Debates of June 13th, 2024

Main Estimates 2024-25

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague. Yes, I understand this approach very well. There is an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec on this issue of housing. If we are to deal with this crisis, this challenge, we also need to be ambitious.

I know that communities across the country, not just in the member's province, want to embrace a vision of ambition saying that zoning changes have been extremely restrictive and are, in part and perhaps largely, responsible for the challenges that we find with respect to supply. They are limiting the options available for prospective homebuyers, young people in particular, and limiting rental options. All of this drives up costs. Doing things differently and being more ambitious is something that municipalities are turning towards. We see that because we have almost 200 agreements concluded with municipalities across the country in the housing accelerator fund, and that is going to continue. As I said, there is $400 million in the estimates to top up that original fund.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about CMHC financing. He knows well that there is a REIT right now, Starlight Investments, that is evicting tenants in Thorncliffe Park and that is refusing to come to committee, even though it has been asked twice.

I want to let the member know that CMHC financing to billionaire REITs is resulting in low-income tenants being evicted. Starlight alone is boasting $425 million in low-interest CMHC debt, and it is actually using it as a selling feature to unload properties for profit. Is this what the Liberal government thinks CMHC should be used for?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is another member I have a great amount of respect for. We have worked closely on the House of Commons committee responsible for housing.

On this matter, we will simply disagree. I support Starlight's coming before the committee. I voted in favour of that just a few days ago, as the member absolutely knows. However, I also know that when an Order Paper question went in with respect to Starlight's relationship with CMHC, nothing came back. In other words, CMHC has not had a relationship with Starlight, so I am not sure where the confusion is on that.

We do need more rental housing. Low-interest loans facilitated through the CMHC are a way to get there. Market options are important, but as to our non-market options, the member and I certainly agree on that.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me just say, right off the top, that I will be splitting my time with my friend, the hon. member for Edmonton West, which is the home of the world-renowned West Edmonton Mall.

We are here tonight to debate estimates and the out-of-control inflationary spending by the Liberals that is driving up the cost of literally everything for all Canadians. After nine years, there are a couple of things that we already know about these levels of obese government spending. First, the budget does not, in fact, balance itself.

[An hon. member]

What?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

It is surprising, yes.

Second, Mr. Speaker, when one does not think about monetary policy, this has an impact on the fiscal and economic situation of the country and makes it even worse.

In the recent NDP-Liberal budget, we saw another $61 billion in inflationary spending piled on to the backs of Canadians. That was on top of the $20 billion in inflationary spending piled on in the fall economic statement. That was on top of the billions piled on over the past nine years. The result is that Canadian taxpayers are now paying $58 billion in interest on the debt, which is more than the federal government sends to the provinces in health transfers.

Everyone knows that one cannot run a household on a credit card forever. Neither can one run a government by maxing out the credit card year after year. There are real-world consequences to this insatiable appetite for spending. First of all, it actually costs all of us. It is called taxes. If we think back to April of this year, common-sense Conservatives called upon the Liberal-NDP government to spike the hike, to not increase the carbon tax by 23% on April 1, on its way to quadrupling.

We also know, according to a Fraser Institute study, that nine out of 10 middle-class families are now paying more in income tax. These tax increases are certainly the very last thing that Canadians need at a time when they are already facing a cost of living crisis.

Of course, the Liberals, aided by their costly coalition partners in the NDP, need money because they have spent so much. They need to increase these taxes to fuel their addiction to spending. Because they cannot prioritize spending and demand better results for the money that the federal government spends, and because they think money grows on trees, or that one just prints or borrows more, what happens is that Canadians suffer. Canadians now have to prioritize spending in their daily lives. That means doing without, cutting corners on groceries and going to the food banks because the federal government cannot rein in spending. We have seen the numbers of those going to food banks reach record-smashing levels.

Another real-world consequence of all this spending is interest rates and mortgage rates. We know from the Scotiabank report that 2% of the rate increase is attributable to overspending by the government. Other banks have agreed. This hurts Canadians renewing their mortgage. It also hurts Canadians who rent, who have seen record heights in rental prices across the country. It hurts those paying car loans and credit cards.

On a daily basis, I hear from people in the suburban communities in my riding who live in fear of those mortgage renewals. These are young families or, in some cases, seniors who have downsized. They have moved out of the GTA for a slightly more affordable house a little farther west. Those who have variable rate mortgages are telling me that they are facing, already, increases of $1,000, $1,500 or $2,000 per month. Can one even imagine the hole that would blow in one's household budget?

