Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll try to be succinct. I just want to give a bit of background. This amendment relates to the fundamental principle that Parliament controls the public purse. It's a principle, but increasingly it's one held in theory but not in reality. In the Harper years, the then prime minister developed the practice of having the borrowing authority for the federal government passed by order in council, in other words, by cabinet alone.
It was one of the promises made in the election platform of the Liberals to require the government to receive Parliament's approval on borrowing plans. Now, I approve of the effort, but basically burying this provision for the Borrowing Authority Act in the middle of a 400-page omnibus bill is not much accountability or as much focus on the section as we would have liked.
There's a section relating to the borrowing authority, proposed section 8 on page 68, that relates in general to the question of how we report back to Parliament about borrowing. As an effort to increase accountability when we have the three-year report to Parliament, my amendment says that the government should consult with the leaders of all parties in the House, and note, I have not used the word “recognized”. There is no reason not to consult with leaders of parties whether it be the Green Party, the Bloc, or any other party, every three years. The amendment I am proposing, which I hope people will consider, is an effort to have greater accountability. It's only a consultation. It's not a veto. It says:
the results of consultations held with representatives of every party in the House of Commons on the adequacy of borrowing authority Acts as a means of ensuring accountability to Parliament in respect of the Minister's borrowing authority.
In other words, it's an attempt to ask leaders of all parties in the House if this method we have just chosen is working well to ensure accountability, to bring back the fundamental notion that Parliament controls the public purse.
I would be grateful if members would seriously consider this. I can't see any reason for opposing a consultation with leaders of parties in the House about how this mechanism is working. I generally support the mechanism.