Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could comment briefly on what the Liberal member of Parliament said about what a big problem giving tax relief to Canadians is going to be and what the cost is. He never once mentioned the mess he has put Canada and Canadian families in. On the taxes, we can look at the cost of the grocery benefit the government is putting out and why that has come to be. It has come to be because of all the inflation and the cost of fuel to get things shipped around the country.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member of Parliament mentioned all of the foreign investment, but if we go back and look, every dollar of foreign investment is paired with the taxpayer dollars of investment. If we go back to the Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper days, companies would invest their own dollars, with no government money. I wonder if the member of Parliament would talk about the value of that, where a business will just come here to make an investment because it makes business sense to make an investment.

Madam Speaker, the Liberal member for Winnipeg North was going on about Japan. I just wonder whether the member could talk about Japan and the folly of comparing Canada to Japan when it comes to debt and the debt-to-GDP ratio. How did Japan get there? Japan's debt-to-GDP ratio is 250%. How it happened is persistent, long-term deficits, and then all of a sudden, one day, it is in a big mess. Could the member talk about how we should not be like Japan and about how we should get the budget balanced and provide fiscal certainty to the rest of the world?

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to talk about the budget. I will be sharing my time with the member for North Island—Powell River. This budget, in my mind, is really a confirmation of what we have seen gradually increasing over the last 10 years. The Prime Minister himself has spoken about it. He gave a pre-emptive speech a few weeks ago and talked about the sacrifices that future generations will need to make, which was basically a confirmation of what we warned about, even 10 years ago, regarding the risks of deficit-heavy spending budgets and the accumulation of debt, which is where we are today. This budget is a confirmation that the covenant with Canadians has been broken. By that I mean that gone are the days when somebody could work hard at school, get good grades, have an opportunity to get an education they were dreaming of, whether in the trades, at community college or in university, whatever it was, and graduate with a reasonable amount of debt, or in some cases no debt. They could get out into the workforce, get a meaningful job that hopefully they were trained in or inspired to do and save a few bucks. Maybe their parents would help them; maybe that was not an option, but they were able to save a few bucks and buy their first home. It could be modest or grand, whatever they saw in their own eyes, but they would be able to have a home. Then they could find somebody special to raise a family in that home, have a career and an affordable retirement. With enough money set aside, saved and invested, when it was time for them to retire, they would be able to retire in the comfort of their community, perhaps in an elaborate way, and have a retirement they would enjoy and find meaningful and fulfilling. In addition, along the way their kids might have the opportunity to get involved in sports, music or the arts. Whatever it may be, they would be able to get behind them and support them in their extracurricular activities and maybe take a modest vacation once in a while. Also, their taxpayer dollars were being used in such a way that if they needed to go to the hospital or see a doctor, they would have a family doctor, and health care would be accessible to do that. I think the vast majority of Canadians my age and younger now feel that this covenant with the government has been broken. I hope it is not permanently broken, but most people feel like it has been broken in one way, shape or form. I believe the Liberal government's propensity to spend and go for this theme of the day or that theme of the day, without real direction, has caused us to be where we are today. I would like to go back in time, because it may help us shape where we need to go in the future. If we go back 10 years ago and look at the budget that Stephen Harper and Joe Oliver presented to Canadians, there was a budget surplus. It had a clear path and direction. It had an enticement to get private capital investment into this country. They knew this was a country where people could do business and grow and expand within the country, because all the frameworks were there for that. The deficit this year will be $78 billion. I never would have believed at the beginning of this year, after Justin Trudeau stepped down as prime minister, that the current Prime Minister, who announced he was going to run for the Liberal leadership, won it, was successful in the election and became the Prime Minister, would outperform Justin Trudeau in the deficit department. I did not think that was possible. Out of all the thousands of doors I knocked on, I do not think the people I talked to thought this is what they were voting for either, although there were a few, once in a while, who said they were voting for him. I think they thought they were voting for a business person, not a spender like the previous prime minister and the finance minister were. We have somebody who was supposed to be a responsible fiscal manager but who now makes Justin Trudeau look like Warren Buffett. It is hard to believe, but he has done it. It is sad to be here listening to him sometimes, but that is the reality. We will have a $78-billion deficit this year, and until the 2029-30 fiscal year, it is going to average $64 billion per year, which outdoes Justin Trudeau every year, except for when we had the COVID pandemic. It is really shameful. It is going to leave a shameful legacy if it is allowed to go on. The other thing is that Justin's deficit this year was only projected to be $42 billion. His accumulated amount of debt over the same period of time was only going to be $131 billion. It is shocking to say “only”. That is still a lot of debt. With this version, maybe $265 billion over the next number of years will be added to our debt. As for interest, I did hear many times today in our debate that there will be $53 billion in interest this year, going to $76 billion per year in just a few short years. The interest on the debt in 2015 was $25 billion. That puts into perspective what the interest was then compared to what the interest is now and the perils of the path we are on. There was a Liberal member of Parliament who said that compared to Japan, we are looking pretty good. We should never compare ourselves to them, because they are just a few years ahead of the path we are on right now. Another cause for concern is the amount of GST we collect every year. Projected roughly, we will collect $52 billion in GST this year, which would roughly cover interest payments, although paying interest is not what GST was set up for. If we project it out to the year when interest will be $76 billion, GST is only projected to bring in $62 billion, which is a tremendous amount of money, but it obviously falls short of covering interest. As I said, this is not what GST was meant for; it is just a comparison. Total debt is over $2 trillion. If we go out to 2029-30, it will be $2.9 trillion. Sometimes we use the net debt number, but I do not think we should be using that number anymore; it should be total debt. The total debt in 2015 was $1 trillion. If we look at that, everything has doubled. That is a troubling trend considering that we had a balanced budget 10 years ago. We are starting to lose our fiscal ability to recover from this, as well as our path toward balance and the light at the end of the tunnel for the investment community. Government expenditures, this year, are getting pretty close to $600 billion for the annual spend. Ten years ago, it was $288 billion. That is the lay of the land of where we are. The other thing, and maybe in questions and answers we can get to it, is trade. Trade has been a big issue, obviously, in the news headlines. It has been a reality for Canadian exporters. For a long time, I have been saying that we need a reconciliation in all our trade deals. There are trade deals, for example the comprehensive European trade deal, in which we are not getting our fair share. I have said this many times in the House. We do not get our fair share of what we bargained for. It was supposed to be $500 million or $600 million a year in trade with beef and pork. It is a fraction. We have a trade deficit with the United Kingdom on beef. All of these things need to be reconciled. Canada has been a fair trader for many years, and it is time for us to get our share too.

