Debates of Dec. 16th, 2024

Fall Economic Statement

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are businesses trying to think about making decisions based on what was supposed to be in the statement today. We have senior economists who have been waiting for this information. Literally, the entire nation's business has been waiting for this. All of us in this place have the right to see these finances. This is why we are here. It is almost to the point of a violation of our privilege to not be able to see this, frankly.

We are being asked to vote on things, without a finance minister, on the day that a budget was to be tabled. This is not what a serious government does. We need to have this information today. It is borderline privilege. Again, as the opposition House leader said, presumably, this is a contempt of Parliament, of the utmost magnitude.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill for her intervention.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion adopted on December 11 states that “the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings”. It does not say that the Speaker may interrupt the proceedings. We believe that you have an obligation to interrupt the orders of the day. The Liberals have nothing to say, even though the in camera status has been lifted. There are journalists outside the House right now disclosing the content of the economic update, while we are being told, in all seriousness, that we do not deserve to know what is in the update and that we will not have an opportunity to respond to it or to ask any questions on behalf of our constituents. Some pretty unparliamentary language comes to mind, quite frankly, and I will not resort to using it, but this makes no sense whatsoever. This government has no idea what it is doing.

This is a serious breach of parliamentary privilege. Members of the House deserve to have access to that content. If the government does not have the courage to stand up and present it, then it should table the document. I have colleagues who were at the in camera meeting who could respond to the content of the statement. We demand the right to respond and to uphold the rights of our constituents.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

There are at least three more points of order, which I would like to hear.

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to add to what has already been said. Obviously, not only certain parliamentarians have had access already, when most of us do not, but also journalists have had access to it already. That will leak. There is a precedent. In the mid-to-late 1980s, then-finance minister Michael Wilson's printed budget leaked. There is a printed budget that is available to be tabled now, a fall economic statement. They can table those documents now.

When it was leaked, the then minister of finance had to go to the press gallery, because the House was not sitting in the evening, and he actually had to deliver the full budget so that parliamentarians could get access. This is a similar situation in that we now have select people, some of whom are not parliamentarians, who have access to those documents. I personally believe that it is a breach of my privilege that a journalist has access to those documents and that I do not, when the government can simply table the budget, the fall economic statement documents, in the House now, without giving the speech.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets. Indeed, he and I are of the same vintage, and I do remember that. I think it was 1989.

I will recognize the hon. member for Bow River.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is my point of privilege, which has been infringed upon by what has been done. I feel that it is a very grave injustice for people to have had this information and for them to come in minutes before it was to be announced, after having the document and having been able to use it and read it. My privilege has already been broken.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for Bow River.

I see that the hon. leader of the government in the House of Commons is rising on her feet.

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 2024 fall economic statement.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, now that the fall economic statement has been tabled, I believe we would now proceed to questions to the minister.

Therefore, I would like to ask the government to stand in this place and tell us exactly how big the budget deficit was last year. How much did the government blow past the $40 billion? Is it a big deficit, or is it a super-duper deficit?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Order.

I see a number of members rising on points of order. We will go first to the member for Kitchener Centre.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there might be unanimous consent of the House to now have all parties, including the Green Party, offered the opportunity for 20 minutes for a speech and 10 minutes for a question and comment period afterward.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to remind you that the order that the House adopted was very specific. It states:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order, or usual practice of the House, at 4:00 p.m. on Monday, December 16, 2024, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings to permit the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to make a statement followed by a period of up to 10 minutes for questions and comments; after the statement, a Member from each recognized opposition party, and a Member of the Green Party, may reply for a period approximately equivalent to the time taken by the Minister's statement....

A minister of the Crown just came in and made a statement. Her statement was that she was tabling the fall economic update. That is the statement. At the very least, there should now be a 10-minute period of questions and comments. The government House leader chose to have a very short statement. There is nothing we can do about that. She came in, tabled it and then ran out before there could be any accountability or scrutiny.

I believe the most logical thing for the Chair to do would be to accept that as the statement that it was, which I would say is a perfect statement on the state of the Liberal government right now, and, at the very least, allow opposition parties and opposition members to ask questions of the government as to what was in the fall economic update.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order, the government House leader stood on a point of order and tabled documents. It is as simple as that.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. Indeed, that was where the Chair was going to go.

I do see that there are a number of members who are rising on points of order. I have not heard from the hon. House leader for the NDP, who is also rising on a point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a fundamental tenet of parliamentary democracy, transparency and accountability. We have just had the tabling of the document. Therefore, if you seek it, anyone respecting democracy should support the following motion. I move that, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, immediately following the adoption of this motion, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings to permit one member from each recognized opposition party and a member of the Green Party to make a statement of up to 20 minutes, followed by a period of up to 10 minutes for questions and comments related to the fall economic statement.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, there is $61.9 billion of extra spending in the fall economic statement. I came prepared, and I was at my seat at the time indicated. You went through, in great detail, exactly the process we would follow for the fall economic statement, and the government has reneged. It has done a drop-off, drive-by of a tabling, where the leader of the government spun around and walked right out. That is contemptuous of the adopted motion that we would all be here today to undertake a democratic scrutiny of the government.

The government cannot pick and choose its role. It is subservient to the House. I would ask you to find it in contempt because, obviously, the government is not prepared to allow any other process. This is something that makes not only me and the whole House look bad, it looks terribly on you. I would ask that you would defend our rights as parliamentarians and force, the government through a mechanism, perhaps a contempt motion, and find it in contempt in its duties to the House.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon is rising on a point of order.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today, the regular proceedings were interrupted for an order. It is a mandatory order. There are different kinds. The language could have said “may.” That is permissive language, and if the order had said “may”, you would have had discretion as to how to proceed. The proceedings were interrupted in the face of a specific order. The order says, “the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings to permit the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to make a statement followed by a period of up to 10 minutes”.

If the government chose not to use its time to make a statement, that is its problem. You are bound by a mandatory order to now give us the opportunity that is set out in the motion. It is not permissive, and it not optional. It is mandatory, and we, as opposition members, expect you to follow and enforce your mandatory order.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The Chair has been placed in a situation where he very much has to follow what is listed here. I thank the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon for quoting the motion. I will say that, yes, it says “the Speaker shall interrupt”, which the Speaker did. More fully, the motion states:

...the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings to permit the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance to make a statement followed by a period of up to 10 minutes for questions and comments; after the statement, a Member from each recognized opposition party, and a Member of the Green Party, may reply for a period approximately equivalent to the time taken by the Minister's statement and each statement shall be followed by a period of 10 minutes for questions and comments.

The difficulty the Chair finds itself in is that the motion is a permissive motion. The minister chose not to make a statement, by which the rest of the order does not follow.

I will be listening to a number of hon. members about this, and there are a number of members who are on their feet for points of order.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.