Those who are on fixed rate mortgages are beginning to feel that gut punch as well. It is about to get even worse as more of those renewals come up. That is all because these Liberals have a spending problem.

Again, rising rents, credit card payments and mortgage payments are the last thing Canadians can afford in the time of a cost of living crisis.

There are other compounding consequences of this reckless spending and the taxes that result. How is it that Canada has the worst performing economy in the industrialized world? That is a consequence of this wildly out-of-control spending and all of the things that creates.

I will cite some recent statistics that paint this picture. According to the Fraser Institute in May, Canada is on track for the worst decline in the standard of living in 40 years. That is after nine years of the Prime Minister. Worse still, Canada has the worst growth in income per capita than at any time under any prime minister since the 1930s.

In fact, while our friends to the south in the United States have seen their GDP per capita increase by 8% since 2019, Canada is pedalling backward. We have seen a decline of 2%. We are the basement of the G7; we are the worst. Business investment in our economy is down. Productivity is down. This is quantified at $20,000 less per person than in the United States. I could go on because there are numerous recent figures. Canada has the worst performing economy in the G7 and the OECD, all because spending and taxes are chasing away private sector investment from our economy.

There is another point we as parliamentarians should consider, which is that all the money being spent is the tax money of Canadians. It is very disrespectful to Canadians, who work very hard and who are smart and good people, when governments like these Liberal governments spend money beyond their means. That is the hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians they are spending. Canadians work hard for that money, and they do not want to see it being wasted on Liberal-connected consultants such as McKinsey, on Liberal-connected insiders and on scandal after scandal.

On top of these tax increases, the mortgage increases, groceries, home heating and all of the other cost of living aspects they are faced with, this is just another reason why hard work does not pay in Canada after nine years of the Prime Minister. All this obese government spending is making it impossible for Canadians to believe they can actually get ahead.

One of the things I hear most often that makes Canadians most upset is that this is a country where it is no longer possible to dream big. My omas and opas came from the Netherlands after World War II, and Opa Muys worked as part of the Dutch resistance to fight the Nazis. They had nothing in their pockets and came to Canada seeking hope, opportunity and freedom. At that time, as in the history of Canada up to nine years ago, it did not matter where one came from; it mattered where one was going. It did not matter if one came here with nothing. It mattered that one could work hard, save up, buy a home, start a family and succeed in Canada. However, after nine years of the Prime Minister, it is no longer possible to dream big. People are quite upset about that.

It does not have to be this way in Canada. We have everything the world wants: LNG, critical minerals, nuclear expertise, manufacturing expertise and smart, good people. The government has squandered those advantages with reckless spending, reckless taxes and regulation that is driving private sector investment out of Canada to other countries.

The good news is that hope is on the way. Only common-sense Conservatives, under the leadership of the hon. Leader of the Opposition, have a plan to bring home the country we know and love. We have all the advantages. We can succeed in Canada when the next common-sense Conservative government rolls up our sleeves and gets to work. We are going to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

That is why Conservatives will be voting against these estimates this evening. Canadians deserve much better. Now let us bring it home.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about the foreign investment and private investment that has come into our country. As many in the House know, the city of Port Colborne has just announced a $1.6-billion investment from a Japanese company, Asahi Kasei, which will be putting in place a big project. That just simply would not have happened without a lot of people and an all-hands-on-deck approach from all levels of government, including the federal government. It included a lot of incentives that were contained within the budget.

With the support that the federal government has contained within this budget, is the member prepared to support our budget and, therefore, support our community?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the OECD has reported that Canada will have the lowest private sector investment in our economy this decade and then, as a result, in subsequent decades. It is because of taxes. It is because of spending and regulation that is chasing away that investment, and while the member points to one example where there was heavy government subsidies, that does not preclude the macroeconomic picture that I spoke about.

I had the opportunity to knock on doors in the hon. member's riding fairly recently, and he may want to try that sometime soon and hear from his constituents. Without a doubt, the cost of living, the carbon tax and their mortgage increases are what I heard about over and over again at the doors in Niagara Centre.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I hear when I knock on the doors of the good people of Edmonton Strathcona, Edmonton Centre and across Alberta is that people are deeply worried that our health care system is becoming privatized by Conservative premiers such as Danielle Smith. We know that the Conservatives have already said that they would privatize. In fact, I believe the health critic has said that he wants to be the last health care minister because he does not think the federal government has a role to play in that.

