incentivize work. Instead, we are disincentivizing it.

As a country.... The Liberal government should be out there saying that it supports those who are going to work and trying to improve their lot. I believe the Prime Minister says, “the middle class and those [aspiring] to join it.” To those folks who are trying to join the middle class, we should be giving every handout; we shouldn't be slapping their hands as they try to climb up the economic ladder, which is, metaphorically, what is happening right now.

The marginal effective tax rate is driving people back into poverty. This is seen by the food bank usage. As we heard, the situation is “disturbing”. Many food banks have seen a double or even triple usage compared to pre-COVID levels. As the government takes a larger and larger share of Canadians' earnings, we throttle down; we take out the productivity and innovation of our economy. Of course, we are forecasted to have some of the lowest economic growth in the OECD going to 2060. We are also forecasted to be dead last in capital investment. We need private capital to drive innovation to grow our economy, and unfortunately we are not looking good on that front according to the OECD. It's extremely challenging.

Why is this important, Mr. Chair? Well, this is important because productivity drives our economy, which drives our standard of living. When productivity decreases, growth rates decrease, and when productivity and growth both decline, it's the most vulnerable who often pay the highest price, as is the case with inflation. When inflation goes up, the wealthy may be inconvenienced, but it's the most vulnerable who have to go to food banks. It's the cost of inflation. It's deficit-fuelled inflation fuelling spending that is driving Canada deeper and deeper into debt.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, we need to hear expert testimony on this. We need to understand—to an even greater extent than we do—what the impact of this deficit spending will be. We have seen that the marginal effective tax rate is a substantial weight or anchor on our economy.

I'll give you an example of the impact of the marginal effective tax rate.

Mom and dad each earn $30,000, for a total family income of $60,000. On the one hand, they pay $7,668 in combined federal income taxes and contributions—employment insurance (EI) and Canada Pension Plan (CPP)—and $1,729 in Alberta taxes and contributions, for a total payment of $9,397.... The total of benefits received minus taxes and contributions paid yields an initial family disposable income of $62,900.

Mom considers working overtime one month to earn an extra $500. As a result, family benefits would decrease by $99 while federal and provincial taxes and contributions would increase by $152, and the family’s disposable income would increase by $249...rather than by the full $500 [that she rightfully earned].

The family's marginal effective tax rate would round out to 50%. That's income earners, earning $30,000 each, giving over 50¢ on the dollar back to the government.

To earn that $500, the reality is that there were probably other expenses that had to be incurred along the way. There were probably additional transportation expenses. If this individual needs to take public transportation, there's the cost of that. If they own a car, there's gasoline and wear and tear on the vehicle. Then there are additional expenses with respect to child care, perhaps. Maybe she's working in the evening. That $249 could easily be eroded.

That's why many Canadians are feeling like everything in Canada is broken. For many Canadians, and I've heard this from Canadian after Canadian, it feels like work doesn't pay anymore here in Canada. We need to dispel that notion. We need to celebrate work. We need to incentivize work. We need to get that deal back, that broken deal that says if you work hard and make the right decisions here, you're going to be rewarded. You're going to be able to afford a house. You're going to have a little extra money to save for retirement. You're going to have a little bit of extra money even to go and have a vacation. You're going to be able to afford the basic necessities and not worry about making your bill payments at the end of the month.

Canada, more than ever, needs its entrepreneurs, its workers, to power our economy through. Unfortunately, this Liberal government is putting in barrier after barrier after barrier.

I'll give you another example of how this government is putting in barriers that are preventing Canadians from achieving their full potential. In this scenario, mom earns $30,000 and dad stays at home, for a total family income of $30,000. Mom pays $1,985 in federal income tax and contributions to EI and CPP, with no Alberta income tax, for a total payment of $1,985. The family also receives government benefits. The total benefits received, minus taxes and contributions paid, are $49,555.

Dad says he's considering returning to the workforce. He has an offer. He's excited to return to the workforce. He's going to be earning $30,000 a year. The family's disposable income, instead of increasing by that $30,000, would increase by only $13,350, reflecting the loss of federal benefits, provincial benefits and the rise in federal and provincial income tax. That means that his participation tax rate is 56%. That's for someone earning $30,000 a year. Man, that is brutal, especially when you consider the additional costs that may be necessary to return to work. Maybe he required some additional training and there were costs with respect to that education. Maybe there was a second car required if they live in a rural area. Now we may have actually put them behind the eight ball.

The reality is that the majority of stay-at-home parents are moms and some of them certainly want to continue doing this. Others want to return to the workforce. For those who want to return to the workforce, we should not be subjecting them to marginal participation tax rates in excess of 50%. These are women who have decided that they want to return to the workforce, and the government is all but stopping them by taking more than 50¢ on every dollar that they earn. These issues are incredibly challenging.

