Pat Kelly
Calgary Crowfoot, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“They are the same Liberals who spent the last 11 years actively preventing Canada from diversifying its export markets by systematically preventing the construction of the energy infrastructure necessary to export Canadian energy to the world. Canadian oil and gas is by far Canada's most valuable export. It dwarfs everything else.”
“I thought that might mean that a year after he made these claims, there would be some kind of approval on the horizon for a pipeline project. I could easily imagine that.”
“If it had been built, it would be carrying 525,000 barrels a day today to world markets. At today's prices, that would bring about $20 billion per year to the Canadian economy. Would we be in a recession today, if the Canadian economy had another 525,000 barrels a day in exported production?”
“Madam Speaker, the member brings up the Trans Mountain pipeline and, again, Conservatives were not calling upon the government to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline and build it themselves.”
“They ran up deficits in the eighties that were so big that by the time the Liberals were defeated in 1984, Canada was literally kiting interest payments by issuing new debt just to cover the interest on the existing debt.”
“She said that, based on the government's stress tests, which, “draws on decades of Canadian economic and fiscal history, including, recessions, financial crises, oil price crashes, and runs thousands of combinations to show the range of possibilities....that the likelihood that the deficit-to-GDP ratio will decline...is less than 1 per ce…”
The complete record
Every one of 352 lines we hold for Pat Kelly, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 8.
“The government's own announcement said, “the government will provide $25 billion over 3 years, on a cash basis, to seed the [fund].” Well, the Liberals just tabled an economic statement with a $67-billion deficit, without counting the $8.3 billion the government will need to seed the fund initially, which is in the cash flow statement and does not show up as a balance sheet entry. The Liberals enter this new debt with an offsetting asset that produces nothing, but Canadians will still have to pay the debt borrowed to seed the new fund. The fund is created by new debt to be repaid by Canadians, not created by surpluses invested on behalf of Canadians for their future. This is going to be a $25-billion hit on the national credit card. There is simply no denying this. The government's own announcements and fiscal update confirm it.”
“Madam Speaker, the Liberals' new fund they have announced should never be called a “sovereign wealth fund”. A sovereign wealth fund is a fund that takes surplus government revenue, usually from resource export revenue, and invests that surplus internationally. That is what a sovereign wealth fund, by any normal understanding of the term, means. The government in fact even explicitly compared its new fund to actual sovereign wealth funds, like those found in Norway and Saudi Arabia, but the government has no surplus. It will borrow 100% of the funds to seed its fund, so it is not a sovereign wealth fund at all. It will become a Liberal slush fund that will inevitably become a plaything for the Prime Minister and his Liberal insiders, bought on national credit.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to comment on comparisons that have been made between this new fund and the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We were told by expert witnesses at committee on Monday that the Infrastructure Bank was failed industrial policy and that the fund would be just more of the same. We have heard defence of the Infrastructure Bank. In fact, one of the Liberal members claimed that it was leveraging private sector money. It was promised to do five dollars for every one dollar of public funds. We were also told at the finance committee that there would be about 60¢ of private investment for every dollar. Could the member comment on the failures of the Infrastructure Bank and how they correlate to this new future boondoggle?”
“Mr. Speaker, there was a lot in the member's speech, but I want to focus on one specific thing he said that was extraordinarily misleading. This is a talking point we have heard before. He claimed that Canada's total debt-to-GDP was 10%, unlike the United States at 110% or whatever. Does he believe that the entire asset base of the Canada pension plan is free-flowing cash that could be used to repay the debts of Canada, or is it that, with the true meaningful proportion of our debt, which would include subnational debt and does not subtract the assets of the Canada pension plan, the debt-to-GDP is truly over 100%?”
