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 4 of 8.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1755) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1750) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, also known as the mighty OGGO, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (B) 2025-26”.”
“Madam Speaker, that was a great question. The public accounts, volume 1, show that the government has a mandated law to increase health care transfers. It was about 4.5%, while the increase in interest payments was 11%. That just shows how broken the government is, as it prioritizes payments to Bay Street corporations over payments to our provinces for health care needs.”
“Madam Speaker, my colleague from Mirabel brought up an excellent point about the Prime Minister 's temperament and true plans. At the finance committee, the member for Mirabel led a change to this law and the GST credit to allow some flexibility for those who took the Prime Minister at his word when he made the announcement. That passed through the finance committee. The Liberal government, led by the member for Winnipeg North , used procedural tricks to kill that amendment in the House. The finance committee worked to serve Canadians, while the Liberal government used procedural tricks in the House to kill the work that was brought forward by the member for Mirabel . It is disgraceful. We had a chance to help Canadians. The government chose announcements and propaganda instead of actually serving Canadians.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the incorrect history lesson he provided. Everyone knows that the debt inherited by the Mulroney government was left by a Trudeau. Where have we heard that before? Oh, we have heard it here, repeatedly. The PC party actually ran an operational surplus, but they were are saddled with massive debt from the previous government. Getting back to his comment about picking a lane, I very specifically stated that this program of Liberal tax cuts benefits those who need it least, not the most. It focuses giving more to the wealthiest and gives very little to those who are mostly in need. The government had a chance to change that. It chose propaganda instead of actual results for Canadians.”
“Do members remember all the Liberals standing in this place saying that the world would burn if we did not have a carbon tax, and that we are basically Satan if we disagreed with their carbon tax dogma? The member for Winnipeg South , who was here earlier, said that carbon pricing does not contribute to inflation. The Liberals stood and repeatedly said that the carbon tax does not lead to inflation, but now they pretend that they are the heroes for killing the carbon tax. Stats Canada, by the way, states that the carbon tax did cause inflation. The Liberals' own budget 2025 stated five times that the carbon tax caused inflation. Public Accounts notes it, and even the Bank of Canada notes it. I am glad it is gone. I just wish the Liberals had not pushed this hypocrisy saying that the carbon tax did not cause inflation.”
“Canadians, through no fault of their own, took it on good will that the government was bringing this in. It is silly. I realize we have to cut off with the ways and means motions to stop people from gaming the system, but if someone had bought a house and signed the documents, but the house was not going to be built until a year from then, and that is when the GST would be paid, it would make sense that they would not have to pay the GST immediately because of the cut-off date. Conservatives reached out to the government to see if it would find some way to address that. Many people in Edmonton West were blessed that we built a lot of new homes. In Edgemont, in the southwest part, new homes are going up like gangbusters. The government should address this, but it chose not to. The last issue is the carbon tax.”
“One of the issues I do have with the program the Liberals introduced is that they announced it on March 20, and we have heard that there were people running out and buying a house immediately. It came into effect on March 27 with the ways and means motion, but it meant that the second it was dropped in the House as a ways and means motion, if someone had signed to buy a house the day before, even if it was going to be built for six months or a year, they were cut out of the system. We brought this up in the House, and I mentioned we had worked with the government in a non-partisan fashion to get this done. The member for Mirabel brought through some changes in finance committee to address this for those who had purchased when the announcement was made, and the Liberals in the House stood to fight against that.”
“Again, it is a tax, so I am very happy to see the tax being reduced. Any tax cut is better than no tax cut, but I think the one that the Conservatives proposed in the last election was far superior. It allowed up to $1.3 million, but also allowed it for people who would be buying their second home. It did not restrict it to only first-time homebuyers. The member across the way talked about his son buying a house four years ago. It would have been nice if he could have taken advantage of it. I do not see why we discriminate against someone who has owned a house before. Someone selling their house to buy a newbuild house opens up inventory of the previous house. It is silly that we put these rules forward.”
“I know we have a progressive tax system, and therefore, if someone is earning more, they are going to save a bit more, but I would argue that, instead of this poorly thought out election pledge, or propaganda pledge, if we are listening to the Liberals in the House, the Liberals could have used the money to increase the Canada workers benefit, which would help out very low-income workers, and perhaps top up the GIS. Yes, people are not paying taxes if they are on GIS, but it would certainly help out a lot more than paying wealthy Canadians an extra $750. Taxes across the board are too high in this country, but if the Liberals are going to do a little boutique cut like this, they should maybe focus on those who are a lot more in need than those earning the top incomes. Now, I will move on to the GST rebate.”