We'll continue to talk about the government's war on work. Quite frankly, I was looking forward to many of the witnesses testifying about that. Those who have been paying attention to my questioning would see that this is a repeated theme, and it will continue to be a repeated theme that I ask questions about.

If we were to reduce the marginal effective tax rate, particularly on low-income earners, that would alleviate a number of issues. It would give individuals more money to spend on food. It would also give them more money for rent and allow them to be in a better financial situation. It would, potentially, motivate more individuals to return to the workforce and ease our labour shortage. It only makes sense that the more we pay people, the more they would be willing to work. In this case, we are paying people less and less in net dollars.

Mr. Cross had great comments on this when he talked about the fact that Canadians are increasingly feeling like work doesn't pay in our country. You can see where that notion would come from. When the government is taking 50¢ on the dollar, work is certainly paying less than it has in the past. We have seen the marginal effective tax rate increase steadily under the Liberal government. Its war on work continues. We actually saw this a little bit with COVID benefits: If you earned $1,001, you got zero dollars, whereas if you earned $999, you got $2,000 of benefits. It's these types of cliffs that we need to avoid.

There are a number of different ways of looking at this. One is to potentially reduce income taxes on low-income earners. That might be an area of fertile discussion. Another would be to reduce the rate of clawbacks on low-income earners. That might be a good area to have discussion on. There is also the ability to increase the exemptions when clawbacks start or when income tax starts. I think these are all excellent and fertile areas for potential discussion.

However, doing nothing is simply not an answer. I just don't know how members of the Liberal government can look someone in the eye who is earning less than $30,000 and say, “Yes, we're taking 50¢ on every dollar you earn, sorry about that, so sad, too bad.” To me, that's unconscionable. What we need to see is reform, in some shape or form, so that people earning under $50,000 a year are not paying more than 50% of their money in taxes. We need to see paycheques go further.

You know, the government is certainly quick at grabbing money. They take more money; they take it; they take it, whether it be in carbon tax, income tax, this tax, that tax or any other tax. Sometimes, they'll point out that, yes, we give back this money. There is their famous GST rebate, with the marketing gimmick of calling it a “grocery rebate”, when it was simply the doubling of the GST.

They're certainly great at marketing. There's no doubt about that. Where they fall down is with respect to substance. Instead of taking all this money to Ottawa and then giving back little dribs and drabs of it, why would they not just leave it in the pockets of Canadians?

I had a private member's bill, Bill S-216—which has since been carried forward by Ben Lobb—that sought to give an exemption from the carbon tax to farmers for propane and natural gas. The government first said, “No, this isn't an issue. It isn't an issue. No way. This isn't actually costing farmers tons of money, Philip. You're all wet.” Then when organization after organization came out to say it actually was a problem and was costing the average farmer thousands of dollars in carbon tax paid in excess of their rebate, they came up with their own half-baked solution of providing a credit and a rebate system whereby they would take the money and distribute it as they saw fit. If you did the right thing here and the right thing there, the government would give you some of your carbon tax dollars back.

That is not how Conservatives work. In fact, I had an exchange with the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance that I think was incredibly illustrative of the difference between Liberals and Conservatives. I asked her about the dire situations in food banks, and she went on—I believe with 100% sincerity—talking about some of the challenges in her own local food bank and how the financial position many Canadians were in broke her heart. I believe she was absolutely sincere and I want that clear and on the record. Then she went on and said, “I wish we could give them all cheques.” That is the difference between Liberals and Conservatives: Liberals want to take people's money and give them cheques, while Conservatives want people to have economic independence to the extent that they never need a government cheque. It is that difference that very much defines the difference between the Liberals and Conservatives. That Liberal policy of taking money to give to others has never succeeded. No country has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

Winston Churchill described this strategy as a man standing in a bucket and pulling up on the handle to try to bring himself up. Clearly, the visual of that is exactly what it means, because you can't grow an economy by taking money out of the economy. That just doesn't make sense. When we take more and more and more money out of the economy, we inhibit the ability of Canada and Canadians to compete on the world stage.

In the U.S., they don't have a carbon tax. Businesses don't have to worry about a carbon tax. We actually heard in witness testimony here—and it would be great to hear another 10 hours of this—from the CFIB about the impact of the carbon tax on Canadian small business. Small business owners, farmers and rural Canadians are paying a disproportionate amount of the carbon tax. In many cases, they're paying thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars over and above any rebate they would have received. This is incredibly inequitable and unfair, and it's another weight on Canadian businesses.

Canadian businesses need to be lifted right at this time. Right now, our productivity numbers forecasted by the OECD, our capital investment numbers forecasted by the OECD and our economic growth numbers per capita forecasted by the OECD are not a pretty picture.

The Liberal government, if it was serious about increasing prosperity for all Canadians—and perhaps I might say, most importantly, those who are most vulnerable—would have been serious about growing the productivity of our country and eliminating barriers to success.

