Evidence of meeting #159 for Public Accounts in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was accounts.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
It's because of you, buddy. Twenty-four hours, man....
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
I am shocked that Mr. Drouin would deprive our witnesses of my Christmas offering to them of—
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Oh, I have lots of free advice, and lots of questions.
Getting back to this for the third time, the government has listed on their website, with the finance minister unavailable, the industry minister, who of course is embroiled in the green slush fund. If Canadians are wondering what that is, it's what has tied up Parliament for I think 10 weeks now. This committee has ordered, Parliament has ordered, that documents regarding the green slush fund, specifically around Minister Champagne and his predecessor, be tabled. The government is blocking that. The minister embroiled in the slush fund is next on the list to deliver the fall economic statement. Of course, he famously refused. I don't blame him, and I find it curious.
Who was next on the list? It was Randy Boissonnault. I have to question the competence. Surely someone would have said, “Who's next on the list after Minister Champagne?” There are lots of people in Finance and in the government. There are lots of paid political staffers and exempt staffers. Surely someone should have said, “Hey, isn't this the same Randy that just got thrown out of cabinet for falsely claiming indigenous status?”
Of course, someone could have said that he was thrown out of cabinet for continuing his business with Mr. Anderson, or perhaps it was one of the other reasons he was thrown out of cabinet. Surely someone should have known, in crisis mode, when they were going through the list, that maybe they should put someone else on the list.
There are even some qualified members at this table who could have read the fall economic statement quite competently. I mean that sincerely. Surely someone—
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
No, I think you could have, sir.
Maybe the other Randy is sitting in Edmonton Centre enjoying his last few months before the election—before he gets thrown out—and is thinking, “Hey, I'm next. I'm back in cabinet.” No, Randy, you're not. What happened instead—
Liberal
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
I agree with Mr. Drouin, who's saying don't measure the windows for curtains before the election happens, but I can safely state that Edmonton Centre will not be returning Mr. Boissonnault to the House of Commons.
I'm sorry, Randy, if you're watching. There's guessing, there's hoping and then there's reality. That's just the reality, I'm afraid.
What ended up happening was that the Liberal House leader ended up coming in with the fall economic statement, dropping it and then fleeing. We didn't get an attempt to address the fall economic statement.
Getting back to the public accounts, I accept some of Ms. Boudreau's comments, but we have seen a massive increase in the number of public servants. Surely there is a transition plan for the comptroller general's office. Mr. Huppé left, but there are lots of people in the department who are very competent who could have certainly achieved this in time.
Why I have great lack of faith in some of the explanations is that this is the same government, the same department, that famously, a couple of years ago, reopened the public accounts after they'd already been signed off on in order to stuff money back in to show perhaps a better reason.... I think two or three years ago, we ATIPed the information on that. We're still waiting. Some of my ATIPs will actually be eligible for a pension before NDP leader Jagmeet Singh will get his pension. Maybe that's when the government will actually release them.
We have an administration in government that has, for the first time since Confederation, reopened the public accounts, stuffed money into the previous year and closed the accounts. This year, they have been the latest ever, and we have heard some of the reasons why, like the $16 billion more being put in for contingent liabilities. I accept that the $16 billion is fully legit, but I have to wonder why, when the budget came out at the beginning of the new fiscal year, this money wasn't in there. What happened in the short period between then and now, where all of a sudden there's $16 billion?
That was a question I was asking, because the wording is very specifically about items that are “assessed as likely to result”. Basically, what happens with contingent liabilities—lawsuits or other obligations—is that when they mature, they result in a settlement, and that's when they get put on the books.
What happened between the budget coming out and very recently, when they delayed the public accounts to put that in? I would like to ask the witnesses here, but, of course, the Liberals are blocking our ability to ask those questions.
December 18th, 2024 / 12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
I would certainly like to ask them about that. I would ask them right now, but I don't think they're allowed to take the floor. Perhaps they can sign up to be on the speaking order afterwards.
It's a great concern. We have late public accounts. We had commentary about the pension surplus for the public service.
I have great concern over the surplus for a couple of reasons. For one, I believe the Treasury Board and the government use a false discount rate. We saw some internal documents from the government about pensions explaining that there's an excessively high—in some people's views—discount rate for the funded portion of public service pensions. Their explanation is that they can have a high discount rate because they take higher risk. They get higher returns because they take higher risks, but they take higher risks because the taxpayers are on the hook for any losses. Instead of using a real return bond, as we use for the unfunded portion of the pensions, I think the pre-2005 portion, we use an artificially high number that perhaps hides a lot of the liability this government has on public service pensions.
