“The government is cutting off debate on this economic bill after only three hours. I want the minister to tell us if he thinks that is accountable, especially when the plan will cause huge debt.”

“Mr. Speaker, we now see the character of this new majority government. Liberals are going to use their numbers to stifle debate and prevent scrutiny of their bills. Since they tabled Bill C-30, there have been maybe three hours of debate. Does the minister think that is parliamentary accountability and a sufficient opportunity for members on all sides to question the minister on his horrific spring economic statement, with crippling debt service charges projected in the years ahead?”

“The government is cutting off debate on this bill to hide what it is spending. I want to know why they are doing this when Canadians already do not trust them.”

“Mr. Speaker, when the government forces Parliament to shut down debate, Canadians should ask themselves one very simple question: What exactly are the Liberals hoping that Canadians will not notice? The choice to use time allocation is the latest in the government’s attempt to shortcut transparency. Debate is cut short, scrutiny is treated like obstruction and billions of taxpayer dollars are pushed through Parliament without good oversight. It is becoming a pattern. They change the rules halfway through the game, dim the lights and hope Canadians cannot see the scoreboard clearly enough to question the result. However, a strong economy depends on trust, trust that the rules are fair, the books are honest and hard work still gets people ahead. Under the Liberal government, Canadians feel like they are in a nightmare game, expected to play blindfolded. Eventually, players stop taking risks, investors stop investing and builders stop building. My question is simple. Why do the Liberals keep shutting off the cameras and using technicalities like time allocation when the trust of Canadians is at its lowest? Honesty and integrity—”

“The government is rushing this budget bill through without enough debate. It adds tens of billions of dollars to the national debt, which causes higher inflation. I want the minister to explain why he thinks this spending will not cause inflation again.”

“Mr. Speaker, the very first thing these Liberals did when they got their backroom deal majority was to stack the deck on committees, and now they are ramming through legislation and cutting off debate. This bill needs proper scrutiny, because it is a budget implementation bill that would add billions of dollars to the national debt. The last projection for this current fiscal year by the Trudeau government was that the deficit would be in the low thirties of billions of dollars. Now the deficit is more than twice that, with $30 billion of extra debt racked up on the national credit card. All this adds to more inflation. This is the same playbook the Liberals were running for 11 years: more dollars chasing fewer goods. Can the minister explain to the House why he thinks things will happen differently this time? We see the very same scenario. The Bank of Canada is buying government bonds. The creation of money, the money supply, the amount of money in circulation has been increasing at a rate of about twice that of the GDP. When we have more dollars chasing fewer goods, we get inflation, which is the worst kind of tax because Canadians have no say over it. Can the minister explain why he thinks things will be different this time?”

“The government is cutting off debate on this bill after only three hours. They are silencing nearly half the members of Parliament. I want to debate the extra $30 billion in deficits and the growing debt.”

“Mr. Speaker, the transactional majority strikes again. It was not too long ago when the Liberals seized control of committees, and now they are seizing control of this Parliament. I will remind members that, over a year ago, a minority government was elected in order to hold government to account, to make sure that there was transparency, and to make sure that there was oversight as well. Here we are, with the government seizing control through this closure motion. Actually, what the Liberals are doing is silencing the voices of nearly 50% of members in the House, including mine, who have something to say about this budget, particularly on the $30‑billion increase in deficits and the upward trend of $2.4 trillion in additional debt that could be added by this fall economic statement going into the future. They are silencing not just my voice, but the voices of many other MPs in this place representing Canadians who are fearful that they will be left picking up the scattered pieces of what is left of this government when they are done with it. Does three hours of debate actually reflect the importance of this issue? That is my question for the finance minister.”

“The Liberals claim to be different, but they are still spending too much and shutting down debate. They should serve Canadians instead of themselves.”

“Mr. Speaker, time and time again, Liberal members stand across the way and try to convince Canadians that they are a new government. Canadians need to look no further than the government’s actions today to confirm that they are the same old government, spending more and limiting debate with time allocation. When will this minister and the Liberal government realize they are here to serve Canadians, not themselves?”

“The government wants to end debate on this budget bill after only three hours. I want the minister to answer if he thinks three hours is enough time to debate it.”

“Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion to cut off debate on a budget bill after only three hours. The minister has been asked repeatedly but has not answered the question. Does he think that three hours is a sufficient debate for the bill?”

“Auto workers in Oshawa have waited over a year for the government to help them, but the Prime Minister broke his promises. The finance minister is not answering our questions. Three hours is not enough time to debate this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I find it remarkable to listen to the finance minister talk about how Canadians demand action, when auto workers in Oshawa have been asking for action from the government for well over a year. They believed the Prime Minister during the election campaign, when he said he was the guy to get a deal. They believed him when he said he would go to Washington and get a deal by July 21 last year. Why should they believe that the government wants action now? Is the minister listening to the Bloc, Conservative and Green members when they talk about the affront to democracy this is? Is he listening to the questions? He says he is answering them, but, frankly, he is not. The question that was posed to him several times is whether three hours is enough. That is just over three minutes per section. Is that enough time to be held accountable?”

“The government is hiding things from the public. I want to know why the government will not give us enough time to debate this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, we know that the current government is the least transparent government in Canadian history. We see what the Liberals have done with committees when they have shut down debate; they have gone off camera. Even yesterday, Bob Fife, whom we wish well in his retirement and thank for all the good work he has done, said that the government has done nothing but erode transparency since it was elected. What is the government so afraid of when it comes to debating the bill and giving it proper time so we can scrutinize it?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 43 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →