Finance Committee on May 2nd, 2023

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

It is. It's a lot by any measure, but it had a surplus at one point of $9 billion. That's responsible fiscal management. This year ending, the budget is $156 billion in spending. That's up $176 billion or 63% since the last Conservative government. In only eight years, the government is spending 63% more.

In this fiscal framework, which means spending for the next five years, the government budget will rise again, if there is no further new spending added, to $543 billion in year five. That's if these economic projections on interest rates, inflation and unemployment are to be believed. That's $263 billion more than the last budget of the Harper government. Imagine that. That's a 94% increase in spending by this government since being elected.

Now, lest you think that the deficits are a result of a lack of revenue and necessary spending, that would in fact be incorrect. Government revenue is taxes from you, me and all Canadians. Revenue will have risen by $282 billion at the end of this budget cycle. That's $282 billion in more tax revenue from taxpayers at the end of this five-year fiscal framework. In other words, government tax revenue has gone up $261 billion, or 92%. That's a 92% increase in tax revenue from Canadians, yet they still can't see their way to balancing a budget.

That's why having the minister appear is essential in terms of accountability for this kind of spending. The impact of this kind of spending is huge. As we know, and as many people on social media know, this Prime Minister has added more debt to Canada than all other prime ministers combined.

Interest rates are at the highest in decades. A family who bought a typical home five years ago, with a typical mortgage that's now up for renewal in these high interest rate times, will actually pay $7,000 more a year for a mortgage on the same house they bought five years ago. No wonder Canadians are feeling the pinch and squeeze.

It's not just mortgage rates that are driving up the problem of paycheques that don't go as far as they used to and of Canadians having to cut their diets. Mothers are putting water in their children's milk because they cannot afford the 10% food inflation that we are seeing now, on top of increased costs just to stay in their own house. The 10% more food inflation has been going on now for more than a year.

These are the reasons why people are writing to us all the time saying, “Please help. What can we do? My paycheque is not going up the way food costs or my housing costs are going up.” I've had people, particularly those on fixed incomes, phoning me and writing to me in my constituency office, telling me that they've had to sell their family home. They're on a fixed income. They can't afford to heat, eat, pay their mortgage and pay all the expenses associated with a house anymore. They're having to sell their family home as a result.

They're distraught over having to do that because these are homes. They're not just houses; they're where people conduct their lives. It's where their children grew up. It's where their great-grandchildren come. It's where the family celebrations happen.

You know, according to Bloomberg, we have the second-highest housing bubble in the world. It's not as if we're short on land here. We live in the second-largest land mass in the world. Only Russia has more land than we do. How is it that we have such a huge land, with a population that's modest compared to that of a lot of other countries...? It's approaching maybe 40 million people in the next little while, but it's very modest compared to those. We have the second-most available land in the world, yet Vancouver and Toronto have the third- and tenth-most overpriced housing markets in the world.

We have a lot of municipal councils and we know lots of them are not dominated by conservative-minded folks, unfortunately. They're not, and the result of that is we have a lot of policies the left-wing councils believe are well intended but that actually end up putting gatekeepers in place who block the construction of new housing.

As an example, in my riding.... The Lebanese community is very important in Halifax. They've built an enormous amount of housing in the peninsula. They have lots of history going back to the seventies and escaping the wars in Lebanon.

One housing developer told me he has a piece of property in downtown Halifax. He's been trying for five years to get approval to build that housing. It's a 21-storey building. Now, in the big cities of Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal, that may not seem like a lot, but 21 storeys is a substantial building in Halifax. It's not unusual, however, because the two properties beside it have 21-storey housing buildings. After five years of him fighting city hall and left-wing housing development policies, the city came back and said, “Oh no, you can only build a five-storey building there”. He said, “Wait a minute. There's a 21-storey building on either side. That's all I'm asking for. I'm not asking to build a building much taller than 21 storeys. I'm asking to build one the same.” They said, “No, it's five storeys.”

Of course, we have a housing shortage, too. We don't have enough space in downtown Halifax for housing. At the end of the day, we still have to find a place for people to go. Apparently, Halifax city council and the development gatekeepers there think it's asking too much to build more housing in Halifax. They have said no.