“Canadians want a better answer for the 2 million people lining up at foods bank than to hear that Conservatives voted against a tax cut. Canadians deserve better. (1545) I will note that, if someone is single with no child in the upper tax bracket, they would be saving 50% more than those in a lower-income couple who are both working and have a child. A couple with no children, and both are in the second income tax bracket, will get $710. A couple in the top tax bracket will get back $750.”
“Food inflation, based on 3.5% for last year, cost the average person $150. This vaunted tax cut does not even cover 50% of the cost just for food inflation. However, somehow, when we bring up two million people at food banks, the government says, “Oh, don't worry, we have the middle class tax cut.” They want people to do something with that 13¢. For a couple with a child in the first income bracket, 68¢ a day is what they will save with this tax cut, or $250 a year on average, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. For a family of three, food inflation cost them an extra $420 last year, but they are going to get $250. Now again, I will state, like Milt Friedman, I am for tax cuts, but this cannot be the be all and end all of addressing the issues we are having in Canada right now.”
“We have a progressive tax system, but it is like my colleague from Mirabel says, it looks like they rolled it out without any thought of what was going to happen. A low-income single senior is going to get $50. A wealthy person, like those in the House, are going to save more, up to $750. Continuing on with the report, a single senior in the lowest income bracket will save 13¢ a day under this Liberal tax cut. Again, any tax cut is better than a tax increase, but my point is, repeatedly, when we stand in the House to talk about the problems that we are facing in Canada right now, such as food inflation, etc., the Liberals push this out as the saving grace. They say that everything will be okay because we have a tax cut of 13¢ a day. It is about $50 a year in savings.”
“When questioned, the government says “the middle class tax cut”, as if this tax cut is going to allow these two million Canadians to leave the lineup at the food bank and be able to afford groceries at home. When we question the government, we end up hearing about this tax cut, despite youth unemployment, record deficits and record lineups at the food bank. What do Canadians actually get from this tax cut, apart from a future bill down the road? I am going to read right from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, which says, “The average savings range from $50 for a low-income single senior, to $750 for high-income couples with children.” Now, we have to wonder what it is with this government that it would bring in such a tax cut that would benefit the well off.”
“The Liberals seem to have a reverse Milt Friedman attitude. It is to spend more, but instead of finding a balance, borrow more. Eventually, every penny of this tax cut, minor as it is, is going to be paid for by the next generation, the generation after that, the generation after that, and on and on. Now, when listening to the government, including those in the House today, one would think this tax cut was some monumental life-changing amount that would make their lives so much better. We just heard how it is going to give hope to the middle class, yes, hope for the middle class. Two million people are going to a food bank in Canada every month.”
“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today. Before I start, I will mention that I will be sharing my very valued time with my colleague from Brandon—Souris . I am rising today to talk about Bill C-4 and its various issues. I will start with the tax cut first. I am a big fan of Milton Friedman, who is famous for the line, “I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances...for any reason, whenever it's possible.” I actually had a watch done up on with that slogan and a picture of Milton. I agree with that very much, but when Milt Friedman mentioned this, he had the assumption that the tax cut would come with an accompanying cut in spending, or a reduction in spending somewhere. Unfortunately, with the government, we have a minor tax cut, which is going to cost the Treasury billions, and it is all borrowed money.”
“Madam Speaker, at the very end, my colleague talked about how Bill C-4 would give new hope to the middle class and how they are going to be able to afford things. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says this Liberal tax cut, which is going to give so much new hope, for a single senior living by themselves, would be 13¢ a day in a tax reduction. A single parent would get 38¢ a day under this new tax regime. How much hope is the government going to give to someone for 38¢ a day? How much hope does 13¢ a day purchase?”
“Mr. Speaker, apparently nobody in the government bothered to read the Stellantis contract to see if Canadian jobs would be protected before giving Stellantis billions of dollars in taxpayers' money. The Minister of Industry did not read it. The deputy minister of industry and the former deputy minister of industry did not read it. Finance Canada lawyers did not read it. They all pointed their fingers at the former industry minister, who is, of course, the finance minister now. Before giving billions of taxpayers' dollars for a project whose jobs are now fleeing to the U.S., did the finance minister read the contracts?”
“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could comment on the hypocrisy of the Liberals. For a decade, they said that, if we did not believe in the carbon tax, the world would burn, and that if we were against the inflationary carbon tax, flooding and catastrophes would happen. Then they turned around and withdrew the carbon tax, saying that it was too inflationary.”
“Mr. Speaker, I could just lean over and ask this of the member, but I want him to put it on the record. He talked about the high interest payments caused by the Liberal deficit. Last year, the government increased interest payments by 13%, yet at the same time, it only increased health care transfers by 4.5%. Could the member reflect on government policies? They focus more on paying interest and cost us massive interest payments instead devoting money to health care.”