Madam Speaker, the member is missing out on a few key points. One is to remember which government initiated the national shipbuilding project. With respect to some of the spending the Liberals may be taking credit for today, those seeds were planted many, many years ago. Another thing I would also mention is the expenditures on the F-35. The bungling of the Liberal government on the F-35 lost us direct national benefits for the manufacturing of parts in this country. That was a major screw-up, to my mind. We would already have F-35s here today, we would have pilots trained and we would be able to be an active participant with NATO. We had a plan, and if the Liberals had just stuck to our plan, we would be years ahead today.

Madam Speaker, what I would say is that it was given up and there was nothing gained in return. At one time, the Liberals gave it up because they thought it would help them get to the negotiating table. We have done that too many times now, and that is unfortunate. Another thing I would say to my Bloc colleague is that the Liberal government has way overstepped its boundaries and is so far into all the different areas of provincial jurisdiction. The Liberals have to pull back on some of that stuff, and they have to do an analysis of what the federal government's job actually is. This is not to say that the Liberals cannot partner with provinces, but they certainly cannot stick their toe into everything the provinces are supposed to be responsible for.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member two questions specifically. There is a huge trade deficit on Canadian cars entering the U.K. versus U.K. cars coming into Canada. It is about 20:1. How can there be a trade deficit in Canada with U.K. beef? There is more beef from the United Kingdom entering Canada than Canadian beef heading into the United Kingdom. How can we do anything with the United Kingdom until we straighten out those two issues?

Madam Speaker, one comment the member made defies logic. It is not in the fact that open dialogue is not bad. It is good; I agree with that part. However, CETA has been around a long time. Mary Ng was negotiating the Canada-U.K. trade agreement, but it broke down on one of the things around some of the trade irritants we have with the U.K. Now we are looking at CPTPP and more access. There will be more access, certainly for dairy and other things. Does the member agree that the time for talk is over, and it is time for the U.K. to live up to its end of the deal?

Mr. Speaker, I think that some of the Liberals are confused today when they are giving their speeches. They are acting as if the deal were a new one. It is an old deal. There was CETA and, post-Brexit, there was the temporary agreement. There are over 10 years' worth of outstanding issues. The Canada-U.K. deal would have been a chance to fix issues around beef and other issues. This may be a worse deal, but the member for Cumberland—Colchester talked about how it is the greatest thing. I bet if she were to take a closer look, she would find that the people in her riding are going to have less with TPP than they would have with CETA. I wondered if the member could talk about that.

Mr. Speaker, last night, for a few hours we were a nation united, gathered around our TVs watching the Toronto Blue Jays beat the Mariners in seven games to reach the World Series for the first time in 32 years. The season started slow, but around the middle of May, something clicked. Playing with grit, hustle, good pitching, defence and no easy outs in the lineups, the Blue Jays went 73-45 to finish in first place, and they have not looked back. We love Vladdy, and we have dreamt of what he could do since we signed him at 16 years of age. There is Gausman, Yesavage, Bieber, Scherzer and Hoffman. The list of all the great pitching goes on and on. Then there is Kirky. How could we not admire him, a fan favourite and the everyman in the lineup? George Springer found the fountain of youth and had a career year. We love these Blue Jays because 41 million Canadians can see themselves in them: in an underdog, in their hard work, in never giving up and in believing in themselves. There are four more. Let us win it all.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today. What we are talking about today with this motion is ending the Justin Trudeau-style economic philosophy and the Justin Trudeau-style budgeting and getting back to the basics here. We are talking about investments today and different things. Before I get started, I should congratulate the Toronto Blue Jays on a great victory and a great series. It was excellent. We can all agree on that in the House. It is a bit of unity before we get the punching in. What did the Blue Jays do? We can give them credit for private investment. They spent $750 million over the past few years updating the Rogers Centre, and they did not ask for any government money that I know of. They had a business case, they went about it and they did it. I think they did it on time and on budget. Now, they are into the next round of playoffs, and they are getting their return on investment. That is really what we are talking about here today. We have to unleash the private business investment in this country. We have to become more attractive to foreign companies and our own domestic companies so they make a decision to invest in Canada. There is far too much red tape and obstruction to do that. There was a Liberal MP who spoke about 20 minutes ago, and what she said was interesting. She said that the Liberals created a new program to deal with all the red tape and delay in the programs. Well, guess who created all that red tape and delay in the programs? The Liberal government has been around so long that it is trying to fix the devastation it created, but that is never going to happen, because the Liberals do not know how to fix it. If we go back 10 years, Stephen Harper and Joe Oliver delivered a budget in the legacy of Jim Flaherty. It was a balanced budget. The government expenditures that year were $289 billion for a balanced budget. The entire net debt for the country was $610 billion, which is a lot. The debt-to-GDP ratio at that time was just over 31% and declining. We really were, after a number of years, becoming a destination for the world to do business. Justin Trudeau came along and said, “Look, I'm just going to spend a bit more over the next three years. I'm going to have a balanced budget in 2020 and a little deficit in the medium term, or $10 billion a year, so some investment can kick-start the economy.” Now, that should have been deadpanned right from the beginning because, with a $2-trillion economy, $10 billion is really not going to get the job done. Right from the beginning, we knew it. Canadians should have known that, when a person comes in with that kind of philosophy, it is going to fail. Fast-forward to today and the net debt is $1.2 trillion to $1.3 trillion, and the gross debt is way more. The debt-to-GDP ratio for just Canada, not for all the provinces combined, is 45%, I believe. The deficit this year, incredibly, will be higher than a Justin Trudeau deficit at approximately $62.5 billion. All the while, the Liberals have been telling Canadians that we just need to invest a little more to the point where, now, in 2024-25, I believe total government expenditure is at $450 billion. In 10 years, we have increased the size of government by well over 50%, we have more than doubled Canada's debt permanently and we have added burden onto young Canadians that will last their lifetime and generations down the line, all because Justin Trudeau said 10 years ago that we were going to make a wee investment. He used the phrase “modest short-term deficit”. He also used a phrase that came back to bite him pretty hard: “the budget will balance itself”. The other chief architect of this commentary is now the Prime Minister. He was Trudeau's adviser all the way along. When Canadians were looking at him in the winter and through the spring, they thought, “Boy, we've really broken away from this Trudeau guy.” However, what they really did was elect Trudeau on steroids. Now, months later, people cannot believe what they got, and I know because I am out in my community all the time. It is not just in finance and business. It is in everything. It is universal disappointment. We need to get back to the basics. We need to create an economic climate where we can invite people to do business in our country. We need transparency. We need to know exactly what the rules are. Think about how many times the rules have changed since the Liberals have been in government over the past 10 years. For big projects and little projects, everything is changing all the time. He said one thing that might be the worst lie he could have told a Canadian, which was that the Liberals took on debt so Canadians would not have to. A lot of Canadians took that literally, five years ago. They are really being hit now, to the point where they are giving keys back to the bank and there are record lineups at food banks. It goes on and on. Ten years ago, when Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty and Joe Oliver were putting together budgets, a young family had a future. They could afford to buy a home. They could afford to save for their kids' education. They could put food on the table and not have to rely on government food programs to feed their children at lunchtime. People could afford to buy groceries and put it in their kids' lunch boxes. Canadians could afford to raise their kids, play sports and go on a vacation. They could do all these things. They may have had to work a bit of overtime and save from time to time, but it could be done. Now that dream is way out in the distance. I talked to somebody the other day who was talking about all the boomerang kids who have come back to live with their families. We never—