“Mr. Speaker, I really did enjoy the member's speech. We have had to spend quite a bit of the day trying to debunk some of what we have heard from the other side. Would the member like to take an additional minute or two to walk them through the difference between a sovereign wealth fund, where governments invest wealth that is accumulated from surplus, and simply tacking on another $25 billion to the national credit card?”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's speech. He talked about health transfers briefly. He also had quite a bit to say about debt service and the debt repayment, like how this $25 billion going into the sovereign wealth fund would be borrowed and charged to the taxpayer immediately, even if it is put onto a separate balance sheet. In the years ahead, we see that the increasing costs of debt service will far exceed health transfers. Can he comment on debt service costs?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government inherited a balanced budget and then spent the last 10 years borrowing, spending, squandering and taxing hundreds of billions of dollars while home ownership slipped out of reach for the middle class and millions more cannot afford groceries. For the last 10 years, Canada should have been building pipelines, houses, ports and roads, but these Liberals built bureaucracies, slush funds and debt repayments. Again, will the deficit exceed $31 billion, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, the cost of government drives up the cost of living. The more the government spends, the more things cost. Since 2015, the Liberals have doubled the debt while doubling housing costs and food bank lineups. The Prime Minister doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit, proving that he is just another Liberal. Can he commit that tomorrow's deficit announcement will not be higher than the already reckless, inflationary $31-billion deficit that Justin Trudeau left behind, yes or no?”
“Only Conservatives have a plan to restore economic growth and productivity, by cutting taxes and regulation to unleash investment and actually deliver economic strength.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised economic strength, but Canada was the only G7 country with a shrinking economy at the end of last year. The Bank of Canada and the OECD predict barely 1% growth this year, and Canada has already lost 95,000 jobs so far. The Liberals have presided over the largest capital exodus in Canadian history, $1 trillion from 2015 to 2024, with two dollars of foreign direct investment leaving Canada for every one dollar coming in. Canada now ranks last in the G7 for investment in machinery, equipment and intellectual property. After 10 years of the Liberals, investment is down, productivity is down, and Canada is being left behind. Conservatives warned that Liberal taxes, red tape and reckless deficits would stall Canada's economy, and now we are seeing the results.”
“We should be just getting government out of the way and allowing this industry to receive investment so we can truly build Canadians' energy sovereignty. I would ask him to comment on whether he really thinks the current clean fuel standard is the same as removing lead from gasoline.”
“Mr. Speaker, many times in his speech and in comments after, this member seemed to be trying to equate the so-called clean fuel standard, as is their branding of it, with the removal of a toxin like lead from gasoline. It is an absurd comparison, and I would like him to really think about whether or not this is a proper comparison. The other problem that came up in his speech is how he repeatedly referred to the fuel standard, the industrial carbon tax and a series of other policies that make life more expensive for Canadians as drivers of investment in industrial policy. The government chased $200 billion out of the energy industry in its first parliament. This is a government that has been destroying investment in energy in Canada and leaving us with a system of regulation and government support for industry.”
“Mr. Speaker, we saw today, probably in an attempt to get ahead of the opposition, the announcement that was made this morning, which, as the member and others have remarked, is a half-measure and a short measure compared with all of the other ways in which the government makes fuel and other things more expensive for Canadians. Today was an out-of-body experience with the government during question period, where the Liberals took credit for reducing the price of gasoline by, they said, 25¢. It is almost like they have no idea how the tax got there in the first place. The government has a demonstrated history of piling on the cost of fuel. Does the member have any further comments about this?”
“Mr. Speaker, in the member's speech, he talked about the importance of energy security and energy sovereignty. He was elected, I believe, when I was, in 2015. Almost literally the first thing that his party's cabinet did was to cancel the northern gateway pipeline, which was already conditionally approved. They chased all investors out of the energy east proposal. They chased out the private sector builder of the Trans Mountain pipeline so that it had to be nationalized and built at an extraordinary expense. I put it to the member that his party's government has spent 10 years undermining Canada's energy sovereignty. Will he apologize for putting Canada in the position that we are in today?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government has spent the last 10 years setting the stage for today's rising unemployment. The industrial carbon tax, antidevelopment laws, bloated bureaucracy, staggering debt and deficits, failure to approve a single pipeline, failure to build any major projects, which it promised to do, and its failure to secure a trade deal, which it also promised to do, are all killing Canadian jobs. When will the Liberal government at least stop making things worse?”