“Mr. Speaker, I cannot get enough of the member opposite since he left OGGO. The Prime Minister , in this very House, stated he would have “declining...debt.” The budget they put out actually has $169 billion more debt than that of the previous prime minister, Trudeau, who was not exactly known as someone who would look toward saving Canadians' money. Why did the Prime Minister state in the House that he was going to be lowering the debt, when in fact he has increased it by $169 billion over that of the previous government?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to let my colleague know that he is always welcome to come back to OGGO. All is forgiven. I know he left us recently. One of the major platforms on housing from the Liberals during the last election was what is called the MURB, or multi-unit residential building, tax provision to build rental units. The government has not put it anywhere in the budget. Why has the government broken the promise it made in the election campaign to reintroduce this tax incentive?”
“Mr. Speaker, Fitch Ratings is sounding the warning. Yes, Canadians are drowning in credit card bills after a decade of Liberal inflation, and, yes, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says the Liberals have abandoned their own debt-to-GDP anchor, the very same anchor they said protects their AAA rating. The PBO further concluded that the Liberals have almost no chance of achieving their declining deficit-to-GDP ratio. It is no wonder the costly Prime Minister wants to fire the PBO. How many more fiscal watchdog reports have to come out for the Prime Minister to rein in his inflationary spending?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's costly credit card budget piles his inflationary spending and debt on to our children and our grandchildren. Canadians are putting nearly 50% more on credit cards for basic living expenses than they were just 10 years ago. Now, Fitch Ratings warns that the government has blown past its own fiscal anchors and says “finances run a high risk of further deterioration”. How many more red warning lights need to start flashing before the Prime Minister stops treating taxpayers like a limitless credit card?”
“Madam Speaker, we saw the previous finance minister quit the government because she said that what turned out to be a $36-billion deficit from last year was so fiscally irresponsible. The current finance minister then dropped a budget with a $78-billion deficit. What does it say about the current finance minister ? He says this is something Canadians would celebrate, when the previous finance minister quit over the financial irresponsibility of a $36-billion deficit.”
“Madam Speaker, I noticed that the most recently released public accounts show that the government increased debt maintenance, payments for interest on its debt, by 13%, or $6 billion, over the previous year. The increase to health care transfers for the province was just $2.6 billion, or 4.7%. I wonder if the member could comment on why the government's policies have led the country to spend so much more in increases to interest payments than help for health care transfers.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to quote for my colleague his own leader . On September 17, in this very House, he said, “We are going to have a declining level of debt.” The budget actually shows the opposite: a growing debt, worse even than what was planned under Trudeau, so who is being forthright and honest? Is it a declining debt, as the Prime Minister states, or is it a massively increasing debt, as the budget states? Which is it?”
“Sir John Bourinot, a former clerk of this House, wrote in Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada , fourth edition, at page 203, “Each House is bound by every consideration of self-interest and justice to observe strictly its rules and standing orders, and to rebuke every attempt to evade or infringe them.” That is exactly what we are being called upon to do here as well. If Parliament is to expect the accountability from the government that it prescribes in law, it must stand up for itself and for its officers, such as the Parliamentary Budget Officer, when the government's efforts fall short. Should you agree, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion.”
“If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should, in my view, leave it to the House. Since the courts determined, after the original Trudeau government stonewalled an auditor general, that they have no jurisdiction, and if you decide there is also no place for the House to intervene in support of our officers of Parliament, then that would render moot the very word of Parliament. It would undermine a core principle of statutory interpretation that Parliament does not speak in vain. That, I would submit, is my arguable point.”
“As Speaker Fraser said in an October 10, 1989, ruling from page 4457 of the Debates, “Normally in cases of doubt, it has been the practice for Speakers to allow an appropriate motion to go forward for a decision of the House.” Another of your predecessors, Speaker Jerome, on March 21, 1978, at page 521 of the Journals, endorsed these comments, found in a February 1967 report of a Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in the United Kingdom: ...the question which the Speaker should ask himself, when he has to decide whether to grant precedence over other public business to a motion which a Member who has complained of some act or conduct as constituting a breach of privilege desires to move, should be, not—do I consider that, assuming that the facts are as stated, the act or conduct constitutes a breach of privilege, but could it reasonably be held to be a breach of privilege, or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point?”
“(1735) Maingot explains, at page 221, the nature of such a ruling: A prima facie case of privilege in the parliamentary sense is one where the evidence on its face as outlined by the Member is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to debate the matter and to send it to a committee to investigate....”
