Sir, you mentioned in your remarks that you're hoping that this a process we can all work well together on, because there is obviously work to do in terms of improving the process. I would say that we've been negotiating on the estimates in various ways and talking about them for the entire life of the Parliament. I do think we made some good progress in terms of good faith work last June when we agreed to a delay in the tabling of main estimates, but when we were talking about that, we were talking about doing that so that there would be more time between the budget and the main estimates for programs to receive Treasury Board approval and to be included in the departmental estimates. At no time up until a week before you tabled the main estimates this year was there ever mention of a central vote.
Then beyond that, we've said that this is actually quite different from what was conceived in the negotiations we had. Today's is a decent conversation but there are only 10 non-government parliamentarians sitting around the table. I've asked for a take-note debate on that. That's a request that you have yet to grant. You've not moved for that debate, which would actually allow all parliamentarians to participate in this conversation.
You've suggested that you're going to take some measures to provide more legal clarity in terms of the authorities granted by parliamentarians under vote 40 by including the schedule in the appropriation bill. When I asked if you would consult with the opposition parties to make sure that the wording is satisfactory, you said you would take it under advisement. So, we don't have a commitment.
You're asking for us to move forward in this process in good faith and yet when we've made requests for you to have the conversation with Parliament as a whole, and when we've asked for you to confer with us before deciding on the language of the bill, the first time you did that, it didn't go well. We weren't satisfied with that wording. The Parliamentary Budget Officer wasn't convinced that the wording was adequate. So now you're taking new measures and we're asking to be consulted so that you're not putting Parliament on the spot and so that we can actually do as you asked, which is to work together in order to have a better process.
I think there are still problems with doing all of this on a central vote. It raises the question as to why government wouldn't just have one central vote for all of the voted authorities and have a comprehensive table in the budget. One of the disadvantages of that is that it's not broken down by department then. It all appears in one vote, and the Treasury Board minister would be responsible for speaking to all government initiatives that Parliament has voting authority for. We're in effect doing that for all the new initiatives within the budget, so there are problems with the idea of a central vote even if the language of the appropriations bill is changed.
I think it's incumbent upon the government to create the opportunity for a meaningful conversation about that in Parliament. It's why I have asked for a take-note debate. I'm mystified as to why a minister who likes to talk about how open to parliamentary dialogue he is would refuse that request. I'm going to ask you one more time, particularly in light of the new information you've announced at committee today, if you will commit to having a take-note debate in the House.