Evidence of meeting #1 for Finance in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Since I don't think I said that specifically, but I did say something loosely, I will formally ask committee members if they want to move to committee business at this point in time.
Go ahead, Mr. Kelly.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Crowfoot, AB
If I may, this is on the point of order. We were, in fact, passing committee business. The meeting was called, we elected a chair, and then you, as chair, immediately entertained a series of motions that were committee business.
I think it is clear that we are conducting committee business at this committee meeting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Okay. I will confer with the clerk and get back to you in a moment.
Okay. I had asked the committee if we wanted to go to routine motions, which was with regard to the organization of the committee, and hadn't yet opened it up for future business relating to the committee. The committee had agreed at that time to discuss organizational business. However, I will ask the committee right now if we want to move to any additional items for this committee meeting. We can have a conversation about that.
Do we want to open it up to any further committee business?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
All right. We will put this to a vote, then.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)
Based on the result of the vote, we are moving to committee business with Mr. Hallan.
Conservative
Jasraj Singh Hallan Conservative Calgary East, AB
Since we're moving into committee business now, I'd like to move my motion:
That, given that Canadian families and small businesses have to budget before they spend and given the economic uncertainty facing Canada, that it be reported to the House the committee calls on the Minister of Finance to table a budget before Parliament closes for the summer.
We do have this on notice to the clerk, in both official languages.
The Prime Minister said he was a man with a plan, before the election and during the election. We heard that multiple times, but it turned out that it was not true.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I have a point of order, Chair.
My understanding is that committee business is conducted in camera.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.
There's another point of order, and then I'll confer with the clerk.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
As far as I know, we have not yet received the motion in both official languages from the clerk so, as a francophone, I cannot fully judge its merits.
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Yes, the clerk just sent it by email.
Mr. Turnbull, my understanding is that committee business can take place in this way unless it's of a secure nature.
I will turn to Mr. Hallan.
Conservative
Jasraj Singh Hallan Conservative Calgary East, AB
I'll continue.
Once again, the Prime Minister, before and during the election, said multiple times that he was a man with a plan. He said that he had some type of plan to get this country back on track. However, he helped over the last five years, as Justin Trudeau's main economic adviser, to cause the worst inflationary crisis in Canadian history with the most rapid interest-rate hikes in Canadian history. He supported a consumer and an industrial carbon tax that went up every single year. That made the cost of food go up every single year and forced more and more families to go to food banks. In fact, it doubled food bank usage in this country, making the rate of inflation on food go up faster than any other country in the G7. They made more and more Canadians go into insolvency because they doubled the cost of housing.
This is the same Prime Minister who, over the last five years, caused all this pain and misery. Then he turned around and said that he had a plan. A budget is a plan. At first he said that there would be no budget. Then, through Conservative pressure, he said that there would be a mini-budget. Now, supposedly, we're supposed to have a full-on fall budget, but the one in four families who are skipping meals, who are standing in food bank lines, can't wait for that. Canadians are desperate to know the state of Canada's finances after this government has already promised.... The Prime Minister has promised that he's already going to spend more than Justin Trudeau. In fact, the total debt on Canadians today is around $1.27 trillion, and the Prime Minister has promised that he's going to spend more than Justin Trudeau right away, with about $600 billion in new spending.
Canadians need to know what's going to happen to their taxes. They need to know what's going to happen to Canada's credit rating with all this expenditure. We all know that, on this Prime Minister's advice, they drove out around $600 billion of good Canadian investment to other places, mostly to the U.S.
Under the Liberal government's watch, now more than ever, unemployment is up; it's at 7%. Youth unemployment is up. There are no jobs for the youth who are graduating, so a lot of them are moving out. We've heard of newcomers who are living in their cars and living under bridges. This doesn't sound like a first world country anymore, after 10 years of Liberal government. They've now refused to present a budget to Canadians that would be clear and transparent on what way and what direction they're going to take the government.
