Evidence of meeting #139 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 budget.
A video is available from Parliament.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
No, we already asked the PCO. I didn't need to ask these departmental officials.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
I know you're not a permanent member here, but Mr. Blaikie does have the floor.
I would encourage all members not to interrupt as he is speaking. Once he cedes the floor, I have a speakers list, and others will have the opportunity.
Mr. Blaikie.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
My point, quite relevant to the cost here, was if it ends up being the case that the Privy Council Office lands on the idea of pioneering a new form of Instagram consultation with Canadians, and they were going to spend $750,000 doing it, that would be a waste of money. I would not vote to support that, because we don't have any assurance from the Privy Council Office that this isn't where they're going to land. In good conscience, I can't approve that money.
That was my point. I think it's quite relevant to the motion, Mr. Chair. I take exception to the idea that I wasn't being relevant. I was talking about what a possible program might look like, and was simply saying that I don't think it's the role of government to be pioneering it.
I was adding to that at the moment I was interrupted. I think if that were a promising avenue for consultation with Canadians, that would likely be developed in the private sector. The government could then benefit from the template established by companies who are consulting their customers within Canada. At that point, the start-up cost of doing an Instagram consultation would be far lower than what it might be now, if that isn't already a thing. That's simply what I was saying, Mr. Chair. I think it's quite pertinent.
All that to say, if we're just talking about consultation, under the rubric of social media consultation alone I think it's pretty clear there are a number of possible options. Probably, under any of those options, $750,000 is simply too large a budget. I don't think that makes sense.
Of course, consulting people on social media isn't the only way to consult Canadians. Even just at the initial program development stage, you see a number of program choices could be made, and I think it matters how much money we approve under that rubric, which option the government chooses to undertake.
Imagine that instead of doing a social media consultation, or in addition to doing a social media consultation because a social media consultation doesn't cost a lot of money, the government decided it wanted to travel across the country into a number of different communities, not just large urban centres, but rural and remote communities as well. It would start to make sense why you would need a large budget, if this is consultation money. At that point, you're looking at booking flights. Again I think it would be of interest to parliamentarians to know if that's a core aspect of what money is being asked for, how many staff government envisions bringing on that trip. Is this a minister and a political aide and two translators and a facilitator? That might be the bare minimum. We might be interested to know at that point whether $750,000 makes sense, or how many communities they expect they could make it into at that price point.
If they envision having a larger team for consultation, then at that point I think it would be pertinent for parliamentarians to ask if that larger team is necessary or not, and to challenge the idea of how many members have to go or not go, as the case may be.
We do that even at the committee level. As somebody who has been around this place for a while on many committees, and I'm sure you have travelled with committees before, you'll know that sometimes arrangements are arrived at between committee members where the entire committee doesn't have to travel. Instead, a reduced complement travels. That's exactly because committees are concerned about costs and the budget. It's not a sky-is-the-limit kind of thing.
A similar principle applies to government consultation. If the government is contemplating a long period of travel, it's important to know how many people they think they're going to take with them, and why they think they need that many people to go. Are they running these consultations in various communities, in community halls, or local schools, or are they renting really fancy hotels and inviting people to a hospitality suite? Those are things that I think committee members might be interested to know.
Contrary to the remarks from some of the Treasury Board officials earlier today, I think parliamentarians have every right to know, and every duty to ask in advance of something like this—an ask for $750,000—whether that is in fact the intention of government or not. One can imagine certain types of consultation. I think we've even heard tell of some more exclusive consultations that government sometimes does, even this government recently, where they're invitation only.
It's one thing to go out across the country and to speak with Canadians in community clubs and schools in their own community and to have it be open to the public so that anybody who has an opinion on the appropriateness of a particular form or style of federal leaders debate can weigh in. It's quite another thing to say we're going to rent out some ritzy hotel rooms in Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto, and we're going to invite some powerful media magnates. We're going to wine and dine them on champagne and caviar, and we're going to hear what they think. That, too, would be a consultation.
