Debates of May 9th, 2013

Opposition Motion—2013 Spring Report of the Auditor General of Canada

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, nearly one million Canadians rely on food banks each month. Schools on native reserves are underfunded. Employment insurance claimants are being tracked as though they are criminals. We are pulling out of international treaties such as the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, supposedly to save $150,000 a year.

Meanwhile, we have no idea where $3.1 billion has gone. Members opposite are telling us not to make too much of it, that it is not that serious. I am sorry, but it is very serious.

Members opposite are telling us that the Auditor General said there is nothing to prove that the funds were poorly used. What they do not seem to understand and are forgetting to say is that there is also nothing to prove that the funds were properly used. That is the main issue.

Let us take a look at what the Auditor General said about the possible scenarios that Treasury Board helped identify:

The funding may have lapsed without being spent. It may have been spent on PSAT activities and reported as part of ongoing programs spending. It may have been carried forward and spent on programs not related to the Initiative.

He did not add that the money may have been spent on gazebos, for example, or other such things. In short, absolutely crucial information is missing. $3.1 billion is not a trivial amount. It represents 25% of the program budget and there is no transparency or accountability.

During that time, the Conservatives passed ineffective and unnecessary bills that violate our civil liberties. However, they cannot clearly explain how and on what programs the $3.1 billion was spent.

I truly believe that the Conservatives should do some bookkeeping and be accountable. That would be a change. That is not all. As if that were not enough, there are even problems with the amounts that the Auditor General was able to trace.

After examining funding for the public security and anti-terrorism program compared to funding according to program objectives, the Auditor General concluded the following:

PSAT objectives were broadly stated, and we found that activities proposed by departments and agencies to address them were equally broad. Departments and agencies spent funds on...the services of a security expert to advise a host country on security matters related to the staging of an international sporting event. Nevertheless, activities were deemed to be within the Initiative objectives.

Is that shocking? I find it very shocking. Even worse, that is not all.

In light of the fact that they had trouble keeping records and accounting for expenditures, what brilliant solution did the government find? I will be blunt: the brilliant solution was to stop keeping track and being accountable. No sooner said than done. It is that simple.

This attitude may explain why, when my colleague said a few minutes ago that the opposition's role is to hold the government to account, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages looked at her with contempt and arrogance, as if to say, “try and see”.

I think Canadians should be seriously concerned about this kind of attitude.

That said, the idea of just giving up on keeping track of funds or being accountable, because it is simply impossible to do so, is not the right way to do things. That is not what we would do, nor is it what Canadians want. As we have seen over the past couple of days and weeks, Canadians want to know and they have every right to know. In fact, this government has a duty to do whatever it takes to ensure that Canadians know.

In order for the Auditor General to be able to provide Canadians with the information they need, it is important that he get the necessary documents to properly account for how that $3.1 billion of public funds was used.

Those documents must include all annual reports on public security and anti-terrorism that were submitted to the Treasury Board Secretariat, all submissions to the Treasury Board Secretariat established under that initiative, all departmental assessments of the initiative, and the database created by the Treasury Board to monitor funding.

The NDP is calling on the government to table those documents in the House by June 17, 2013, in both official languages, of course. We want the Auditor General to have not only all necessary documents, but also all the resources needed to conduct a thorough forensic audit until the $3.1 billion is found and can be justified.

As I was saying earlier, Canadians have the right to know where their tax dollars are going, especially since those dollars are often so hard earned. I do not understand how some members of the House could possibly oppose this search for the truth. I strongly believe that the House should support our motion. However, I would like to put forward the following amendment:

I move that the motion be amended by adding the following:

...and that in order to avoid losing funds in the future, the House request that the government take all actions necessary to transition to program activity base appropriation according to the timeline provided to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates in response to their seventh report, tabled on June 20, 2012.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The motion is in order.

It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion, or in the case that he or she is not present, consent may be given or denied by the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party.

Since the sponsor is not present in the chamber, I ask the acting whip, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, if he consents to this amendment being moved.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet earlier in response to an amendment from the member for Winnipeg North. I indicated at that point that we are agreeable to heading in the direction the members were proposing but that we were a bit concerned that the wording needed to be tightened up in order to achieve what I think we both wanted to have.