Do you know what's going to happen on that piece of property? That piece of property is going to sit idle, because he's not going to build a five-storey building there. What's going to happen is that much-needed housing is going to go on and he'll let his descendants—his son and daughter—inherit the land and it will sit vacant for decades, until somebody fixes the problem.

Luckily, after the next election.... He doesn't have to wait decades. He only has to wait until after the next election when we have a prime minister who will get rid of these municipal gatekeepers.

Mr. Chair, I know everyone is enthralled by my presentation. Just as a check on everyone's focus and time—because I know we have some more votes going up—I'd like to get a sense of the room. It's hard to get a sense of the room, given where everybody is right now. I'm going to get a sense as to whether or not all the members here would like me to continue my dissertation on ministerial accountability.

I'd like to move to adjourn.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Can I see the members come up?

Okay, we're going to the clerk.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

We'll continue.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Like all of my colleagues around the table who hold elected office, I'm an optimist by nature—or we wouldn't put our name on the ballot—so optimistically, I will take that as a vote of confidence by the government and their coalition partner, the NDP, for me to keep going. I'm a little disappointed that my colleagues want me to stop, but nonetheless, I'll keep going.

[An hon. member]

They know you better than we do.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

As I was saying, before I so rudely interrupted myself, the cost of this budget and why we need the minister here to discuss it and be held accountable for two hours—not one, but two hours, and we haven't been able to get a commitment for two hours—is because food bank usage is at an all-time high.

I'm sure that the government likes to talk about its input costs and how much it spends. It doesn't seem to like to talk too much about its output achievements. I'm sure that one of its proudest achievements is how food banks usage is at an all-time high. Food Banks Canada recorded one and a half million visits to food banks in just one month, which is a 35% increase compared to last year.

I'm sure that's a question we'd like to put to the Minister of Finance in our “finding Freeland” exercise, but we understand. We thought it would be a “freeing” Freeland exercise, because we thought the PMO may have been preventing her from coming, but apparently we're back to “finding Freeland”, because we're not getting any response from her either in the House—because it was another minister answering today—or through the committee that she's willing to be here for two hours.

If she could spare us two hours—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members and MP Perkins, the bells are ringing, so we will suspend.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Chair, if I could ask, maybe there's unanimous consent around the table to go for another 15 minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Members, do we have UC? Yes, okay.

Continue, MP Perkins, for another 15 minutes or so.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

I'm overwhelmed by two votes of confidence in my presentation in the space of a few minutes. Thank you, colleagues. It's overwhelming and I'm almost brought to tears by it, as the Minister of Finance was almost brought to tears by the presentation by former senator Hillary Clinton on the weekend. It doesn't quite bring me to tears, but the budget brings me to tears when I think of what it's going to cause the generations to come to have to pay.

As I went over before a couple of these respites here, my view is that the Liberal government's inflation tax—which I outlined all the reasons for—is eating into the paycheques of the middle class at an alarming, alarming rate that is causing people severe problems. There are real-world consequences of the reckless decisions, including personal ones. I would like to understand whether the Minister of Finance in her budget allocations for the Privy Council Office did budget $6,000 a night for hotel rooms in London. We don't know about the latest one. That was for the Queen's funeral. I'm sure the Prime Minister, while he was there for King Charles' coronation, stayed in the Holiday Inn, and Katy Perry may have been there. The $9,000 a night for a holiday in Jamaica wouldn't have been in the budget because it was a free gift to the Prime Minister.

I'm sorry. That would probably be an inappropriate question for the Minister of Finance. She would not have budgeted for that because that would mean that the Prime Minister either had taxpayers pay for it or perhaps he paid for it himself, neither of which happened. Instead, the Prime Minister chose a family friend to room with at $9,000 a night.

Instead of creating more cash, the cash that people need, and more of what cash buys, we have the situation in which paycheques are stretched and have less buying power. When we are empowered, however, that of course will change and we'll remove government gatekeepers and we'll get more homes built and we'll cut the carbon tax and reduce the cost of living.

