Bill C-60

Appropriation Act No. 4, 2023-24

An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024

This enactment grants the sum of $20,678,755,329 towards defraying charges and expenses of the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024 that are not otherwise provided for.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that it has passed the following bill: Bill C-60, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a few comments to make concerning the conduct of the study we are doing of Bill C-56. I don't know whether this is the right time to talk about it. If not, I will do it when I speak to the first amendment I am going to suggest.

I want to let you know that I will shortly be withdrawing two of the amendments that I submitted. I am not happy about withdrawing them, because they reflect needs that have been expressed by groups of experts in the field who are directly affected by Bill C‑56. However, as they stand, those amendments would have adverse effects that might outweigh the benefits they were supposed to provide.

I am talking about this because we have a serious problem. We had to submit our amendments at the same time as we were listening to the witnesses in committee. Why? Because, as a result of the super gag order, we did not have enough time to do our work properly in committee. This is very serious. The fact that the government has an agreement and everything will be passed does not mean that we should bypass the work that members do in committee. This kind of contempt for parliamentarians is rarely seen. We cannot do our work properly.

I will give you an example. On day 1, at the briefing on Bill C‑56, we asked the finance department officials to send us the projections they had concerning the GST rebate. What effects were expected? How many more buildings and units would be built? How many fewer condos would be built? What figures is the bill based on? The day before yesterday, I again asked the Minister for these figures, and she said yes and they would be sent to us.

Now we are shortly going to be starting the clause by clause study of the bill, but we are going to be voting blindly, in a fog, because we still do not have those figures. The Minister named an academic who she said had done a study that the officials seemed not even to have read. That is not a serious way of doing things; it is not disciplined. We are still waiting. Ordinarily, I would not be prepared to vote, because I have not received the finance department's answer, even though the Minister of Finance undertook to send us the information.

On this point, I want to reiterate that the finance department seems to regard members of Parliament with contempt. For the last two years, when in camera studies of the budget or the economic statement took place, there were no officials on site to answer our questions, despite our repeated requests. Journalists, however, get in‑person access to the officials. We are given only hard copy documents, while journalists have access to the same documents on USB keys. It is as if the media were more trustworthy than members of Parliament, the people's elected representatives. It reflects the finance department's perception of the House of Commons and its members. It is unacceptable.

This week, in addition, we received a notice of ways and means motion five minutes before the briefing started. I would reiterate that there was no summary. There was nothing. We received 529 pages of incomprehensible legislative and tax gibberish and we had only five minutes to read the whole thing before asking the officials our questions. That shows the contempt that the department has for Parliament. I have an assistant who does research and has worked in the party for 25 years, and he says he has never seen things done this way in 25 years. As well, during the presentation, the sound quality of the official's remarks was so bad that we did not understand half of what he said. I was the only member who asked questions. I asked two questions. The answers were clear, but we did not have the means to prepare.

Then they will be coming to us with Bill C‑60, the follow‑up legislation, and I warn you. There are two weeks and a bit left before the work of the House is adjourned for the winter break. Does the government seriously want to get through the entire process to enact this mammoth bill and still think we are going to be able to do our job well? Does it not care at all about our work? This is not acceptable.

Some of the amendments I will shortly be proposing and I will not be withdrawing may create inconsistencies in the act. They were drafted with the help of the Office of the Law Clerk, but it was done quickly. The message I am sending to the government is "tough": if my amendments are adopted and create inconsistencies, it will be up to you to introduce other legislation to solve the problems, because you do not respect the work we do here, and that is unacceptable.

I hope that for the next budget implementation bill acceptable time is allowed so we are able to do our work properly.

In Bill C-60, for example, there should be the follow‑up to the reform of the Competition Act. This is the first time in 37 years that there has been such a reform. However, if we want it to be enacted by Christmas, we can expect that we will not even have time to study it. Ultimately, there will be a reform of the Competition Act, when there has not been one for 37 years and there have been 20 years of calls for reform, but we will not even be able to do our work on it properly. This is not a serious way of doing things and it is undisciplined.

I oppose gag orders. Obviously, my party will always be in opposition here. I do not like it when Parliament is gagged. The government, which is in charge of how the work is done, could at least allow enough time for us to be able to hear witnesses and experts in committee, to talk to officials, and be able to delve a little more deeply into things and do our work properly.

That has not been possible with Bill C‑56. That is why I am shortly going to withdraw two of my amendments and why some of my other amendments might create problems in the overall structure of the bill. However, we have no choice, because of the super gag order that limited us to a single day of study before going to the vote. That is unacceptable.

During the pandemic, it might have been excusable; that was a special situation. Now, however, we have had two years of the finance department not respecting members of Parliament by preventing us from doing our work properly, both in camera and in committee and the House. This has to change, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.