Finance Committee on June 16th, 2025

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair. This point of order is directly related to Mr. Turnbull's comments and the fact that he's actually putting things on the table that are, in my opinion, directly not true.

Budgets are budgets. Every party committed to putting a budget on the table in the House of Commons—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. McLean—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

—and Mr. Turnbull cannot say that my party did not.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Mr. McLean, I believe that's debate. Thank you very much.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Chair. That's not a point of order.

I know that the Standing Orders are quite specific about points of order, but the member, Mr. McLean, is certainly able to contest the veracity of a claim that I make on the record at any point when he has the floor. However, until then, I would appreciate just being able to finish providing my perspectives and thoughts, as is my right, which is protected under the Standing Orders, as are the rights and privileges of members of Parliament to speak their minds in all parliamentary proceedings.

I was starting to say that we just came out of a federal election. The House has only been back for three weeks. We've tabled some very big pieces of legislation that make some huge leaps forward on behalf of Canadians. All of the things that the government is currently implementing were part of our platform and were disclosed to the public in advance.

We received a mandate from the Canadian people. We formed government. I understand that other members form the opposition parties, respectively. They're obviously going to hold us to task, and I appreciate that at all times. However, I also think that there needs to be reciprocity here in terms of understanding that we formed government with a mandate from the people and a clear plan and platform, which is a fully costed platform and which was voted for by the Canadian people, and we have confirmed numerous times that there will be a budget in the fall of 2025.

I would just remind members of Brian Mulroney, who unfortunately passed away, who was a very honourable member of Parliament and quite a good prime minister. I certainly looked up to him, and I met him once. From my perspective, he was a very good Progressive Conservative leader, and he did not table a budget for 300 days. Just think about that. He earned all of our respect. He was a great prime minister. All of us can acknowledge the work that Brian Mulroney did—I should say the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney—but he did not table a budget for over 300 days. That's not to say that budgets shouldn't be tabled, but it is an informal practice. There's no actual statutory requirement as far as I understand to table a budget within a number of days. There is an importance to budgets, but they're not the only way that governments express their plans.

The Conservatives keep saying we don't have a plan. Well, we do have a plan. We have a platform that was disclosed to the public and that Canadians could scrutinize. In fact, when they looked at that plan, they voted for us. They put us in our seats, and by us, I mean the Liberal Party members who formed government. Granted, it is a minority Parliament a few seats short of a majority, but it is a strong mandate for a minority government nonetheless, and certainly we are implementing that plan.

I would suggest that a fall budget is what we've committed to. It's what we will deliver. There's a real importance to forming that budget by having budget consultations.

Chair, I had hoped today that maybe we'd have some informal discussion with a real collaborative tone and talk about how the committee might work together to do pre-budget consultations leading into the fall, where we could obviously have the runway that's needed to formulate a budget that really reflects where the country is at and where we see the country going.

I don't want to diminish the importance or the role that a budget plays. It certainly plays an important role, but it is not the only tool for expressing the government's plan, by any means. What I would suggest—and I have some other thoughts—is an amendment to MP Hallan's motion. It reads as follows: “That the committee call on the Minister of Finance to table a budget.”

I think that simplifies it and gives the essence of what every member here could agree to. I think it would get us to a point of consensus, which is always what we try to achieve at committees: getting as close to consensus as possible. I know that my colleagues will have thoughts on why a budget is important. Certainly, with the commitment to doing that in the fall, I'm sure that all committee members would happily agree to this amendment.

Thank you very much, Chair. I'll cede the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, MP Turnbull, for that and for proposing that amendment.

Is there anyone who wishes to speak to the amendment?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you.

I'm not certain the amendment's in order. It changes the meaning significantly. I would argue that the very point of the main motion is to table a budget before Parliament closes. That's an essential element of the main motion.

Be that as it may, I have the floor and I have some remarks to address the amendment and the main motion. If you've ruled it in order, we'll continue.

Look, this government campaigned on the urgency of our time with the multiple crises facing Canadians—many of which were 10 years in the making from the current government's tenure—and then refused to table a budget. That's why we called on it to table a budget before we rise. I will oppose the amendment and vote for the main motion.

In absence of a budget, all we have are the main estimates that the government has tabled. There's $486 billion in budgetary spending with no budget. It's almost half a trillion dollars in budgetary spending with no budget. If the budget is not tabled until, say, November, we'll be at about 20 months without a budget in a time of crisis, when the other party campaigned on an immediate budget. Past governments, including the former Conservative government, tabled budgets very quickly after elections. This is something that is ordinarily done.