“Mr. Speaker, Algoma Steel is laying off 1,000 workers today, who will join the 108,000 full-time workers who lost their jobs in February. The Liberal government cannot blame outside factors. The rest of the world exists in the same global economy, but only Canada has a shrinking economy among G7 countries. When will the Liberals get out of the way and get rid of their taxes, antidevelopment laws and bureaucracies that are killing Canadian jobs, and let Canadians get back to work?”
“Mr. Speaker, talking about before the crisis, for 10 years, the Liberal government has passed antidevelopment laws, run up the national debt, driven down productivity, driven up the cost of living, bloated the bureaucracy, enriched Liberal insiders and made Canada the only G7 country with a shrinking economy. Today's job numbers are the result of a decade of failure and lost opportunity, and the current Liberal Prime Minister is still taxing, spending and regulating like the last one. Will the Liberals commit today to cut taxes and regulations so Canadians can get back to work?”
“Mr. Speaker, this morning's job numbers are a scathing indictment of the Liberal government's economic performance. There were 108,000 full-time jobs lost, the largest one-month drop since the beginning of COVID, and youth unemployment is now over 14%. We have the only shrinking economy in the G7, and we have the second-highest unemployment. Will the Liberals accept our Conservative proposals, including our youth jobs plan, and remove the taxes, red tape and bureaucracies that are killing Canadian jobs?”
“Now that Canada is the only G7 country with a shrinking economy, will the Liberals finally get their taxes and bureaucracies out of the way and stop making things worse, so Canada can build, invest and grow?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7, but new Statistics Canada data shows that Canada saw its economy shrink last quarter, the only country in the G7 to do so. After 10 years of deficits, inflation, higher taxes, anti-development laws and bloating bureaucracy, growth has stalled and Canadians are paying the price. While other countries build, the government fails to approve nation-building resource projects. The Major Projects Office has yet to approve a single new project, despite being created in order to move at unimaginable speed. Business has stalled, net capital is leaving and per capita GDP has been flat for a decade while Canadians work harder and fall further behind. This is the result of Liberal policies blocking development, suppressing productivity and driving away investment.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Airdrie—Cochrane , commented on this in debate yesterday. For those watching who do not know, this structure they are cutting is one that was created to help veterans cope with the sheer complexity of systems that seem almost designed, in cases, to deny benefits. That is what fiscal discipline, if that is what they want to call it, looks like with the current government, trying to stick to a promise-breaking deficit by clawing back or refusing to repay $870 million to veterans and by cutting the people who protect veterans who are struggling to get the benefits they are entitled to.”
“Madam Speaker, his question takes us right into everything wrong with the government's approach to nearly any public policy problem out there. The Liberals build bureaucracies. That is what they build. They set up fiscal structures and financial structures that, at best, are oblique and, at worst, just send money into black holes. I fundamentally disagree with the approach of the government. I am extraordinarily skeptical of its ability to achieve any of the things that it says its bureaucratic structures are set up to do.”
“Madam Speaker, it is always fun watching the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader try to hold the opposition to account. That intervention says everything about these guys. First of all, he is ignoring all of the promises he has run on in four elections. He is now taking credit for a AAA credit rating that his government inherited from the previous government, which is under threat by at least one agency that is talking about review. His government deserves no credit for that. It would be one thing if they had not promised something different. They did not promise to expand the deficit forever because of their fiscal capacity. That is not what they ran on. They ran on not increasing the deficit, and they have broken that promise.”
“How arrogant does someone have to be, when they are in government, to suggest to an opposition member that they should not ask basic questions about the health and future of the finances of this country? The Liberals have talked in their speeches today about the construction of major projects. They promised to build these at speeds unimaginable. We are a year in now. There are no approvals and not even any real talk about these projects. They will not even say the word “pipeline” out loud. Again, when confronted with questions about on which date construction might begin or on which date we can expect an approval, there was no answer. The accountability has been disappointing, and that is why we oppose this budget implementation act.”
“When the current finance minister came to committee and was asked repeatedly about balanced budgets, he actually said to me that it was irresponsible for members of the opposition to ask the finance minister when the government would balance the budget. He refused to answer a basic financial question for five solid minutes. He could have said to the committee that the government currently does not have a projection that goes out far enough to find a balanced budget, that what we see in the budget is as good as it gets or that the officials have nothing further to say on the future of deficits, but he did not. He actually challenged the legitimacy of the question.”