I thank the member who moved the amendment and we will support it. I certainly hope all members would find it likewise agreeable.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in following the amendment, I had a bit of a flashback to a time in I was in the immigration committee, not that long ago. I moved an amendment on behalf of the Liberal Party and then the government kind of agreed, then moved the same amendment. I said that was fine, it was the idea. I see the idea has not really changed. It is great. I applaud the member for recognizing that what we have suggested is valid. I believe it makes a better motion.

I would like to see a member from the Conservative stand so they too can be counted, at least on that point. I can appreciate they could be sensitive to the first part of the motion, but I would be interested in hearing what the Conservative Party has to say about the amendment. I wonder if the member might want to provide some comment as to how the Conservative Party could, at the very least, support the amendment. Ideally it would be nice if it supported the whole motion plus the amendment.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent question.

As I mentioned earlier, not just about the amendment, but basically about the substance of the motion, I have a great deal of difficulty believing that members who represent their constituents can refuse to shed light on a matter that all Canadians are concerned about.

I am sorry, but I do not understand their logic and reasoning.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, for clarification, we are not debating the motion with the amendment. We are debating the main motion.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

At this point we are doing questions and comments on the main motion.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to ensure that I was speaking to the right issue.

I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. We talk about the fact that the Conservatives hold themselves out as being great financial managers and then all of a sudden where is this money? There is the issue of where the money is, but there is also the issue of what else could it have been spent on and are there problems here?

What if the money had been spent on something like the eco-energy home retrofit program at $934 million? However, it was not spent there because that program does not exist, but that might resonate with folks. However, if they found out that the $23 million had been spent on media monitoring of Conservative backbenchers, I do not think Canadians would actually accept that this was an appropriate way to spend the money. Therefore, it is really important that we know where this money went.

I want to ask my colleague a question.

When the Auditor General appeared before the committee, he was asked whether it was possible that the $3.1 billion might not necessarily have been used for programs approved by Parliament. The Auditor General responded that he thought he should say that there was a chance of that because he did not have enough information to answer the question fully.

I think this is an important point. There is not enough information to respond, to know what is happening with the money.

I wonder if my colleague would agree with that assessment of the Auditor General at committee.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question, which was excellent as always.

Two main points were raised here. One of them is vital, and that is knowing what could have been done with that money. I mentioned that we could have helped close to a million people who rely on food banks every month, continued to participate in international efforts or participated in programs such as the eco-energy program. I am also thinking of the fight against homelessness, which is an extremely important issue that affects my riding in particular.

However, we do not know what could have been done with the money because we do not know where the money is. The Auditor General made that very clear. Of course, we cannot say that the money was misspent but nor can we say that it was well spent.

Why is the government refusing to get to the bottom of this? Is this an indication that the money was in fact misspent? If the Conservatives are so confident that the money was well spent, why not simply agree to get to the bottom of things?

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his amendment, which changes the wording of the Liberal amendment a bit but is based on the same principle.

I know we need to point some fingers about this very large amount of money that we do not know how it was spent. However, a very important outcome of this debate and the amendment, which I hope the government will support, is a reform of how Parliament approves the spending of money when the government asks Parliament for permission to spend it. This is very important for the future of the country and the importance of that fact should be recognized.

It would be a very good outcome of this debate if the House of Commons approves the motion and indicates its willingness to go to a program-based approval of spending requests from the government.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the fundamental roles of Parliament and the opposition is to scrutinize and examine budgets and expenditures.

All the necessary tools must be made available to MPs so that they can do their job on behalf of the people they represent. This includes various measures. It includes the budget office. It also includes having the time to thoroughly examine budget bills. All the tools must be made available to MPs so that they can perform this essential role.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion, the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

The hon. whip of the official opposition.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request that the division be deferred until Tuesday, May 21, 2013, at the end of the time provided for government orders.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Accordingly, the recorded division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 21, 2013.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you see the clock at 5:30 p.m.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.