Mr. Speaker, I really think question period today highlighted the fracture in philosophies on the best way forward for the Canadian economy. What we heard in question period today from the Liberals, time and again, was that if we keep spoon-feeding and force-feeding the failed policies of the last 10 years, it might work, instead of letting free enterprise and the capital market move forward with the ability to invest on its own. In question period today, the Liberals were talking about direct foreign investment into Canada. The reality is that it is almost zero when there are no government dollars attached to that investment. We have seen those investments in Ontario and in different places. However, they would have never happened under the current economic climate unless there were taxpayer dollars involved. If we go back in time, that was not the case. Large corporations could examine the Canadian market, take a look at the investment climate, the labour pools and all the different services that went into it. I am talking about before 2015. They could make their own decisions, and they did not need Canadian taxpayer dollars to make the investments; they would just come here. It has not been great in the last 10 years. In fact for Canadian companies, unfortunately, the majority of the time when they have a chance to make an investment in Canada, they definitely are not doing so. They are choosing somewhere else. Unfortunately we see that in the news every day. Another one is AI. It is a buzz word on the news, in business and everywhere else. At the beginning of the year, the United States announced there would be a $500-million investment into the broader AI sector. None of that was government dollars; it was all private dollars. There has actually been a lot more since that, NVIDIA being the greatest example. It is allocating $100 million out of its own free cash into AI, ChatGPT, in the United States. It is pretty quiet up here in Canada. The only investment we really see is from the Government of Canada. Why is that? It is because the climate, not the weather climate but the investment climate, is not great. The other thing is that there is no extra electrical capacity in this country, partially because of all the red tape in seeking approval to start projects. There is a lot I would like to continue on with. Of course unemployment, unfortunately and amazingly, under the current Prime Minister, and it is almost unbelievable I am saying this, is higher than when Justin Trudeau was the prime minister. I do not think the current Prime Minister ever thought that would happen. As well, there have been 86,000 job losses since he was elected. I do not think he ever thought that would happen, but it did.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, nobody is putting down AI. Simply put, I am saying that when given the choice where to invest, investors are picking the United States. That is all I am saying on that. When it comes to the debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, I do not know why the Liberals even bring it up anymore. Once we get to 100% debt-to-GDP ratio, it is over. No country has ever recovered from that. Basically we are comparing ourselves to countries that are terminal financially. Without a great debt jubilee, it is over for them, like Japan, the United States, etc. Why do we want to be the best of the worst? Why do we not just want to be the best?

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I can give an example. Over 20 years ago in my riding, where I used to work, the owner of Wescast Industries at the time made a decision to make a huge investment in Wingham, Ontario to build a new foundry where exhaust manifolds would be built and sold around the world. It was the largest manufacturer of them in the world. There were 2,000 employees in Ontario at Wescast Industries during the period of 2003 to 2004. Do members know how many there are today? There are zero. That is the tale across many communities in Ontario and in Canada. I know that the softwood lumber industry is feeling it now. Those jobs do not come back. The dollars to build the foundry at that time were from private investment, not government grants.

Mr. Speaker, the member had better ask his Prime Minister, because I am sure he will give him a lesson on macroeconomics. We can take just one simple measure: the price of gold. That is where stability is found for countries. When the Liberal government was elected in 2015, the price of gold was $1,200. The price of gold today is $4,000, and that is not because the government has been doing a great job; it is because everybody else around the world knows that the economy is broken.

With regard to professional and special services spending by category, in 2022-23, as listed in table 1 of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report titled "Fiscal cost of task-based IT contracting": (a) what is the total amount spent on contracts for management consulting; and (b) what are the details of all such contracts, including for each (i) the amount, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the date and duration, (iv) the description of the goods or services provided, (v) the topics related to the goods or services, (vi) the specific goals or objectives related to the contract, (vii) whether or not the goals or objectives were met, (viii) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process?

