Debates of Dec. 8th, 2025

Liaison

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join this debate. This is an opportunity for parliamentarians to hear about some of the dysfunction that exists at committees, which is at the hands, largely, of the chairs and probably, in some cases, the parliamentary secretaries that carry the government's water on committee. It is due to the chairs' inability to manage their committees. I am going to talk about the finance committee.

We have heard a lot from members opposite who claim Conservatives are filibustering at committees to obstruct bills.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

It's true.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled by the member for Winnipeg North. Maybe he does not know that it is his own caucus colleagues who have filibustered Bill C-4 at the finance committee, but I will get to that. I want to take this in order.

This committee formed and began in the spring. It had a chair who has demonstrated a disregard for the rules of committee, does not follow the practice and procedure according to our green book that spells out proper practice and procedure and, on June 16, gavelled out a meeting without the consent of members. I brought to her attention that this is not permitted.

I should point out that I am sharing my time with the member from Edmonton West.

At committee, we repeatedly pointed out the rules of committee from the green book, page 1099, which states, “The committee Chair cannot adjourn the meeting without the consent of a majority of the members”. This is a rule of committee that I have found in the debate today. The chair of the finance committee is not the only committee Liberal chair, governing party caucus chair, who gavels out meetings when the going gets tough for their side or if they just feel like stopping a meeting. I bring to the House's attention that the rules of committee are not being followed.

At the finance committee, on October 22, when the governing party members were filibustering their own bill, obstructing Bill C-4, a bill that Conservatives and other members of the House did support and voted for in the House and referred to committee for study, we spent that entire meeting debating a single NDP amendment that had been brought forward, with the Liberal members, in particular the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, asking repeated vexatious questions of the officials present in order to prolong the meeting and prevent it getting to a vote.

It was not clear to us why at the time. Had they just not read the amendments and they were just treading water? Were they waiting for their higher-ups to tell them what to do? Were they waiting for their whip's office or the PMO to give them word about how to vote on these amendments? Did they not do their homework? Did they not have a pre-committee meeting? Did they not take this meeting seriously and were just blathering to prevent business from occurring? I did not know, and I never will. However, I do know that meeting was also gavelled out while the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance was literally in the middle of asking an official a question. It was the most disrespectful thing I have ever seen. We had officials present who were doing their jobs, answering questions of members of committee, and the chair gavelled the meeting out while her own parliamentary secretary was asking a question.

We returned the following Monday. Again, governing party members spent 110 minutes filibustering their own bill, Bill C-4. On the one hand, the member for Winnipeg North came into the chamber and, in debate, asked why we could not advance this bill. We cannot advance it because his own members would not let it advance at committee. I had to be the voice of reason at that meeting. We withdrew some proposed amendments of our own, but they were not the source of the logjam. We had not even come to those yet.

We eventually talked the Liberals into allowing the other amendments that other parties had proposed to come to a vote, which they did, and we managed to get through Bill C-4 and report it back to the House. It was no thanks to any of the Liberals.

Did any member of the finance committee approach other parties and ask to perhaps sit down informally to discuss what our priorities are and see if we could negotiate resolution to the different motions? This is how adults solve problems, but it has not happened on that committee. I do not blame the three new MPs on the committee; they all seem to be reasonable people, but I do have to ask why the chair and the parliamentary secretary come into every meeting unable to work with members of other parties. We did get through that.

On October 29 we had a meeting with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The committee chair completely inconsistently enforced the rule of relevance, enforcing it on one side but not the other. Toward the end of that meeting, there was kind of a blow up with the parliamentary secretary and the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It was quite something; it was not a credit to him, I can assure members of that.

Then, on November 19, with witnesses present, toward the end of the meeting but with time on the clock, the Bloc vice-chair, that being the only time that he would have had the floor, introduced a routine motion that we could have dispensed with very quickly, or we could even have moved to adjourn debate on it and returned to our witnesses, but no: Liberals, the parliamentary secretary in fact, filibustered the meeting until, I think, 8:30 in the evening, before then agreeing to adopt the motion. The dysfunction for no purpose, apparent strategy or goal is just bizarre. I do not understand it.

