Kelly McCauley
Edmonton West, Alberta · Conservative · Canada
“Madam Speaker, we listened to the Liberals earlier, especially the member for Winnipeg North , bash and attack anyone who disagrees with Bill C-9 , actually in fear that they are all far right, right-wing, crazy white supremacists if they oppose the government on this.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very divisive issue. There are some parts of Bill C-9 that various communities support. There is also a wide range of issues within Bill C-9 that communities do not support.”
“Mr. Speaker, I understand what my colleague is saying; it is understandable. Various faith groups have expressed concerns about Bill C‑9 , such as the leadership for the Catholic bishops in Canada and others from the Abrahamic faiths. Can the member explain why those views and concerns on Bill C‑9 should be discounted?”
“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this fantastic bill from my colleague from Calgary Centre . It is very disappointing to hear members of the Liberal government look at a very strong, common-sense piece of legislation and, of course, throw it away. It is interesting to hear them complain about costs.”
“Yet, when the Liberals have a chance to support a common-sense bill that would help Canadians, encourage investment in Canada and reduce greenhouse gases, we hear government members stand up and speak against it. Bill C-269 is a very simple, common-sense bill.”
“Madam Speaker, I should use this time to finish my speech on Bill C-269 . However, I have a simple question. We have late-night sittings, and we have plenty of time. Why is this government, once again, bringing the guillotine of closure and limiting debate?”
The complete record
Every one of 372 lines we hold for Kelly McCauley, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 8.
“For all of these acts, the government has blown off the legislative review. Does my colleague trust that the government is going to do the review as mandated, or will it be just another broken promise from the Liberal government?”
“Mr. Speaker, I used to live in my colleague from Kitchener Centre 's riding. It is a wonderful area. I am very glad that she is representing it. The member brought up the point of a lack of trust in the government and a fear of a lack of transparency and accountability. The government will argue not to worry because inside the bill is a mandated comprehensive review of the legislation in three years. However, we have the same thing for the Access to Information Act, which the government has blown off; the Environmental Protection Act, which the government has blown off; the Lobbying Act, which the government has not done a review on; the Conflict of Interest Act; the Proceeds of Crime and Terrorist Financing Act; the CSIS Act; the Anti-terrorism Act; and the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe when the minister introduced the motion on Monday, he would have been deemed to have spoken on this. I wonder if he is eligible to speak again, seeing as he has already spoken on it.”
“Mr. Speaker, one of the issues the Liberals seem to keep putting forward is just little dribs and drabs of a tiny bit of new supply: a hundred homes here, a hundred there. It is clear that Canada needs hundreds of thousands of new homes. We are in a supply crisis, not a government spending crisis. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the fact that there is nothing in Build Canada Homes that would reduce the regulations or reduce housing costs for Canadians and developers.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague, my almost-neighbour from Edmonton, made a great comment. One of the issues that has come up a lot today is about the need to reduce red tape. According to StatsCan, as well as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, there are currently well over 300,000 individual regulations in Canada right now. Of course, here come the Liberals to the rescue, creating another bureaucracy to fight bureaucracy: a department of red tape reduction that employs well over 30 employees. Last year it managed to cut 89 regulations, so we have only 320,900 to go. I wonder if the member could comment about how the government's focus seems to be on adding bureaucracy rather than reducing bureaucracy and red tape, which would actually get our economy and productivity going.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Liberals brought up the issue of China. The government operations committee today heard of hundreds of millions of daily attacks on the government's cyber system. The Communications Security Establishment points its finger at China as our number one issue. I wonder what my colleague thinks about the government's focus and obsession with China as a strategic partner while, at the same time, its own security agency is saying it is the number one threat to our cybersecurity.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the mighty OGGO, entitled “Appointment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer”. This report is important for two reasons. First of all, it is a recommendation from the committee that the government appoint Jason Jacques as the permanent Parliamentary Budget Officer for a term of seven years. This recommendation is important because Mr. Jacques's office was recently named by the OECD as the top Parliamentary Budget Office in the world. Additionally, Parliament is without a Parliamentary Budget Officer right now, which means there are no reports coming from the office on the estimates or any other process. This would increase transparency and accountability in this House.”