With regard to professional and special services spending by category, in 2022-23, as listed in table 1 of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report titled "Fiscal cost of task-based IT contracting": (a) what was the total amount spent on contracts for (i) engineering and architectural services, (ii) business services, (iii) informatics services, (iv) health and welfare services, (v) other services, (vi) legal services, (vii) protection services, (viii) training and educational services, (ix) scientific and research services, (x) construction services, (xi) interpretation and translation services, (xii) special fees and services; and (b) broken down by each category in (a), what are the details of each such contract, including (i) the amount, (ii) the vendor, (iii) the date and duration, (iv) the description of the goods or services provided, (v) whether the contract was sole-sourced or awarded through a competitive bidding process?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. It is my first opportunity to rise in the House since the last election. I would like to thank the voters in Huron—Bruce for their support through the years. I certainly appreciate it. It is humbling; I will say that. I would also like to thank my family and extended family for their great support through the years. I would also like to thank all the fantastic volunteers. For anybody in the House of Commons or anybody who ran in an election in a big rural riding, I say it is quite a challenge. We have volunteers in every community and every town, and they really help out, putting up signs and door knocking. It really is a big effort. I thank all of them. I am going to share my time with the member of Parliament for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, a great colleague of mine. Her speech will be up after mine and will likely be 10 or 20 times better than mine, but we will hear everybody's speech. With the EV mandate that is being brought forward, I do not think it is important to debate what a person likes better. If we like an electric vehicle, if we like an electric truck or if we like a diesel truck or a gas truck, that is our preference. Probably, we would all agree that the issue comes down to how, by 2035, whether we still desire to purchase a gas or diesel vehicle that suits our lifestyle needs, whether we live in a rural or remote area or whether we use it for business, that is something I do not think we need to be penalized for, in terms of $20,000 a vehicle. I think most people would agree with that. The idea of and the evolution of electric vehicles is on display every time we get in our car and drive up and down a road. Where we never used to see one, we see one at every grocery store. Whatever area we are doing our shopping in, we will see one. We will see charging stations. It has evolved very well over the last 15 to 20 years and likely will only continue to grow. I do not think that this is the debate anybody is really having in here. It is just about how we are going to put the hammer down by 2035 and penalize those whom it probably is not going to work for. When we are doing that, we are saying it is for everybody. I do not think Canadians are saying that. To take the most simplistic example, I used to have a gas-fired chainsaw and a gas-fired grass trimmer. My neighbour sells Makita battery-operated chainsaws, drills, lawnmowers and so on. One day, he said to me that I am just a weekend warrior, no offence, and he asked me why I did not get into one of these, because then I would not have to worry about it not starting when I wanted it to, etc., etc. I said I did not know. He let me borrow his. The next day, I went over and said I would buy one, and so I started off with the battery-operated grass trimmer, and it is fantastic. The point is that this is a market-driven demand. I saw a better option that worked for me. For someone who is in the forestry business, an 18-volt or whatever-volt battery that is going in our chainsaw is not going to work for that person, but for a weekend warrior like me, who needs to cut some branches or a little tree that needs to be taken care of, it works great. If we take that approach, it would be a much more logical and sensible approach that Canadians would agree with. It does not matter if we are 25 years old or if we are getting close to 50 years old or if we are 80 years old, we can make those decisions that work best for us. Nobody wants to go out to their shed and pull it out. If we are only using it once a month in the summertime, we want the thing to work. If it is battery operated, it is going to work. There are two other considerations here. I am from Ontario, and the consideration I would have is the actual electrical grid. I checked this morning, just before I was up to speak, and the demand for Ontario was about 17,500 megawatts and it is only going to continue to go up today, likely to 20,000 megawatts or somewhere around there. The supply and demand in Ontario's grid is pretty tight when we get into June and July and air conditioning season, etc. The 2035 mandate is really going to be tight for Ontario. Now, I am sure all politicians will say that we can meet the challenge, we can do it, but if we actually ask the people who have to build the electrical plants, they may be a little skeptical, especially considering all the red tape involved in a new build, regardless of what source of energy it will be. The grid has to be a big part of this; it has to be a big consideration in this. The IESO put out a report in 2024 that basically outlined the two biggest drivers in demand growth for electricity in Ontario until 2050. There is R1, which we are talking about today, the electrical car mandate. The other is something that has come up as an election promise, and I am sure the government will try and follow through on it: all the data centres that are going to be required for AI. If we look at these two drivers for electricity to 2025, we are going to be really up against it. The numbers are, roughly, that about 200,000 electric vehicles will use about 5,000 megawatts on average. As the fleet continues to grow, we can see that if we are adding 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 EVs every year to a province, that is going to really chew into the electrical supply. What we need to do collectively here is to say that we know people like electric vehicles, and we want to be able to provide car manufacturers the ability to make these vehicles, but we also cannot handcuff everyday people in Ontario with not having enough electricity. We saw what happened in California a couple of years ago with Gavin Newsom. He actually had to tell people there were certain days and certain hours when they could not charge their car. Well, if a person is retired and not having to do everything all the time, that is one thing, but for a parent with kids, running them to hockey, baseball, soccer and music, and going back and forth to work, the possibility of having charging restrictions may not work as well. I am not trying to throw fear into the discussion here, but that is just the reality of what happened, and it was probably because of poor planning of the electrical grid and some other conditions. Something I think we need to consider is the complete cycle of this. That is a reality of the mandate as we get to 2035, and it will be a challenge. If we look at the IESO report, it anticipates that there could be new builds for some forms of electricity by 2035, but every day that goes by, we are further along. The other point I really want to talk about is the complete life cycle. Years ago, I worked in the automotive parts manufacturing business. The other point is the recycling of these batteries, which is a reality. If we are adding hundreds of thousands of vehicles with electric batteries in them every year, they cannot just get thrown into the junkyard. There has to be the ability for the entire industry, and the governments that promote these vehicles, to recycle these vehicles safely, environmentally and ethically. We know the recyclers will take all the nickel and cobalt they can get out of it, because that is the lucrative part of the recycling, but there are the plastics, the copper and aluminum; all of those should be ethically taken out as well. There was a company, Li-Cycle, a recycler in the U.S., mainly, that recently filed for chapter 15 bankruptcy protection, and a company does not file for that if it is making hordes of money recycling these batteries. It could not get its costs down quick enough to make a go of it. If we have a complete cycle, it makes sense. If governments are going to promote this and we are going to do it, we have to have a complete cycle in the sector. We have to find a way to recycle these vehicles when they come to the end of their life. If we are going to claim an electric vehicle is environmentally friendly because it does not emit, which I can agree with, then we have to be able to recycle the entire car.