Public health care is the number one issue I am hearing about from my constituents. It is the number one thing that people are worried about, whether they are seniors, university students or whoever they are. I am wondering what he says about not supporting a budget that could conceivably help to make our health care system stronger.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to visit the member's riding, and there are many great places there. On the subject of health care, over the years of the Harper government, we saw increases to health care spending during that tenure, and health care is important. I know this very personally and directly.

My father had heart surgery five or six weeks ago. There were some complications, and he spent a number of weeks in hospital recovering. My mom was a nurse in the hospital system in Hamilton for 50 years, so we absolutely support health care. What is important for health care is a strong economy that generates the revenue so that we can actually afford to invest in health care.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. He spoke about the importance of growing the economy. When the Progressive Conservative Party was in office, Brian Mulroney increased the capital gains inclusion rate to 75%. That was in 1990.

In 2024, the Conservative Party is saying that that is not a good idea. At the time, Mr. Mulroney justified that decision by saying that the goal was to stimulate the economy, so I would like my colleague to explain why it was a good idea to increase the capital gains inclusion rate to 75% in 1990, but today he is opposed to increasing it from 50% to 66%.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think that farmers, seniors, home builders and small business people in Quebec would agree that this capital gains tax increase would kill jobs. Regarding what happened 40 years ago, the hon. member is a young fellow. I am not sure he was born quite yet in 1984. That was a different time. I am very proud that we are standing against this job-killing tax increase, which is going to absolutely destroy investment and entrepreneurship in this country.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise on the main estimates. One of my favourite parts of being an MP in Ottawa is the estimates process. Some MPs have other priorities when they are in Ottawa, such as speaking endlessly in the House, like my friend from Winnipeg North, or perhaps taking the family on the taxpayer's dime to Quebec, but for me, it is the estimates.

King Edward, when calling the model Parliament in 1295, started the original estimates process. He stated, “what touches all should be approved by all, [and it is also clear] that common dangers should be met [with measures] agreed upon in common.” King Edward was the first estimates geek, and I am very pleased to follow in that tradition. He put forward a plan basically asking permission to spend taxpayers' money. At the time, it was to go to war with the Scots and the French, which may or may not have been great ideas, but he at least brought forward the plan to start seeking permission from the common people before spending their money.

Today's estimates process is the modern equivalent. It is broken down into four parts. There is the government expenditure plan; the main estimates; the departmental plans, which lay out the government's priorities for the money it is asking for; and, of course, the departmental results, which measure the results after the money is spent. The departmental plans, as I mentioned, lay out the justifications for all the money that is spent. The results are obviously what the government achieved or, with this government, did not achieve with the money spent.

The most recent year that we have departmental results for shows the government failed to achieve 49.7% of its targets. We think of the rapid growth in spending by the government, yet it failed 50% of the time, but that is a big improvement for the government when, over two years ago, it failed 51% of the time.

I want to go over some of the departmental results, some of the plans of the government and what it is seeking in the estimates this year. Public safety, for example, is seeking $1.6 billion. The departmental results show that, last year, it achieved 46% of its targets, which makes one wonder how it can justify asking for continual money from taxpayers when it failed Canadians so badly. I will give some examples.

On the percentage of the population that thinks the government of Canada respects individual rights and freedoms, it set a goal of 70%, but it was only 46% of Canadians. On the percentage of partners that believe Public Safety Canada provides effective policy leadership and operational coordination on national security, keeping in mind we are in a foreign interference crisis right now, it missed by about 40%. As I mentioned earlier, on the police-reported crime rate per 100,000 of population, it had it at 5,200 per 100,000 and it came in at 6,600, which is 27% higher. As part of the estimates process, the government presents the departmental plans and says how it is going to spend taxpayers' money, but it is clear the government is failing.

On indigenous services, it is asking for $21 billion in the estimates. The results for last year was that it achieved 16.9%. If we think of the crisis and the issues regarding indigenous peoples, it achieved 16.9% of its goals, a failure rate well above 80%. I have a couple of examples. On the percentage of first nations housing that is adequate as assessed and reported annually by first nations, it had a target of 70%. The result from the government was unspecified. It does not even know the result of its spending.

On the percentage of recommended number of sampling weeks of public water systems in first nations communities that were monitored for bacteria, it missed its goal by 11%. On the percentage of cultural and recreation assets inspected in the last three years with a greater than fair condition rating, the goal was 55%. It achieved 39%. However, the government paid out 94% in bonuses for their executives and managers. There were $3.65 million in bonuses for an 83.1% failure rate.