They put up anti-energy laws, such as Bill C-69, which doesn't let any new pipelines get built. What Canada desperately needs is to become an independent energy superpower. With that bill in the way, no mines are going to get built, no pipelines are going to get built, and no big infrastructure can get built. We've seen that. That's why investment has been fleeing out of Canada. With Bill C-48, we can take our product to the west coast, but it can't go anywhere. Those are markets that desperately need Canadian energy.
The world needs Canadian energy, but this Liberal government wants to make sure that our product stays in the ground. Other dictatorships are the ones that are benefiting from that. The environment doesn't benefit in any way—because clean, low-carbon energy can come from Canadian energy because we have the best economic standards—
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I have a point of order, Madam Chair. I believe that the bells are ringing for a vote.
We don't have unanimous consent to continue because I think many of us want to go up to the House to vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Do the members want to come back after the vote? Is it that, yes, they do? All right, then we want to come back. That's great.
We are suspended for the time being. Thank you. We'll see you after the vote.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Everyone's back following the vote.
Mr. Hallan, I believe the floor is yours.
Conservative
Jasraj Singh Hallan Conservative Calgary East, AB
Thanks, Chair.
As I was saying, with Bill C-48, the tanker ban, which lets our resources get to the west coast but we can't sell them to any markets off of that coast because of the ban itself, and the industrial carbon tax, which needs to be removed to make Canada more competitive on the world stage, not to mention our low-carbon energy, which is the highest in environmental and human rights standards—probably around the world—and it's something that we should be proud of, this Liberal government is set on keeping our good product in the ground, enabling more dollars for dictators and less powerful paycheques for our people here in Canada. That's not to mention the job-killing oil and gas cap, which, according to Deloitte, could cost 110,000 good-paying Canadian jobs. This attack on our energy sector over the last 10 years, by this government, shows how unserious they are.
It is Canadians who are asking for a budget this spring. They cannot wait until the fall. What Canadians are asking for in that budget is a plan to unlock our energy industry, to unleash our resources and to get rid of some of those anti-energy bills that the government brought in. What they're asking for is to control the cost of living in this out-of-control inflationary crisis, which this government created, in which food prices are the highest in the entire G7. They're asking this government to bring in some common-sense policies—or adopt ours, in fact—that would actually get homes built in this country.
Of course, that also includes controlling the government's spending so that interest rates don't go up...caused by inflation. As I said before, this new Prime Minister wants to spend more than the old guy, Justin Trudeau, and he was upfront with that on day one. It could make inflation and interest rates go up.
In this budget, Canadians want crime under control. Under this government, the “soft on crime” policies they brought in—Bill C-5 and Bill C-75—give repeat offenders easy access to bail. What we see in this country is that Canadians are scared. They're scared to be at home or in their cars, and they're scared to send their kids to school alone. This country is not safe anymore because of the “soft on crime” policies of this government. Those two bills need to be repealed. Canadians are saying that now, under this government, criminals have more rights than victims do because repeat offenders are easily getting bail. We need to keep repeat offenders in jail and not give them bail. We see across this country that extortions are up more than 300% because Canada has become a safe haven for criminals and those who are committing extortion.
Lastly, Canadians want to see a plan for immigration. The Bank of Canada said that it was the population growth under this government—this out-of-control population growth—that was contributing further to the housing crisis. The Liberals expanded the population growth in order to get more votes, but Canadians are suffering without proper services. There are not enough jobs. There are not enough homes because new home starts have gone down under this government, not to mention that housing costs have doubled. Even newcomers are not able to survive.
I came here as a newcomer, and so did my family. Back then, you could live off of one paycheque. It's just not the same anymore. Canada is not the same country anymore. That's what we keep hearing all over the place, so we need to restore what Canada used to be. It used to be a place where your hard work could earn you a powerful paycheque that could afford affordable housing and groceries, and you could have those things while living in a safe neighbourhood. That was the Canadian dream, and that dream needs to be restored.
