Finance Committee on May 2nd, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I heard a no.

MP Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Is a motion to adjourn debatable? Do you not have to have a vote?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

It's not debatable, but it is something we can vote on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Mr. Clerk, please poll the members.

(Motion negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

We will continue.

MP Perkins, did you vote against yourself?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I did. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll explain why. I didn't have a chance to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Well, you have about six hours to do that.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Okay. I won't take all six on the reason why.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

But I will share the reason why.

The other day—and I have been known to heckle a couple of times in the House. The other day—I think it was yesterday—on one of the government's answers there was massive applause by all opposition parties, including, I believe, the Green Party. After one of the questions the minister gave an answer. I won't name the minister, but I heckled, “I don't think you've read the room.” I know it's hard to read the room when so many are on video, but I just wanted to make sure that everyone—and I appreciate the vote of confidence that you're all interested in what I'm saying, so I will continue. I appreciate that.

In "Open and Accountable Government, 2015", on page 1 after the Roman numerals, the title is “Ministerial Responsibility and Accountability”.

I'm sure the translators have that. I would like to just read so the people watching can understand what this government committed to in terms of ministerial responsibility and accountability. It's what they committed to, but as with this government, there are a lot of inputs and very little output. This is another example.

In our search called “finding Freeland” we turned to this document. The first paragraph reads,

Ministers of the Crown are chosen by the Prime Minister and along with him constitute the Ministry. They all serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. Government policy is established by the Cabinet. The Ministry together helps carry out the mandate of the government.

Ministers of the Crown

—as the ministers are known, by that formal term—

are responsible and accountable to the Prime Minister and

—this is a crucial “and”—

Parliament in two fundament ways:

[An hon. member]

Really? How?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

This is a document of Prime Minister Trudeau's.

[An hon. member]

Which one?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

It's the current one. I'm sorry.

I was asked which one. I have referenced the father. I'm referring to the document on the newly elected son.

As I said:

Ministers of the Crown are responsible and accountable to the Prime Minister and Parliament in two fundamental ways:

—number one—

individually, for their performance in carrying out the responsibilities of the portfolio assigned to them by the Prime Minister;

Let me make a brief comment on that. In this cabinet, as you spend more money and seem to blow by the budgets you were given.... Under normal circumstances, you might be fired. Certainly, in my private sector career, if someone spent more than they were allocated, they were fired. Apparently, that's not what happens in this government. What happens in this government is that you get promoted. You get promoted to be Finance Minister.

Well, the Finance Minister, I guess, continues to succeed in this role because of that factor. In the “finding Freeland” effort, I find all these references to commitments to balance budgets. The first one after this was that we would balance it in 2019. Then we would have a debt-to-GDP ratio as opposed to balanced budgets. Then we would have another guardrail and, in the fall of 2022, in the economic statement....

Just so those watching know, you can get copies of this. I'm sure you can still order them from Parliament. I'm not sure that they sold out. I think they have surplus of these. It would be a shame if these all had to go into the recycle bin. I would encourage people to read this, because it has quite a statement by the current Minister of Finance. She said she would balance the budget within the fiscal framework.

[An hon. member]

Did she?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

She did. She did. It's surprising.

What was the date of that again? I should open that up and just see the date. I don't recall, but I know we have some good minds around this table.

What was the date of that economic statement?

Oh, the letter isn't dated. But it was last fall. That's why it's called the fall economic statement.

As I recall, that would have been in the fall, so, say, eight months ago or seven months ago.

[An hon. member]

That's a bit generous to the government.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

It said that we would have a balanced budget. I'm speaking to this first point here on the accountability to the Prime Minister and Parliament individually for their performance. I'd like to see the performance review targets that were set out by the Prime Minister, as a good boss would do for their ministers.

I know that it's probably in the document here on the minister's mandate letter, which I will get to, but the performance in carrying out her duties.... Apparently, and I could not find this in the mandate letter, and I'll show you where later and why I'm puzzled by this—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, the fall economic statement was tabled on November 3, 2022.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Did I hear another point of order?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

You're at mile five, MP Perkins. You can continue. Take a bit of water and continue.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

On that second point, still on page 1 of “Ministerial Responsibility and Accountability” in the document of this new government, it states “individually, for their performance in carrying out the responsibilities”. I looked to find in this mandate letter a target for the Minister of Finance that says one of the things that we wish for you to do is to present fiscal outlooks and projections for the Government of Canada and for taxpayers that are wrong, that you will actually blow by and not deliver on. I didn't see that as part of the mandate.

I'll come back to that, but it's funny: Maybe there is a separate set of performance measures an employer sets out for an employee that says that somewhere, but it's not in the public document. We know that not all documents the government has are public. Some are secret until they're leaked to The Globe and Mail. Maybe on this request, if any of our media colleagues out there, who you know we love and adore, are interested, you might put in an access to information request to see if there are other performance metrics for the “finding Freeland” problem on her targets. We can't seem to find Freeland or her targets.