“Mr. Speaker, the party of ArriveCAN is once again trying to deflect from its recent failure on the OAS payment software. Just like with ArriveCAN, Liberals are spending more energy blaming others than actually fixing the problem. Seniors are waiting over six months sometimes to get their OAS. When will Liberals stop hiding behind their excuses, admit their billion-dollar failure and take action to ensure seniors receive their old age security?”
“Mr. Speaker, the party of cost runs is at it again. This time it is the flawed Cúram system, a $6.6-billion disaster that has had tens of thousands of seniors hurt by the latest boondoggle from the incompetent Liberal government. What is the Liberals' response? Their response has been that it is Canadians' fault for too many of them growing older, becoming seniors and flooding the system. Why are seniors being forced to pay the price for continued Liberal incompetence?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North was quoting the IMF, which was funny because the deputy minister of finance just two weeks ago stated in the public accounts committee that anything the IMF says should be taken “with a grain of salt.” This is from his own government, but I will quote from the exact same report that states, “Directors encouraged steps to improve the transparency and accountability of public investment”. This is regarding the capital versus operating. The IMF wants transparency and accountability. It continues, “and to clarify the debt-to-GDP ratio as a formal fiscal anchor”. I am wondering if the member can comment on the Liberals' choosing only to hand-pick and cherry-pick a few items from the IMF report and not some of the more important items.”
“Mr. Speaker, the issue is not whether we should bring back the digital sales tax but whether the government should, as the Prime Minister has promised twice, strike a deal with the United States. Twice he stood publicly and said he would have a deal, the best trade deal, struck with the United States. He has not delivered that for Canadians. That is what the issue at hand is.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is so much fiction in the member's comment that it should be a Netflix special. The reality is that we had to drag the government, kicking and screaming, to deliver a budget. Does the member not remember when the government actually said it would not be tabling a budget until around this time of the year? The media, for once doing its job, and the opposition had to drag the government, kicking and screaming, to deliver the very documents we have now. If it were up to the Liberals, we would just be starting debate on the budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, whenever I need a moment of comedy or mirth in the House, I can always count on the member for Winnipeg North to deliver it. It is ridiculous. Only the Liberal government would say, “Give us $2 billion so we can hurry up spending for military. Oh, by the way, don't look at our record of taking seven years to buy knapsacks. Don't look at our record of taking over 10 years to buy handguns. Don't look at our record of delays around the shipbuilding project, and don't look at our record of incompetence and interference with Irving Shipbuilding and the supply ship debacle, but give us the money, and you can worry about it later.” The member should get on board and understand what Parliament is about. It is about approving expenditure, not writing corrupt Liberals a blank cheque.”
“We just ask for transparency, for parliamentarians to be given the information so we can vote properly, and for the Liberals to follow the rules the government itself sets out to protect democracy and the rights of parliamentarians.”
“They wrote, “the elimination of the...carbon tax on fuel products further contributed to lower inflation in early 2025.” The carbon tax was cancelled April 1, but the public accounts ran up to March 31. Again, the government is violating Treasury Board rules. We confronted the deputy minister about this. He said he would not have anything else to say on it. We further pressed the assistant deputy minister, Evelyn Dancey, and she spent time trying to explain that the low growth shown in the budget does not reflect all the great work being done by the current government, even though, of course, the Bank of Canada also shows the same lack of growth. Here we have assistant department heads shilling for the government and violating Treasury Board rules.”
“Again, I just ask the government to follow the rules. The public accounts is the accounting of last fiscal year's spending. Last fiscal year is before the current Prime Minister became Prime Minister. The Liberal government wrote in the public accounts, on page 8, for those following at home, “The government is moving toward a new capital budgeting approach that distinguishes its day-to-day operational spending.... [This] budgeting framework will improve transparency”. The government wrote, in last year's accounts, propaganda for the current policy. Public accounts end on March 31 of the previous year, but the Liberals are talking about future government policy.”