Unfortunately, this budget was more of the same, which will just increase the barriers to success and make it incredibly challenging.

The great news is that Canadian entrepreneurs, Canadian business owners and Canadian workers are so tough that I think in spite of nearly anything this government throws at them, they will keep going.

To them, I say, “Thank you.” I mean that sincerely. Thank you to all the workers, to the business owners out there who are working 50, 60, 70 or 80 hours a week, only to see 50% to 60% of those efforts get appropriated by the federal government, which has an insatiable appetite for revenue.

Revenue grew incredibly post COVID, because of inflation. Millions and billions of additional revenue dollars were flooding into the coffers of the treasury, and the economic situation, because of the recovery from COVID, was good.

Keynesian economics would tell you that now's the time to save for the next challenge, but what does this government do? It continues to spend, spend, spend. Tax and spend—those are the only two economic solutions this government knows. If it sees an issue, it has two solutions: Tax it or spend money on it.

What this government needs is competent policy. We need effective tax reform. We need effective legislation to protect Canadian intellectual property. Unfortunately, all this government sees are two words: “tax” and “spend”.

There's a famous Ronald Reagan quote that says that when a Liberal sees something move, they tax it. He said, “If it keeps moving, [they] regulate it; and if it stops moving, [they] subsidize it.” That can really sum up the government's, the Liberals' economic policy. All they see is tax, tax, tax, and spend, spend, spend.

I would love to hear more witnesses testimony about what would be required to bridge the productivity and innovation gap that Canada is currently facing. Many of our OECD peer nations are moving further and further ahead of us when it comes to productivity, innovation and capital investment.

All those things are incredibly important. Productivity is really the standard of living of the nation. If a country can produce more goods more efficiently, its standard of living will go up. That benefit, if done right, should disproportionately help the most vulnerable, which is what I think we would all like to see and accomplish.

When I heard the Minister of Finance talk about how it broke her heart to see the individuals at her local food bank, well, how we fix that, how we solve that, is by making life easier by driving up productivity. When a country can make more goods, there is more prosperity by definition. Unfortunately, especially relative to many of our G7 or OECD peers, we are falling further and further behind.

I would love to hear witness testimony with respect to the budget implementation act that talks about, specifically, what this government could have done to enhance productivity; or if there are things in the budget implementation act that would increase productivity, I'd like to hear that too. I did not see any. All I saw was more tax and spend.

This is a serious issue. If we don't get this right—if we aren't able to fix the course of our productivity, of our capital investment and of our innovation gap—we will suffer for a generation, because we need to make those capital investments now to fuel our economy for the next 10, 20, 30 or 40 years.

When we make capital investments, when we invest in innovation, intellectual property or equipment, that equipment will make us more efficient and more effective, and will grow our standard of living.

The only driver of the economy is the private sector, and I would have loved to hear an additional 10 hours on how we could grow the economy. We heard the Minister of Finance and deputy leader talk about this. I believe she referred to it as Canada's “Achilles heel” that our productivity was not growing.

I think most of the members would agree—the numbers are in black and white—that our productivity numbers are challenging at best. The government has to have all hands on deck to do everything it can to enhance the productivity of our businesses and of our government, too.

There are a number of substantive issues that we could be hearing about right now with respect to the economy and the budget implementation act, but unfortunately, that wasn't the direction. Conservatives wanted to work collaboratively, in the spirit of democracy, to get this process on the road, as it were, in order to.... All we needed was to have the deputy leader and Minister of Finance for two hours and to have 20 hours of testimony.

I don't know why the Liberals want to make things so difficult for Canadians just to simply get the facts and understand the reality of the budget. It's almost as if they're allergic to transparency and are trying to avoid it, either through a lack of testimony from the Minister of Finance or through a lack of witness testimony.

If I were in government, I'm not sure I'd want to hear their track record over and over again. The worst economy since the 1930s.... Holy mackerel, those are some pretty astounding words. Then there was food bank usage doubling or even tripling.... Wow. The testimony we heard was just breathtaking. There was the CFIB, which talked about the impact of the carbon tax, its barrier to small business success and the disproportionate cost to our farmers and to our small business owners. Maybe that's why they've attempted to muzzle witnesses and remove their ability to testify through limiting the amount of debate and discussion.

It's not too late. We could push back the clause-by-clause if we got unanimous consent. They could just say, “Hey, we made a mistake. We realize the importance of witness testimony, and we want to support democracy. Let's just push the date back—I don't know, maybe a week—to June 6 or thereabouts. We could get the witness testimony, which would give Canadians the right to say their piece and would give parliamentarians the ability to review and analyze the data. Unfortunately, that's not the direction this government has set.