I'm not saying that's what this government would do. I'm saying that's what some government might do, and I think they would be wrong to do it. I think Canadians would be upset if they found out that $750,000 paid for three consultations where the list was closed to just some powerful people by invitation.
Liberal
Rémi Massé Liberal Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC
Mr. Chair, if I may, you said to me that you were making sure Mr. Blaikie is not repetitive, that he stays relevant, but he's talking about caviar, hotel rooms—and he's repeating hotel rooms—consultation, Instagram.
I trust you, Mr. Chair, but I'm trying to see—
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
I'm listening very carefully, Mr. Massé. You were in fact out of the room, and I was still listening. I have not found any repetitive nature to it yet.
If it does, believe me, I will—
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I am glad to clarify that the references to champagne and caviar didn't come out of nowhere. I'm talking about a particular way that one might choose to consult Canadians. One way that has sometimes happened is that the government embarks on an invitation-only consultation. Now I am repeating myself, but only for the benefit of Mr. Massé, who I think didn't appreciate initially how these remarks tied to the motion. I'm concerned to do that for him. If you'll give me some leeway to be somewhat repetitive, it's only for the benefit of Mr. Massé.
Of course, that is one way that you can consult. It's invitation only. Then the question is, what is the set-up for this invitation-only thing? If you had a government that was concerned to hobnob with the rich and powerful, you can imagine that if they were given free rein over a budget of $750,000 and had little scruple, they might do something like order caviar and champagne to that hotel room for that particular consultation in order to make an impression that had very little to do with the substance of the matter, which is a new process for federal election leaders debates. That would be something that parliamentarians of all stripes around this table would be concerned about. It's certainly something that they ought to be concerned about. That is how the reference to champagne and caviar relates directly to this particular motion, and has to do with the potential uses of this budget, and how you consult.
Another way to do consultation for government.... I mean, there's no magic to government consultation. It's about getting out and talking to people. Of course, the government of the day is supported by a political party. In fact, this government, as all majority governments are, is supported in the House by a political party with the most number of current MPs. Another form that consultation could take, which wouldn't cost any money and therefore would not require a budget—certainly not $750,000—would be for those MPs to go out and to door-knock in their communities. They could talk to Canadians on their doorsteps about what they think worked or didn't work about the last federal election leaders debate. They could try to get some good ideas from them, in terms of how that process should be improved, and then pass that information back up to the appropriate minister, or to cabinet, or whatever process they design to get that feedback. That would be another low-cost form of consultation.
The point of the amendment is to highlight the fact that we don't actually have good information on what the government intends to do with this money, and that there are many different ways the government could be sufficiently faithful to the high-level goal. They might be able to say, “We're honouring what we said we'd do with this money,” but actually end up with a result that's very far removed from what anyone would have expected they would actually do with that money. Of course, that's why we have a process where we call departmental officials to committee and we get to ask those questions, so that we can get a sense....
Earlier, I used the analogy of the Canada Border Services Agency. It's all well and good to say that we're going to dedicate money to supporting the CBSA and making Canada's border secure, but it's really not enough information to be able to approve that funding, because it matters whether you're simply hiring more staff, buying tanks, or building a wall. Those are all different ways of honouring that high-level commitment. They're not all equal. They're certainly not equal, not from a cost perspective, not from a moral perspective, and not from a political perspective, but they are all options.
It matters to discern beneath the general high-level goal what the main-line ways of using that funding are in order to accomplish that goal. When we had the Privy Council Office here before us, they were very clear that they had not yet made that determination. We left with as much information as we had when we came in the door and we were told not to expect any more information.
I have outlined how I think it is that if you were to just conceive of this at this moment—because we're in the year before the election—as a consultative budget to go out and talk to Canadians, you could have a number of different options with a number of different cost implications. Beyond consultation, when we move to action, it's not clear whether this line item is intended for consultation or intended for action, or intended for some mix of both.