“The 1993 ruling of Speaker Fraser, which I quoted earlier, concerned a tabling deadline fixed by the customs tariff. More recently, another of your predecessors made rulings concerning provisions of the Canada Elections Act with respect to members' right to sit and vote in the House on June 18, 2013, page 18550 of the Debates; October 17, 2013, page 66 of the Debates; and November 4, 2014, page 9183 of the Debates. In other words, Mr. Speaker, you can, and I would argue that you should, find a prima facie case here so that the House may address the government's failure to be transparent.”
“A committee empowered to investigate the matter might, but the Chair is ill-equipped to do so.” Although there is no specific precedent ruling in the House of Commons on this point, Bosc and Gagnon recall for us, at page 81, that the law of contempt of Parliament is “extremely fluid and most valuable for the Commons to be able to meet novel situations.” I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to find a prima facie case of privilege so that the House may discuss the means to which we can best provide the support to the Parliamentary Budget Officer that he seeks. While it is well established that Speakers themselves do not rule on questions of law, the fact that my question of privilege relates to a requirement under an act of Parliament does not mean that it is beyond your purview to render a decision and find a prima facie case of privilege.”
“The Chair stated: ...there is no doubt that an order to produce documents is not being fully complied with, and this is a serious matter that goes to the heart of the House's undoubted role in holding the government to account. For these reasons, the Chair finds that there are sufficient grounds for finding a prima facie question of privilege in this matter. I understand that the comptroller general responded to the Parliamentary Budget Officer with arguments as to why they cannot answer in a timely way. I would return to the words of Speaker Milliken, which I agree would be equally applicable in the present context: “It may be that valid reasons exist. That is not for the Chair to judge.”
“In respect of Parliament's standing statutory order to produce information, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's notice letter indicates an unequivocal call for help: “I am seeking your support to compel the Comptroller General of Canada to release the necessary information without delay.” However, unlike a committee's report, we do not have the option of a motion to concur in Mr. Jacques's letter. That said, a concurrence motion would not even, in these circumstances, be necessary. Upon receiving a report of the finance committee's distress, on March 9, 2011, page 8840 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege in his ruling.”
“Bosc and Gagnon explain, on page 138-39: If a committee’s request that it be given certain documents is met with resistance or disregarded, the committee may adopt a motion ordering the production of the requested documents. If such an order is ignored, the committee has no means to enforce the order on its own. It may report the matter to the House and recommend that appropriate action be taken. It is then a decision of the House whether or not to issue an order for the production of papers. This may be done by the adoption of a motion or by concurring in the committee’s report. Like a committee, Mr. Jacques has reported his distress.”
“I will note that, when refusing this information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the government argued that it could not possibly allow parliamentarians the information to vote on until it was actually voted on and passed by the House. King Edward I, when calling the model Parliament, was famous for saying that, basically, what is being presented for all should be decided by all. The House should be deciding that. We cannot decide that if the government is hiding the information from us. I would submit that the denial of information requested by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, our officer, is analogous to the committee's request for documents going unanswered.”
“As a 1989 Supreme Court decision observed, “The Auditor General is acting on Parliament's behalf carrying out a...Parliamentary function—namely, the oversight of executive spending pursuant to Parliamentary appropriations.” The Parliamentary Budget Officer is performing, on our behalf, an equally essential role but at the front end of the financial cycle, providing us with objective, non-partisan analysis of the budget proposals of the executive. If the Parliamentary Budget Officer is denied access to the information he requires to do his job, on the legitimate and reasonably explained timelines he has established, we, as members of the House of Commons, are impeded from carrying out our constitutional duty of holding the government to account.”
“(1730) In going on to find a prima facie case of privilege, the Chair explained: In the present case it is not merely an order of the House that has been violated, but a law duly assented to by the Crown as a constituent part of Parliament. The delegate of the Crown has not met the exigencies of the law of Parliament. As I have said before, Canada is not an executive democracy nor an administrative democracy, but a parliamentary democracy.... The requirements contained in our rules and statutory laws have been agreed upon by this House and constitute an agreement which I think all of us realize must be respected.”
“More specifically, Maingot writes, at page 240, “Statute laws affecting the House of Commons, such as tabling of documents, may constitute contempt if not adhered to.” In delivering a ruling about a minister's failure to present documents by a deadline fixed by a statute, Speaker Fraser, on April 19, 1993, at page 18104 of the Debates, associated himself with the opinion that “a statutory provision and statutes are the highest form of command that can be given by this House. In my view the disregard of that legislative command, even if unintentional, is an affront to the authority and dignity of Parliament as a whole and of this House in particular”.”