Public Safety paid out 92% of its executives to fail over 50% of its targets. The CRA spent $17 billion and failed on 51% of its targets. This is the same CRA that the Auditor General noted failed badly in the oversight of pandemic benefits. It paid out $27 billion of taxpayer money to ineligible businesses. We have the government doing a tax grab right now with the capital gains tax, which is going to cripple small businesses and farmers to raise $20 billion over four years, but here we have $27 billion paid out to large businesses and corporations that were ineligible.

There are other failures. For complainants answered within five business days of the receipt of their complaint, the target was 95%, and 61% was achieved. For the percentage of taxpayer service complaints that CRA resolved within one month, the target was at least 80% and the result was 37%. I know every MP in this building has a constituency office that is overrun with complaints that people cannot get through to the CRA. However, that is okay because the government paid out 98% of the CRA's executives with bonuses for the failure. For the percentage of low complexity objections resolved within 180 calendar days, the target was 85%, and 39% was achieved.

National Defence had $31 billion in spending. Departmental results met were 27.8%. For the percentage of force elements that are ready for operations in accordance with targets, the target was 100%, which is great, but the result was 61%.

This one is staggering. For the percentage of personnel who were victims of discrimination, there was actually a goal set. We would think it would be zero tolerance for discrimination. There was a goal set to have 9% of its staff be discriminated against, but it managed to achieve 15.7%. That is about one in every eight people within DND feeling that they were discriminated against. However, the Liberals paid out bonuses to 91% of executives in DND.

Anyone who has worked in the private sector would know that, for harassment, they do not set a goal of having at least 9% of their staff harassed. They set a goal of zero. It may be impossible to achieve 0%, but they do not set a goal of having one out of every 11 employees discriminated against and then pay out 91% of the executives for achieving that. However, that is the Liberal government.

ESDC spent $98 billion and failed 51% of its targets. For the percentage of travel documents and other passport services processed within standards, it missed by 22%. The percentage of in-person passport applications processed within 20 days was missed by 36%. The percentage of passport applications submitted by mail and processed within 20 business days was missed by 7%. However, the percentage of other Randys who received elicit government contracts was 100%. The executives got 93.3% bonuses paid out.

Health Canada was almost $9 billion. It failed 51% of the time. For the percentage of domestic consumer product recalls communicated to Canadians in a timely manner, the target was at least 90%, and the result was 71%, which means, for 30% of recalls that are related to health, the government does not communicate in a timely manner. In this stage of the Internet, they could just post it on Twitter. However, that is too much for the government, but it is not too much to pay 95% of the executives bonuses.

I will just touch very quickly on one of my favourites. Environment Canada had $2.7 billion. The government failed 60% of the time, although it almost achieved a 100% cover-up rate for the carbon tax cost. The department was exposed by the Auditor General for making up fantasy numbers for the net-zero projections for hydrogen projections. What did it do? It paid out bonuses to 94% of the executives.

There are plenty more reasons I will not be supporting the main estimates. Paying out bonuses for failure is not the way to go.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, I am going to ask this question again because unfortunately the member did not answer it earlier. There is a $1.6 billion investment for the city of Port Colborne in the region of Niagara. Asahi Kasei is going to create almost 1,000 jobs. The budget does contain incentives. It also contains monies for secondary planning to satisfy infrastructure requirements.

With that said, a “no” vote by the Conservatives for the 2024 budget means there is not support by the Conservatives for this project. Once again, yes or no, are the Conservatives prepared to support this budget and, therefore, prepared to support the city of Port Colborne and the company, Asahi Kasei, which is going to come in and invest $1.6 billion in the community?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the parliamentary secretary for Transport Canada asked that question. It gives me a chance to comment about Transport Canada, where 97.8% of their executives got bonuses.

ICAO, which is the international body that oversees safety at our airports and transport safety, has ranked Canada below Somalia for safety at the airports. We used to have the highest airport safety in the world. We now, under this member's leadership, actually have airport safety lower than Somalia's, but the government pays out 97% bonuses; that is the Liberal government at work.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I want to remind members that they have an opportunity to ask questions, so if they have other things to add, they should wait.