The second point here is “collectively, in support of the Ministry team and [decision-making] Cabinet”, because of course cabinet is a team sport. It's clear from the way ministers perform in question period that they all say the same lines. They clearly have the same coach and same team, because the lines never seem to change. They probably pass and get good marks on their performance appraisals from the boss for sticking to the paper lines on how to respond to questions, even if the lines have nothing to do with the question.

Page 1 goes on to say—and for the sake of the translators, this is after those two bullet points—that “Ministers' individual and collective responsibility is an essential principle guiding the role of Cabinet government in Canada, and is at the core of the standards for ministerial behaviour.” There is a footnote here, footnote 1 at the bottom of the page, with details, I guess, on the standards for ministerial behaviour, that “may be found in Responsibility in the Constitution, Privy Council Office, 1993.”

I'm not sure what that means because I don't think the Constitution has anything about behaviour. It's a strange footnote in a government document. Maybe that's why ministers are confused. They read the footnotes and couldn't make a connection between ethics, responsibility and the constitutional footnotes here.

Section 1.1 on “Individual Ministerial Responsibility” says, “Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister”. That's pretty much a foregone conclusion if you did grade 10 civics class. They don't put in here that ministers, as MPs, also are accountable to the people who elected them. That's something that's at the core of what we as Conservatives believe. It goes on to say, “Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister: they are appointed by the Governor General”.

Under this government, we've had a series of Governors General on that advice and, apparently, if you're not a Governor General anymore, the Prime Minister has employment for you in investigating their scandals. Maybe we need more former governors general, because there's a lot of work to do there.

This says: “on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister may ask for their resignation at any time.” He only asks, as we've said, for resignations when they disagree with his own particular view on interference in the courts.

The next paragraph says, “Ministers are also accountable to Parliament.” Oh, it does say that. That's good. It continues:

Most ministerial responsibilities are conferred on Ministers by Parliament through statutes that set out the powers, duties and functions for which the Minister is individually accountable.

I think that's an important thing. It's on page 1, and if it weren't important in a large document like this, it wouldn't be on page 1. Again, page 1 says, “Ministers are...accountable to Parliament”, and that's what we're talking about here, as to whether or not this minister is accountable to Parliament in five days and five months of attendance in Parliament and three rejections of the invitation of this committee to appear before it. We are now trying once again to get her before the committee on a $490-billion budget that spends $3.1 trillion over the next five years.

By the way—did I say this before?—that's if they don't spend anything new on top of what they're already planning to.

At the top of page 2, these very high, lofty standards, which the “sunny way” government set out in 2015, say:

In addition, Ministers may also have other [duties] in common law. They may also have responsibilities assigned to them by the Prime Minister. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for all areas of responsibility, whether they are assigned by statute or otherwise.

It also states that “Ministers are accountable to Parliament”. Wow, there's a concept. It comes from this Westminster parliamentary system. I know MP Blaikie and others are very interested in this document and the study by Dr. Brenton I mentioned and went through earlier.

For those who missed it, I could go through it again, but I'll finish going through this, right now.

“Accountable to Parliament” is a fundamental tenet of the Westminster system. It's what differentiates us from a republican system, where ministers in the United States government are actually not elected. They're just appointed by the president and have no dual responsibility of accountability to Congress because they're not a congressman or a senator. They don't have that dual responsibility we do in Canada. I think our system is far superior because of that accountability.

On page 2 of this lofty document, section 1.2 is titled, “Collective Ministerial Responsibility”.

I know I'm lucky enough to be joined here tonight by our whip, MP Findlay.

I will give you applause.

Our whip is honourable. I know that, as a mere member of Parliament, I'm often referred to by constituents as “honourable”. I try to be honourable, but that's a title that comes with being a privy councillor. MP Findlay is a privy councillor, having served in the cabinet of the second-best, third-best or best—whatever your perspective is, but certainly in the top two, in my mind—prime minister in Canada, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper. She was part of that and has a lot of experience she could share with us about ministerial accountability and appearance before committees, and the respect with which she treated parliamentary committees, as did all Harper ministers—always attending the committee when asked to do so, in order to be held to account for their actions as a minister of the Crown.

Section 1.2, “Collective Ministerial Responsibility”, states:

All members of the Ministry are collectively responsible for carrying out the government's policies as established by the Cabinet. They are therefore expected to work in close consultation with their ministerial colleagues. This principle is the foundation of a key constitutional convention known as Cabinet solidarity.

I guess “cabinet solidarity” means all cabinet ministers—indeed, all members of Parliament on the government side, principally, because, I believe, they're going to vote for this. They believe spending $3.1 trillion without the revenue to cover it, and adding $130 billion to our debt, is actually good for our economy. I don't see how spending that money....

It's sort of like President Biden's misnamed “Inflationary Act”. I call it the “Inflationary Act” because, when you spend the trillions of dollars President Biden is on subsidizing things the private sector will already do—that markets will drive you to—that's adding more cash into the economy. More cash in the economy creates more spending, and more spending for fewer goods creates inflation. It's an oxymoron to call it the “Inflation Reduction Act”. It's the “Inflationary Act”. It's something the minister of industry is now keen on emulating.