You'd think those were just buzzwords. As I said, let me just take a moment, if I may, to quote from the report, for the first quarter of 2023, called “Canadian Survey of Consumer Expectations”, from the Bank of Canada—the independent monetary adviser and manager for our country, which has no oar in the water and no stick in the game of this decision on public policy, on fiscal policy in a political, partisan way.

Let me just read some of this to you. These are the results of the first-quarter survey, volume 4.1, April 3, 2023. This survey on consumer confidence took place between January 27 and February 16, 2023, and there were some follow-up interviews to round this report out, which were done in March, so not that long ago.

These are quotes from this report, from the overview, first of all: “Most consumers think the Bank's ability to get inflation back to target is hampered by high government spending.” The public is smart. They see what's going on. The Bank of Canada's report goes on to say, “High inflation and rising interest rates are putting pressures on consumers—and particularly on mortgage holders.” This is not me. This is not our leader. This is the Bank of Canada, and this budget is key to this in terms of pouring $3.1 trillion on the gasoline fire of the Liberal Party inflation.

The report goes on to say, “Most Canadians see a recession as the most likely scenario for the economy.” So the record increases, the 35% increase in food bank usage, is not a record they aspire to. They have generated such confidence in Canadian consumers that Canadian consumers actually think that in the next 12 months we're going to be in a recession, and who am I to disagree with that? I think they're absolutely right. The people are always right and they have a sense of what's going on first, even if the government does not.

Moreover, “Respondents expect inflation to slow for goods, such as gasoline and vehicles.” We haven't seen that yet.

It continues:

But while their inflation expectations for goods have fallen, consumers continue to be frustrated by high food prices at grocery stores. One respondent said, “Food prices create a lot of stress“ and “this bothers me the most.” Another said, “Even the prices for specials are too high.”

And isn't that right?

It goes on to say:

Many also think that high government spending, including spending following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic

—following the outbreak of COVID, not during COVID—

may affect the Bank’s ability to get inflation to target for three years or more.

That's a pretty pessimistic view that people have, that the government spending...and remember, at the time that this survey of consumers was done by the Bank of Canada, they hadn't seen this budget. They're still thinking that they should believe what the Minister of Finance said in the economic statement, that within five years we would have a balanced budget, and they were still feeling pessimistic about what would happen on government spending.

But let me repeat that again. Imagine, though, what that would be if they had done the survey now and found out that not only does the Minister of Finance not ever project a balanced budget, but the Liberal Party passed a policy ordering them to never have a balanced budget. It blows my mind. So that's why, as this says,

Many also think that high government spending, including spending following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, may affect the Bank’s ability to get inflation to target for three years or more.

That's a pretty sorry state of things. The report then goes on, and I am sparing you a lot of other things that are very good reading in this and I would encourage everyone, especially the government members of Parliament, to read it. It goes on to say, under the title “The impact of monetary policy on spending is broadening to services”, the following:

High inflation is negatively impacting household finances, and rising interest rates are adding pressure. Compared with how consumers viewed their financial positions during the 2017–18 cycle of policy rate tightening, more than twice as many now say they are financially worse off. Consumers also feel that they are less able to access credit and that the chance they will default on their borrowing has increased. Some Canadians—particularly Indigenous people and holders of variable-rate mortgages—are more likely than others to say they are negatively affected.

So this is the Bank of Canada's survey of consumers who are saying they are worse off today than they were in 2017 or 2018. Now I know members of Parliament always care about re-election. That's something that should stick in the craw of Liberal MPs. If they want to get re-elected, they're going to have to face an electorate that actually thinks they're worse off than they were before the 2019 election, let alone the balanced budget halcyon days of 2015 with the Harper government.

The Bank of Canada goes on to say this in their consumer report that just came out in April:

Consumers are noticing the impacts of high inflation and rising interest rates on their spending plans. And these impacts are broadening to include spending on services. About one-third of consumers expect to travel less often, eat out less often and enjoy fewer paid entertainment or social activities in the next 12 months than they did in the previous 12 months.

And we know from other reports that on the lower end of the income scale people are actually putting water in milk for their children and they're choosing which bill to pay each period because they can't pay all their bills every month like they used to only a few years ago. The report goes on to say:

This is largely because of the high prices of these services and other essential purchases. “Due to higher interest rates and higher inflation, we are not eating out as much,” one consumer said. Another reported, “I am now more willing to say yes to travelling, but I have less opportunities due to higher interest rates.”