“I have asked repeatedly that the government follow the rules. We actually have rules around government spending on advertising, as well as internal Treasury Board rules about how the government writes up its communication. We are right now debating Bill C-15 for a budget called “Canada Strong”. It is right on the budget itself. This is the exact wording of the Liberals' campaign slogan. This is right from the Treasury Board guidelines. These are not my guidelines: In the context of all Government of Canada communications products and activities, non-partisan means: objective, factual and explanatory; Good luck getting objective from the Liberals, and I would say the same thing about “factual”. It continues: free from political party slogans The Liberals actually wrote their party slogan as the budget.”
“The Canada Post Corporation Act, 32(2) says that writeoffs for such a loan must show in the very next set of estimates. Those are the estimates that came out today, and there is nothing. The government is now coming back to us and saying that it will not show the writeoffs until supplementary estimates (C), which will come out a year from now. Even though Canada Post has burned through the first $1 billion and will not return it, it has asked for a second billion. We know from the Kaplan report that it will not be repaid, but the government is not being honest with Canadians about this loan and the fact that it will be a writeoff. That is all I am asking: Make it a policy. That would be fine. We could debate the policy, but be honest with parliamentarians and Canadians about where the money is going.”
“It did not have the details of what the $2 billion would be for, but the government says, “Give it to us now.” It is the same issue with Canada Post. The government lent it $1 billion, and in the most recent estimates, it has asked for $1 billion more, so $2 billion. (1520) We know that Canada Post is in trouble. For five years running, the government has refused Canada Post's annual submission for its strategic plan to address the structural problems going on with Canada Post. The government ignored it for political reasons, and now it is saying it has to spend taxpayers' money to bail Canada Post out with a loan. The Kaplan report on Canada Post states that one would need a “complete suspension of disbelief” to believe that Canada Post will ever return this money.”
“We don't know what it's for right now, but give it to us so we can spend it immediately.” It takes 10 years for these guys to procure a simple pistol for the army and seven years to procure knapsacks. We were able to prosecute the Second World War in a shorter period than it took the Liberal government to procure knapsacks, and yet somehow it needs the $1 billion approved now without telling us what it is for. It does not stop there. The main estimates that came out, which was the approval for the coming year, had another $1 billion. The Liberals want $2 billion of taxpayers' money approved by Parliament, and they will not tell us what it is for. We reached out to the Department of Defence, asking what this money is for, and it said it does not know either.”
“This came up years ago, in 2018, when the Liberal government brought forward the vote 40 slush fund scandal. The Liberals came to Parliament saying, “We need $15 billion. Approve it in advance, but we are not going to tell you what it's for. We'll tell you after the fact.” When we pressed it on this, we were told by the government that it was presumptuous of parliamentarians to ask what the money is for before approving it. Here we have it again. The government can say it is for defence spending, but the Liberals are so sclerotic in their defence procurement, it boggles the mind that they would put out the supplementary estimates saying, “Give us a billion now. It's desperately needed now.”
“Cutting the actual cheque is the estimates process, the actual paying for that. In the supplementary estimates (C), which is the government coming to Parliament looking for approval of spending, the government has in the Treasury Board $1 billion under what is called the vote 50 for, ostensibly, defence spending. There is no explanation of what this $1 billion is for. The Liberals are basically coming to Parliament and saying, “Give us $1 billion, and we'll tell you about it later.” We just heard in the operations committee earlier today that we will not know what the government spent the $1 billion on until the public accounts come out over a year from now. We will not get the details of what the $1 billion is for for about 18 months.”
“King Edward I, when calling the model Parliament, and I call him the godfather of the estimates process, 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 basically the whole purpose behind Parliament in general and, also, the estimates process. In the most recent estimates, the supplementary estimates (C) just came out. For those at home wondering what the estimates are, estimates are, basically, like writing the cheque for something. We can compare it to someone's rent at home; they know that at the end of the month, they will have to budget for $2,000, or perhaps $3,000 under the Liberal government. They have to budget for $3,000 at the end of the month to pay the rent. That is the budget.”
