Thank you. I wouldn't want to be incorrect.
It's been 27 hours over witness time, and now, including the first hour and a half today, another six or so hours during clause-by-clause time. I have in front of me the original motion that I drafted. I want to talk a bit about how this motion was drafted.
I got a call from the Conservative Party. They were saying, hey, can we figure out how to work on the BIA...? I was very excited because I thought that if we could avoid a filibuster like we had at the last budget implementation act, and if we could avoid a filibuster like we had at the last fall economic statement, it would actually allow us to do the work that my colleague Daniel Blaikie just described.
I had phone calls. We had meetings. We did some of that in person. We did some of that online. Then, a very familiar play began to play out: It had happened before, so I wasn't surprised by it. Basically, we had come to what I thought was a general agreement on the way we could handle this and, then, all of a sudden, the negotiator changed and the terms changed. As we looked for ways to come to terms on those terms, those terms changed again.
When my colleague MP Lawrence talks about negotiating in good faith, I would dispute that. Now, fool me once, shame on you, and fool me twice.... It's as the saying goes. Adam Chambers tried to get it before, and I'm using it now, but really, I felt that it was going to be shame on me again, because I don't want anybody to be in a filibuster. I've been very clear about that with my members. I've been very clear about that with the Conservatives and with all opposition members: that I negotiate in good faith every single day so that we can do the good work at this table and avoid at all costs filibusters or needlessly wasting people's time.
An example of that is very clear here today. Mr. Morantz, in his speech, talked about the great testimony from Ms. Lindsay Gwyer. Well, he's not in the room and so he probably doesn't know, but that person, as well as a number of very articulate and hard-working professionals from the Department of Finance, are here to work on clause-by-clause and to answer some of those specific questions that were included in Mr. Morantz's filibuster. His very act is preventing those officials from doing their jobs and making sure we're passing the best budget implementation act possible.
Mr. Lawrence complained yesterday.... I think he logged a good four or four and a half hours yesterday. It was quite the show. When we talk about a lack of seriousness, that comes from a couple of different places. Sometimes it's the content that we're actually discussing versus what we should be discussing. Sometimes it's members serving wine in the committee room instead of having the good discussion that we should be having on the budget that's supposed to be helping Canadians. In this particular case, he spent a lot of time talking about the good faith of getting at least 20 hours of study prior to being able to begin clause-by-clause.
I agree that we should get at least 20 hours. That's certainly what we said in the previous BIA. That's what we did in the fall economic statement. We want witnesses to come in. Heck, if we weren't subject to filibuster, we could do well beyond 20 hours. We've proven that, right? It's not as if the members here aren't willing to work. We've shown up.... I think it has to be 40-some hours now of doing nothing except listening to the Conservatives talk about fish and elvers and doing whatever they can to fill the time—reading handbooks, etc. That's what we've been listening to.
Today, we have officials here. Previously we had food banks. We had chambers of commerce. All the people Mr. Morantz talked about—veterans, people who could have talked about money laundering, chambers of commerce, indigenous individuals, people who could talk about the RESPs, people who represented disability groups—could have been slated to appear. They were all denied their ability to contribute to the budget process because of Mr. Morantz and his act to filibuster. I wish I could take Mr. Morantz's testimony of today and travel it back in time to the start of this month. He could talk to himself about the impact of his actions and those of his party: about what happens when you filibuster needlessly and not for any real point.
The point was quite clear. The point was to obstruct the bill and to prevent it from passing, or to at least delay it for as long as possible. Mr. Lawrence talked about that yesterday. Certainly I think our colleagues in the Bloc and the NDP realize that through various negotiation processes.
The outcome the Conservatives are looking for is very clear. Witness testimony is not part of their objectives. You can tell that based on their actions. I've already talked about three specific filibusters around the three most significant fiscal documents that the government has put forward, the last two BIAs and the fall economic statement. It goes well beyond that.
For two years in a row, the Conservative Party has prevented us from having pre-budget consultations in any meaningful way. In fact, last year they arbitrarily moved those, as part of their negotiations, for no real reason, from August back until October, simply so Canadians couldn't have their say at the start of the pre-budget process.
How did those pre-budget processes used to happen, Mr. Chair?
They used to happen with this committee going across Canada to be at the doorsteps of Canadians to hear what they had to say, so they could substantially contribute to this process. For the last two years, that has been banned. That ban continues under the current leader, Mr. Pierre Poilievre. His entire goal as a leader is to try to convince Canadians that the country is broken on one hand, while he is actively trying to break it on the other hand.