Some people in my riding report to me that they can't afford the gas to travel 20 kilometres to visit their parents anymore. They report that they're on a fixed income, they're on Canada disability, and they can't even see their own parents or that the parents can't even go see their children and grandchildren because it's been too expensive to drive the few kilometres to their children's house.

The Bank of Canada report on the state of consumer confidence in Canada, which was released in April, talks about, on page 11 of 19, high interest rates and high inflation. There we go again with the magic combo. It's more than just inflation. It's also just higher interest rates. The report says that high interest rates and high inflation “are not impacting households evenly”. This is critical.

The report states:

Consumers with variable-rate mortgages and those in equity-deserving groups (such as Indigenous people, people with disabilities and racialized people) are more likely to cite being negatively affected than other consumers, including renters and homeowners without mortgages.

So here you go—the Liberal government policies. They stand up and claim that they've helped people out of poverty. This survey says that people on the lower-income side and the middle class and those who aspire to get into the middle class, as the Prime Minister says, are no longer aspiring to get into the middle class. They're aspiring just to pay their bills on the lower-income side. This government's policies are impacting lower-income people more dramatically.

The report goes on to say the following:

Respondents who have become worse off are showing more distress than other Canadians across several dimensions. These consumers are more likely to report:

spending and saving less in response to interest rate increases and higher inflation;

facing a financial position that is worse than 12 months ago and that will be even worse 12 months from now;

finding that credit is harder to access now than it was 12 months ago and that it will be even harder 12 months from now.

Compared with other individuals, respondents who have been negatively affected also expect:

a greater chance of defaulting on their debt payments in the next three months;

a greater chance of losing their job in the next three months;

more of a decline in what they earn when compared with inflation;

more of a decline in their real spending.

These are real problems that real people face who haven't lived on a trust fund all their lives and who have to worry about paying their mortgages every day. It's why we need to be able to question the minister for two hours. Personally, I think we should spend a day questioning her in this committee. I think the opposition is being generous in limiting it to two hours for this minister, given all that she has to account for.

This is probably the end of the quotes I'll use from the report for this part of my presentation:

Most respondents expect a recession in the next 12 months.

The next part is in quotes:

“We are feeling more stress with the interest rates perhaps still going up. It's hard to see where things are going, so we are [trying to save] more because we don't know if we are going to be able to afford things. [It's in] our minds [a lot].”

If you've ever had to worry and had sleepless nights about paying your mortgage and how you're going to put food on the table for your kids, these are very, very difficult times. The proof is in the pudding. Canada's largest financial institution is the Royal Bank of Canada, as we all know. They're in almost every community across Canada. The Royal Bank on May 3—this is hot off the press—issued a document they call Proof Point. It's probably a pretty good title. This one is called “Proof Point: More Canadians to fall behind on debt payments—but [some] will manage”.

The first bullet point talks about “a looming recession”. So here you have the confidence index from the Bank of Canada saying there's a looming recession in the minds of Canadians and here you have the Royal Bank of Canada saying, “A looming recession and an unemployment rate projected to climb to 6.6% by early 2024”—I'll remind you that the budget says 6.2%, so it only took the government a month to be wrong—“are set to tip more Canadians into loan delinquencies and insolvencies.”

The bank goes on to say, “With massive pandemic-related support measures largely over and living costs now soaring, mortgage delinquencies could rise by more than a third of current levels over the coming year.” Imagine that—it's more than a third of the current levels. Delinquency rates are people falling behind, on the verge of losing their house, because of this budget. The minister needs to answer for that in committee.

The Royal Bank goes on to say on May 3, hot off the press, that, “Consumer insolvencies could increase almost 30% over the next three years”—that's 30%—“returning to pre-pandemic levels and likely remaining on an upward trajectory after that.”

Moreover, consumer insolvencies are going to increase 30% and go on an upward trajectory. That's not a statistic any government should be proud of.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I wanted to let you know I don't believe we have UC to continue at this point, because we said only 15 minutes.

Is that correct? Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes, we said approximately 15 minutes.

Members, we'll be back right after the vote.

