House of Commons Hansard #32 of the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was money.

Topics

And the bells having rung:

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

We now have quorum.

Resuming debate, the hon. member has one minute and 40 seconds left.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member from the government side who called the quorum of course recognizes what a great speech this is and invited more of his members to come and listen to it. I am prepared to give them what they need.

We are simply looking for truth and transparency. We are looking for the ability to accommodate what I think Canadians expect of this place, especially in a minority setting. I would ask the government to strongly reconsider. We have accomplished a lot in a very short period of time. It seems to me that the $3 billion, which is not chump change or a small amount of money, is significant in and of itself.

There are concerns that have been raised by the Auditor General, pretty much every party in the House of Commons and by Canadians. This does not pass the smell test. Frankly, if we are not prepared to make this kind of change to ensure that there is absolute probity and scrutiny on these allocations of funds, it sets a very dangerous precedent for down the road.

If extraordinary times require extraordinary measures, they also include the need for extraordinary oversight. For that reason and almost that reason alone, this motion is certainly worth consideration. I invite all the members of the government who have just come in to listen to my speech to do the right thing and vote for this great motion.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Madam Speaker, the member has taken a lead role in terms of the issues of accountability, transparency and openness on a number of files. This one clearly calls out for accountability on behalf of the government.

The member will know that when one is planning to spend $3 billion in three months, and it is starting in just a couple of days, things have to be in place. Projects need to be identified and scrutinized. Appropriate funding levels have to be determined. They have to be allocated on a regional basis and then we get the approvals and the sign-ups.

This stuff takes months in itself. However, if the period over which the government is trying to spend this money is a three month period, then clearly all of this work has already been done. If it has not, then we have another problem totally.

It appears to me that the request in this motion is to provide accountability, openness and transparency to Canadians by identifying the applications of these moneys in the $3 billion so-called slush fund, so that they will understand that these items meet the criteria that were intended under the budget.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Madam Speaker, I cannot think of a more qualified member to ask such a question, particularly when it comes to accountability and accounting, given his years of experience here in the House. Between the two of us, we have almost 32 years of experience in this place.

We have seen a lot come by here, but very few have involved this kind of situation where one would have these kinds of considerations, as the hon. member has suggested. The Treasury Board, the bureaucracy, and the civil servants who are having to manage this amount of money and get it out the door in a very diligent way cannot do so in a three month period. It must lead to the conclusion that the government already has money ready to spend. Those programs are ready, but because of a failure for several months in not acting when the country needed it, it is now playing catch-up. That is a very serious situation because it definitely means that accountability has been sacrificed in favour of incompetence by the government.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON

Madam Speaker, it is quite interesting that the Liberal members are putting forth a suggestion for accountability to the Conservatives, given the fact that they keep telling us they voted for the budget because it was good. Yet, they keep knocking it down. It is interesting to hear Liberal members speak about accountability when they do not even believe in women's equity and the navigable waters act. They voted against those issues. They do not believe in moving forward on EI because their government took $54 billion out of it. Let us not forget the sponsorship scandal.

Could the hon. member tell us why he feels we should be supporting this motion, given the fact that we cannot trust their promises nor the Conservatives' promises?

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member was not here in 2005 when her party threw out $40 billion of investments in social programs, daycare, and things that would have helped Canadians. However, that is a debate from a year gone by.

This is critical. Canadians expect this Parliament to act diligently. One cannot simply throw the baby out with the bathwater and throw accountability out with it. Whether the hon. member agreed or disagreed with the stimulus program to help Canadians at a desperate time, she should appreciate that the last thing this Parliament should do is sacrifice transparency, accountability, and due diligence.

It is the hon. member's job. I recognize she is a new member and I welcome her here. I hope the hon. member would understand the parliamentary process here which is that we have to hold that government to account on its expenditures. If we do not, then our roles as members of Parliament are obsolete. Frankly, without accountability, transparency and responsibility, we have lost an important and indispensable element of our functions here as members of Parliament.

The hon. member should know that. I hope this is an opportunity for her to take those things into consideration.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

Provencher Manitoba

Conservative

Vic Toews ConservativePresident of the Treasury Board

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to my colleague across the way and appreciate the contributions he has made to this debate. Although he was wrong in a number of respects, it simply gives me the opportunity to correct the record.