Mr. Speaker, on the problem that the hon. member talks about, she will see if she just goes outside of Guelph a bit that there are an awful lot of people who make their living with a pickup truck. Whether they are a contractor or whatever they do, they have a pickup truck. The way it is today, take, for example, a Ford electric truck. It is great if someone is just tooting down the road with nothing to pull behind them, but as soon as they put a trailer on it with a bit of a load, the battery does not last. It is not a critique of Ford; that is just the way it is. People need a combustion engine to get the job done. It is not to say that down the road it would not happen, but the Liberals are handcuffing Ford, GM, Dodge, all of them. Make it a goal, but the way it is, the proposal is too rigid right now.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to talk to car dealership managers right now and ask how sales of EVs are going once the government rebates and grants are falling off. We can look at the data for the first six months of the year, and we know sales are down because the grants are down. The other thing I will say is to take a look at the combustion engine and its evolution over the last 30 years, specifically around pickup trucks that had V8 engines. Regarding fuel mileage, way back in the day, Ford pickups would get about eight miles to the gallon. Maybe 20 years ago, it would have been 13 or 14 miles to the gallon, and now, if they are cruising down the road, it is close to 30 miles to the gallon. That is a huge innovation. There are other things, like EGR valves that are bolted onto the exhaust manifold. Those help to recycle emissions. We have catalytic converters. What comes out of the tailpipe of a truck from 30 years ago does not reflect anything that happens on a new truck today.

Mr. Speaker, it is all part of the consideration. I know the hon. member is a big fan of snowmobiles and chainsaws and all of these things. We can think back to snowmobiles 30 years ago when there was not one snowmobile in the country that was four-stroke. They all were two-stroke, and they used mixed fuel, and we could smell them five kilometres away. Most of them now are four-stroke, and people do not have to mix the fuel. Even in recreation vehicles, there is innovation.

With regard to government programs aimed at establishing digital credentials or a digital identification (ID): (a) how many employees or full-time equivalents are assigned to working on such a program; (b) how much money has been spent exploring or studying options in relation to such a program in the past five years, in total and broken down by type of expenditure; (c) what is the government's plan for how digital credentials or a digital ID would be used; (d) what options or uses have been studied to date; (e) of the options in (d), which ones have been rejected outright by the government; (f) does the government commit to not establishing any new digital credential or digital ID projects or programs without receiving explicit approval from Parliament prior to starting any such projects or programs, and, if not, why not; and (g) which employees or other individuals has the government authorized to be involved in any related projects or programs, and who is in charge of overseeing the work of the individuals involved?

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could comment a bit about the wasteful spending. I cannot believe the wasteful spending over the last nine years. The member for Kingston and the Islands asks what we are going to do. My colleague here will outline that we would not have this wasteful spending, such as $10 million on a cricket farm about an hour from where I grew up, $400 million in this slush fund and millions of dollars to Loblaws for coolers. I would like my colleague to talk about the wasteful spending. One last point is that the member for Windsor is a great guy; I like him. He can talk about the spending, but I remember. I was here. Megan Leslie and Nathan Cullen said to spend more. It is one thing to say it, but that is what they were saying.

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party has submitted a dissenting report on this study of the Arctic and the research therein. As a couple of highlights, from our perspective, one is the potential lack of coordination across all the research projects there. Of course, we want to make sure that there is top value for taxpayers, knowing that there is no duplication. In addition to this, there should be spending effectiveness.

Mr. Speaker, when members of Parliament go back to their ridings on the weekend or during their constituency weeks and when they go to community events, or to their local arena, or to the local community centre or legion, wherever they go, I am sure they get the same comments that I get, no matter what political party. Sometimes we are a little amazed at what people want to talk about. If we are at an arena, seldom do they want to talk about hockey. What do they want to talk about? They want to talk about corruption. They ask me who is going to jail. I was at an arena on Saturday and an elderly couple asked me who would go to jail for all of this. They wanted to know what was happening. I think this is at the core of what really upsets the Canadian public, certainly it is in my area. I think back to years ago, when I worked for a foundry, and how hard the workers worked, grinding castings, pressing castings, working hours in the hot summer days inside the furnace room, slagging furnaces. Workers were working in eight-hour shifts and then working four hours overtime afterward. I can remember sitting at the lunch table in the cafeteria. As they were looking at their paycheques, they were talking about their overtime and how much they had left. Sometime these individuals would go into work at 3 a.m. to work a four-hour overtime shift from 3 a.m. to 7 a.m. Then they would work their regular shifts from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. The same thing happened for afternoon shifts. When they looked at their paycheques, they had about 52% left over of what they should have made in overtime. These people are working hard every day. They then read in the newspaper or on the Internet, or they see it on the TV at night, while watching the news with their family, about this waste, the hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars that, after nine years, have accumulated well into the billions. When they see this, they want to know what is going on. This is not what they want. Nor is it the Canada they were hoping to have. This is when the frustration boils over. I think back to the 2015 election. In a few debates in which I participated, I said that the same people who ran the government in Ontario, Gerald Butts, Katie Telford, and we all know the names, who picked the pockets of the Ontario taxpayers for years, scandal-ridden abuses, were coming to Ottawa to pick the pockets of the Canadian taxpayer now. That is right out of a debate. I am not taking credit for my foresight, but those are the facts. Why is the culture of that party, the Liberal Party, like this? I know that not all the members are like that, but why is there a culture behind the scenes and in senior leadership? Some of the big hitters cancelled gas plants. That was a billion-dollar debacle. People went to jail for that and ended up being the contributing factor as to why we are so tight on electricity in the province of Ontario. A lot of people have forgotten the 600 school closures in Ontario during the Wynne-McGuinty years. In my area, I remember going to the reviews, and people were very upset. As it turns out, if they did not close the schools, those schools would be almost full today because of the population growth. I would consider that a big waste. Kids who used to walk to school are now taking buses. There is nothing wrong with a bus, but if they could walk or ride their bikes to school, they would be a lot better off. Let us talk about the doubling of the debt. In those years, the world's economy was pretty good, and the Liberals ran a deficit the entire time. There are higher taxes and fees, like the hiking of the aviation fuel tax, the beer and wine taxes, sin taxes. It sounds familiar. They did that first in Ontario and then they brought it to Ottawa. There are new taxes on small businesses—