I want to ask the honourable parliamentary secretary to withdraw the last word that he said about the hon. member.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I withdraw it.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked a lot about the importance of the sound management of public money. Obviously, we agree with that. We are trying to make sure that the money is invested wisely.

We saw the scandals involving McKinsey. The government uses outside firms a lot. Recently, in committee, I asked the government a question. Given that the government hired more public servants, it should be able to find the resources to provide services to citizens internally, but it is still using outside firms more. Why is that?

It is rather odd for the government to say that it is using outside firms because the expertise was not available internally, when it is hiring more public servants.

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the items brought up in the Auditor General's study on McKinsey was a concern that she brought forward, that the government had actually trained public sector employees to do a certain task, and then it ignored those trained employees, only to go out and sole-source a contract to McKinsey.

The system under the current government is clearly broken, whether it is paying off McKinsey, Liberal friends at Deloitte or KPMG, while at the same time ignoring the in-house talent. It is silly, and it should stop. The government should do a full review on every penny spent and given out to those management contractors. Instead of shovelling out taxpayers' dollars, it should be serving taxpayers and not its friends at McKinsey.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I appreciated the member's question earlier when a Liberal MP failed to talk about indigenous housing, but I do want to talk about taxation. For example, rich oil and gas CEOs are getting richer. Many of the oil and gas companies are exempt from carbon tax. Suncor only pays one-fourteenth of the carbon tax, compared to Canadians.

I wonder if the member agrees that oil and gas companies like Suncor should be taxed so that we can make sure that those kinds of investments coming into the general revenue could go towards projects like the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link project, which is a very important project that would help Nunavut communities get off dirty diesel.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, the government wastes so much money. Very easily, we could look after the needed project that the member mentioned. Whether it is cutting back government money to Liberal friends at McKinsey or to the green slush fund, or, as the Auditor General noted, the $7.8 billion for green projects to corporations that were not eligible and did not qualify but got the money anyway. We have projects that need to be looked after, and if the government could manage its house better, we could certainly find the resources to cover the project that the member mentioned.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, maybe we will just start on a very collaborative note with, I am sure, a comment that all members in the House will be unified on. I want to say, “go, Edmonton Oilers”. They have tied it up in the Stanley Cup, in the third game of the series. It is good to see the Oilers score a goal and tie it up. I am really hoping that they come out on top tonight.

I am very pleased to rise in the House to discuss the main estimates for 2024-25 and the supplementary estimates (A) 2024-25. This year's main estimates present a total of $449.2 billion in budgetary spending, with $191.6 billion to be voted on. Non-budgetary expenditures of $1.2 billion are also presented.

The voted amounts represent maximum “up to” ceilings or estimates and may not be fully spent during the course of the year. Actual expenditures will be included in the public accounts after the end of the fiscal year. The estimates family of documents, which include main estimates, supplementary estimates, departmental plans and departmental results reports, in conjunction with the public accounts, provide Parliament with detailed information about spending plans, expenditures and achieved results. The main estimates support the government's request for Parliament's approval of expenditures that were already planned for in previous decisions, including federal budgets.

The main estimates are followed by the supplementary estimates, which seek incremental approvals that are typically tabled three times a year: in May, in late October or early November, and in February. The financial information in the estimates is presented to support an appropriation bill that seeks parliamentary approval for expenditures that will be incurred throughout the year.

Through the supply bill, the government requests Parliament's approval for the planned spending proposals that are detailed in the estimates.

Before I continue, Madam Speaker, let me just remind you that I am splitting my time.

This year's main estimates call for a total of $449.2 billion in budgetary spending, of which $191.6 billion will be in the form of grants. Of the 129 organizations presenting funding requirements in the main estimates, 11 are seeking more than $5 billion in voted budgetary expenditures. Here are a few examples.

There is $10.9 billion for Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada to modernize Government of Canada structures to enable indigenous people to build capacity and to support their vision of self-determination, and to lead the Government of Canada's work in the north.

There is also $6.2 billion for Veterans Affairs Canada for the care, treatment and re-establishment, in civil life, of veterans, and for the care of their dependents and their survivors.

There is $5.9 billion for Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada to improve conditions for investment, to enhance Canada's innovation performance, to increase Canada's share of global trade and to build a fair, efficient and competitive marketplace.

There is $5.8 billion to the Office of Infrastructure Canada, and this covers a whole range of infrastructure. I have seen quite a lot of investments in my community, and I know the member for Pickering—Uxbridge would also agree that our region has gotten a lot of benefit out of the active transportation routes that connect our region. Having those routes and the investments in those routes have really been a blessing for our communities, and we hear about it from our stakeholders; I know I do. The trail system at the waterfront in Whitby has gotten a complete revamp, which is great to see.