That's why now, more than ever, Canadians need a budget from the Liberal government—now, in the spring, before the summer starts—so that there's some assurance that this Prime Minister, who said he had a plan, actually shows that he has a plan. Once again, we are calling on this Liberal government to release a budget this spring to give Canadians some assurance that they can live in that Canada we once used to know and still love.
Conservative
Sandra Cobena Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Thank you.
It is my understanding that this Prime Minister values private sector practices. In that light, I would like to share this, as finance professional of 14 years. If I were to pick up a file and see that revenues are going down, expenses are going up and there is no forecast, no budget, no plan, and not only that but the funds are being requested in a very short timeline, that would be an immediate decline.
Further to that, it would be a referral to the financial restructuring team, particularly given a history of consistent deficits and poor management. Particularly, given the tight timeline, if anybody was reviewing a file like this, I think everybody would think it's some sketchy business. With that, I am very concerned that there is no desire to put a budget forward this spring. I think it's highly irresponsible, particularly because we have an affordability crisis. I don't think it's a very complex concept to think that you cannot spend your way to affordability. That is very irresponsible.
We cannot be borrowing to fund affordability measures. Without the benefit of a budget, that's exactly what it looks like, because we are not seeing any reduction in spending. We are only seeing a reduction in revenue. Despite the fact that there are a lot of moving parts in the economy right now.... There's instability, and that's exactly why we need a budget. We need to adopt this basic private sector practice of preparing a budget before we spend. I have not seen any responsible manager go off and prepare a list of expenditures before even considering what they have in terms of revenue.
As I see it at this moment in time, any measures of affordability would be funded by borrowing. That is like going grocery shopping with your credit card, knowing that you're going to pay more later because there is interest. Right now, with the $486 billion of spending that is being requested, that spending will go on the national credit card, and the interest is mounting. That is poor management; it's highly irresponsible. We need to respect taxpayers' dollars, and because of that, we need to see a budget. We need to see the flow of funds, the revenues, the expenses and what the real plan is. We cannot be playing with words and saying, “Oh, yes, we have a plan, but we're going to keep you blindfolded until we actually spend the money.”
That's it. Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you, Chair.
It's great to be back in committee with so many colleagues. This being our first meeting, it was important that get set up.
Congratulations to you, Chair, and congratulations to the vice-chairs.
I think it's a bit unfortunate that we're starting out this way, given the fact that we have Bill C-4 legislation to consider, which should be the priority, as is the formal practice of most committees on the Hill when the government has....
I want to acknowledge that we seem to have done a good job of standing all together in voting for Bill C-4. I believe it got unanimous consent, or it got the support of all members of the House of Commons who voted. It's great that it's now at committee. It's a bit unfortunate that we're spending a lot of time debating a motion, but it is the prerogative of members on the committee to bring forward motions. I totally understand that they're able to do so. I certainly would prefer to have an in camera session to consider committee business, where we could put on the table to study all the potential motions that each party has and come up with a schedule for the fall that would have us using our time very efficiently and effectively to get our business done.
I know that all of us as elected members of Parliament want to use our time. Time is the greatest resource we have. It certainly is important that we use it effectively, that we value each other's time and that we work to get things done. I know that Bill C-4 offers considerable tax relief for Canadians at a time when I know they need it. I think we can all agree on that. That's how members have voted in the House, so I know we have their support.
I know that this motion speaks to the desire that the Conservative Party has for an immediate budget. I find that interesting, to say the least, given the fact that their leader, Pierre Poilievre, who no longer has a seat in the House, would not commit in his 100-day plan to submit a budget. It's interesting that there often seems to be, from my just under six years on the Hill, a double standard with the Conservative Party and its members. If the election had turned out differently, I'm sure they would not be tabling a budget within the timeline they would have set out for the government. There was no commitment to do so, at least, which would indicate that there was no desire to do so or no willingness to do so.
Now, we just came out of a federal election—