The second paragraph of section 1.2 says:

Policies presented to Parliament and to the public must be the agreed policies of the Cabinet.

In other words, you can't be a freelancer. You have to support this stuff.

Moreover, “Ministers...cannot dissociate themselves from or repudiate the decisions of Cabinet or their Ministry colleagues unless they resign from the Ministry”—as John Turner did from Pierre Trudeau's and as did, I must admit, Jody Wilson-Raybould. We can't forget Jody Wilson-Raybould, who followed that convention to a T. As the good lawyer that she is, she respects that. She's a random Liberal, too, like “Bill no more”.

The third paragraph here says:

Cabinet solidarity is further reinforced by the Privy Councillor's oath requiring Ministers...to declare their opinion as decisions are being made, and to strictly uphold the confidentiality of Cabinet decision making.

That prompts me to think, did anyone in the cabinet object to breaking their 2015, 2019 and fall economic statement commitments to Canadians, through Parliament, to balance the budget? Did anyone object, or did they just look at it and say, “Wow, more money for me to spend. Won't that be fun?” I think it was more the latter than the former.

You know, when you stand up in this cabinet to the prevailing view that more spending equals re-election, somehow you end up back in the private sector as did “Bill no more”, Jody Wilson-Raybould or Jane Philpott. Thankfully, one of the benefits of Jane Philpott being back in the private sector is that we have a doctor shortage in Canada, and I'm so glad she's back practising medicine and helping her community. That's probably one of the few Liberals adding value to our country.

Furthermore, it says:

The Cabinet decision-making process is a key mechanism for achieving overall coherence and coordination in government policy. Ministerial responsibilities may overlap or have implications for other Ministers.

That happens when you have two ministers doing the same job. I think we have a bit of a cabinet of Noah's ark where two people do the same thing.

In fact, if you look at the cabinet committee list to accountable Parliament, there are two environment committees. They are creatively named as environment cabinet committee “A” and environment cabinet committee “B”. For the life of me, I've looked at their mandates. They're publicly available. Their mandates seem to be identical. It's no wonder deliverology has disappeared from this government. It's more in terms of inputs—heck, let's have two environment committees because one was so effective.

It continues:

The increasing complexity of issues means that policies and programs must be reviewed in relation to each other.

Governments often make these mistakes. They overthink things and make things more complicated than they are. They do things like have two cabinet committees on the same subject.

It adds:

Ministers also have responsibilities for representing the different perspectives and interests of their regions, and these inevitably cut across departments.

Those are fine words.

Then it says:

Ministers need to work closely together to ensure...their individual proposals...[and consideration] in the broader objectives of the government's agenda.

Section I.3 sort of gets down to the heart of the matter. It's on page 2, so it is almost as important as page 1. Page 2 says, “Ministers are accountable to Parliament”. Wow, there's that term again. Then it adds:

Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the exercise of powers, duties and functions vested in them by statute or otherwise. Ministers must be present in Parliament to respond to questions on the discharge of their responsibilities, including the manner in which public monies were spent, as well as to account for that use.

Do you know where that paragraph comes from, colleagues? That paragraph comes from the 2011 Stephen Harper accountability for ministers document that I read earlier. I guess they aspired to have the same accountability to Parliament, but they clearly have a different definition of it.

I think we should call this the “Michael Ignatieff ministerial accountability section”, affectionately of course. He was always reprimanded by the NDP for not showing up in Parliament and for having the worst attendance record. To receive a paycheque from the taxpayer, you should actually be in Parliament.

It could be the “Michael Ignatieff and finding Freeland accountability section”. Apparently, now, the interpretation of this code is once a month. That's all one needs to do. Somebody should tell the public safety minister that he only needs to show up once a month. It would make all our lives easier.

We know that it's basically, in terms of Parliament, one hour plus 15 minutes a week for the Prime Minister, but that sets the standard again. It used to be that prime ministers came to question period every day of the week. Can you believe that? They were always available in question period to answer, especially, respectfully.... The reason they were there was because the leaders of the other parties in Parliament...the Prime Minister would always be there to answer those questions every day—not just one day a week and then fly to Jamaica or New York, or wherever he's surfing or vacationing, be it Tofino or that kind of thing.

Ministerial Ignatieff accountability apparently means one day a month.

Parliament to respond to questions on the discharge.... That's an interesting statement. It says “respond to questions”.

That's what we're asking for in this motion. We're asking for the minister to come to committee for two hours. Two hours may seem like a lot. Ministers are very busy. It's hard to find time in their schedules, and I respect that. Having worked seven years for a minister, I know how difficult it is.

Here's the thing, though. Tomorrow—actually, it's tonight, in 50 minutes or so—the Liberal Party convention here in Ottawa starts and the Prime Minister is speaking there tonight. I'm sure the Minister of Finance is there. Over the weekend—

[An hon. member]

She could have dropped in here first.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Yes. We've been here. She could have come. I've been able to show up here for over three hours straight now—

[An hon. member]

It's been more than three hours—

[An hon. member]

It feels a lot longer than that.