I was, for my part, more than willing to work on Saturday, Sunday and Monday, and, of course, I was more than willing and able to be there for Tuesday and Wednesday as well. As I said, I have great appreciation for the work the clerks do in arranging for speakers. The great news, too, is that it wouldn't necessarily necessitate travel to Ottawa in these extraordinary circumstances. I'm certainly more than happy to hear witnesses virtually. Ten hours more is just a couple of five-hour meetings, and we could be all done.

Candidly, I think the reality is that when a government spends $490 billion, there should be much more than even 20 hours of testimony on these very important issues. These issues affect millions and millions of people, and they will have a profound impact on our economy by putting greater and greater debt on our children and grandchildren, and even on our great-grandchildren.

I just don't think it's unreasonable to have 20 hours of witness testimony, especially when you hear some of the testimony that the finance committee has had the privilege of listening to.

The testimony of a couple comes to mind. One was the CFIB. It was a pleasure to hear some of the testimony with respect to the impact of the carbon tax on small business owners and how it disproportionately affects small business owners. Some taxpayers are paying tens of thousands of dollars in carbon tax.

Now we have the carbon tax two coming into place. I notice the clean fuel standards. The impact that will have.... So far, carbon tax one has led to meeting absolutely zero emission targets. That's not from me. That's from the commissioner of the environment. I heard that while I was at public accounts. At the same time, it has made the economy less competitive. I think that is an objective fact. It has also driven up inflation, according to Tiff Macklem of the Bank of Canada. Roughly 10% of today's inflation is because of the carbon tax.

The Liberal solution to this is to bring another carbon tax in place. If one wasn't hurting Canadians enough by driving up the cost of eating and heating, if it wasn't enough that it was hurting Canadian competitiveness, and if its ineffectiveness at hitting any emission standards wasn't clear enough, let's put in a second carbon tax. It's one that will, no doubt, be equally as effective at achieving emissions targets—which is not at all. It has a zero batting average, as it were.

It also drives up the cost of living. In addition to driving up the cost of living, it makes Canadian businesses less competitive, both at home and abroad.

It's estimated—and many farming organizations say this—that between the two carbon taxes, the cost to the average farmer could be driven up to thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars.

We see the storm on the horizon. Even the Minister of Finance has acknowledged it. Canada has a huge challenge with respect to productivity. However, while they acknowledge the storm is coming, they refuse to take any steps to shield the Canadian public from it. They refuse to help Canadians invest in their economies by reducing the burden.

Excuse me, interpreters. I have to cough. I apologize to the interpreters.

What we should be doing is taking an all hands on deck approach. All parliamentarians should be putting their heads together to come up with the best ideas to solve the productivity gap. This is, as Minister Freeland said, Canada's Achilles heel. We have a huge challenge. This Achilles heel could stand to reduce, if not resolve, standards of living across our great country.

I would certainly love to be hearing witness testimony today about the productivity gap and the decisions legislators and lawmakers could make—provincially, federally and municipally—to drive up our productivity numbers and drive our economic growth.

Having the worst economic numbers in the GDP per capita since the 1930s should serve as a wake-up call. We are not going in the right direction economically. In fact, we are driving toward a cliff. Yes, I am sorry if it saddens the Liberals. We aren't pushing the accelerator. We want to stop this car and turn it around.

We believe that Canada should not be at the bottom of the pack, when it comes to it. Canada should be leading with respect to productivity. We have the hardest workers and the best minds in all the world here in Canada. What's holding them back? I'd put a Canadian scientist against any scientist in Germany or Switzerland or the United States. I'd put a Canadian engineer against any engineer in the world, whether they be in Ireland or Singapore or Japan. I believe we have the best and brightest individuals. I'd put our tradespeople up against tradespeople from around the world.

The problem is not the Canadian people. We have some of the best and the brightest. We also have some of the best post-secondary education institutions in the country, which have helped drive innovation across our country. We have all these wonderful seeds.

What else do we have? We're blessed. We're blessed by having some of the most bountiful natural resources in the world. Many of the natural resources or minerals or other resources that will be required to fuel the economy of tomorrow are located right here in Canada. Whether it be the nuclear industry, the electric battery industry or other industries, many of those critical minerals are located right here in Canada.

We have all the ingredients. We have all the ingredients for success. The challenge is the federal government's inability to create a framework, whether it be for the creation and protection of intellectual property or for the exploration of our natural resources, which is necessarily protective of environmental and workers' rights but at the same time balances our need for growth and productivity. This government seems to fail at both.

Life is increasingly hard for workers, for Canadians. As I said, the number of employed individuals going to food banks has doubled. Our productivity numbers are near the bottom of the OECD. For innovation, we're near the bottom of the OECD. We're forecasted by the OECD to have the worst economic growth going into 2060.