What we have had on the finance committee is a complete lack of co-operation, and not for lack of willingness. I do not know how many times I have said on the record at the committee, and urged the chair, to hold a steering committee meeting where her vice-chairs can come, present their agendas, talk about the motions they have put on notice and, with the cameras off, discuss the potential business of the committee ahead and plan a schedule and a work plan. This is how committees that are strong, functional and do good work together can, through the process of collegial disagreement, forge better policy and outcomes and produce better reports and legislation for Canadians, but it is not happening at finance committee.

There has been of late a fixation from the Liberals who have proposed motions to pre-study the budget implementation act. Pre-studying legislation is not normally how it is done. There is a motion before the House to refer that bill to the finance committee upon its adoption in the House, and that is the correct order in which to do things. If the Liberals had a particular reason, or if there were a negotiation they wanted to have over this, I am sure we could have it; that is what a subcommittee is for.

The chair has cancelled meetings twice in the last couple of weeks and has scheduled only one hour instead of two when witnesses were not available. The second hour could have been devoted to a subcommittee where the issues could be worked out so the committee could function together more properly.

The purpose of the debate and the report before the House is to examine the efficacy of the finance committee. I am sad to report that it is not going all that well at the finance committee, and I put the blame fully with the chair and the parliamentary secretary, neither of whom ever reaches out to members to encourage working together to co-operate and have a work plan.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member is aware, years ago the Conservative Party actually developed a book on how to obstruct committee work. I wonder if he might want to just reflect on that. I do not know if Conservatives have brought the book back, but I suspect they have. The current leader was part of the former book. They might have an updated, more modern book.

Could the hon. member share with the House whether the Conservative Party still has that book? Has it been updated? What is the status of that book that was meant to disturb and disrupt standing committees?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for 10 years, and I have no idea about that book.

I do know a couple of things though. First, if the member had listened to my speech, he would have noted that it is entirely his caucus that is obstructing the work of the finance committee. Second, with respect to the opposition leader, with whom I have the privilege of serving on the finance committee, I noted that there was a strong chair, Wayne Easter, who could cope with strong personalities and could allow for a cohesive work plan with members that included the opposition leader.

It is all about the will of the chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe the document the parliamentary secretary is referring to is House of Commons Procedure and Practice, the fourth edition of which was just published.

On a more serious note, I am no longer a permanent member of the Standing Committee on Finance, but I stood in for my colleague from Mirabel today. I witnessed over two hours of filibustering, including an hour and a half from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue.

This is because the Liberal members, who are in the minority, are insisting on a pre-study of the budget implementation bill. Before it is passed in the House at second reading, they are refusing to allow the committee to conduct any other study in the meantime, such as a study on the Canada Revenue Agency and all the issues it is plagued with. In my opinion, that is problematic.

I would like to know what my hon. colleague, with whom I had the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Finance in the past, thinks about this.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what has happened. The member was there for the filibuster that the parliamentary secretary undertook.

The Liberals do not want to study anything else. They were fixated on pre-studying the BIA. Can they go 18 or 20 months without tabling a budget, and then all of a sudden the budget implementation act has to be pre-studied, even when they are still amending it in the House?

The same parliamentary secretary was pushing for a pre-study at the finance committee while he is tabling amendments to the bill in the House. The Liberals have not even gotten it straight in the House, so why do we not wait until we get it voted on in the House, and if it is the will of the House to approve the BIA and refer it to the committee, then the committee will study it?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech by my colleague from Calgary Crowfoot, and I think that in one of his answers he really hit the nail on the head: He said that maybe it is because there are such weak Liberal chairs in the finance committee. I remember that when I was in government in Saskatchewan, I always thought it was the government's job to make sure the legislative agenda passed, not to slough it off and whine and complain that the opposition was not making it easy enough to get the job done.

I would like the member to reflect a little more on not only the finance committee but perhaps also on the other committees where the weakness of the Liberal chair is allowing disorder and not making sure that the studies are taking place, as well as the fact that many chairs are not even calling meetings in the first place. Is that part of the problem of not getting legislation passed?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House for the Liberal government's 10 years, and it is terrible at managing the legislative agenda.