Mr. Speaker, the member's and my offices are beside each other, so we can talk about this later, if there are any ongoing questions. The taxes are hiking up the cost of a driver's licence, fishing licence, hunting licence, camping licence, liquor licence, event permit, court application, and the list goes on. The government is not able to manage its own internal interactions, affairs and cost overruns, including red tape. This all happened in Ontario. Now, in Ottawa, after nine years, it is fully embedded. The government spent $8 billion on e-health. If we ask anybody in Ontario where they would go to locate their e-health record, I do not think there are many citizens who would know where their e-health record is located. The government also spent $2 billion on smart metres. A lot of people in our ridings would remember that. It was then $304 million over budget on the Pan Am Games and there were $400 million in Presto card cost overruns. It goes on and on. I will move on to another topic and go back years ago to when an employee who worked in finance where I worked maybe had her hand in the cookie jar. That is pretty much what happened. After an internal investigation, the company discovered that she had misappropriated over $400,000. That was 15 years ago, so it would probably be $3 million in today's dollars, with inflation. The staff of the company did the investigation, I am sure with the assistance of auditors, and turned the documents over to the OPP. The OPP then used those documents to do its investigation. The individual was charged with fraud over $5,000 and was sentenced to an 18-month conditional sentence. Restitution was made, and all the money was recovered. If we look at that small example and ask ourselves what the difference here is, there really is no difference. The government across the way has the ability to produce these documents unredacted and turn them over to the RCMP to let it make a determination. However, it is awfully difficult to do it a page at a time and while having to wait because of delays to receive the documents. It would be much easier and more appropriate to turn all of the documents over and have the RCMP make its evaluation. The member for King—Vaughan made points in her speech about some of the scandals that have plagued the government for nine plus years now. The members of Parliament who ran in the 2015 election will remember that time. I am sure my Liberal colleagues across the way remember that time. They were very excited about the promises that were made and the hope that was offered in that 2015 election, after which a significant majority government was formed. I am sure those members of Parliament would never have believed in their wildest dreams that this is where we would be today. We have pages of scandals, issues and problems, and there is money that will never be found or repaid. It can all be laid at the hands of the Prime Minister, his chief of staff, the cabinet ministers who are here, and those who have left, and who are likely collecting seven-figure salaries now. I think SNC-Lavalin would have to be one of the most egregious cases in the history of Canada with respect to abuse of power. What is most remarkable is this: There was a significant number of key players in that scandal who are still employed, still holding an elected office. It is hard to believe that there has been no housecleaning. I thought to myself, “What would Jody Wilson-Raybould have to say if she had been re-elected as an independent member of Parliament in the last election? What would she want to say in this speech?” It would likely be the most impactful speech about what it is like to be a minister with a thumb on them the whole time, and to play fast and loose with the law to achieve the goals of the Prime Minister and the corporations. Another one that was shocking, and it was uncovered during COVID times, was the WE Charity scandal. People could not believe it. I know Bill Morneau took the hit for that one to protect the Prime Minister for another day. There is also the Trudeau Foundation. I do not think we will ever know all the truth about what is going on and what has gone on at the Trudeau Foundation. Hopefully, some day, we will. On foreign interference, again, people at home are in disbelief.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. The last point I want to make is about some of the hypocrisy we see with the Liberal government. It just goes on and on. In this House of Commons, I have listened many times to the Liberals saying we have to do something about fossil fuels, oil, gas, etc. I read an article this morning in The Globe and Mail. It was an update on the results of the Trans Mountain pipeline, which was an overspending debacle of $30 billion. The point was, who is the king of oil in the House of Commons? It is the environment minister. Canada is now producing five million barrels a day and it is increasing every year under the Liberals. Why is that? Basically, the Liberals need the money to pay for everything else, so they are quite pleased to let the oil come out of the ground. I agree, it should come out of the ground and it should be shipped by pipeline. However, I find it ironic that the Liberals go on at length about fossil fuels, oil, etc., and the environment minister is the king of oil, for now. The broader issue at play here is the government's integrity. The allegations of conflicts of interest within SDTC are particularly troubling because they suggest public funds may have been misused to benefit individuals with close ties to the government. This kind of behaviour undermines public trust in government institutions and erodes confidence in the government's ability to manage public resources in a fair and transparent way. The audit found board members were voting on projects that directly benefited companies with which they had personal affiliations, which is a clear violation of conflict of interest laws. These laws are in place to ensure that public officials do not use their position for personal gain and that government decisions are made in the best interest of the public, not private individuals. When these laws are violated, it casts doubt on the integrity of the entire decision-making process. I am sure many people have heard of some of the carryings-on that went on, through the minutes of those meetings. It is pretty startling, really. It is important to note for Canadians that this kind of self-enriching goes directly against the Governor in Council appointment process, which states that a person appointed by the government, entrusted to oversee taxpayer money, will not personally profit from their work on a committee as a Governor in Council appointee, and neither will any of their family members. However, this is exactly what happened. In a five-year period where 405 transactions were approved by the board, the Auditor General sampled 226, only half of them, and found 186 of those 226 transactions had some sort of a conflict. It is too much. It is egregious. If the Auditor General looked at all 400 transactions, statistically, they would probably find the rest of them were conflicted as well. It is a lot of money and Canadians have a right to know. Parliamentarians have a right to make sure justice is carried out on behalf of all those hard-working people I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. Canadians pay their taxes on each and every paycheque. They pay their CPP. They pay their OAS. They trust that the people they mark down on their ballots will do the right thing when they are in Ottawa and that these dollars will be respected. Far too many people in our country have worked so hard, paid so much in taxes and created so much economic activity only to have been disappointed time and time again over the nine years the Liberals have been in office. To be honest, in the last few years, the NDP has been in on it, too, because it has been propping up the government. There needs to be something done. I am sure some of the members of Parliament on the other side feel the same way. Nobody comes to Ottawa to see what is happening with this scandal: people enriching themselves with millions and millions of dollars. A lot of the projects likely never went anywhere. Then the people back in our ridings who have contracting, construction and landscaping firms, who are carpenters, electricians, plumbers and health care professionals, go to work each and every day and see this on the news. Hope and excitement in the country are not there as they used to be. People want to be hopeful, but when they see this time and time again, and the list is unbelievable now after nine and a half years, they are truly disappointed. One director was particularly aggressive at this. Andrée-Lise Méthot was appointed in 2016 by the Prime Minister. She runs a venture capital firm called Cycle Capital. Her companies, before and during her time on the board, apparently received $250 million in grants, and $114 million went to green companies she had invested in. I think it is safe to say, when we look at these programs, whether it is Cycle Capital or others, no company needs that much money from the federal government. Really, no company needs that much money. From a government standpoint, the dollars are there to deliver government services, not to enrich insiders who create little value.