We're suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call the meeting back to order.

We are back, members.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I would like to note, since you're not in the room, that I would like to be added to the speaking list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Okay, Mr. Kurek. I've added you to the speaking list.

On the speaking list, as a refresher, I have MP Perkins, MP Morantz, MP Lawrence, MP Morantz again and then MP Kurek.

To refocus everybody on what we're doing right now, we are discussing a subamendment to MP Blaikie's amendment to the main motion, which reads:

That the Minister of Finance be invited to appear for two hours on the bill and that this appearance be scheduled on or before May 18th, 2023.

Go ahead, MP Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate your summarizing where we are in terms of what the ask is. We're trying, as we put it, to find Freeland and have the Minister of Finance appear for two hours on her budget implementation bill, which amends 51 acts of the Government of Canada. A number of these are not related to the actual revenue or expenses of the government.

Where I left off before the vote, Mr. Chair, was discussing the issue of how the budgetary spending in this bill is impacting not only the confidence of Canadians going forward and their feeling that we will be in a recession within 12 months, according to the Bank of Canada, but how it is impacting those on the lower income side in Canada, particularly. They are being disproportionately hurt by the high-inflation, high-interest rate environment that this spending has been a major contributor to.

I was citing some of the economic statistics on this, having gone through a few of the highlights from the Bank of Canada's most recent report. It's the hot-off-the-press report from the Royal Bank of Canada called “Proof Point: More Canadians to fall behind on debt payments” It was written by two of the Royal Bank's economists, Robert Hogue and Mishael Liu, and published on May 3, 2023.

I was summarizing the first point, which is that a looming recession, according to them, is projected as unemployment is projected to rise from its current rate of 5% to 6.6% by early 2024. That is according to the Royal Bank of Canada. Most disturbingly, as a result of the financial plan of this Liberal government and our search to find Freeland to get answers to why this is a good approach, the Royal Bank projects that consumers are going to have an increase in insolvency of “almost 30% over the next three years”. That's people defaulting on credit cards, mortgage rates, bank loans and that kind of thing.

They put in this that there were some gains. They call this the “bottom line”. It's on the front side:

The noticeable improvement in Canadians’ finances (in the aggregate) early in pandemic wasn’t sustainable.

Most of that was caused by cash payments being given to people who needed it—and, in a lot of cases, people who didn't need it and businesses that didn't need it—and the government spending about half, or $200 million, during the pandemic on things that were not pandemic-related.

The report goes on to say the following:

Those gains are now reversing and will likely erode further amid a softening economy and higher interest rates.

The Royal Bank, on May 3, went on to say:

...a booming housing market put mortgage debt on a fast track. By late-2021, Canada’s household debt-to-income ratio had exceeded pre-pandemic levels.

The next section is called “Cracks are beginning to form”. That's a typical banker understatement. They're “beginning to form”. The bank went on to say:

Over the last year, the burden of that debt has grown even heavier for Canadian households...These developments have caused an increasing number of Canadians to fall behind in on debt service payments that have suddenly swelled.

They've swelled, of course, because of interest rates. The report went on to say:

...the rate of consumers 90+ days late on their debt service payments has nevertheless risen for installment loans—

Installment loans are things, according to this report, that are typically used for one-off purposes like home renovations, unexpected emergencies and debt consolidation. The rate of consumer loans that are 90%-plus in arrears have risen in this area. These are things like credit cards and auto loans. More recently, they're seeing lines of credit. Lines of credit are based on your house.

When people are starting to dip into their lines of credit to pay for groceries, to pay heating costs and to pay increased mortgage costs, it's like using a credit card to pay for the other credit card bills. That is an inevitable economic spiral downhill, particularly with these higher interest rates caused by the $3.1 trillion of spending that this budget implementation bill sets out.

The report says:

A looming recession and the ongoing effect of higher interest rates will only add stress in the period ahead....

the modest contraction we expect for Canada's economy will likely trigger job losses.

That is according to the Royal Bank. It goes on to say:

We project our national unemployment rate will rise from the current 5% to 6.6% by 2024Q1. Historically, the loss of a job has been one of the principal factors contributing to loan delinquencies and consumer insolvencies in Canada.