The C.D. Howe Institute has guesstimated that it's not a surplus but an $80-billion deficit if you use real return bonds like other pensions do. If you look at the public accounts.... I don't have them; they haven't been printed, I think. Apparently, PSPC takes two weeks to print three books this size. Chrystia Freeland managed to get her new book out on a day's notice, in two days, in two chapters, but the government takes two weeks to print a book like this. We don't actually have it here; it's only in PDF. I'd like to be able to look it up, but I can't. I'll explain what the discount rate is.
Getting back to what I was talking about, my concern is with the pensions. Ms. Boudreau explained that that was one of the delays. My belief is that if the pension surplus is recognized in this fiscal year, which started April 1 of this year, then that money would be recognized this year. It would not go into a previous year. Mr. Cannings brought that up, and my colleague from the Bloc brought up the pension as well. We certainly would like to ask questions but, of course, the government is blocking our ability to look at that.
The government is blocking our ability to look at the whole scandal of the finance minister getting turfed on a Friday but still being told that she had to come back and present the fall economic statement, take the fall for being $20 billion over and then take on a new role in cabinet, where she has no staff and no power, to make way for Mark Carney. I appreciate Minister LeBlanc stepping up to take his role as well. Perhaps it will make it easier for him to access clam scam two or some other favours for the family, as he has done in the past. It makes you wonder.
The government knew Friday that Minister Freeland was going to leave her role. We're in an economic crisis right now. We're into our sixth quarter in a row where GDP per capita has dropped, which means that the wealth generated per person in Canada is dropping. We're now at the same level we were in 2018, whereas the U.S.'s has gone up by I think 25%. We used to have an almost even GDP per capita in this country. We're now at about $55,000 U.S., and the U.S. has shot up to $81,000. Ireland, which people used to flee for economic reasons, as my great-grandparents did, now has a GDP per capita of over $100,000 U.S., and we're at $55,000, but I digress.
We are in this economic crisis of a collapsing economy. Unemployment is up to 6.8% or 6.9%. Who knows if it's going to break 7%. It's 10% in Toronto and 8% in Edmonton. Again, that's for six straight quarters.
Former Bank of Canada governor Mr. Poloz stated that we are in a recession. We're not in a technical recession of two straight quarters of declining GDP. He states that we are in a full-blown recession and the numbers show it. The only thing hiding it is the out-of-control immigration growth. Even the government has stated that they let it get out of control and they have to cut it back. They're flooding the country with new people when we don't have housing, hospitals or doctors for them, but it's propping up the economy and the GDP. They're hiding behind that and saying that we have the best economy in the G7.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. McCauley, I'm going to dismiss the witnesses very soon. I suspect Madame Sinclair-Desgagné would like to speak before I do that, but would you yield? I'll put you back on the list. I know you're on a roll and I don't want to interrupt you, but I want to be respectful. You can decline, but it's just to—
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
I have so much more, but I'd be very happy to allow Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné to step in for a moment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you. I will move you down.
I'll turn to Madame Sinclair-Desgagné, and then I will come back to the witnesses.
Bloc
Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné Bloc Terrebonne, QC
Thank you for your generosity, Mr. McCauley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for pointing out that I wanted to speak.
I think it's a real shame that a motion is tabled at the beginning of the committee meeting, when we're hearing from witnesses and we have an enormous number of questions to ask them.
Mr. Drouin, it's customary for a motion to be tabled at the end of the meeting, at the last turn to speak, to let parties like the Bloc Québécois and the NDP speak and ask questions, rather than encouraging the Conservatives to filibuster.
Once again, we see that those who don't want to see Parliament move forward are on both sides of the House, and that's a real shame, because we have work to do. Some very important witnesses came today, despite the short notice they received. I'm a little disappointed. I'm not particularly interested in the substance of the motion. I think we had much better things to do today by talking to the witnesses.
I'm going to give the floor back to Mr. McCauley, whom we're going to listen to until the end of the committee meeting today. I want, once again, to point out that I think this waste of time is a real shame and could and should have been avoided.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Thank you very much.
Ms. Khalid is not in the room. I will go to the next person that is—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
No, I'm going to move you down to the bottom.