With respect to public transit, we have a bus rapid transit route that has had major investments that members on the government side, in our region, have fought hard for. Those investments are connecting our region with a public transit system that is modernized and rapid, and it allows people to get across our region seamlessly. Those active transportation routes that I mentioned also connect with the public transportation routes, so of course, people can ride their bicycles, can get on a bus and can go right across Durham region. They can even connect with the GO Transit and can get right to downtown Toronto, which is great to see. I thought I would just highlight those as key investments in our region.

There is $5.6 billion for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for much-needed housing infrastructure. This is another area in which we have seen considerable investment in our region, and it is dramatically contributing to solving the affordable housing challenges that we see all across Canada.

Funding in these main estimates allows the government to provide a wide variety of programs and services to Canadians, as well as supporting other levels of government, organizations and individuals through transfer payments. The majority of expenditures in the 2024-25 main estimates are transfer payments, payments made to other levels of government, other organizations and individuals. Certainly, we know those transfer payments are important for many of the health care services, social services and many other services that Canadians take advantage of all the time. Transfer payments make up approximately 63% of expenditures, or $283 billion. Operating and capital expenditures accounts for approximately 26.6% of expenditures, or $119.7 billion, while public debt charges are approximately 10.4% of expenditures, or $46.5 billion.

Forecasts of statutory spending are included in these estimates to provide additional information on departments' total estimated expenditures. Of these forecasts, $257.6 billion is for budgetary expenditures, including the cost of servicing the public debt. This amount does not include benefits paid for the employment insurance operating account or expenditures legislated through the Income Tax Act, such as the Canada child benefit. The 2024-25 main estimates reflect updated forecasts published in the 2023 fall economic statement.

Significant changes in statutory budgetary spending from the 2023-24 main estimates include an increase in public debt charges from $37.8 billion to $46.5 billion; increases in major transfer payments, most notably elderly benefits, which have gone from $76.6 billion to $81.1 billion; the Canada health transfer, which has gone from $49.4 billion to $52.1 billion; and fiscal equalization, which has gone from $24 billion to $25.3 billion.

There is an increase in the Canada carbon rebate, formerly called the climate action incentive payment, from $9 billion to $11.4 billion. This would obviously be distributed to all the federal backstop provinces, and Canadians will get those rebates. There is an increase in the payments for the AgriInsurance program, which has gotten significantly bigger, growing from $243 million to $1 billion. Net statutory expenditures of $1 billion are forecast for loans, investments and advances, reflecting an increase in net loans dispersed under the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act.

There has also been a major initiative to refocus government spending. Canadians expect transparency from their government, and they have a right to know how public funds are spent. Through our financial reporting, our government is committed to spending taxpayers' money transparently, efficiently and prudently while getting results. The government has been reporting on its efforts to refocus government spending since fall 2023, beginning with supplementary estimates (B), which presented reallocations in government spending of $500 million based on previous spending in travel and professional services.

The main estimates continue to report on the amounts that are being reallocated in the next three years, providing a total for each department and for the government overall. Departmental plans include further details on the ongoing reductions, including implementation plans by department. In fact, it is one of the most important things we do as a government, which is why we undertook a spending review within the main estimates and supplementary estimates.

In budget 2023, we made a commitment to refocus government spending and to ensure prudent fiscal management, and that is exactly what we are doing today. I hope all members of the House will quickly support the main estimates and supplementary estimates.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, the estimates are generally put together around January and, of course, tabled later. Between January and when the most recent supplementary estimates (A) came out, the government found out that it owed an extra $1.9 billion in interest on the debt, so it has come to Parliament asking for this money.

How is it that the government is so out of touch and so bad at math that, within just a short two-month period, it miscalculated $1.9 billion in interest payments on the debt?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know that Conservatives often have trouble understanding that the world changes and things evolve over time.

I would answer the member's question by saying this: Our government has paid a lot of attention to refocusing government spending, which amounts to a refocusing of $15.8 billion in spending by 2027-28. That is a pretty significant amount of refocused government spending, which I think we can all agree is a good thing. It is good, prudent fiscal management to look at how the government is spending its money and to ensure that we are refocusing those funds in areas where we can get better results for Canadians. That should be acknowledged by all parties as a positive thing.