Debates of March 24th, 2009

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order. I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Brooke Taylor, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure Renewal for Nova Scotia.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order arising out of question period.

I was somewhat surprised that you ruled out of order the question from the member for Burnaby—Douglas, and then just a few moments ago the question from the member for Churchill involving financing around elections.

We have had many questions in this House. As one example, I would use the so-called in and out scheme that was raised numerous times, even by the Conservative Party. It was raised by members of the opposition, including ourselves. I am rather surprised that you have taken such a narrow view today, given the previous history and the questions that have been allowed in the House.

What I want to do is do a bit of work and look at the record and some of the questions that have been asked, because we believe that the questions that were asked today were permissible and certainly within the realm of asking legitimate questions of members and how they conduct themselves. They should be allowed in question period, particularly given what kinds of questions have been asked previously.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to go away and do that research, but I wanted to raise the point of order right now so you would be aware that we have concerns about the ruling that you made during question period, in effect ruling our members out of order.

We will come back with more information, but I would ask if you would think about questions that have been asked before and why all of a sudden it has changed and these questions are no longer in order.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I will not get into a long discussion with the hon. member and I am sure her research will point out the difficulties that arose in the questions that were asked today, but virtually all the questions before asked if there was going to be a payment made based on claims that were there. Payments might possibly be the responsibility of the government since they do come out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.

The questions today had nothing to do with payments or reimbursement for any election expense. This was simply a discussion about various things that parties were doing, which is not the administrative responsibility of the government. Those are the key words for questions in question period. I think her research will indicate that to her. It was, to me, quite obvious. I did not have much doubt about the rulings today, but I thank the hon. member for raising the matter and I look forward to hearing from her further on this point in due course.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Vote 35 in Main Estimates 2009-2010

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Before question period, the hon. member for Gatineau had the floor and had five minutes left for questions and comments after his speech.

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Auditor General commented on the $3 billion so-called slush fund. She said that $3 billion is a fair bit of money and the government must have ideas, even broad strokes, of how that money will flow between April and June. She went on to say that the government could at least say where the money is going, whether it is to infrastructure or festivals.

This seems to be a matter of government integrity, honesty, openness and transparency. The government clearly cannot spend $3 billion between April and June without already having most of the pre-work done in terms of identifying the particular projects, the regional distribution, the contracts, et cetera.

It would appear that all the information Canadians would require to ensure that the government is being held accountable is available, and yet the government continues to skirt around the issue about whether or not it is even open to providing this disclosure on how it is going to spend this $3 billion over the next three months.

Does the member think the government has some specific reason that it will not disclose to Canadians and to this House how it is going to spend the $3 billion starting next week?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. We are indeed in a rather fuzzy, if not downright grey area. The government wants to get $3 billion from the House of Commons—one billion equals one thousand million, so three billion equals three thousand million dollars—to spend on the so-called infrastructure programs, which have no criteria and no guidelines. This clearly smacks of patronage. The way the current government is trying to set aside a sum of money, supposedly to help jump-start the economy, is totally inadequate.

The Auditor General of Canada was the one who expressed these opinions. We are not making anything up. Hon. members just need to hearken back to the sponsorship scandal, which is still very clear in the Liberals' memories. Or the long dark period in Quebec under Maurice Duplessis, for example, when not everything about public funds was made public.

When the Conservative Party of Canada came to power in 2006, it introduced bill C-2 concerning government responsibility and accountability. It claimed that it wanted to avoid this situation, and we welcomed that with open arms.

Yet now it is doing exactly the opposite of what it proposed in that bill, by not setting any criteria for that $3 billion. So the whole process is open to suspicion. This is no small matter, when we are well aware of how many Quebeckers and Canadians are desperately in need of money as they face the current economic crisis. On top of that, they have to put up with this totally unacceptable procedure being used by the Conservative government.

We cannot react to this situation in any way other than negatively. I hope that there is at least one Conservative who will be able to wake up the rest of them and let them know that this plan they have in mind to set aside $3 billion with no guidelines is absolutely unacceptable. All the opposition agrees on this. All Quebeckers, all Canadians, all the people represented in this House of Commons support this principle. When the federal government spends money, we have to know where it is going to be spent, and what guidelines and rules have been set out.

This is the exact opposite of an accountability bill. It is the exact opposite of appropriate, honest and democratic government responsibility.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to join this debate because this is Parliament doing something purposeful and necessary. In some ways, it is on its way to regaining some of the respect that it requires to do what the country needs it to do in these difficult times. It needs to make clear the difference between governments that simply make announcements and that want arbitrary powers and governments that give effect to government programs so that they make a difference in the communities where people are losing jobs.