“They then promised that they would not exceed that deficit projection, but they tabled a budget with a $78-billion deficit. I do not understand how all of these members, especially the ones who have been here since 2015, campaigned in election after election, promising that it was going to get better and that they were going to rein in spending. They promised, in 2015, to balance the budget by 2017. The Liberals have broken every promise, blown through every fiscal guardrail, cut loose every fiscal anchor, and now want to be taken at their word that $78 billion is the new number they will not exceed. The debt-to-GDP ratio is not even declining. It is going up. That used to be the sacred line that they would not cross, in the words of one of the previous finance ministers.”
“Some amendments were accepted by the government, which is appreciated. Partially dialing back the draconian powers that the government has given itself would be one point, but we had ministerial appearances, and I have to take some time and unpack what happened when we had the Minister of Finance at committee. The budget implementation act would implement a budget with a $78.3-billion deficit. The members of the governing party campaigned in an election, promising not to exceed their deficit. The last deficit that was tabled in the previous budget was $42 billion. There was a promise not to exceed that deficit. The Liberals formed a new government, a continuation of the old government. They added $20 billion in new deficit spending in a projection.”
“(1050) The government is being sued successfully, and it appears that it would be ordered to repay $870 million to veterans, many of whom are in long-term care. These are elderly veterans who have, in some cases, given blood and limbs for their country. To deal with the prospect of being ordered to pay nearly $1 billion in compensation, the government is trying to retroactively change a 1998 law to avoid it and give itself legal cover to refuse compensation to veterans. It is shameful. We have heard a lot about the ministerial powers, including in the last interventions in the previous speech. I am going to go past that one because, fortunately, these were amended. This is what happened at committee. We agreed to a 605-clause bill that we went through clause by clause in only six hours. Amendments were proposed.”
“He was candid, and he certainly gave nothing to assure Canadians that this would not ultimately become an extraordinary boondoggle. He would not even acknowledge and seemed to act surprised when we talked about the existing subsidy to keep the existing rail network going, which relies on a subsidy of $2 for every dollar that it takes in fares. I am going to run out of time with all the things that are wrong with this budget, but we move on to Veterans Affairs. The BIA contains an absolutely disgraceful provision for the Government of Canada to correct what it calls an ongoing mistake. Really, it is that the Department of Veterans Affairs, over a series of governments, has systematically denied proper levels of compensation to veterans on the basis of a 1998 law.”
“They have come around to us on that. They have come around on the underutilized housing tax, which we raised concerns about when they brought it in, and they are repealing this. These are all positive steps with which we agree. There are many things we do not agree with in the BIA. I am going to talk about a few of them as time will allow. The BIA creates a Crown corporation to at least explore the construction of a high-speed rail network. We are not opposed to infrastructure, if we want to call this train such, but what they are actually doing here is proposing and beginning to spend significant amounts of money on a train that has dubious projections for its ridership and absolutely terrifying possibilities for total cost. We oppose this. The CEO of this new corp testified at committee.”
“I do not know what is with the Liberals today, but I will maybe leave it at that on the process and talk about things that Conservatives agree with in this BIA. This BIA contains policy reversals from the government that we support, like repealing the digital services tax, something that we fought tooth and nail in the last Parliament. We foretold all of the consequences of that bill, and now here we are in the next Parliament, with the Liberals admitting through their legislation that Conservatives were right all along, and repealing the digital services tax. They are also repealing the luxury tax on corporate aircraft and some watercraft. We said at the time that these taxes would simply harm industry, would raise insignificant amounts of revenue and, in fact, would likely result in lost economic activity.”
“We did not really have time to call very many experts outside of the public service itself, but when the bill was referred to committee, the committee got to work and got to work collaboratively. The reason I bring this up is that it has been falsely and repeatedly said in this chamber that this bill was held up by the opposition. It was not. There is only one party that has filibustered and delayed business at the finance committee. It is actually the Liberal Party, which did so on Bill C-4 . On three different occasions, they filibustered their own bill. I am being heckled by the member for Winnipeg North . I invite him to check the record, maybe check with his parliamentary secretary. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Pat Kelly : Madam Speaker, I am just being heckled left, right and centre.”