When it comes to committees, I am very disappointed with what I have learned during this debate about the dysfunction at a number of committees, not just at the finance committee. The member is absolutely right; if a government is competent, it should have a legislative plan at each stage and should be able to manage its own agenda. The current government does not.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I am hoping and believing there will be unanimous consent that would allow me to table some questions for return.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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

Agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

Agreed.

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

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

Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521 and 522 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Liaison

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker,

[Member spoke in Latin]

[English]

These were the famous words spoken by King Edward I in 1295 when calling the model Parliament. For those who cannot follow my very poor Latin, he stated, “What touches all should be approved by all, and it is also clear that common dangers should be met with measures agreed upon in common.” This is the basis of our Parliament today. What taxes and spending the government proposes should be approved by all.

When King Edward called the model Parliament, it was to gain funding to fight wars against Scotland and France, which was maybe great if someone was Irish, because they got a break for a change from the English, but that was what it was about: getting common people to approve taxation. It is the basis of our Westminster process right now, especially around the estimates process.

Today's government is actually raising money for what seems to be a different war, a generational war of debt against our children and our grandchildren to come, but I will get to that later perhaps.

Does any member of the House remember in 2015 when the Liberal government stated, with Trudeau at the time, that it was going to be “open by default”? He said that very many times: It was going to be open by default and was going to be the most open government in history. However, we see basically the opposite; what we are seeing in the House and in committee, especially in committee, is the opposite of open by default.

I have been hearing today our debate about the transport committee. I have had the pleasure of sitting on the operations committee for over 10 years. Liberal chairs, in the last month alone, have cancelled transport meetings more than chairs did in the 10 years combined that I have been on the estimates committee. In 10 years, we have cancelled one meeting, but the Liberals, open by default and wanting to work with everyone, have cancelled transport meetings more times in the last couple of weeks than the estimates committee has cancelled meetings since 2015.

What is happening in operations right now? This is the basis of today's discussion. Tomorrow the procurement minister was supposed to show up to defend the estimates. He has refused. We have offered him many dates, telling him he could pick the date and we would make the committee available. We meet Tuesdays and Thursdays, but I have said we would meet on Monday if necessary. We would accommodate him, but he has refused.

About a month and a half ago, we offered up briefing sessions for the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and a separate meeting for the treasury board president to come and brief committee. We offered each of them a separate hour, but they would appear only together. We offered them various dates. They refused to appear separately, despite what the motion called for. They would appear for only one hour, and only together, holding hands like little schoolgirls, afraid of committee. This was not about the estimates; it was for them to just brief the operations committee on their roles. They refused to attend separately.

We have a motion out for the CEO of the Defence Investment Agency, much ballyhooed by the government. This gentleman, the president, is going to make about $700,000 a year. In his past life, according to LinkedIn, he was deputy chair of Royal Bank wealth management and managing director of Goldman Sachs. We put out an invite. His office, PSPC, refused to allow him to show up. We put out another invite, along with a separate invite to the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement. One would think they would want to come and explain all the incredible things the Liberals are going to do for defence, as they often do with the media, but they refused to appear in committee unless they could appear together.

Imagine, as an MP, one door knocks. They then work their way up to minister, but they are afraid to show up to committee unless they have someone there to hold their hand. The government members are talking about billions of dollars for defence, yet they refuse to allow the CEO of the Defence Investment Agency to appear unless he has his minder. We brought this up in committee. The Liberal members of the committee said that is it is customary for a minister to show up with his deputy minister, except the CEO of the Defence Investment Agency is not a deputy minister. He is the CEO of a separate department. This same secretary showed up at defence alone, but he will not show up to the operations committee.

I am not sure what they are afraid of. Maybe they are afraid of explaining the back-and-forth about the F-35 versus the Saab Gripen. This is the same Saab, by the way, that members of the government have said is going to create 10,000 jobs in Quebec, for a plane that has an average of six being built per year since coming into production. There are only six per year, yet somehow it is going to create 10,000 jobs. Maybe they are afraid to explain that. Maybe they just want to go out and have the friendly media repeat their talking points instead of being in front of committee.