“We like to tease him because he stands in the House all the time, yelling at the top of his lungs that he will “take no lessons from the Conservatives.” I just wish he would take lessons from the previous finance minister, who delivered a deficit that was $40 billion lower than the current finance minister and actually resigned over it. Perhaps he could take some lessons from her on how to deliver a proper budget. I am going to cover a few themes today, mostly around openness, following the rules and just being honest with Canadians about the budget. The first issue is openness.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise again on Bill C-15 . Before I start, I will mention that I am sharing my time with my Edmonton neighbour, the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River . There is a lot to cover in Bill C-15 . It is another omnibus budget bill from the government, covering about 75 different pieces of legislation. Obviously, in just 10 minutes, I cannot get into everything. I would love to talk more about the massive debt it would be adding. I would love to talk about the added deficit and the current finance minister .”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague points out a lot of valid ideas. We have been looking at the expenditure review plan at the operations committee. Unfortunately, it actually requires orders of the committee to the government to release some of the details to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The member talks about agricultural research. In the past, we have seen the government spend $7.4 billion on its green energy accelerator. Billions of dollars went to multinational U.S. companies that had not even applied for the money. It actually went to one company that has been convicted of subsidizing ISIS abroad. What does the member think about the fact that the government is cutting vital agricultural research while at the same time funding foreign multinational companies that are violating international law?”
“Mr. Speaker, on September 17 in this very House, the Prime Minister stated, “We are going to have a declining level of debt”, yet the budget, Bill C-15 , shows a growing level of debt. Who misinformed the public? Was it the Prime Minister or the member's budget?”
“The interim officer's term ends March 3, and a new officer has not yet been named. The government operations committee put forward a motion that the government consult with Parliament about choosing a new Parliamentary Budget Officer, but none has been named yet. Why is the government not respecting the institutions the member talks about its wanting to support so much?”
“Madam Speaker, I normally thank colleagues across the way for their speeches, but I cannot today. I enjoyed serving on OGGO with the member opposite, but the media, if it bothered to fact-check the member's speech today, would probably spend two or three hours picking everything apart. It was funny to listen to the beginning of his speech. The former Kathleen Wynne finance minister who helped destroy Ontario's finances thanked the finance minister , who is on his way to matching the massive debt spending. He was also the Ontario finance minister who saw Ontario receive equalization payments from the rest of the country for every year he was finance minister. I want to talk about one specific item. The member talked about respecting institutions. The government has not yet appointed a new Parliamentary Budget Officer.”
“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, while I find the commentary interesting, I cannot hear it because of constant crackling. I think perhaps the member has an issue with his mic or computer. Perhaps we can move on to the next speaker while he fixes his IT issues.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from constituents from Edmonton West and across the country regarding the government's provisions in Bill C-15 that would grant individual cabinet ministers sweeping powers to secretly exempt companies or individuals from federal laws. If anyone saw the operations committee the other day with the performance of the President of the Treasury Board , they would see why we cannot give such sweeping powers to ministers. The signatories ask that the government immediately remove any provisions that allow cabinet ministers to exempt companies or individuals from federal laws.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is rampant use of illegal workers on federally funded infrastructure projects in Alberta. These trafficked workers are being abused, robbed and forced into unsafe work conditions, while union trades are shut out of the very jobs their taxes are funding. Over a year ago, I presented evidence to the government of this corruption, yet there has been no action. We tried to start a study in committee on the issue, but the Liberals blocked it. Why are the Liberals siding with corrupt companies that are using illegal, trafficked workers, instead of standing with Alberta's building trades?”