There are allusions in the budget to more money next year for this same initiative, so we don't know if this is the consultation year and next year is the action year. It would certainly be strange if this year were the action year and next year were the consultation year, but I've come to learn from this government that one should not set the bar too high in terms of expectations and that anything can happen.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Once again, Mr Blaikie, I don't want to be constantly interrupting you, but I would like to, prior to 2 p.m., and we have 30 minutes, get a sense from the committee, a consensus if possible, as to whether we should suspend for question period and the votes afterwards.
I certainly would be suspending for the votes, because they occur immediately after QP, but is it the will of the committee to suspend so you can participate in question period and the votes and then we will reconvene, or would you like to sit here until just before three o'clock?
Can I get a sense?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
I'd like to get a consensus. If everyone wants to go to QP, that's great. If only some of you want to go to QP, then we're staying.
I'm not hearing anything that sounds remotely like consensus, so Mr. Blaikie, we'll go back to you.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Thank you very much.
To remind committee members of where we were at before that discussion, I'll just say that what I've been trying to do is to outline that even if this were just a consultation budget, Mr. Chair, there are a lot of open questions as to how the government might go about it, but in fact we don't know if this budget is just for consultation or whether it's also for action. We don't know if the action is planned for year one or year two. I was saying that I think it makes sense, obviously, to have the consultation before the action, but you never know.
The point is, we didn't get an answer. Even an answer as simple and general as they plan to consult and then act was not given by the Privy Council Office when they were here at committee. They simply said, “We don't know what we're going to do with that money.” We couldn't even get that much of an answer.
If people think that's silly, I would put it to the government: why was it that they couldn't provide at least that much of a basic answer? The fact that they were so ill prepared that they couldn't just say that they were going to do some consultation before they move ahead, and that at least part of this year's budget is going to be to support that consultation, I think shows just how ill prepared many of these government departments are to plan properly for the money they're asking to receive.
We heard earlier from a Treasury Board official, as you'll recall, Mr. Chair, on this same point, which ties directly to the amendment at hand, that it wasn't until after the budget was tabled that departments got a call letting them know about the Treasury Board central vote for budget implementation.
Here you have a brand spanking new pioneering way of providing funding to departments for all their new budget initiatives, and they didn't even know until after the budget was tabled that this was coming down the line. You would think that presumably they were working on some of what they were hoping to have in the budget, but of course approval for the budget is a policy approval. That's one thing. They wouldn't have done the kind of rigorous costing that goes into getting a Treasury Board approval, and then you wonder where the number comes from.
In response to some questioning by Mr. McCauley, I know that departments have sometimes said that they don't actually quite know where that number came from or how they arrived at that number. You would think that if they did some basic budgeting they would at least be able to tell you whether they intended to consult in year one and act in year two or something, but we got nothing.
If we set aside the question of consultation for just a moment and move to action, then there are all sorts of possibilities in terms of how the government might act to support a new process for federal election leaders' debates. I feel that I should say at the outset that I'm going to suggest some possible actions. I'm not saying they're good or bad, or that I support them or don't support them. All I'm trying to do at this point is lay out some of the possibilities. Because we've been given no direction by government officials in terms of where they might go or how they might act on this, it's incumbent upon us to consider all of the possibilities. I won't pretend to provide an exhaustive list, but I hope to provide as exhaustive an account as possible as to what some of the various methods for acting on this might be.
I alluded earlier to the idea that it might involve some legislative work. I would say even at the outset that if it does involve some legislative work, then I think we run up against some important principles of the House of Commons that call into question whether it's even appropriate for the government to be asking for the appropriation of funds at this time. It is a well established principle around here that if government is going to be asking to appropriate funds, it has to do that within its existing statutory and legal authorities. In fact, if there's doubt as to that, we heard earlier about an initiative that was presented under vote 40, one having to do with matrimonial real property, and was initially listed under the wrong department. It was wrong because that department doesn't have the legal and statutory authority to spend in that area.
As a result of government making a funding request outside of the legal and statutory authorities of a particular department, Treasury Board itself has seen fit to remove that particular allocation and reallocate it—well, not reallocate it, because it can't within the vote 40 structure, and it said that it won't. It will go to the supplementary estimates. It's important that any money that's being asked for under vote 40 be consistent with the statutory and legal authorities of departments already granted.