As we know, this government has brought forward an ambitious, aggressive multi-year plan to support Canadians during these difficult economic times. These difficulties, I would emphasize, are global, not simply national or provincial. The plan is timely, it is targeted, and it is temporary. It is a solid plan to get the money flowing to those who need it quickly. We are talking about individuals, families and communities in all regions and provinces of the country.

Our economic action plan includes actions to help Canadians and stimulate spending, including enhanced benefits to unemployed workers and more funding for training.

It also includes actions to stimulate housing construction, including the home renovation tax credit, which has so far received an overwhelmingly positive response from Canadians.

It includes action to build infrastructure, including some $12 billion in new funding over the next two years.

Our plan includes action to support businesses and communities, including the $7.5 billion in additional supports for sectors, regions and communities.

Finally, our plan includes actions to approve access to financing and strengthen Canada's financial system.

These are real concrete actions to stimulate the economy, but in order for them to have impact, they need to get out the door. Even the opposition has acknowledged that for these measures to have a real impact they must be implemented as soon as possible.

Allow me to quote from none other than the sponsor of this motion, the member for Markham—Unionville. On February 25, he told the Ottawa Citizen:

I feel entirely principled in doing the right thing, which is to do everything in our power to get the money out the door.

That is exactly what we are doing. Doing the right thing means responding to an unprecedented economic situation with extraordinary measures. Doing the right thing also means striking a critical balance between the rapid flow of stimulus measures and ensuring that due diligence is done.

Let me note that our government took the unprecedented step of proactively engaging the Auditor General to ensure she plays an active role in this process. There have been inaccurate media accusations that she has sounded an alarm over this process. Let me clarify right now that is not the case.

The case is that her recent correspondence was simply a response to the initiative that we took in contacting and involving her in this process up front. Her intervention is welcomed, her advice is timely, and we requested it. We are working closely with the Auditor General and looking forward to continuing to do so, because we are committed to ensuring Canadians know that this process is being handled properly and has independent oversight.

In the 77 days since the budget, our government has cut red tape and taken extraordinary and unprecedented action to ensure that crucial investments are not delayed. That is what vote 35 is all about.

I am referring to the special central vote in main estimates of $3 billion assigned to the Treasury Board Secretariat for budget implementation. The funds allocated by this vote will allow our government to provide immediate funding for ready-to-go initiatives announced in the economic action plan in advance of the normal parliamentary supply schedule.

As most members know, with our existing parliamentary process the first wave of funding for budget initiatives is not usually allocated until the first supplementary estimates are voted on. In past years, the supply bill for the first supplementary estimates would be in December.

Last year our government worked hard to more closely align the budget cycle with the estimates cycle. This meant that some funding for budget 2008 initiatives was available in June 2008. We are doing this again this year, but given our current economic situation, June is too late for Canadians. The construction season starts now, not in June. That is why it is essential that all members unite to support this special time-limited vote included in the main estimates.

All members need to know that the process put in place to provide accountability and transparency in the use of these funds is the same as normal processes we use when asking for parliamentary approval. The only difference is the timeframe that has been moved forward from June to April so that these funds can be applied to ready-to-go projects at the beginning of the construction season rather than at the end. That makes a huge difference when people are trying to put bread on the table.

We are not playing games here.

Not long ago the member for Outremont said the NDP favours a significant spending program for “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects. That came from the January 13 edition of the Financial Post, a curious statement given the consistent position of that party to oppose all budgetary measures, even those that would help Canadians in these particular difficult times.

About the same time, the Leader of the Opposition told the Canadian Press that, “You have to change the rules by which this money gets out the door”. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, that is exactly what our government is doing, so it confounds me why the opposition members would rather stage a time-consuming debate in this place than roll up their sleeves and actually do the work.

Work is what we are doing as a government. We will be reporting to Parliament so that Parliament can hold the government to account on the use of these funds. The process is completely transparent, and I will speak further to this point in a moment, but first, one other point.

There seems to be an assumption among certain members of the opposition that government cannot be both efficient and honest at the same time. Members opposite are not the people to lecture us on accountability.