Well, it's Mr. Jivani, so I will see you instead, Mr. McCauley, since I'm sure Mr. Jivani will be happy to yield his spot to you.
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
Thank you.
One thing I want to address, besides how disappointed I am that we're not able to ask witnesses questions on this important stuff, is that the motion blocks the committee from meeting. They claim that under Standing Order 106(4).... For those watching at home—there may be five of you now—the Standing Order 106(4) procedure says that if four members of this committee write to the chair, they can force a meeting, but it doesn't allow meetings to delve into the scandal of the green slush fund or the scandal of the CEBA loan, where—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Mr. McCauley, I'm sorry. Just hold your thoughts.
The witnesses are excused. Thank you very much. We will see you all again in the new year. I appreciate you coming in today and I apologize for this needless delay.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
As the witnesses leave, I just want to yell at them a bit more. Merry Christmas. I appreciate your attempt to get the public accounts to us before Christmas.
Standing Order 106(4) does not allow meetings about the scandals. All it allows is a meeting to decide whether there will be meetings. Four members from different parties could sign the 106(4) request and we could come to Ottawa to be present at a meeting to discuss some of the scandals, such as the green slush fund and the finance minister getting fired right before the fall economic statement, with a $60-billion deficit that is causing the dollar to drop, causing uncertainty and, as the papers say, giving a gift to Trump in his fight against us with his tariffs, because it shows us as weak and chaotic. However, members of the government, with their coalition partners in the NDP, could just immediately move to adjourn the meeting, so this is a false outreach the government has put forward. They say, “Oh, you can have a 106(4) meeting anytime in January or February or during a break week”, but it's not really true.
As we saw years ago during other times we've had 106(4) meetings, we could get here and the government and their coalition partners could say they don't want to work on a break week. They do not want the committee looking into their scandals. They do not want a light shone on this disaster of a government.
I reject the argument that we could have a 106(4) meeting anytime. We can't. The reality is that the government could still simply move to adjourn or block any meeting, period, as we saw in the past on ArriveCAN.
It's unfortunate the Auditor General has left, because one of the issues she brought forward in her opinion.... It's not actually in the public accounts itself. You have to look online for her commentary. The public accounts, by the way, which I'm very disappointed in, have gone from an audited opinion to a propaganda piece for the government.
If you read some of it—I'm going to call it what it is—it's a lie. The government talks about the carbon tax being revenue-neutral, but it is not revenue-neutral. To say so is a lie. Here we have a government document signed by the comptroller general, signed by the Receiver General, signed off on and delivered by the Treasury Board and signed by the Auditor General, and it has editorial copy—not the numbers but government talking points. In this case specifically, it is a lie, because the carbon tax is not revenue-neutral. The carbon tax has GST. Alberta alone will be paying, I think, $100 million in GST just on the carbon tax.
On a straight, revenue-neutral basis, every penny collected from taxpayers would go to taxpayers. It does not. Some is diverted to government operations. I think a couple of years ago, $100 million was diverted to government operations. Some is diverted to small and medium enterprises. Therefore, again, it is not revenue-neutral. It is being used a bit as a slush fund.
I have it somewhere in my papers, and I hope to refer to it, but the OECD, in its description of “revenue-neutral”, says that it's taxation money that cannot be used to discriminate or push spending patterns in a certain way, which is exactly the point of the carbon tax. I'm not arguing what the intent of the carbon tax is, which is to drive up prices one way and perhaps force habits another way toward less carbon intensity—that is the whole point of the carbon tax—but the OECD states that such actions mean it is not revenue-neutral. Here we have the OECD basically saying that just the idea of a carbon tax is not revenue-neutral.
Of course, we had the oil carve-out for people from the wonderful province of New Brunswick, like our chair, and from other provinces in Atlantic Canada. The Liberal government cynically did a carve-out there, and told those in Alberta and Saskatchewan suffering through -40°C, “We're going to tax you extra to heat your homes. We're going to tax you more, despite the fact that you have some of the coldest temperatures in the country, but in areas where we're polling very poorly and are getting pressure from our MPs, because they're going to lose the next election, we are going to give out a carbon tax carve-out.” Again, it violates the whole neutrality of a carbon tax, and further violates the definition of the carbon tax as stated by the OECD.
Getting back to the carbon tax itself, I read this: “The federal pollution pricing system is revenue neutral”. This year, they've added a bit of a disclaimer: “over time for the federal government”.