Today we're not even.... Today's discussion, or the motion, is not even necessarily about the substance of that. It's just about hearing more testimony. It's about getting more expert opinion, getting more thought, getting more comment and getting more discussion on the record from some of the best and brightest minds. For goodness' sake, the government needs it. Look where we are: food bank usage doubled, one of the lowest productivities, one of the lowest innovation numbers, one of the lowest GDP per capita, and the worst GDP per capita in our country since the 1930s. If that doesn't cry out....

All we're asking for at this point is just to hear some more experts. Often you'll hear the Liberals say, “We'll take no lessons from the Conservatives,” but if not from us, then please, please, please—I mean this sincerely—listen to the experts out there. Listen to the scientists. Listen to the engineers. Listen to the economists. It's wake-up time, guys. The economy is struggling. We are in an incredibly difficult economic position. Our inflation numbers are still high. Economic growth is decreasing.

In fact, the finance minister will talk about the last quarter having positive economic growth. That's true, but the problem is that most of that growth was left over from the preceding year and just spilled into January. In fact, the numbers in March show a very different story that's indicative of an economy in decline.

In the near term, we are facing a cost of living crisis, a housing crisis and rising inflation rates, with the highest interest rates in 40 years. In the mid to long term, we're facing productivity numbers that put us near the bottom of the pack. Innovation numbers, such as patents registered, etc., put us near the the bottom of the pack.

As well, economic growth and capital investment numbers are once again near the bottom of the OECD, and per capita GDP growth is the worst since the 1930s. To me, if I'm a government member, I want to hear every opinion I can, because clearly they don't have it right. They have not figured it out. They've been in power for eight years, and this is the record we have to show for it: the worst economic growth rate since the 1930s; falling productivity numbers; falling capital investment numbers; housing costs that are incredibly high; and food inflation over 10% for the last eight or nine months.

I think this government has some lessons it needs to learn, quite frankly, and I think this Minister of Finance has some lessons that she needs to learn. Not only would I encourage this government to take another 10 hours of testimony, but I would encourage the Minister of Finance to listen to that and to maybe take some advice from some of the great people who would be testifying.

I have to tell you, Mr. Chair, that there are many blessings to being a member of Parliament, and it is an absolute honour and privilege, but one of the greatest privileges that I believe I have is actually sitting on committees. You will not see me just on the finance committee: I will often sub in for various committees, because it's an incredible privilege to listen to some of the witness testimony. I learn something new—and I think I improve my own journey—nearly every time I sit at a committee and listen to witnesses.

I've been on committees as varied as justice, foreign affairs, finance and public accounts, and in many of these, I've heard very interesting testimony. I always try to keep an open mind when understanding and reviewing that, to improve our ability to be legislators. The more we can deepen our understanding of legislation through listening to witnesses and witness testimony, the stronger—and in a better position—I think we are.

We make decisions. This budget implementation act will affect not just Canadians right now, the 37,000,000-plus Canadians who are out there right now. It will affect Canadians who have not even been born yet, if for no other reason than they will be paying back the debts and deficits this government has incurred. We now have a national debt cresting towards $1.3 trillion, a deficit that's forecast to go as far as the eye can see, this despite the fact that the Minister of Finance said she would maintain the debt-to-GDP ratio, that it would not increase. This was the “line” that she would “not cross” under any scenario. Then, less than six months later, guess what? The debt-to-GDP ratio is going up.

Liberals would say, well, it's only for one year, so relax—we'll get it under control. The reality is, the government can really only plan for one year, and then a new budget will come into place. My bet, and perhaps you can capture this on the record—I would love to be wrong about this—is that the debt-to-GDP ratio does not go down in future years as forecast by the Minister of Finance. My bet is that this will be another broken promise.

What do I base that on? Well, a series of broken promises along the way....

Of course, the Liberals promised to balance the budget after their spending spree. They didn't, and in fact the deficits kept rising and rising. Then, of course, we had COVID and some of that to support. Of course, Conservatives supported that, and we understand that some of it was necessary, but there were also hundreds of billions of dollars spent during that time that had nothing to do with COVID and that drove up inflation and put us in the precarious situation that we are in right now.

I just don't understand how, in six months, the Minister of Finance went from saying, “Hey, we're going to balance the budget in five years,” to, “We're going to have deficits for as far as the eye can see, for years and years to come.” What changed in that time? These are questions I would have loved to ask the Minister of Finance.

I could show you, Mr. Chair, my list of questions. My next ones are with respect to productivity, because I really believe that productivity—and our productivity gap—is a substantive issue for the Canadian economy. It's one that, if we don't get it fixed—if we aren't a leader in productivity—can have significant economic challenges for us for a generation. We need to make sure we are growing the economy. Growth is absolutely critical, especially when...and growth per capita. We need to make sure Canada is getting wealthier for every individual, and it's particularly important with regard to the most vulnerable.