That's understandable.

The next section goes on to pose a legitimate question that I think all Canadians are asking, which is: “How much more challenging will it get” for me?

The report says that “rising unemployment could push a growing number of Canadians into insolvency over the coming year—though higher interest rates and heavier debt service loads would likely contribute too.”

Remember, we've seen other reports from other companies stating that more than half of Canadians are only $200 away every month from not being able to pay their bills. When you get a spike in interest rates—whether it's your mortgage, increased costs in housing, or the annual 10% increase in food inflation that seems regularized under this government—something has to give for people. We start to see insolvency.

Now, if you pile on top of that a forecasted rise in unemployment from 5% to 6.5%, that's a lot of Canadians losing their jobs and unable to pay their bills.

The bank goes on to say in this report, “We expect the household debt-to-service ratio to rise more than 1 percentage point over the next year, to a historical high of 15.5% by 2024Q4. Consumer insolvencies could rise almost 30% over the next three years, according to our analysis.”

This is obviously a massive concern for those who are in public office who actually will see more traffic. We will see people coming into our offices looking to their members of Parliament for help as they have to sell their house or no longer have a house and can't even afford to live where they are. That's why ministerial accountability is so critical in this discussion of the amendment.

Earlier today I was giving those watching a little bit of guidance about what the Treasury Board of Canada—the spending arm of Canada—says are the responsibilities and accountabilities of ministers. Ministers obviously have to be held to account by Parliament. It's a fundamental tenet of our Westminster system.

For the interpreters, just so they know what page of this document I'm starting on, it is page 9 in English. At the top, the title is: “The Role of Parliament in the Accountability Regime”. It starts off by saying:

This section provides an overview of the role that Parliament plays in the accountability regime, specifically in relation to financial management. It highlights Parliament's involvement in the assignment of responsibility through its legislative role, explains the key mechanisms that Parliament uses to hold the government to account, and sets out the limits of Parliament's role in sanctioning ministers. In the course of explaining the practices of parliamentary scrutiny

—something we're trying to get to here is parliamentary scrutiny of this spending plan—

the key principles of collective and individual responsibility and the anonymity of public servants are spelled out and certain misconceptions are addressed. The section makes it clear that accountability: is a shared relationship between Parliament and ministers;

That's an important point. It's shared between Parliament and ministers.

Moreover it “is fundamentally political", meaning that the elected officers, in this context, are fundamentally responsible. And it "depends on the neutrality of the Public Service for its efficacy."

Next is section 2.1, “Parliament and the assignment of responsibility”. This is a Treasury Board guideline to ministers:

Parliament is the primary guarantor of the government's political accountability in responsible government.

It has a footnote here—five. If you read the footnote, it says, “The primary guarantor of legal accountability is the judiciary”, as we know, which this government has tried to interfere with a few times.

The report from Treasury Board goes on to say:

The direct accountability of ministers to the House of Commons is a central feature of this system, and its efficacy depends heavily on the will and capacity of the House to hold ministers accountable.

Let me read that one again: “its efficacy depends heavily on the will and capacity of the House to hold ministers accountable.”

We know this committee, as an instrument of the House of Commons, has the will—at least on the opposition side—to hold the minister to account. We know the House, in session and with our tools on the opposition side—like question period—has the will to hold the minister to account. However, six days of work in the House by the Minister of Finance since January.... It makes it difficult for parliamentarians to do the work that people sent us here to do, which is to hold the minister to account for the most fundamental thing.

I'm going to digress here a little—that's for the translators. On our side, and I'm sure on the government's side, too—they are, I can see, listening intently—we often get emails asking us to make sure there's a vote of confidence in the government. Just so the people watching know, every money bill of Parliament is automatically a vote of confidence in the government. It's important because, if the government doesn't have the confidence of the House to spend the people's money, it has to go to an election to seek a new mandate.

The budget we're dealing with here, Bill C-47, is a confidence vote. In determining whether or not and how we should vote in this budget in the next stages—once it comes out of committee—we need to hold the minister accountable, get answers and make a determination, as parliamentarians, about whether the government still has the confidence of the House...in our decision on how to vote on that.