“Madam Speaker, on the budget implementation act, I really have three things I want to talk about. I want to talk a bit about the process and the committee process that took us to what may be the last day that we debate this bill. I want to talk about some of the things that Conservatives agree with that are contained in the BIA, and I want to talk about those with which we disagree. I want to begin by being clear on the parliamentary record that what happened with the debate on the BIA in many respects is a credit, if I may say so, to the parliamentary process by which parties agree to a work plan within committee and have a robust work plan that calls for officials and ministers to appear.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is a 605-clause bill. The member did not even have time to get into all the detail of the veterans components. I want to give him time to unpack what the Liberals have done with respect to the reimbursement of veterans. There is a 1998 law that the department has not followed for 28 years. The Liberals are losing in court to veterans who are suing them to get the proper compensation. The Liberals' reaction is to go backward and amend a 28-year-old law in order to give them legal cover to continue to undercompensate veterans. It is Orwellian: “Who controls the present controls the past.” I wonder if the member could comment on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. friend, who is on the finance committee with me, wanted to comment on some of the other pieces of the bill that had to be amended at the finance committee. We have seen over and over again the government's penchant for consolidating power into the executive and removing the powers of parliamentarians. We had to amend this bill at committee to give more accountability to the extraordinary powers that the government tried to grant itself. Would he like to comment on that or any of the other examples we have had of the government's penchant for the consolidation of power with the executive?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a petition that I would like to table on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about Bill C-15 and the powers contained in that bill that would give the government the power to override any of its laws, other than the Criminal Code, at the discretion of a minister. The petitioners think that this is an unreasonable overreach of government power that could exempt an individual or a company from any law, including the Conflict of Interest Act. The petitioners are concerned about this, and I am happy to table their petition.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Standing Orders require the member to address the business at hand, which is the Standing Orders. This is a once-in-a-Parliament opportunity for parliamentarians to weigh in on how we govern ourselves, and I have not heard any recommendations about the Standing Orders, so I would ask you, Speaker, to direct him to—”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments and the direction of that question. To answer the specific one, I am not aware of any other legislature that has maintained this type of system. Debates are for the chamber. Work that members of Parliament do in their constituencies and across Canada is for those areas. Combining the two is doing neither effectively. As far as convenience goes, the primary responsibility of members of Parliament is to represent their constituents in this chamber and participate in debate, not to talk into a camera from a hotel room somewhere or try to take a selfie for a vote. Members can do that if they want to, but they do it at their own risk. In fact, the controversies that arise in votes are usually around trying to log into the virtual system when the app has failed.”
“Mr. Speaker, I had not considered that model, but that would accomplish roughly the same objective. I think the late show proceedings are a much better forum for debate than speeches because we get more back and forth and a response from the other side. I think the member raises an excellent point. Maybe another change, concurrent with what I recommended, is an expansion to an hour of Adjournment Proceedings rather than just 30 minutes, and maybe that it not be held at the end of the day, but at the beginning.”
“Mr. Speaker, honestly, he perhaps misunderstood what I had said. I do not care for the voting app, so we do disagree, perhaps, on that, but I was not proposing its abolition. What I was proposing is the abolition of virtual participation. Arguments on the maintenance of virtual participation are often tied to the voting app, such as asking what happens if the voting app fails and someone needs to be able to log in virtually. I do not agree with that. I think the voting app is a tool for the convenience of the member, to be used at their own risk.”
“This debate is interesting to members who are interested in parliamentary procedure, but only when the committee on parliamentary affairs, PROC, reviews these suggestions carefully and reports back to the House with recommendations that MPs can support can we change the Standing Orders instead of just talking about changing the Standing Orders.”
“The easy way to do that would be to expand greatly the time spent on questions and comments, so that we would have real debates in this place, not reading a 10-minute canned speech and then hearing one question from each of the three parties. We could really have much more engagement on legislation. We could have much better debates in the House. I strongly recommend these three changes: we revert to voice voting to give more and equal power to members of Parliament; we dispense with virtual participation in Parliament; and we improve our debate by actually having more debate.”
