Evidence of meeting #130 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was parliamentarians.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
They're easy to get along with.
The reality is that I would never attack the PBO. In fact, I've always spoken of the importance of the work of the PBO. Furthermore, we're unlike the past government. The PBO actually had to take the Conservative government to court to get information.
The Conservatives called the PBO unreliable and not credible. In fact, the Conservative government was the only government in the history of the British Commonwealth to be found in contempt of Parliament for not giving Parliament information.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Why didn't you include the information in A2.11 in vote 40 itself in the first place? You're now assuring us that, when it's tabled, you will in fact do that. You could have done that from the beginning.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
It's because obviously you were having difficulties cross-referencing the main estimates to the budget in table A2.11. I'm just making it easier for you.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
What you're doing now would in fact make it legally binding, whereas it would not have been before.
Liberal
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
The PBO, the Library of Parliament, and perhaps the clerks of the House would have all disagreed with you.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
—considered it legally binding as it was. The Auditor General in whom I place a great deal of trust was very comfortable with this.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
If any expenditures, with this inclusion or not, were made outside of the bounds prescribed in A2.11, would you or any other future president of the Treasury Board be in contempt of Parliament, if they were not spent in accordance with that table?
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
If they went above—and I used the example of the opiate crisis and the funding for that—and if we needed to spend more on that crisis, we would have to come back to Parliament.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
What if you wanted to spend less? What if you chose to spend less and chose to spend it on a different...?
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
These are for the maximum. You're approving up to that amount. As a Conservative, you should be happy if we spend less, but of course, that wasn't consistent with your government, because you guys always spend more.
In terms of whether we wanted to exceed, these are limits. We cannot exceed these limits because you are approving up to that amount. You're approving up to; that's the way—
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
You haven't answered my question, Minister.
If you are saying that if you wanted to spend more on that particular piece, I am suggesting, if you did wish to spend less, but to spend instead on something under the budget, which has a number of very vague categories, would that minister then be in contempt if they did so?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Minister, we've only got about five seconds left. Perhaps you can get to your answer in the next intervention.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I just want to understand the question here. Are you suggesting that, if we spent less, somehow that would be contemptuous of Parliament?
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
You then wanted to repurpose the money, which, in the absence of wording in the bill, you would have had the authority to do. That's a criticism that—
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
We have to break it off.
Madame Mendès, you have five minutes, please.
Liberal
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC
I'll give you the chance to finish that, Mr. President, to clarify, because that has been my understanding, that if you have a line item in the budget or in the supply bill you're going to spend that money or less, but you can't cross over. You can't pollinate all over the place.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I think you've done a great job of that, Alexandra. I thought it was pretty evident as well.
In the big picture, these reforms make this report the most transparent in recent history. As parliamentarians you are voting on real numbers. You are getting real details, and you are being given the numbers in advance. You can track this on a monthly basis. This will be provided and updated on a monthly basis.
Over time I would like to engage even on the new departmental reporting, because that is equally important in terms of the activities and the results of individual departments and programs. As I've said earlier, I'd like this committee to engage on the whole issue of purpose-based reporting and budgeting.
This is, again, to be absolutely clear, as the Auditor General has said—and I read you his comments yesterday—we are bound by table A2.11 of the budget, which is clearly referred to in the main estimates. Again, if you go to table A2.11, it's quite granular and much more so...in 2009, I believe. Taki, in 2009 what was the—
Taki Sarantakis Associate Secretary, Treasury Board Secretariat
It was a budget implementation vote of $3 billion.
The biggest single difference is that budget 2009, vote 35, didn't have any particular line items associated with it, in contrast to this vote 40.