Instead, what are we doing? We're lowering productivity, which means there is a smaller pie for everyone to share. Then, as the pie shrinks—or doesn't grow as fast, perhaps, is more accurate—the government is taking an ever-bigger piece. The government started out with the carbon tax. Now there are going to be two carbon taxes. It started with, I believe, $15 per tonne. Now it's going up to $300 per tonne—I believe that's the plan with respect to the carbon tax.

The Income Tax Act.... Income tax was brought in as a temporary measure. “We just need to fund World War I, and then the income tax will go away,” or so the story went. Unfortunately, though, the income tax is still with us, and it's ever more prevalent. You can see that with respect to the marginal effective tax rate and the participation tax rate, which are disproportionately impacting.... Those who can afford to pay the least are paying the most. The idea that someone earning $30,000 a year would have to fork back 50 cents on the dollar to the government makes your head spin.

In fact, I have repeated this to many Liberals. I obviously won't mention any names, because that would be telling tales out of school, and I respect my colleagues too much to do that. However, at first they don't believe me when I tell them there are low-income earners who are facing a marginal effective tax rate of over 50%. Then I show them the numbers and the excellent work the C.D. Howe Institute has done, and they're surprised. Of course, their silence is often the recognition of guilt. I think they see.... They realize that something's not right. Of course, they're not going to come out and say that to me.

Like I said, I would defy one of the Liberal members to walk up to a single parent and say, “Yes, we know that if you want to return to work, we're going to take 50 cents on every dollar from you, but that's how we think it should be,” or walk up to a low-income senior and say, “Yes, ma'am, I know you want to return to work because the cost of living has been driven so high that you can no longer afford rent or food, and we thank you for returning to the labour force. However, we are going to take 50 cents, 60 cents or 70 cents on every dollar you earn, because we believe that's how it should be.” To me...I don't understand it.

You know, I've raised this in the House of Commons. At every committee meeting, I bring up the marginal effective tax rate, because I think it is such a substantive issue. I've yet to actually hear any attempt to rebut this, other than the occasional jeer across the hall in the House of Commons, saying, “No, this can't be true. That's ridiculous. That's laughable.” That's the only thing I hear. When we actually go through and.... I have to say “hats off” to one of the Liberal members, who came in after jeering me and said, “I want to understand this issue.” We sat down and talked about it, and he said, “Okay, you're right.” I hope there are more Liberal members who are aware of the marginal effective tax rate.

I'm certainly open to a non-partisan discussion about this. I believe that no one wants to purposely discourage work and that all members of the House of Commons want to see Canadians succeed and prosper. We need to resolve this issue and fix some knowledge gaps that exist. I realize that not everyone enjoys tax policy as much as I do, so maybe this isn't an area of interest or study for them.

It's incredibly important and incredibly powerful, because when you have high marginal effective tax rates, not only do you take the dollars and cents, but those dollars and cents are also associated with a sense of self-worth. If you don't believe me, for those of you who have children, when they reach adulthood and receive their first paycheque, look at them when they make that first paycheque. It could be mowing a lawn or washing dishes, as I did many years ago, but it's the feeling of self-worth that comes from work and making a contribution. There is all sorts of different work, from being a rocket scientist to being a neurosurgeon to working in whatever field you want, from being a pipe fitter to being a carpenter, but the value it gives to people cannot be discounted.

When the government says to someone that it is taking 50% of the value of that work, imagine that. If someone works for 40 hours and is left with only 20 hours' worth of their work, one out of two of their hours of work is being taken by the government. What an impact that must have, especially on those who are struggling to get by. Imagine that individual who can barely afford to pay their rent. Instead of their paycheque reading $1,000, it reads $500, and now they can't afford their rent. If they just had that extra $500 back, they might be able to make that rent; they might be able to pay for the groceries at the end of the month instead of going to a food bank.

The government—and I don't think these words are too strong to use—is literally driving Canadians into poverty with its high rate of marginal effective tax rates. The government has three ways of raising revenue, Mr. Chair, and it has employed all three ways to nearly the fullest extent possible. One is direct taxation, and with that we've seen dramatic increases in the marginal effective tax rates. We've seen the introduction of new small business taxes. We've seen the carbon tax and now the second carbon tax. Those are all direct ways of getting revenue.

The other way is through inflation. We saw that government revenues went through the roof when inflation occurred. Quite frankly, this is the oldest trick in the book. In fact, there is a term you may have heard, which is coin clipping. It dates back to the Roman Empire. When the Roman government ran out of money because it had overspent on whatever, it came up with a brilliant idea. It would reduce the amount of silver or precious metals in the coins, and that way it would have twice as much money to spend. Of course, what happened was that the government was initially able to collect a lot more goods, because it hadn't yet flooded the system with cash.

It takes a little while for inflation to kick into the system, so those who get the money first benefit the most.