Madam Speaker, I think the member is still on the agriculture committee. Regarding my private member's bill, the Bloc members voted for it at second reading, at committee and at third reading. Then it came back from the Senate amended. Can members believe the Bloc is now taking its orders from the Senate? Now it will not support Bill C-234, which deals with on-farm carbon tax on natural gas and propane. All of a sudden, the Bloc members are listening to the orders from their senators, which is puzzling. The problem with the member's question, though, is that the Prime Minister dangled it last week. He said, “Hey, I have the list, and there are people from this party and that party on it.” He has opened Pandora's box. That is why the Conservative leader is saying, “Release it. Do the right thing.”

Madam Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay will notice that while he was asking his question, I never heckled him once. I actually listened to his question, which is something he rarely does. What always amazes me about the member is how thin his skin is. He has so much to say, but when something gets redirected to him, all of a sudden he is offended so easily. He offends everybody. The point is, the New Democrats have been propping up the current government for years now. I am sure some of the reason the member is retiring from politics is that it is unbearable to come home to his riding every weekend and have to go to an arena, a legion or a community centre and be asked, "Hey, man, why are you supporting these guys?" He has not got an answer for that, unfortunately.

Madam Speaker, as much as I think highly of the member, he is not telling the whole story, because there is also the heating of livestock barns and other buildings for growing food. He did not mention that. What he would have mentioned if he was being completely forthright in the debate was that the Senate took that out. Why would the Bloc Québécois take orders from the Senate? The other point he made was that it does not even impact his province, so why does he not help us out in Ontario, all the way to Alberta? That would be great.

Madam Speaker, I do not think the Leader of the Opposition is scared of anything, other than maybe when he upsets his wife. I think he is scared for the future of this country if the Liberals stay. That is why he is asking for a carbon tax election. As we see when we are in our communities, seniors and people on a fixed income are hurting, and every day the Liberal-NDP government is here is one more miserable day in the life of a senior on a fixed income pension.

With regard to government grant programs which are or have been administered by external parties or vendors since 2016: what are the details of all such programs, including, for each, the (i) name of the program, (ii) description or purpose of the program, (iii) amount of funding provided through the grants, (iv) number of grant recipients, (v) name of the external party or vendor that administered the program, (vi) amount paid to the external party or vendor for administering the program, (vii) reason the government outsourced the administration of the program?