I know, for example, the “supply agreement”, as it's called, between the NDP and Liberals requires the NDP to vote with the government on this, even if the NDP.... I'm sure some of the NDP members are not happy with this budget. I'm sure some of them are not happy with the fact that their supply agreement says there should be a pharmacare program, but there isn't one in this budget. I'm sure some of them are not happy with the fact that, truly, this is not a dental care program. It's just a cheque that goes out, not a true dental care program covering the large costs people have.

I'm sure that, if they were not bound by this supply arrangement, some of the members, in hearing the minister's answers—if the minister comes to this committee for two hours, at least, to deal with this half a trillion-dollar spending plan that budgets for this annually—would ask some of these questions and hold the minister to account. Perhaps, if they were truly free members of Parliament, they would be willing to look objectively at this budget and not be bound by what their whip tells them they have to do because of the supply agreement with the Liberals. They would actually vote against this budget. Alas, I fear that's probably not going to be the case. The independence of the NDP disappeared in the supply agreement.

The assignment of responsibility of Parliament is key.

It goes on to say in this report, “However, although Parliament is sovereign, it does not exercise executive authority.” Of course, executive authority rests with cabinet, not with Parliament.

Let me read that again. It's “the responsibility”—of course, we said earlier—“of ministers, individually and collectively” to look after the executive branch of the government. It goes on to say:

As Chair of the Public Accounts Committee recently put it, “Parliament is not an institution of management; Parliament is an institution of accountability. We're not here to run the government; we're here to hold the government accountable for the way they run themselves.”

There's a footnote here on that. It's number 6. Wow, look at that. It says, “John Williams, M.P., Public Accounts testimony, May 6, 2004.”

I believe that he was a Liberal member of Parliament, was he not, John Williams? It's before my time in the House. We'll check that one. It's not John Williamson.

It's John Williams, M.P., public accounts committee testimony, 2004. The footnote continues: “That said, parliamentary committees can obviously contribute significantly to policy development through debate and discussion.”

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

He was a Conservative.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

There you have it. A Conservative actually said:

Parliament is not an institution of management; Parliament is an institution of accountability. We're not here to run the government;

—as Opposition—

we're here to hold the government accountable for the way they run themselves.

That's a key principle. John Williams was a fine Edmontonian and a fine representative of his community and obviously very respectful of the role of accountability in Parliament, the role that members of Parliament play and the role of ministers being accountable.

The report goes on to say, on page 10 at the top:

While the organization of the ministry and the corresponding organization of portfolios is one of the defining responsibilities of the prime minister, Parliament plays a key role in the assignment of ministerial responsibility. In Canadian practice, departmental acts, which are passed by Parliament, characteristically set out a number of important provisions that help define ministerial responsibilities.

As we know, Bill C-47 here, which we want the minister to answer on, amends 51 acts of Parliament. Perhaps we should have the whole cabinet here through a series of meetings to hold themselves accountable for the parts of the acts they are responsible for in this bill.

Well, there was a promise, I am told. I was in private life back then, busy running a retail chain. I was in private life then, but in 2015 I understand that the now Prime Minister and then leader of the Liberal Party promised not to do these kinds of bills that take a budget bill and add in amendments to the Criminal Code, amendments to the oceans protection plan, and things that have nothing to do with the budget. He would never do that. Promise made, promise broken: That's what we've come to expect from this government.

This report from Treasury Board goes on to say on page 10 that “They”—they being the department, Parliament and ministry—"provide for the appointment of a minister; set out the powers, duties, and functions for which the minister is responsible; and give the minister responsibility for the overall direction and management of the department's financial and public service resources."

As we know from the Minister of Finance's mandate letter—and we know this only from the letter, because in the last six months we've been unable to get the minister to accept the invitation from the finance committee. Theoretically the minister's letter says, at least in print, that the minister is to be “accountable to Parliament both individually, for your style of leadership and the performance of your responsibilities, and collectively, in support of [the ministers]”. The minister is to be available to Parliament to answer questions. What a concept.