This debate today is nothing short of making sure that actual aid and support is delivered from this place to the place where Canadians live. Unfortunately, there is a group of people currently in the government who need to be persuaded of that, who need to be brought on board with the concept that they actually have that responsibility.

This is an opportunity for parliamentarians to defend their constituents at a time of economic crisis. We are asking Parliament to implement the budget so that it has the required effect: new jobs, fair allocation and high-quality projects and programs.

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee from the government. When the Conservatives were in opposition, and there are reams of quotes here, they encountered and embraced words like accountability and responsibility but we do not hear those words in any meaningful way today.

Incredibly, this debate is about a government that wants to have unfettered access to $3 billion without the oversight of the House establishing, as is required in its own rules of order, the requirements for due diligence. Contrary to what some of the members opposite might think, it cannot arbitrarily sprinkle dollars out there in its role as government. Instead, the traditions of the House are different and significantly different in a minority government.

Those are the reasons that the government is on probation. It finds itself not only on probation but getting constructive instruction from the House, and that is the nature of the proposal today, and what is going to start to change hearts and minds in this country in terms of the question they have.

Is the government trustworthy?

Is it possible to trust this government to deliver? That is the question people are starting to ask.

The average person, and I am sure there were tens of thousands watching question period before, does not comprehend why it is that the Prime Minister cannot stand up for unemployed Canadians and answer the question about whether or not he would consider allocating more dollars to help them. Instead, it is more a game about him and his prerogatives.

The idea that the government will not accept normal standards of oversight when it is looking to have extraordinary dollars is simply part of a pattern. However, it is a pattern that we are out to break. We are out to put the government into a mode of acceptable levels of governing. It is something that is very difficult for the government to do, and the track record and the facts underscore that very emphatically.

Let us rehearse what happened. The dilatory and obscurantist behaviour of the government, as some more eloquent speakers would say, is such that it actually got in the way of doing something on behalf of the country. The Conservatives pushed down the issues during the election and denied the recession was happening. They stalled for months.

However, there has been progress. The government has been compelled against its will to go from a $5 billion cut in programs to an $18 billion stimulus package. However, it only exists on paper until it is formed into programs that can reach people where they live, where people are losing jobs or need their jobs shored up by the investment that would actually touch them.

Whether it is in Summerside, Hamilton or any place in Canada, the government struggles on its own. All we are saying is that if the government is going to spend money, it needs to first say to the House where that money is going. The reason is that it has a track record of promising dollars and not delivering them. Only some 5% or 6% of the dollars have actually been delivered in the infrastructure programs in the last year.

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that I will be splitting my time today with the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. I know she will bring the perspective not just from that part of the country but from the same kind of place where Liberals have had to go to have oversight on the government and make it do its job.

In fact, in the government's own accountability report, of the over $2 billion in 2007-08, only 5% of those funds found their way to Canadians. One has to draw a distinction from it.

Canadians have become very cynical. They saw the Prime Minister practising the old politics out there the other week where he went around and made the third or fourth announcement about a project that is not actually happening and not employing any Canadians, but is there for the benefit of the government to be seen to be doing something.

Although the government says that it needs to get the infrastructure dollars out, the reality is that it has a due diligence process in place that requires it to look at each and every application.

A couple of weeks ago, a motion was moved in the House and, for whatever reason, the members opposite did not think it was good enough for Hamilton-Wentworth or for the ridings they represented. The motion was simply to flow the money to the municipalities through the gas tax method.

The gas tax method is one for which the municipalities and the construction association expressed a preference as the way to get dollars out by April 1. The same government that is telling us that it wants $3 billion to spend has said that it will not get infrastructure dollars out now until July and September because it will be too busy sorting out applications and trying to apply some kind of due diligence. However, there are warning flags that every member in the House should be paying attention to.

The government's record for the distribution of infrastructure dollars is about $2 billion and its promise this year is for something over $7 billion. It passes strange that members opposite are not standing in their place and demanding to have a structure to ensure the $7 billion will go to the communities. We must ask ourselves why they are so quiet. Why is there not one member on the government side expressing concern and qualms about getting all this money out there in a proper time and in a proper way?