In the absence of a budget, we can merely look at these estimates of $486 billion and compare them to last year's main estimates. That comparison reveals the extent to which the government is not governing in accordance with the platform and promises made during the election, because it is allowing additional bloat to the size of government, which has expanded 40% in the tenure of this government, and the main estimates indicate that it is getting even worse. The use of private contractors has also increased.

I would argue—or hope, actually—that we should defeat the amendment and pass the main motion. I call upon the Liberal members of this committee to vote in favour of the main motion. They campaigned on the platform of a plan to deal with the crises of this moment. I hope Liberal members want to put pressure on the government to do the right thing and table its budget so that Canadians know how it's going to finance and pay for this and what taxes are going to have to increase in order to fund the spending that is clearly increasing as a result of these main estimates.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

Go ahead, Monsieur Garon.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We understand that, since the amendment has been moved by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, it is practically straight from the minister's mouth. So it is not surprising since what the minister wants is to not table a budget. He was appointed in January and had just one thing to do: Prepare a budget. As I said in the House, we know what the minister is like: He makes a lot of announcements, but doesn't finish what he starts. So I am pretty sure that there is part of a budget somewhere or estimates that he could present to us.

They keep invoking Brian Mulroney's record to justify not tabling a budget. Right opposite me, though, is Mr. Leitão, who tabled a budget every year as Quebec's finance minister. Let me say that, when Brian Mulroney was elected in 1984, I was two years old. That is the only digestible example that the minister and his parliamentary secretary have been able to come up with. The government of Brian Mulroney was not just talking points like the current government is. The current senior officials were appointed by the Liberals, while the Conservatives had to set things up when they took office. In the present case, nobody had to get set up. It is true that we have lost a few very good ministers, but that's another topic, and I will not mention any names.

The Liberals' new hobby horse is saying that the election platform presented during the campaign takes the place of Parliament. We have just come from a vote in the House, and the Conservatives just voted in favour of that. They said they were voting in favour of the Liberal election platform. You can see where I'm going with this. What is being said to justify there being no budget is very important. The Conservatives are saying today that, in the end, the Liberal election campaign is sufficient to circumvent Parliament since the Liberals won. That is exactly what they are saying.

The Liberals are using the parts of their platform that suit them. By the way, the platform was very short on details and contained no legislation, analysis or appendices. And yet those are things that Mr. Turnbull would have opposed if there had been a vote a few months ago since he was an environmentalist who had been working for the Liberals for quite some time. All of a sudden, the Liberal platform is enough to circumvent Parliament, to shorten committee work, erase democracy and not invite any more witnesses, and all because there is not much time.

The Liberal election platform did in fact include a financial platform. We are being told that bills are being tabled that were in the Liberal election platform and that this justifies circumventing Parliament. If there was a financial platform, why isn't there a budget? The Liberals are picking and choosing. In other words, they are deciding to use the parts of the platform that suit them.

Let me give you an example. We were supposed to collect $20 billion in counter-tariff revenues. We are pleased that there are fewer counter-tariffs if that means there are fewer tariffs and trade wars. That is not the problem. The Liberal financial platform stated that the $20 billion would be used to help businesses and workers. That amount is directly related to the tariffs imposed. As a result, if fewer tariffs are being imposed, those counter-tariff revenues are not needed as badly to balance things out. Yet the Liberals have decided to use that $20 billion to pay for tax cuts. That is why we now have Bill C‑4, which includes tax cuts. To be clear, I am not necessarily opposed to tax cuts, but they need to be studied.

The fact is that the Liberals are unable to keep their promises and table a budget, much less a balanced budget. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance tell us they are working on an accounting reform based on the way it is done in Great Britain, which is a unitary state without provinces. Regarding this reform, they say that increasing transfers to the provinces would increase the current account deficit.

I see Mr. Turnbull checking the time. I have six minutes left.

Transfers to the provinces could nonetheless be used to build hospitals, but the Liberals say that increasing those transfers would increase the current account deficit. At the same time, however, under their accounting reform, the cost of building an airport or military base could be amortized over 20, 30 or 35 years. That is exactly what the Liberals are in the process of doing.