Who had the money first? The federal government and the Canadian banks did. They've benefited the most from inflation, so the government has utilized inflation to its maximum benefit.

The other tool, which is really related to the other two, is deficit or debt spending. What this is doing is kicking the can down the street. Eventually, it will have to collect that revenue, either through inflation or through taxation.

When the government does that, the more it takes out of the private sector, the harder it is for the private sector to thrive. When we have an economy that is growing, perhaps the increase in government taxation can be handled by the private sector, and it will not have the type of deleterious impacts that we're currently experiencing.

Right now, that's not the situation. In fact, the economy is slowing, inflation is increasing, the deficit is increasing, debt is increasing, our productivity numbers are suffering and our innovation numbers are suffering, as are our capital investments and our productivity. As Mr. Cross said, we have the worst economic growth—GDP per capita, to be precise—since the Great Depression in the 1930s.

What's the government's solution to that? Is it to inspire, encourage, innovate or look itself in the mirror and ask how this federal government can be more effective at delivering services to help businesses?

The bureaucracy has not been given the resources it needs to succeed. We saw this with the Phoenix pay system. It was an absolute debacle. It was a disaster.

We saw this during the pandemic, as well, when the government agencies were able to get cheques out. I appreciate the efforts. I know many civil servants were working around the clock to get them out, but they did so with one hand tied behind their back.

Believe it or not, there are still parts of our civil service that program with the same programming language that I used in grade 10. I am not young, Mr. Chair. Some 20-odd years ago, I was using BASIC to program. That is still the programming language in some government programs today.

One of the areas I would have loved to hear about in witness testimony is individuals testifying about how other governments have used their resources to put themselves in a better position to succeed. There are numerous examples dotted across the globe of countries that have made the right decision, which has allowed their economies to grow and to do extremely well. It has lifted up their productivity numbers, lifted up their capital investment numbers and lifted up their per capita GDP numbers.

It would have been fantastic to hear some witness testimony, maybe about what Ireland has done, and other countries like Ireland. It has been able to increase its productivity, which is the GDP per hour. It's much above Canada's.

The United States is above Canada as well. Switzerland has quite a substantial advantage, despite the fact that it has far fewer natural resources than we have.

Right now, we are squandering the opportunity to win the future. We have all the necessary ingredients. We have an incredibly well-educated, intelligent and hard-working populace that is engaged and, by and large, committed to making Canada the greatest country in the world.

We have many great post-secondary institutions. There are many great universities and colleges that generate some fantastic ideas.

We've been blessed with incredible natural resources, and we have some technology that makes Canadian energy some of the cleanest in the world.

We have all the ingredients for success, to win the future and to be the most successful economy in the developed world. Of any advanced economy, we could be number one. There is no doubt in my mind that we could have the highest per GDP growth if we just got the government out of the way. That's what it really comes down to. We need to get rid of the gatekeepers.

There are so many paradoxes that we live in. We live in the second-largest country in the world, yet we have one of the highest prices of housing. We have one of the largest housing shortfalls of any advanced country.

How do we have all this land but nowhere for anyone to live?

We have tremendous natural resources. We have an incredibly well-educated, intelligent and hard-working populace, but we have one of the lower productivity numbers. Once again, the finger of blame points over and over and over to the failure of this Liberal government. These eight years have been very difficult for Canadians. There's just no doubt about it.

The cost of housing has doubled. We now have high rates of inflation and the worst economic growth since the 1930s. We have double the food bank usage. We have twice as many employed individuals going to food banks as we ever did. One in 20 folks in Mississauga go to food banks. We certainly heard from the food bank from within the chair's own riding, which said the situation was terrifying. I hope the chair and the rest of the Liberal members were listening to it. It's their eight years of economic mismanagement that have put us there.

The good news is that hope is on the way. Help is on the way, as a Poilievre government will turn hurt into hope and make the common sense, the common people, once again common in our great country. That is what we need to drive economic growth and make Canada the most prosperous country in the world. It is by increasing economic growth and by not having a GDP that is the lowest since the 1930s but instead having one of the highest GDP growth rates in Canada's history.

How do we do that? We get government out of the way. We remove the gatekeepers. We let Canadians do what Canadians do best. We let Canadians innovate. We protect those innovations through a logical framework that makes sense, that drives innovation in our great country and that allows Canadians to reap the rewards of the innovation investments.

If you listen to many IT experts across Canada and, really, across the world, they say that Canada generates some of the very best ideas in the world. The challenge is that those ideas just flutter away. It's not because the entrepreneur or the innovator is doing anything wrong or incorrect. They're not. What is doing something wrong is the federal government. The federal government has not put the frameworks in that are necessary to help individuals maximize their investments here in Canada. What happens is that those ideas flutter away to other jurisdictions. They go to Silicon Valley. They go to the European Union. They go to Asia. Instead of those ideas raising the standard of living for Canadians, those profits are realized in other jurisdictions.