I would note the fact that the particular initiative will come in the supplementary estimates, and it doesn't seem to have caused any sense of panic among members of the government, or members of the governing party at this committee. They understand full well that not going ahead with a funding decision in vote 40 doesn't mean the government can't appropriate the funds. It just means it has to do it through the normal process. This isn't about stopping any particular government initiative; it's about holding the government to account to seek funds in the appropriate way that respects the accountability and oversight role of Parliament. We saw some evidence that at least with respect to certain items, government does see that.
Another example of that is found in the departmental plan for Veterans Affairs, where the government is proposing a program for veterans' pensions. You'll notice, Mr. Chair—and I'm sure you have already—that under vote 40 there isn't any new money assigned for that program, even though it was mentioned in the budget, and even though it's a substantial line item in terms of cost. That's explained in the departmental plan in a footnote to a table where the projected costs of that new program are outlined. The footnote tells us that the government is not requesting that funding at the moment, because it doesn't have the existing statutory and legal authority to do it, because there are legislative changes required to the legislation that structures the pension program, and it would be inappropriate for the government to seek those funds before it makes the changes to the legislation.
I have likewise argued in other places, and I think this is one of the problems with vote 40, that vote 40 itself doesn't seem to fall under any existing legal or statutory authority of Treasury Board, which is why I have asked the Speaker to rule vote 40 out of order in the House. The Speaker has yet to rule on that point. I'll be interested to see what the Speaker has to say with respect to that, because I do think that is a clear-cut case of government requesting funding in a way that defies the existing statutory and legal authority.
My concern is that if the Privy Council Office requires legislative amendments in order to implement this new process for federal election leaders debates, yet to be determined, and if this funding ends up being funding for anything that's not currently possible, but is only possible after Parliament passes some new legislation, or amends existing legislation in order to set it up, then the government and Parliament will have violated that important principle, which is that it have the properly constituted legal and statutory authority prior to requesting funding, and at this point we don't know.
So, I brought it back, Mr. Chair. You're surprised, but I—
Conservative
Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB
I'm surprised. I'd like to hear that again, because I missed a part of that.
NDP
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
That is an important principle around here. I think it makes sense. The reason that principle makes sense is that it requires of the government that they not anticipate the will of Parliament. Parliament hasn't decided anything until it has decided something. It's not for government to seek funds on a conditional basis.
That is to say, if such and such a law passes, then we'll already have the money ready to go. That would be to prejudge the outcome of a vote in Parliament. Frankly, I think it's disrespectful to members of the governing party who aren't in cabinet because it essentially expects that they're going to do whatever they're told to do and that there won't be times when government members disagree with the government and decide to act on that disagreement.
We have already had a bill in this Parliament that was a bit of private member's business, as you may recall, Mr. Chair. It effectively dealt with genetic discrimination and the ability—or now, the lessened ability—of insurance companies to require as a condition of insurance that people submit to the insurance company any information that had come from any kind of genetic testing.
Of course, this is a problem. It was a problem in Canada that this practice was allowed to continue when many other countries had rightfully done away with it. The problem was that insurance companies may then decide to deny coverage to people based on the results of that genetic testing, and that would be a disincentive for Canadians to do that testing because they would be afraid to get information that wasn't positive, which they would then be obligated to share with their insurance company.
Essentially, the upshot from a financial point of view was that they were better off not knowing because that would mean they would be able to get the appropriate insurance, or get insurance at a cheaper rate than they would otherwise get with the risk factors known to the insurance companies. However, from a health point of view, they would be far worse off because if they made the choice based on financial considerations, then they would be in a position where they were forgoing the opportunity to have the benefit of that genetic information, to know whether they needed to be assessed for early identification of various diseases or conditions.