So there was a financial platform in the Liberal campaign, but it was shoddy work. It was not balanced. Not only did the minister lie to the House when it was studying the estimates—and I raised a question of privilege in that regard last week—but he is unable to tell us how he is going to fund all of that. He doesn't know—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a point of order.

Madam Chair, the rules of decorum apply in committee just as they do in the House. The member implied that the minister lied in the House. That is a direct violation of the rules of decorum.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I withdraw my remarks, Madam Chair. I simply wanted to point out that I had raised a question of privilege in the House last Wednesday to tell the Speaker that, in our opinion, the minister lied to the House on the night the estimates were studied. I wanted to save the committee some time, which is why I did not go into detail. Thank you to my colleague for helping me clarify that. He knows that he is greatly appreciated.

This will have to be constantly repeated to Quebeckers: The Liberal platform is not a piece of legislation, a committee or Parliament. It is not balanced. If the Liberals want to present their entire platform all at once, let them table it in the House. If however they want to start choosing the parts for which they are willing to table measures right away, such as parts that appeal to the government's friends or oil developers, I do not agree with that. If they think they can table measures by proposing tax cuts without knowing how they will be funded and put things off by preparing an accounting reform that will conceal the state of public finances, I do not agree with that.

What's more, the last time I checked, Brian Mulroney did not call an election in 1984 when there were fixed election dates. Although that calendar is not binding, the Prime Minister deliberately broke away from the calendar. An election has never been called for the purpose of tabling a budget.

The Minister of Finance dutifully repeats his lines. He tells us constantly that the world has changed. He repeated that every 10 minutes during the election campaign as a reason for opposing certain oil projects while supporting others, or for initially supporting the carbon tax and then opposing it. The world has changed, but it seems that public finances have not changed enough for a budget to be tabled.

The fact is that the government is afraid to table a budget. It does not know how to balance it and what to put in it. I think we need a budget as soon as possible, or at the very least an economic statement providing a minor update including all the—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible]

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Chair, I can't hear myself talk over my colleague, even though I have a strong voice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

For my part, Mr. Garon, I am listening attentively.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

I know, Madam Chair. We really appreciate you already.

The fact is that the government is afraid. At the very least, it should immediately table a budget update including all the new measures that have been put forward. It is a question of democracy, in my opinion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Garon.

You have the floor, Mr. Leitão.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

You will not be surprised to hear that I support my colleague's amendment, for various reasons.

First of all, a budget is indeed very important. It is so important in fact that we have to take the time we need to prepare it properly. Asking for a budget to be tabled within four days, as our Conservative Party colleagues are doing, makes absolutely no sense. So we will take the time we need to present a budget to Canadians, but not any longer than we need, and we certainly could not do it in four days.

There are a number of reasons for that, the main one being the current context. My colleague, the member for Mirabel, said that, in another life, I presented a budget quickly after an election, but the current context is completely different from the one in 2014. It is marked by tremendous uncertainty brought on by the ill-considered, cavalier and ultimately unproductive actions of our neighbour and biggest economic partner, the United States. So it would have been ill-advised for us to rush to table a budget as quickly as our colleagues have been demanding in the past few days.

I do not have the exact date, but there will be a budget in the fall, and all those matters will be addressed at that time.

Furthermore, our colleagues from the Conservative Party have repeatedly raised the issue of inflation. As I think I said once in the House, the inflation we have seen since 2022—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair. Are we speaking to the amendment, or are you ruling it out of order right away? Are we speaking to the actual motion now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

They are speaking to the amendment. I'm allowing them to—

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

The amendment has been raised. He's not speaking to the amendment at all. He's speaking to the motion. Your ruling should now be, in my opinion, Madam Chair, whether this is an acceptable amendment to the motion or undoes the intent of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. McLean.

Could the member stick to the amendment at hand? Thank you.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Certainly, Madam Chair.

The amendment calls for the budget to be tabled, indeed, but at a later date. Once again, if we insist on tabling the budget in the fall, that is because it would be ill-advised to rush to table a budget within a few days. That cannot be done. That would constitute a—

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

A point of order, Madam Chair.

My understanding is that the meeting is over and we do not have unanimous consent to continue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you. Yes, it is one o'clock.

We will adjourn the meeting right now. Thank you.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

I'm not opposed to.... We are past the allotted time, but as chair, you cannot adjourn or suspend a meeting without the unanimous consent of the committee when there is somebody on the speakers list.