I don't think your cost of living is better. I think we continue to have record inflation rates. People are struggling. I hear it every day, as every member of Parliament does.
I would remind the minister what the Prime Minister said, which is you need to answer questions. I've heard questions around this issue of two hours. Wow, that's a lot of time, two hours, I have to tell you.
Ministers don't always necessarily come, apparently. I sit on two other committees. I can tell you that Minister Champagne and Minister Murray have come to those committees every time we've asked. They've never missed a meeting. They've never, ever missed a meeting.
In fact, on the two-hour issue, Minister Champagne has agreed to come to the industry committee to talk for two hours, which will not be a problem for him. It won't be a problem for him on the Volkswagen contract. Unfortunately, for those of you watching today, you won't be able to watch it because the government only agreed to it if we could do it in camera. What that means is in secret. They don't want to defend the contract, but he's agreed to come for two hours. He's a very amiable guy.
I agree with MP Morantz. I had hope yesterday, when I saw the sixth appearance of the minister in the House this year, in our “finding Freeland” effort. It was like the black bears had come out of hibernation. I thought, let's see if she's there today. That will be good. Maybe she won't be. That would be seven. That would be a record, because I don't think the minister has actually been there for two days in a row. This would be some sort of new record for the Minister of Finance.
On the issue of ministerial accountability, which this is about, just to help the translators follow, I began the last meeting by helping members of this committee understand the importance of these two hours by outlining a document from the Treasury Board of Canada. That's the government department that is responsible for deciding on the actual spending. Once the budget lays out the spending, Treasury Board does spend the actual money.
The document is entitled “Meeting the Expectations of Canadians: Review of the Responsibilities and Accountabilities of Ministers and Senior Officials”. I began reading from this excellent document, and I will now take up where I left off the other night. I know that members have been anxiously waiting for me to continue this part of my presentation.
In order to ensure that the translators can follow, I will start on page 5, where I left off. I won't go through the first four pages, although they were very enlightening, about accountability and ministers' roles. I will start off at the bottom of page 5 with the section about the goal of an accountable regime. I'm not keen on the word “regime”, but maybe it applies to this government. It's more a regime than it is a government of the people.
This section of the important Treasury Board document begins, “The government must be accountable for both the policies it sets and the means by which it implements them.” That's sort of at the heart of Mr. Blaikie's motion. That's why we want the minister there. “However, the area of particular concern in the current context”—the context of this document—“is the responsibility and accountability of ministers and senior officials for matters of financial administration and management in policy implementation.” I'll read that again, because that is what this budget implementation bill is about. The context is the “responsibility and accountability of ministers and senior officials for matters of financial administration and management in policy implementation.”
A budget is the culmination, the coming together, of both financial administration and policy development and direction. That's why that's important. “This report, therefore, focusses on responsibility and accountability for financial administration. In this regard, the accountability regime under our system of responsible government must do the following [things]”. Those things are in bullet points.
I am tempted, every time “ministerial” or “accountability” comes up, to say that I should spell those words for folks, because I'm not sure they're getting them. We may have to get to that in this discussion, but for now I'll go to the first bullet point under what is set out by the Treasury Board. They are to “provide assurance to Parliament”—to Parliament—“and Canadians of the government’s proper use of lawful authorities and public resources”.
A budget implementation bill is at the heart of providing assurances to Parliament and Canadians of the government's proper use of lawful authorities and public resources. This is what a budget bill is about. You come before Parliament. You get questioned before Parliament on how you're going to spend citizens' money. That's why we need her here for only two hours in “freeing Freeland”. I know the freeing Freeland exercise, because I'm sure in the “finding Freeland” effort, with the minister attending the House yesterday, she wants to be free from these shackles of PMO control in order to defend a budget that makes me cry but that I assume makes her proud. I'm not sure why never balancing the budget would make her proud, but it seems to make this particular minister proud to never balance the budget.
It's pretty easy in a cabinet to be the finance minister if the only word you say to your cabinet colleagues is “yes”. The hardest part of the finance minister's job is actually saying “no”, just like it is to your children: No, you can't do that; just because your friend jumped off the roof, it doesn't mean that you should. These are the things parents say to their kids, right? Apparently, we never say those things in the current Liberal cabinet. We say things like, yes, you can have and create yet another ministry.
I know that ISED, as it's called, the industry department, only has about $16 billion in expenditure this year, but apparently they needed more.
They needed to create two more mediocre agencies that would have the same performance as the Infrastructure Bank.
The second item here says, “In this regard, the accountability...under our...responsible government” includes that you “must do the following” things. You must “reinforce all parties’ compliance with established legal requirements and management policies and practices”.
We know how diligently the Liberal government has followed that because we know how many sole-source contracts to friends this government has given out. It clearly reinforces “compliance with established legal requirements and management” to the point they believe that compliance and meeting legal requirements is such an essential part of the genetics of this cabinet that they continue to apologize in the House for giving sole-source contracts to friends and to campaign managers who they used to work with, and other close friends.
Then there's McKinsey. We've spoken about that before. A $490 billion budget means that, if the minister appears for two hours, it would be a $250 billion hour-long appearance. If she appears for the full two hours, that's $490 billion that her appearance will cost the taxpayers. Like I've said before, and I'll say it again, those rates would even make McKinsey blush. Those are extensive, high billing rates. I'm sure McKinsey would be willing to take the minister on, in her post-ministerial life, into a new role to help coach them on how to get such high billing rates for their work and performance.