“In the House, we have debates where we spend twice as much time on the speech as we do on the questions and comments. I would suggest that we invert that. When debate is 20 minutes of speech plus 10 minutes of questions and comments, or 10 minutes and five minutes, the order should be reversed. A member should speak for five minutes and then entertain 10 minutes of questions and comments. It would be a move toward the Westminster parliamentary system. When a member engages back and forth in debate there and yields the floor to their opponents or their own colleagues, their time is added to the other member's time. The system encourages debate by giving a member more time.”
“These are ways we can deal with the what-ifs when a member cannot be present in the chamber. I do not see any need to still have virtual participation. Members rarely try to participate virtually, other than to clarify a vote when they are sitting on an airplane and cannot get a strong enough Internet connection to upload a picture. I strongly think that, if this is going to be our place, MPs should attend in person, speak to each other and have to see each other across the hall. The public asks why MPs cannot work more productively together. I ask how siloed we want to make things with our rules, to enable people to silo themselves off even from their own colleagues by non-attendance to debate in the House. The third point I want to make is about debate.”
“I can hear the howls of protest from those who will say, “What if an MP is sick? What if an MP is attending to a family emergency?” If a member is unwell or in medical treatment, the last thing they should be worrying about is fumbling around trying to vote electronically from their sickbed. They should be paired. There are always ill members and members struggling with a family emergency in all caucuses. They could be paired so that, when people are attending to their health or attending to an emergency in their family, such as the death of a parent or the birth of a child, they do not feel obligated to be on top of their phone during these times. (1255) It could be done with a signed pair book on the table, signed by whips or by members, that cannot be broken.”
“We have seen, when a person has a technical problem with the app, they usually also have a technical problem with virtual participation. Controversies arise when the chair occupant has to make a call on somebody's voting intention while they are struggling with internet connectivity. The answer to that is that the voting app could be used, but if it fails, it fails, such that if there were a confidence vote, a vote that is particularly important to the member, then they ought to be in the chamber. Where else should a member be when there is a vote? That is the primary obligation of a member of Parliament. It is the purpose of this place. They should not be out meeting with lobbyists in the lobby, going out for dinner, being at a reception or anything like that and just voting. They ought to be in the chamber.”
“I do not care for votes in the House of Commons being reduced to participation in the world's least fun video game, but we will set that aside and assume that the voting app shall remain. The argument has been made that we must have a virtual system, if we have the voting app, to deal with technical problems, and I do not connect those two. If a member has a technical problem with the application, and if the application is a convenience to members so they can not be in the House of Commons, which is the primary place where members face each other in debate and for votes, it should be used at the members' risk. If we are in a vote that is so important that it cannot be left to risking a technical problem, then the members should be in the House.”
“It is quite a bit less confusing than the current system when the person who catches the eye of the Speaker, who is always going to be the House leadership of the governing side, wants something to carry on division, but somebody else wants a recorded vote. I understand the standing order permits that, but it is awkward and confusing. We want a simple yea or nay, stand five or not stand five, to deal with whether something is going to pass unanimously, pass on division or be put to a recorded vote. I strongly think that this is an important and subtle change that we should revert to. The change was made while dealing with virtual Parliament, which went along with the voting application. I do not care for the voting app.”
“That system of voice voting and standing five enabled all members to have equal weight in the process, so a member who is independent, or a member of a party without twelve members, could say yea or nay. They could choose to rise or not rise. Under the rules now, which the Liberals changed, they once again give more focus and weight to party leadership than to members. This is disenfranchising unaffiliated members of the House. We all represent our constituents equally, so the process of determining how a vote should go should be done with every member having an equal opportunity. It is less confusing.”
“Madam Speaker, before question period, I was talking about reverting to the practice of voice votes. Right now, the Chair simply asks whether a member of a recognized party wishes for a motion to carry or carry on division, or wishes to request a recorded vote. Then, the Chair looks to the officers of the governing party, the whip, or if the whip is not there, perhaps the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. This is rather than members expressing through a voice vote, yea or nay, on the motion, which allows the Speaker to then make a call based on the voices. It further allows, if five members stand, to proceed to a recorded vote.”