Mr. Chambers said today, as a point of order, that he was scared that his colleagues might think he's too moderate. He supports a leader who is actively trying to fire an independent officer, the Governor of the Bank of Canada. That is an independent institution that has been in place for more than a generation, that has served Canadians so well and put us in the position that we're in to be able to outperform our peers in other economies. The current Leader of the Opposition, if he ever gets into the prime minister's chair, wants to fire that individual, not for good reason but because doing so is part of his strategy. That is the strategy that Mr. Adam Chambers is supporting.
Fear not, good sir—nobody is ever going to suggest that you're a moderate as long as you support a leader who uses these types of undemocratic tactics, not as a measure of last resort but as the first thing he goes to when acting. It's what he's learned since he's been here.
Going back to my interaction with Mr. Lawrence and this original motion, I have the original copy. It's dated May 1, 2023. This was a consensus document that was written after having conversations with members of the Conservative Party, members of the Bloc and members of the NDP and as well as members of our Liberal caucus. Unlike the case with the previous BIA and the previous FES, when I thought I could take the Conservatives at their word, every time they made an offer this time, I made sure that offer was shared with the Bloc and the NDP. That way, if the goalposts moved, they would understand that somebody was trying to pull the wool over our eyes and that they were in fact not negotiating in good faith.
Later on, when we finally resolved this, this is how it got resolved. We had this exact motion, as well as the unanimous consent wording that we had read into the record. Mr. Lawrence sat next to me and went line by line to make sure he agreed with every single point that was in here, asking questions along the way. In fact, he asked me specifically about the 20 hours of study and whether we could change the language to guarantee that 20 hours of study before we moved to clause-by-clause, to which I definitively said, “No, I can't do that, because how many hours of study we get depends on how much time the whips can get together for committee resources.” However, it was our essential “like” that we could get over 20 hours, because that's what we originally said back in April, over a month ago. He read this passage—he might have read it a couple of times—and agreed that this actually substantially does what we want. Then we added Gabriel's clause, which made sure that we did 10 hours before the end of the week.
That particular passage is item (d), and it reads:
(d) Subject to the approval of the recognized parties' whips, and the availability of meeting slots from the House of Commons, the committee hold as many additional meetings as possible with the goal of accomplishing at least 20 hours of study prior to the beginning of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill;
I am not in charge of getting committee time or of understanding the resources and how they are, but my understanding is that we cancelled a large number of other committees. The Conservatives not only obstructed here by filibustering and continuing to filibuster, but also obstructed the PROC committee. I don't know the full list, but many committee meetings have been cancelled while we've listened to the Conservatives talk about nothing.
I would agree, finally, with Daniel's last point, which was that all the Conservatives are doing by continuing this filibuster is proving the fact that they intend to do nothing except obstruct for obstruction's sake. There is no interest to hear from Canadians. They were here. The Conservatives kicked them out. There is no interest to hear from officials. They are here. They have been here for six or seven hours. They've gone through two clauses. Otherwise, we've been listening to whatever the Conservatives could think of to fill the time.
You don't have to take my word for it. That's the great thing about parliamentary democracy and the systems we have set up in Canada. You can go to review the tapes. Everything I talk about has been on video.
Then they came on Wednesday. They didn't talk to our chair about how they wanted more witness testimony on Friday, when we dismissed our last witnesses. They didn't talk to the parliamentary secretary of finance on Saturday or on Sunday about how they want more witnesses. They didn't send a text message or say anything on Monday or Tuesday. No. They sent a tweet on Wednesday—the day before we were supposed to start clause-by-clause and the day they knew we couldn't have more witnesses, because it would be impossible for the clerk to schedule them—to complain specifically about not getting witnesses.
It doesn't take a Ph.D. student doing a four-year study to figure out what's going on here. It takes a rudimentary analysis to understand that every permanent Conservative member of the finance committee supports the philosophy of their leader, Pierre Poilievre, which is to obstruct for obstruction's sake. That's not to the benefit of the true role of the opposition, which is to take a look at government legislation and help us make it better. Show up here with actual problems; we work through it, through debate, and we actually get it changed to make it better.
This budget implementation act will not be as good as it should be, simply because we could not incorporate the good ideas of the Conservative Party, because they decided that they did not want to contribute their ideas.
All that being said, Mr. Chair, I expect that after we dismiss this motion, which is very similar to the previous motion we adjourned on yesterday, which was very similar to the motion that we voted against at the start of yesterday, there will be another one, and another one after that. Maybe Mr. Blaikie was convincing enough, because I think he is more convincing than I am. Maybe the members of Parliament from the Conservative Party will look inside themselves and will decide that parliamentary democracy is worth more than getting a gold star from their obstructionist leader, who has no interest in contributing positively to this committee.
With that, Mr. Chair, I would suggest that we get to work. The officials are here and ready to work. The Liberal members are here and ready to work. The NDP is here and ready to work. The Bloc is here and ready to work. With that, I would move that we adjourn debate on this motion.