SoVote

Apr/9/24 11:55:49 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, for the past few weeks, the federal government has been parading all over Canada, announcing programs of all kinds and budgetary envelopes in advance, disclosing bits and pieces of the budgetary measures that will be part of the budget to be tabled on April 16. On a number of occasions, nearly four weeks before the tabling of the budget, the media reported figures shared by cabinet members and the Prime Minister, meaning that some of the financial initiatives that will be included in the finance minister's budget were known in advance. It is disconcerting that the government would violate the principle of secrecy as it relates to fiscal matters, a principle that should be upheld by any responsible and trustworthy government. Despite this parliamentary tradition and what, in our opinion, the principles of good governance call for, the federal government is prematurely disclosing budget items that are part of a budget plan, a projection for the coming years. These announcements, taken out of context, are preventing the opposition from doing its job properly. Members are learning in dribs and drabs, in isolation, what the next Liberal budget will consist of. Starting on March 25, ministers began announcing budgetary measures for housing, for the national child care network, for the national pharmacare program regarding oral contraceptives and certain diabetes medications, for the new national school meals program, for the development of artificial intelligence, for strengthening national defence and for mental health. In short, over the two-week parliamentary recess, a whole bunch of pre-budget announcements were made, a pre-election striptease of sorts, according to an April 3 article in La Presse. According to Bosc and Gagnon's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, budget secrecy is a long-standing parliamentary tradition, and straying from this principle can have a negative impact on business or on the stock market, potentially causing irrevocable harm to some individuals or institutions and unduly benefiting others. Members will recall that, before the content of the budget that the Minister of Finance intends to table is made public, finance officials usually hold an in camera information session for members and journalists, to preserve the necessary secrecy and to allow members to read the government's budget measures so that they can then debate them with full knowledge of the facts. The principle of secrecy in relation to fiscal matters is a fundamental principle commonly recognized in a parliamentary democracy and one that should undoubtedly be a matter of consensus in the government and among cabinet members. It is disconcerting that the government itself prematurely disclosed significant budget items without assessing the potential impact of that decision. There was actually a time in 1989 when, to protect this parliamentary principle, then Prime Minister Mulroney had a journalist criminally charged with stealing confidential information and disclosing it before the budget was tabled. The finance minister at the time, Michael Wilson, decided to present his budget early in order to safeguard the principle of budget secrecy. What is most worrying is that the Liberal government went ahead with this, ignoring the tradition of a parliamentary practice designed to prevent insider trading and allow parliamentarians to read the budget ahead of time, the better to comment on it. By announcing its budget to the media in bits and pieces, the federal government is being irresponsible toward all members and particularly toward the opposition parties, which are responsible for keeping an eye on the government's policies. To disclose certain measures that the government believes will be popular, without allowing parliamentarians and Canadians an opportunity to see the government's entire budget policy, is a ploy that significantly affects the opposition parties' ability to take an informed position and hold the government to account with full knowledge of the facts. Consequently, we believe that the members of the opposition parties have been obstructed in fulfilling their parliamentary duties, given that they were unable to take an informed position based on all the necessary budget information or to properly inform voters about the budget measures that were announced and their impact or repercussions. These budget announcements could give financial advantages to certain experts in the field, which could be considered insider trading. That is a fundamental issue for the Speaker's office to address. In addition, it is important to ensure that the premature disclosure of budget measures does not violate the privilege of members of Parliament, who have been impeded in the performance of their duties, leaving them unable to represent and defend the interests of their constituents with full knowledge of the facts. It will also be important to check whether the premature disclosure had the effect of misleading the public about the budget and, by the same token, members of Parliament. According to Bosc and Gagnon, at page 116, misleading a member or members can be considered a form of obstruction that could hinder the business of the House. That is why, if the Chair finds that there is a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

853 words

Context: House Hansard - 296 - Apr/9/24

Hon. Mike Lake

Apr/9/24 12:45:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that question is quite laughable. First of all, there was a lot of disinformation in that question. However, I think the point to be made is that we faced an economic crisis. His party's reaction, by the way, at the time, was to form a coalition with the Bloc and NDP to try and take down the government right after an election. That was the response of the Liberals at the time. Of course, anyone who was in the House would remember that our government could not spend enough to satisfy the Liberals. Every single question at the time was about why we were not spending more. The biggest difference from then until now is that we immediately laid out a plan to get back to balance by 2015. We followed that plan absolutely, to a T. The member's government inherited the incredible fiscal situation we had in Canada at that time.

156 words

Context: House Hansard - 296 - Apr/9/24

Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, CPC)

Apr/9/24 2:17:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as Canadians know all too well, the Prime Minister has abandoned any pretense of fiscal stewardship, with his government racking up more national debt than all previous prime ministers combined. His record-shattering tax and spend agenda has driven up inflation and interest rates, increasing the cost of food, fuel and housing. It has gotten so bad that leading economists are warning that the record-high spending may delay interest rate cuts. The common-sense Conservatives have a simple solution that could be implemented in next week's NDP-Liberal government budget: The government ought to find a dollar in savings for every dollar spent. This is a reasonable and simple lever they could use to get their inflation under control. After eight years, Canadians are in debt, exhausted and looking for relief. Let us axe the tax, build the homes, cap the spending and fix the budget. Let us bring it home.

155 words

Context: House Hansard - 296 - Apr/9/24

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ)

Apr/9/24 2:27:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister interferes with Quebec's jurisdictions like a ship's captain collects life rafts. Ottawa has no department or expertise in health, education, child care or municipal affairs. People here in Ottawa seem to forget that. However, the Prime Minister has our money because of the fiscal imbalance. Does he recognize that the National Assembly of Quebec has jurisdiction over education, health, child care and municipal affairs?

71 words