All of the funds distributed through the $3 billion appropriation will be accounted for. Some have raised the spectre of the sponsorship scandal. It should not take a long institutional memory to recall that the sponsorship funds were never, never formally approved by Parliament with related conditions attached. Individual initiatives in the sponsorship scandal were not subject to any kind of oversight or parliamentary scrutiny. There was no Treasury Board approval. There was no reporting on the end use of the funds as a separate item in the estimates, in public accounts, or any other public reporting. The public service was in fact bypassed, not involved.

By comparison, all expenditures under our economic stimulus fund will be thoroughly accounted for. In keeping with this government's desire to be responsive and responsible, we have established clear conditions for the use of this vote to ensure that the appropriate checks and balances are in place.

Let me underline this. The $3 billion fund can only be used for economic action plan initiatives announced in budget 2009 and approved by the House. Each initiative funded from this vote requires the approval of Treasury Board.

Existing policy requirements on accountability and reporting must be met. For example, grants and contribution payments are subject to the transfer payments policy, and the use of this vote is time limited. Funds can only be allocated between April 1 and June 30 of this year. This is entirely consistent with what the Auditor General has recently stated in her correspondence.

Contrary to what has been reported, we chose to create a special vote to provide bridge funding for departments to ensure due diligence in approvals, transparency in reporting, and accountability for its use.

We will also streamline the review and approval of policy and programs while ensuring appropriate controls and respect for parliamentary authority.

For example, we will use simplified or omnibus Treasury Board submissions for straightforward program extensions or top-ups. It just makes sense to use faster processes for programs that have already gone under the microscope, for example, providing additional funding for existing training and recruitment programs to put Canadians back to work, and we have better aligned the timing of the budget and estimates.

Parliament will have full disclosure. Reporting on allocations on the vote will be done in supplementary estimates and in regular reports to Parliament on the economic action plan.

In fact, just two weeks ago we released our first quarterly report to Parliament that outlined the steps that we have taken to cut red tape and ensure that critical investments are not delayed, entirely consistent with the approach that the Leader of the Opposition has asked us to take.

We have also launched a new website that comprehensively details our plans and gives information about specific initiatives and projects when they are announced.

In addition, thanks to the efforts to strengthen accountability and transparency, the public service is better equipped to handle this process than ever before. For example, over the past three years, financial management standards across government have been improved. Departments have independent audit committees that include members from outside government, and steps have been taken to ensure departments have qualified chief financial officers. Departments have also bolstered the management of their operations.

Under the management accountability framework assessments, large departments and agencies representing over 90% of government spending have improved in the area of financial management and control. Recent results show that financial management indicators rated acceptable or strong have risen to 90% from 59%.

We have also increased departmental oversight with a committee of deputy ministers who will be tracking progress and overseeing the implementation of these measures. Obviously those who are familiar with the sponsorship scandal from the public accounts committee will remember that the deputy ministers and the departments were in fact excluded from that spending.

The Auditor General will also audit spending. We are happy to be working closely with Madam Fraser and her team to ensure funds flow as they should.

As mentioned earlier, for the second year now the government plans to use early spring supplementary estimates as a vehicle for budgetary measures. It puts in place measures to ensure that funding flows to those who need it most, while ensuring that due diligence is done.

These are extraordinary times and we cannot wait for the normal supply period in June before getting money to some of the ready-to-go projects. We have to act immediately if Canadians are going to feel the positive impact of the economic stimulus this year. Time is of the essence, and I would ask all members of the opposition to get on board instead of playing politics with the well-being of Canadian families and businesses.

Make no mistake about it. The motion by the member for Markham—Unionville sets out impossible requirements that will bury the public service in paperwork rather than getting money out the door. It also ignores a key element to the way the federal government operates in this country; that is, it ignores the partnership role that our government plays with the provinces and municipalities in requiring disclosure before contribution agreements are signed and executed.

The opposition motion is asking the government to ignore the fact that it contributes only one-third of the money in most of the cases, and it asks it to act in a unilateral fashion as though it were the sole contributor. That is the disappointing aspect of this particular motion, and the member for Markham—Unionville knows that. He has deliberately set up this paperwork in order to ensure that bureaucrats cannot get the money out, and secondly, that we run roughshod over our partners, the provinces and the municipalities. He understands the difficulty that it will create in working with his premier, Dalton McGuinty. He understands that, and he has deliberately done it.