“Mr. Speaker, the speech by my colleague from Nunavut was well thought out, but while I respect a lot of what she had to say, I do disagree with a couple of things. One is that I wish we actually had a Conservative agenda being brought forward by the government. The member also talks about a lack of evidence. Daily in the newspaper we see stories of victims of repeat violent offenders and victims of domestic violence from repeat violent offenders who are put in jail and are immediately brought back out. I think there is evidence of the failure of Bill C-75 . What would be the NPD solution to repeat violent offenders being let back out, abusing women and children and committing crimes against everyday Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, of course, the member for Winnipeg North never lets the facts interfere with his opinion, and we hear that once again. He talks about how Canadians have never had it so good. I listen to him say we are third-, fourth- or fifth-worst. Canadians have never had it so good, according to the member, but the reality and the facts are that Canadians are suffering. The member talked about pipelines, but, again, he never lets facts get in the way of his opinion. Four pipelines to tidewater were built under the previous Conservative government, whereas the Liberal government has approved nothing. It has not approved any pipelines, but it has had policies for 10 years that have led to higher food costs that are punishing Canadians now.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc asked a couple of things: one about climate, and one about plastics and pollution. Of all our plastics, 99% end up safely in landfills. A very negligible amount ends up as litter, so that is something of a non-starter. Climate change is a global issue. The Bloc, the Liberals and the NDP would have us believe that climate stops at our border and that putting a 17¢ tax on gasoline would somehow change the weather around the world. The reality is that climate change is a world issue, caused as much by China and India. The best thing we can do for climate change is build pipelines to the west coast to get natural gas and other Canadian energy to China and India to get them off coal and onto cleaner-burning Canadian energy.”
“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has a rare talent for speaking at length without disturbing the facts. Imagine what our food inflation would be right now with the carbon tax added in. It is Liberal policies that are driving up the food costs. The U.S., Japan and all the other members of the G7 are facing the same issues we are around climate change and everything else, yet somehow only the country led by the Liberal government, the same tired Liberal government of 10 years with the same tired recycled failed policies, has the highest food cost inflation. Those are the facts. The member should understand that by now.”
“The government needs to take practical steps to end its ideological attack on Canadians and to focus on immediate, pragmatic steps to end the food inflation crisis now, next year and five years from now.”
“It is a report on the flow-through of energy taxes, much like the industrial carbon tax or the previous carbon tax, saying that 100% of energy taxes flow through to the consumer. Why I was reading something from the Royal Bank of Scotland is a different story, but the fact is that every added cost to farmers, to truckers and to grocery stores ends up in the price to consumers. Every single time we change packaging rules, it adds costs, like the billions of dollars mentioned, which end up coming out of the pockets of Canadians in the form of higher food costs. Every time we add costs for transportation or for energy, it ends up coming out of the pockets of Canadians. We are in a food inflation crisis caused by the policies of the government.”
“The Canadian Produce Marketing Association says that the Liberals' zero-plastics crusade will cost consumers $3.4 billion and lead to about an extra half-million tonnes of spoiled food, despite the fact that 99% of plastics safely end up in landfills. Instead of an ideological attack on plastics, the government should just end the hidden tax altogether. It is the same with the industrial carbon tax. The government members will sit here and say it does not exist, that it does not add to food costs. The government would have people believe that input costs somehow never make it through the supply chain and cost farmers more, cost truckers more, cost grocery stores more and cost Canadians more. I often refer to a study from the Royal Bank of Scotland that I read years ago.”
“Instead of five more years of Liberal high costs on food, there are things we can do to help Canadians right now, and that is what we are proposing. We could eliminate the industrial carbon tax, which affects the cost of fertilizer and the cost of food processing. We could get rid of the fuel standard tax. Currently it is 7¢ a litre, and it is going to go up to 17¢ a litre. That 17¢ a litre would come into effect at the same time as the proposed program would sunset. We are going to have higher fuel costs at the same time as the rebate would end. The government needs to end its insane ideological war on plastics. The plastic ban is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars; it was actually published in the Gazette. The government's own numbers say $1.3 billion.”
“The issue is not so much about the help needed for people; the government should have been smart about it and made it more targeted to help Canadians. Furthermore, again, it is all borrowed money. It is about an extra $12 billion that would be added to our deficit. In the five years the program would run, it would cost $1.4 billion in added interest payments. This comes from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That $1.4 billion was not budgeted, so where would the government find the money? It would either cut other services or tax Canadians more in the future. The program the government has introduced would run for five years. That is basically an admission of failure from the Liberal government that, for five more years, Canadians are going to be in a food inflation crisis.”
