I've had a special request—and I do take special requests—about a fellow named Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
I never met him personally. I was far too young. He was the father of the current Prime Minister.
For the young folks in the room, just to let you know, the father was prime minister from 1968 to 1979 and then again from 1980 to 1984. In 1968, fresh-faced—sounds familiar—with Trudeaumania—sounds familiar—Pierre Elliott Trudeau, having had the party depose unceremoniously Prime Minister Pearson from the job, sort of in the way the Martin people did to the Chrétien people, as new Liberal leader, with all his vim and vigour and the great enthusiasm and optimism of our country after its centennial, said he would not run deficits and that the Government of Canada was not a Santa Claus.
That's what he said in 1968: that the government is not Santa Claus. After all those years in power and the loss of his finance minister because of the spending, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau built up $468 billion in debt—$468 billion—and now the son has build up over $700 billion.
The easiest way for young folks to understand the Trudeau legacy is that the two Trudeaus, the father and son.... The son committed the same sins as the father in oh so many ways—but we'll just stick to financing—and contributed $1.1 trillion in debt that the young folks in this room and their grandkids are going to have to deal with. Their grandkids are going to have to pay. It won't be me and it won't be the members around this table who are going to have to worry about this record spending, the $1.1 trillion in Trudeau debt and borrowing: It will be them and their grandkids. I feel sorry for them.
That's a bit of a digression, but I did take a request.
It will be felt from all three oceans, the north, Vancouver and Vancouver Island: I think there's change. The wind is blowing in Vancouver Island right through to the eastern tip, the closest point to Europe in North America, in the wonderful province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The importance of what we are here to do on accountability is exemplified very well in the following paragraphs in this Treasury Board document that deals with ministerial accountability and committee review of government spending, which, after all, is what Mr. Blaikie's motion and Mr. Beech's original motion are about. They are about accountability on this budget.
For the sake of those following at home, this Treasury Board document on page 18 reads as follows, and this will be new to some people:
The Estimates process is fundamental to holding the government to account and is linked to Parliament’s control over the public purse. The government can raise revenue and spend or borrow money
—this one certainly borrows money—
only with the authority of Parliament.
I digress, but I will for a moment. As we approached COVID, this government actually tried to usurp Parliament on its spending pressure authority. It wanted to get a blanket authority to be able to spend and borrow whatever it wanted for two years without Parliament's sitting. There's a fellow named King Charles I, not King Charles III, but King Charles I, who lost his head due to parliament because of such an attempt. Now, we would not suggest that we do that....
Was it King Charles II? I've been corrected by MP Blaikie. It was King Charles II who actually lost his head, but nonetheless it was a King Charles. Now, I'm not suggesting that this is what would happen to our new King Charles as a result of that. I'm not. I am quite proud of the Charles III pin I wear, but ultimately it's not a great consequence of trying to usurp Parliament's authority, as this government tried to do. Thankfully, due to the efforts of a very strong opposition by all parties, we did that.