We have an opportunity to change this. Our resources and Canadians' innovations should increase the prosperity of Canadians. What's going on right now is that we ship out our ideas. We ship out our resources. Then they're repackaged, manufactured or sold back to us at a premium. That gap in the supply chain, which in many of Canada's industries is missing, is the sweet spot. That is where prosperity is made. That is where productivity is grown. We need to regain that part of the supply chain in our economy.

We need a government that will turn that hurt into hope, that will turn that doubling or tripling of food bank usage around...and that will take a punitive and painful carbon tax and scrap it to allow Canadians to be more innovative, make those capital investments and be rewarded.

We need to have a country where, when people do bad things, they feel those consequences, but more importantly, when people do good things, they reap those rewards. It shouldn't be the bureaucrats in Ottawa who get the rewards of innovation. It should instead be the entrepreneurs, the workers and the business owners of our great country.

That is the country that I know and love. That is the country that I believe we will be again under a Pierre Poilievre government, where once again paycheques go further because taxes are reduced, where housing is affordable again, where work pays, where individuals feel safe again in our great country, where work is rewarded, where success is celebrated, and where Canadians come together in a collaborative fashion to restore Canada and to make Canada an economic leader once again—a country that can get its resources to market, that lifts the prosperity of all Canadians, that doesn't invest in a $5-billion pipeline that cost $30 billion to build, and tracking....

We need to be a country that can get things done again. Unfortunately, as I hear from constituents, from Canadian after Canadian, too many of them feel like this country is broken. They are working harder and getting less. Those earning more are paying less, and those earning less are paying more.

Quite frankly, they are not wrong. When you look at the marginal effective tax rate and you see someone who is paying a higher tax rate at $30,000 than someone who is earning $120,000, you can see they're not wrong, and they're not wrong when they see a senior, a low-income senior, earning less than $30,000 a year but paying a marginal effective rate in excess of 50%. When you see a stay-at-home parent wants to return to the workforce but their cost of doing business is greater than 50%, they're not wrong. When you see a country where passports take eight months to get out the door, they're not wrong. When you see challenge after challenge, and when you see a government unwilling to acknowledge foreign interference and have the public inquiry that Canadians demand, they're not wrong.

Do you know what? Maybe it does make sense, then, that this government does not want to hear 10 more hours of testimony. Maybe the Liberals want to stick their heads in the sand, just pretend that everything is okay, repeat their same talking points over and over to themselves and say: “Do you know what? Canada has never been better. We'll take no lessons from the Conservatives. Do you know what? We spent money on this. We spent money on that.”

The line that gets me the most, Mr. Chair, when Liberals rise in the House of Commons, is that they avoid any type of result, because there are no results to point to: the worst economy since the 1930s; a housing crisis, as it's more expensive than it's ever been; record deficits and debts; increasing inflation; high interest rates; and slowing economic growth. They can't point to that, so they just point to how they spent x billion dollars.

Well, do you know what? An expensive failure is not better because it's expensive. It's worse, because it cost you money. I can't imagine some of the Liberal ministers heading into a corporate boardroom and having a deliverable they're supposed to give. Whether it be the manufacture or the creation of a project—or whatever—they go in and say: “Yes, we failed. We didn't build that building we needed, and we didn't get that project done, but man, did we spend a lot of money doing it.” I just wonder if they ever listen to themselves: How does it make sense that failing expensively is somehow a blessing? It's not. It's worse.

I mean, eight years ago, housing was affordable. Now it's not. Yes, it's true, the Liberals spent a lot of money making it less affordable—or “unaffordable” might be the appropriate term—but that doesn't make it better. Now, instead of having affordable housing and a balanced budget, we have unaffordable housing and a massive deficit and debt.

I would have loved to hear, and it's not too late, guys.... The Liberal government still would have plenty of time to get this budget passed simply by extending for a week, for 10 more hours of testimony. If a Liberal member were to take the mike right now and say, “Do you know what? I've had enough. You're right, Mr. Lawrence. Ten hours of testimony is a reasonable request, Mr. Clerk, so let's get that set up”....

Actually, Mr. Chair, would the clerk mind answering me on how long they think it would take to get 10 hours of additional testimony?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Well, that is not the clerk's role right now, MP Lawrence. As you know, you yourself voted on a unanimous motion. Let me just look at that again, to bring that to you.

We did that motion through unanimous consent from you and all parties, to add “and that the whips of the recognized parties, and the clerks, be empowered to seek as many meetings as possible, with the goal of meeting for 10 hours before the end of this week.” That was the week of May 15, which was last week.

That's where we are right now, MP Lawrence.

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

Thank you. I apologize for speaking over you.

I'll wait for you to put it on mute, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Go ahead.