The government came out very strongly against that legislation, and in no uncertain terms, they communicated very clearly to their members that they were to vote against that legislation. Now imagine if the government, prior to the vote.... Spoiler alert—there were a number of backbench MPs. I think it was in the neighbourhood of 40. I could be wrong. Perhaps some members here have a better sense, but it was in the neighbourhood of 40 backbench Liberal MPs who did decide to vote against the government and pass the bill.
It's as a result of their efforts and willingness to defy the government on that particular piece of legislation that Canadians will now be able to get genetic testing, find out whether they ought to be checked out for early indications of various conditions, and not have to worry that they'll be financially penalized for that. It's as a result of that defiance, if you will, by a number of backbench Liberal MPs that the law passed.
That's great, but now imagine if the government had, for some reason, appropriated a bunch of funds for the bill, to implement something if it passed, and then it didn't pass. Well now you'd be in a position of asking what to do with that money.
If the money had been authorized, but the conditions under which it was meant to be spent didn't come about, would the government just change its plan and say, “Well, we didn't get the legislative changes we wanted, but we're going to refer back to the high-level goal now and do something that doesn't require those legislative changes”? In that case, the money would clearly be used in a way that wasn't consistent with what Parliament approved it for.
That's why it's important that the statutory and legal authorities be in place prior to the funding request. That means that the government and Parliament itself aren't prejudging what the outcome of a vote or a debate in Parliament will be. I think we can imagine a number of ways in which having a new process for federal election leaders debates would precipitate some kind of legislative change.
I had alluded earlier to the idea that—and again, just to be perfectly clear, I'm not endorsing any of these possibilities that I'm going to mention. Some of them may be laudable, others may not. Some may be ones I end up supporting, others not, but that's not where we are in the discussion. Right now we're spitballing about ways we could have a new process for federal leaders debates because we haven't been given any direction by the Privy Council Office.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Tom Lukiwski
Some members may want to hear your opinions on which method you would prefer, but it's up to you.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
If we go long enough, we may get there, but then I would be speaking to another matter. Then I would be speaking to the substance of what a new process for federal leaders debates ought to look like. In my commitment to being relevant to the amendment at hand, I'm only talking about what the possibilities are, and how those might reflect either on the proposed budget, $750,000, or on rules and procedures of this place; hence, the lecture on legal and statutory mandates, because I think that's an important principle that ought to be observed throughout the appropriations process or supply process.
This would probably be the most crude way, and I'm really not sure a good way, that is, to pass a law that mandated federal leaders to show up at a certain number of debates. I will start with the most extreme end, and I will work my way through to more moderate versions of this position.
At the extreme end, the government might take it upon itself to simply name the dates and times, and to set up the debate effectively on its own, and then require federal party leaders to show up. The question is, what is the cost of these things is and where are the costs borne?
If you were to take the most heavy-handed approach, I think what you would find would be a government that legislates.... I'm not saying this is what the current government would do. I'm saying I think this is one of the most extreme versions I can imagine. Maybe other members have a more vivid imagination than I do, and when their turn comes in the debate they will illuminate us as to the vivacity of their.... I'm not sure how to convert that word, but anyway.
What I would say is if you had a government that said that they were going to take it upon themselves to set the dates and times, and just as we have fixed election dates, we're also going to have fixed leadership debates within that cycle, and a leader of a registered federal party that doesn't show up will be jailed.... You could make it an amendment to the criminal law. That would be one thing. Again, I'm not saying that's a good thing. I'm not saying it's a bad thing. I'm saying that's one thing you might imagine a government could do.
I think members would have some objection to that. Certainly federal party leaders might have an objection in terms of the substance, because they might say that's really a punishment that doesn't fit the crime. They might say they need to have some political discretion they can exercise with respect to debates and whether they show up or not. You could definitely imagine them feeling that way about it. Of course, the other thing it would do is that actually supporting a new process for federal election leaders debates would probably in that case be something that would incur new costs under the Department of Justice as opposed to under the Privy Council Office, which would be awkward and strange.
Is there a concert happening in the hallway?
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
It would be a concert in your honour because you're going non-stop.