We want to get money flowing to the people who need it most rather than setting up the paperwork bureaucracy.

It is interesting how the member flips his position. On one point he says to get the money out the door, and on the other he says that there have to be appropriate controls. Unfortunately, the appropriate controls are a thinly disguised scheme to stall the spending so that the money does not get out to Canadians. That is the role of this particular motion.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

That is nonsense.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

An hon. member

Phoney baloney.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order. There will be an opportunity for members of the opposition to ask questions.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg South Centre who understands well the sponsorship scandal should be asking herself that question about the role of Parliament. Where was she when her government was abusing taxpayers' money and funnelling it to Liberal Party operatives? Forty million dollars disappeared and she said nothing.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I do not see why the member should be subjected to that personal attack. We are talking about a motion regarding accountability and what the government is going to do, and the member is using cheap partisan tactics to deflect from his speech. I would ask him to stay on point and speak to the issue at hand instead of dragging up everything he can from the past.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

The President of the Treasury Board has three minutes to complete his intervention and I would ask him to speak to the motion.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Conservative

Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB

Madam Speaker, the members opposite continued to interrupt my speech and I felt I had to respond to that since the Speaker was not calling them to order.

We are striking the right balance between the rapid delivery of stimulus measures and appropriate due diligence and transparency. We all appreciate that we have a big job ahead of us. We are up to the task and we intend to help Canadians in these difficult times.

That is more than I can say for some of the members of the opposition who want to play games with the $3 billion needed to prime the stimulus pump, which is exactly what this motion is all about. It is designed to stop the flow of that money. I am disappointed on their insistence on opposing for the sake of opposing, on making political hay out of nothing when they could be pitching in to help, not hinder, Canadians in their efforts to climb out of this pit. It especially disconcerts me when I read quotes from some of the loudest opposition critics that they want to proceed with due speed, yet they would have this House drag its feet.

Why are we here discussing instead of doing? Why are we debating this particular issue? The strategy of the opposition is to call for action and at the same time bog down the process in redundant paperwork. In other words, the opposition members are trying to set up the stimulus initiative for failure.

I am proud of the government that is getting things done for Canadians and that is concerned about the lives of ordinary Canadians. I would ask all members to support this particular initiative and vote against this motion.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Madam Speaker, about five times in my speech this morning I stressed the need to get money out the door, so when the minister quotes me as saying that, I fail to see how that provides him with political ammunition.

The basic point I made over and over again, and the minister still does not seem to understand it, is that there is no conflict between getting the money out the door and following due process and accountability. What we are asking the government to do will not delay expenditures by one nanosecond.

Let me make clear the two things we are asking and I challenge the minister to explain to Canadians how these two measures will in any way cause any delay. First, we are asking the government to provide a list of the programs and departments that will be included in the $3 billion. I have already seen that list in a Treasury Board briefing. It exists. The government is simply being asked to table it by April 3. That will cause zero delay. Second, after the fact, after the expenditures are already approved, we are asking for the kind of information on the different projects that would be produced anyway for Treasury Board purposes.

I challenge the government to explain how those two measures would delay in any way the expenditures. Why is the minister resisting to apply even a modicum of accountability to his program?

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB

Madam Speaker, the member is trying to gloss over the distinction between the fact of approval and the reality of the announcement.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

An hon. member

Answer the question.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order, order.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB

Madam Speaker, because the federal government is in a partnership with other partners, with provincial governments and municipalities, there has to be a delay in the actual announcement of the funding. I can assure the member that as soon as every project is announced, it will be put on the web. We cannot act unilaterally and pretend—

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

That is not what we are asking you to do.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB

That is exactly what the member for Markham—Unionville is asking me to do.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Rubbish.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

NDP

The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie

Order. If the member for Markham—Unionville continues to interrupt, I will not recognize him the next time he stands.

Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Vic Toews Conservative Provencher, MB

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that very much. I think that is a ruling that is well needed in this House. I think that all members should take note of that.

What the member in fact is asking us to do is to proceed unilaterally to announce before the provinces and the municipalities have had a chance to announce the expenditures of their own money. In a federal system that simply cannot be tolerated.

As soon as that announcement is made, it will be on the website for all Canadians to see.