Madam Speaker, I would like to echo the question that the member from Calgary just asked about being in the riding. I was not in his riding; I was in my own. However, in all the years I have been involved in politics, I think I have never had such an outpouring of negative commentary about the current state of affairs and the current government. Likely, if they were in their riding last week, all 338 MPs heard the same thing. This budget is called “Fairness for Every Generation”, and I would argue that it has been many generations since life has felt this unfair, if members hear what I am saying. I would think the reason is that every age group has been negatively impacted by the current government over the last nine years. Seniors who retired within the last 10 years, who had saved money, who had paid off their home and who figured their money would last them until they no longer needed it, are now in peril. That is now, for the first time, a question mark. Will they have enough to retire? Maybe a place where they are paying rent, if they sold their home and moved into an apartment or wherever they chose to live, was $1,200 or $1,500 a month. In my area, for example, it is over $2,000 a month now. A number of different components of high government spending have negatively impacted seniors. For families, whether it is a couple looking to have kids or a couple who has kids, whatever the kids' ages are, there are unbelievable skyrocketing costs. For people driving their kids back and forth to hockey, baseball, soccer or whatever they are doing, it is monumental how much things cost now. High government spending, out-of-control deficits, out-of-control debt and increasing interest rates have led to probably the most unfair period of time, at least in my lifetime and likely beyond that. Back in 2015, this is what former prime minister Stephen Harper wrote about what the Liberals would do: “Permanent deficits, higher taxes, and more debt, as proposed by the Liberals and the NDP, will wreck our economy, cost you money and possibly your job.” Can members imagine? He said that over nine years ago. He predicted this. He knew what the Prime Minister and his staff behind him, pushing all the buttons, would do. They were going to spend, spend, spend and destroy 20 years' worth of fiscal stewardship that would have led Canada to be among the elite in the world. That is what Stephen Harper said in 2015. He also said that “imposing carbon [tax] schemes” would “[drive] up the price of everything Canadian families buy—including gasoline, groceries, and home heating fuel. It is easy for us to be the Monday-morning quarterback now and say “of course this is what has happened”, but this is what Stephen Harper said nine years ago. He knew all this was going to happen. It was very obvious. The Liberals have done that. They have increased costs. I was at an annual general meeting earlier in the year, and the president and general manager of the co-op was commenting on the price of fuel, because the co-op sells fuel. It also sells propane to people who heat their homes with propane and to farmers as well. The general manager looks at the bills to see how bad they are. He was not making a political statement because I was there; he does not owe me anything. All he said was that, from his perspective, the single biggest and kindest thing the government could do for families in Huron—Bruce and across the country would be to get rid of the carbon tax and come right off it. However, the Liberals continue to pile-drive on Canadian families and price people right out of homes. In fact, Liberal members of Parliament are getting up and giving speeches admitting that constituents in their riding who would have been able to afford homes 15 years ago cannot afford homes now. They are living in basements. One Liberal member of Parliament said as much. I would also like to go back in time to when Jim Flaherty was the finance minister. He was probably amongst the best finance ministers of all time, if not the best. When he would deliver his budget, it was called an economic action plan. It was a plan to boost productivity, make economic gain, keep an eye on the government's finances, look at trade deals and grow the wealth of all Canadians. We have all heard the story about the high tide that lifts all boats and makes everybody do better. That is really what a Jim Flaherty budget was about. We are so far from that today. If we go back in time to when Jim Flaherty was the finance minister, a young couple could buy a home. They could afford the down payment. They could see the day down the road when they could likely retire. Their parents, who were in their fifties at the time, could also see the day they could retire. That is now all up in smoke because of nine years of high-flying spending. Pretty well everybody in here knows this by now, I would imagine, but we might as well review. When the Liberals were elected and were brought in, there was a balanced budget. There was a modest surplus after the great economic downturn of 2007, 2008 and 2009. There was approximately $600 billion in government debt. Today, the gross debt of this country is perilously close to $2 trillion. That is unbelievable. It is a blemish that will be on the government's legacy for all time. There is a deficit of $47 billion, which will go up between now and the end of the fiscal year for sure. With respect to the debt-to-GDP ratio, in 2015, it was 31% and was coming down. It was 32% or 33% the year before, and it went down to 31%. Now our debt-to-GDP ratio, according to the numbers, is 42%. It is not quite a 50% disaster, but it is definitely going in the wrong direction. I know the finance minister always says that when we compare it to the other G7 countries, we look great. If we are comparing ourselves to the worst managers of finance, maybe we do look good, I do not know, but I would not compare myself to the United States fiscally. I would not compare Canada's finances to those of Japan. Its finances are toast. It is manipulating its currency and interest rates. The United States has $34 trillion in debt. When Bill Clinton left office 20-something years ago, it was at $7 trillion and it was on its way to paying off all the debt. That is gone. It is adding a trillion dollars of debt every quarter. That is called a debt, or death, spiral. This is a perilous time. The finance minister should not say that we look great compared with the other G7 countries, because we should be comparing ourselves to what it looked like eight or nine years ago and be ashamed of our fiscal record. That is what she should look at. It is kind of like one's golf game. We do not compare it to our buddies' games, but to our own. Another thing we have heard about is the AAA credit rating. RBC just said that Canada's AAA rating is in trouble because of the spending; it can be downgraded. B.C. has been downgraded three times in three years and now sits at an AA-. The last point I will make before I turn it over is that we are entering into a period of what I call the trifecta of trouble because of this. We have backed ourselves into a corner with inflation, interest rates, mortgage rates and the Canadian dollar. If we have to raise rates because inflation is a little sticky, then the interest rates are going up, which will further compress the housing problem, as well as the Canadian dollar. Maybe in questions and answers, we can look into that further. I appreciate the time and look forward to questions.

Madam Speaker, the member for Kings—Hants and I have had some collegial discussions over the last couple of years. There was a unanimous consent motion to pass this bill at all stages. That was rejected by the Liberals. I understand the whole UC motion thing, but at the same time, this bill will be coming up for debate at the end of May, and that will be the true test. We will hear from the member for Kings—Hants at that time on what he and his Liberal colleagues will do. I will also say that the farmers will be in the fields at that point in time. In my area, most of the corn will be planted and the soybeans will likely be starting to grow in the south. Farmers are going to want to see results. They will want to see what the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois do on this bill. Is it going to be amended or in its original form? If members are truly for farmers, they will make this vote on the original bill, because farmers need the relief.

Madam Speaker, I would argue that, when the Conservatives were in government, Stephen Harper was the prime minister and Jim Flaherty was the finance minister, we were probably the most respectful of all the levels of provincial jurisdiction. We were so effective, we almost made the Bloc Québécois extinct. I remember that. It was almost wiped out. Why? It is because the residents of Quebec knew they had a prime minister and a finance minister that respected the Constitution and the areas of provincial jurisdiction. There were no problems. There were no issues in Quebec the entire time Stephen Harper was prime minister.

Madam Speaker, that is right, and maybe when the member goes home on the weekend, she could talk to her mom and ask her what happened back then. It was the great financial crisis. If we go back to the IMF and everybody else, they would agree that that is what we did. The most important thing, and the biggest distinction between us and the Liberals, is that we actually got back to a balanced budget. The Liberals are in no man's land with the finances. It will take a Conservative government, led by our leader, to get Canada back on track, get the budget balanced and get rid of all these carbon taxes.

With regard to the High Frequency Rail project and the final report expected in late 2023 to inform government decisions on opportunities to enhance rail service in Southwestern Ontario: (a) is the final report complete, and, if so, what is the website address where the report can be found; and (b) if the final report is not yet complete, when will it be, and what is the reason it was not ready in late 2023?