“Therefore, if the kids are living at home and going to university, they would qualify, but if someone is living in a cramped apartment with three kids, with mom and dad making $17.80 an hour, they would not qualify. (1145) We are not arguing about whether the help is needed, but the government should have made it more targeted toward the people needing help. About 10% of Canadians do not do their taxes, most of whom are low-income earners. If someone does not do their taxes, they would not get the help. If someone has low income and has not done their 2024 taxes, they would not get the help. If someone was employed in 2024 and doing very well but got laid off and had no income in 2025 up until now, they would get nothing.”
“In this program put forward by the Liberals, if someone is married with two kids, with mom and dad both working full-time at about minimum wage in Ontario, they would earn too much to get the added top-up to help out with food inflation. If they have three kids, and with mom and dad both working and earning around $17 an hour, they would not qualify. With four kids, and with mom and dad working and each making $17.80 an hour, they would not qualify under the program. The people who would benefit are single and have incomes below the threshold. About one-third of the 12 million people the Liberals say they would be helping are under the age of 30 and are single.”
“It is higher than in the early 1980s, when there were 18% to 19% interest rates. In response to the Liberal-created food inflation crisis, the Liberals reached into their grab bag and pulled out and recycled a Trudeau era policy of bumping up the GST credit. More money in Canadians' pockets is fantastic. I would prefer it to come through tax breaks, but I would support anything that puts more money into Canadians' pockets. However, I wish the government had spent a bit more time and made the benefit more targeted. Just like with the COVID payments, the government threw out the money, vote-buying in some cases, without any oversight or any plan to target the people most in need.”
“Canada is a country so wealthy that the Liberals have enough money to spread around to give money to Vietnam for gender rights, for the government to pay for sex shows in Germany, and for the government to do a report, paid for by DND, on how space exploration is racist and exploitative. The government spent millions of dollars to study intersectional democratic spaces in Nepal, and it actually gave tens of millions of dollars in corporate welfare to a large international company that funds ISIS terrorists in Syria. The government has all that money, yet 2.2 million Canadians are lining up at food banks. The number has doubled in the last 10 years. In Edmonton, food bank usage is at its highest point in history, doubling in the last five years. It is higher than in the early 1990s, when there was about 10% unemployment in Edmonton.”
“They work tirelessly to have Canadians forget that, almost as much as they work to have Canadians forget that the Prime Minister actually stood in the House and said that he should be judged by the price of food in the grocery stores. Well, Canadians have judged him, and the verdict is in: He has failed on that point. There are 2.2 million Canadians lining up at food banks every month. Twenty per cent of them are reportedly fully employed. Imagine that: fully employed and still having to go to a food bank to feed one's family. Thirty per cent of the people served by food banks are children. In Edmonton we have the Veterans Association Food Bank, which serves veterans and former frontline RCMP and Coast Guard members, etc. Let us think about that: A country this wealthy, under the Liberals, requires veterans to seek help at a food bank.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from OGGO, the member for Windsor West . Canadians are once again finding themselves in a Liberal-caused food inflation crisis. We have the highest food inflation rate in the G7. The government repeatedly promised and continues to promise that it will have the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Unfortunately, what it has delivered to Canadians is the fastest-growing food inflation rate in the G7. The Liberals spend so much time in the House gaslighting Canadians and trying to convince them that it is a new government, not the same government whose policies for 10 years have led to the highest food costs in the G7.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish the member for Winnipeg North had had the same feeling and concern for taxpayers before his government gave millions for gender-just rice in Vietnam and before giving billions to U.S. multinationals that actually use some of that money to fund ISIS in Syria. The member should get serious.”
“Mr. Speaker, what are the Liberals trying to hide? It is a lot. I look at my own committee, in terms of trying to get the Stellantis contracts. The government gave $13 billion to Stellantis, only to see Stellantis flee, fire people in Brampton and then show up at the White House with Trump, bragging about a $15-billion investment in the U.S. Specifically, with Stellantis, it looks like the Liberals are hiding the fact that taxpayers are funding production and job growth in the U.S. instead of in Canada.”
“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.”