When did this start? When did ministers start refusing to show up? We would think they would want to come to defend their estimates. We would think they would want to come to explain. In the budget, there is talk of $60 billion of cuts through the CER. We asked the President of the Treasury Board if it would provide that information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and he said, yes, he would be happy to. Then, he did not. If members opposite have forgotten, a previous PBO actually sued the government for access to this data, and now the government is saying it will not provide it, even though it is required under the Parliament of Canada Act that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has a right to access this data.

This was aggregate data he was looking for. He was not looking for specifics, such as if Bill or Frank's department is going to get shut down. It is for aggregate data, and the government refused. What the President of the Treasury Board said is that they cannot release the information on the cuts to Parliament until Parliament votes on the cuts. They wanted the budget passed before they would tell Parliament what it is voting on. We actually had to have a motion from the operations committee to demand this information be turned over to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

In committee, we found out that the PBO wrote to five different departments asking for the data. We know it exists because, on Halloween day, the comptroller general presented the information. We know it exists. He wrote to the five departments asking for this information, and out of nowhere, the Treasury Board interfered to say to not release that information to the PBO, that it will aggregate it and forward it out. The PBO did not ask the Treasury Board to interfere politically. It asked the departments to.

Right now, we are consumed with an order from the industry committee to hand over unredacted docs regarding Stellantis. The Liberal members of the committee voted for it and then spent weeks filibustering, blocking it when industry refused to turn it over. This is an ongoing problem we have heard about from many speakers today, and we see it every day in the operations committee. Government is interfering with the roles of committee and the roles of parliamentarians, blocking information and violating the law to protect itself. The government needs to focus on delivering to Canadians and focus less on delivering to their political masters.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I struggle to understand how my colleague across the floor sets his priorities. Personally, I go to my riding and ask people what they want us to do.

They tell me they want us to strengthen security. We are doing that with Bill C-12 and various changes to the Criminal Code. They tell me they want us to make life more affordable. We have Bill C-4, which is currently being studied and which we would like to see passed shortly. People also talk to me about the much-needed investments in infrastructure. That is in the budget implementation bill. What people are not asking me to do, however, is to engage in filibustering, block the work of the House and prevent us from debating bills that address the priorities of Canadians.

I would like to ask my colleague how he sets his priorities. Does he think it is justifiable to use the House's valuable time to obstruct proceedings rather than debate bills?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it always amazes me. I have been here for 10 years, and for 10 years I have dealt with the absolute incompetence of the government and its members in terms of getting legislation across. They had 19 months, since being elected, to table a budget. It is the second-longest period we have had between budgets since the Trudeau government refused to drop one during the COVID era. The member opposite and his government need to learn how to govern and stop blaming the opposition for their own incompetence.

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

Mr. Speaker, throughout his speech, my colleague mentioned ministers who did not answer or who refused to appear before a committee. There is a fundamental principle called ministerial responsibility. The minister is responsible for what happens in his or her department and must be able to provide clarification, particularly when elected officials ask questions. I think that is a serious breach of parliamentary privilege.

I want my colleague to comment on that and on what we can do to make sure that does not continue. This is what we are trying to do today, but it does not mean that the Liberals will start working collaboratively as of tomorrow.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brings up an excellent question about ministerial responsibility. He asks how we could fix this. I think that the government could fix it by actually promoting competent people into ministerial roles. At the public accounts committee, we once heard one of the senior Liberals state that ministers are not responsible for their own departments. They actually stated this.

Last week, at the government operations committee, the President of the Treasury Board was being asked questions, and his answer was that if one wants an answer, one needs to ask his official, and to not ask him. That is the Liberal version of ministerial responsibility, and it is a joke.

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the science and research committee. Last Wednesday, the chair arbitrarily cancelled the meeting half an hour prior. Today they cancelled our Monday meeting without any advance notice. They cancelled the meeting on justice and other committees.

What are the Liberals trying to hide? What do they have to hide? Why are they running away from questions? Why are they not doing the job that people want them to do?