The Treasury Board report on ministerial responsibility goes on to say that, “Parliament has also approved the Financial Administration Act”. For those of you who don't know, that's the act that allows and sets out the parameters of how the government collects and spends money—how it collects and spends your money and, when they spend more than they collect from you, how they borrow money. It provides them with their credit card authority. That obviously is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, the very heart of our issue here today. The report continues:

This Act is the cornerstone of the legal framework for general financial management and accountability of public service organizations. It describes the manner in which government spending may be approved, expenditures made, revenues obtained, and funds borrowed.

As I've said, it's almost as though I had read this before. Perhaps some of the ministers should have read it. The report continues:

It provides a procedure for the internal control of funds allocated to departments and agencies by Parliament and for the preparation of the Public Accounts of Canada, which contain the government's annual statement of revenues and expenditures.

The report goes on to say:

The Financial Administration Act assigns rights and duties to ministers and directly to deputy heads in relation to the organizations they manage. These rights and duties include the obligation for a deputy head to establish procedures and maintain records respecting the control of financial commitments chargeable to public funds;

Furthermore it states: ...the fact that only a minister or his or her delegate can request the issuance of a payment; and that before a payment is issued in return for work, goods, or services, the deputy of a minister (or another delegate) must certify that the work has been performed, the goods received, or the services rendered.

Ministers remain individually and collectively responsible for their statutory duties and accountable to Parliament...

A C C O U N T A B L E—that's how you spell the word “accountable”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Perkins, we just need to suspend here for a couple of minutes. We'll be back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Perkins, you may continue.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Did I hear the chair? There's a lot of conversation in the room. Are we back?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We are back.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Oh, good. I'm happy that the word search on “accountability” on the break was successful, so I'll continue where I said:

Ministers remain individually and collectively responsible for their statutory duties and accountable to Parliament and the prime minister for the stewardship of the resources and exercise of powers assigned to them.

It goes on to say at the bottom of page:

Collective ministerial responsibility refers to the convention requiring coherence and discipline of the ministry in deciding policy, managing government operations, and speaking to Parliament with a single voice.

It's a team sport, as we know. I'm sorry; it doesn't say “it's a team sport, as we know”, in the Treasury Board guidelines; that was editorializing.

An important manifestation of this principle is the requirement of Cabinet solidarity: while ministers engage in full and frank discussion of proposals in Cabinet, once a decision is taken, all Ministers must be prepared to support it publicly or resign. The decisions of Cabinet...

By that convention, I take it that the entire ministry is supportive of never balancing the budget, that the entire cabinet is supportive of a piece of legislation that is omnibus and amends acts unrelated to the raising or spending of money.

The last sentence on this page says:

The decisions of Cabinet have mostly political and administrative effect, and their implementation is left largely to the minister or ministers directly responsible. Thus, accountability for specific policies...

Accountability for specific policy details of this framework are provided in another section. The measures to be taken that strengthen accountability are included in the report, “Management in the Government of Canada, a Commitment to Continuous Improvement”.

There we have that reference again. I haven't read that document, but I am sure it's quite enlightening.

We'll go on to the next section at the bottom of page 11, which again gets to the heart of the matter, which is entitled:

Individual responsibility of ministers

In applying the concepts of responsible government to individual ministers, we see that they have responsibilityfor their portfolios, which can include not only their departments and any arm's-length organizations in those departments, but also non-departmental organizations, such as Crown corporations. The prime minister assigns responsibility for portfolios, for the administration of various statutes, and for particular mandates within portfolio and statutory authorities. In current Canadian practice, a minister's powers, duties, and functions in his or her department are typically set out in a departmental statute. Responsibility thus reflects a sphere of legal authority, both statutory and non-statutory, and carries duties that must be discharged within that sphere. In a parliamentary system, the vast majority of executive actions are taken by or on behalf of an individual minister or ministers.

Now here we get into it:

A minister's accountability to Parliament for his or her department means all actions of the department, whether pertaining to policy—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

MP Perkins, we're going to suspend at this time. I think it's a good time for a bio break, a stretch break and to give our hard-working resources who have been doing a tremendous job a break, so we're going to do that, and we'll be back by 7:00 p.m.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call the meeting back to order.

It's great to see everybody. We're back. I hope everybody had a good break.

I think we were last with MP Perkins.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Chair, you were muted. I'm not sure what the last words were.