It comes down to the temptations of governance. It seems as though the government and all its members will give into this. They do not want to give up their prerogatives. The gas tax method would distribute money on a per capita basis, which means that half of the money would go across the country, because every part of this country deserves to be protected from the downturn, and the other half could be used, as we will be suggesting, to address where the needs are the greatest.

Every member opposite voted against that method. They voted against the money going into their communities, such as the $20 million for Hamilton, because they believe they will be in a special place. They think they can make deals behind the curtains and get projects assigned in some method that is not described here in Parliament and accountable. That anchor to the old way of politics will do in the government if it cannot relieve itself from it. There is no question in my mind that the government will find itself stumbling over its refusal to take constructive suggestions from this side of the House.

The public has the right to expect that each member in the House takes some of the responsibility of ensuring that dollars land. The record is sobering. Of the $2.8 billion promised but not necessarily delivered, the Conservatives have skewed their promises to 70% of it landing in Conservative ridings. About 36% of the population voted Conservative but the Conservatives sense somehow that they might be able to turn this to their advantage.

I counsel the members opposite that that will not only disappoint their voters and let down the people who sent them here, but it also goes against the grain of what is happening. If it is $3 billion that will be spent, it is being borrowed from their children and grandchildren because the Conservatives put us into deficit to do it. If there has to be another standard, then those should be dollars that are treated in a much more thorough way and we should at least have this ordinary requirement to know where this money is spent.

The government will be revealed very shortly in terms of whether it can genuinely change. Some of the members opposite in other parties say that Conservatives cannot be changed. We are not worried about their moral character. It will be shown in time. We are worried about helping Canadians and this--

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I guess we finally discovered the difference between the Liberals and Conservatives. It is the approach on administration. Basically what we have here is a requirement to send a memo throughout the course of the spring. That is the Liberal opposition day memo.

Essentially what we have seen over the last few months is a gutting of pay equity by the Conservatives, rubber-stamped by the Liberals; a complete refusal to any reform of EI, even though 55% of Canadians who are unemployed do not have access to it, rubber-stamped by the Liberals; cutting back and repudiation of collective agreements, rubber-stamped by the Liberals; and a complete gutting of environmental regulations on smaller scale projects, rubber-stamped by the Liberals.

What we have seen so far in this Parliament, 63 times now if we go back to the previous Parliament, is the Liberals rubber-stamping of every Conservative decision. Today we have a motion that rubber-stamps it but asks the Conservatives to send a memo every time the rubber-stamping from the Liberals takes place.

Could the hon. member tell me why the Liberals rubber-stamp everything the Conservatives do?

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what to say about the rigidity of the member's question in terms of actually delivering for Canadians. It is what matters. There are Canadians out there going hungry today because extra help is not being made available to them. There are Canadians out there who could lose their job and we could prevent that. The member opposite, however, would rather be self-righteous in being against. That is a luxury the members of this House cannot afford and keep their credibility.

We have a choice. We can fix the many things that are wrong in this budget but we cannot to do it in a way that delays the main part of the budget that could get out. The thrust of what is happening today is to ensure that the money gets out the door and lands effectively where unemployed and other people at risk of losing their jobs can benefit.

The Conservatives are not persuaded. The NDP would hold things up. The Liberals are focused. We have found new ways to do opposition because that is what this new situation and the new economic challenge requires. I would heartily recommend that the member who made the comment find his own way to make a contribution to helping people out because it is high time.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. colleague has been doing a lot of work listening to and meeting with members from FCM. I, myself, have spent some time at FCM on FCM boards. I know that they know best what will work and what will distribute infrastructure funding better, quicker and more equitably.

I ask the hon. member whether it is enough for him that the big city mayors, which include the mayors of Kitchener, Calgary, Vancouver, Surrey, Winnipeg, St. John's, Halifax, London, Hamilton, Brampton, Windsor, Mississauga, Toronto, Ottawa, Gatineau, Longueuil, Montreal, Saskatoon and Edmonton, all signed a letter saying that the best way to flow the money to the municipalities was under the gas tax transfer model. Does he have any indication that they are wrong and that the government is correct in doing it backwards, slow and possibly a parochially crooked way?

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a pattern is starting to emerge with the government that it cannot resist the temptation. The municipalities have told the government clearly to get them the money and they will pull the projects in and make them happen. Sixty-five percent of infrastructure is in municipal hands and only 11% in federal hands.

The government should stand aside for a program that has audits, that assures incremental spending and that municipalities are prepared to play their part to help get stimulus happening. It is the only way. Even the government has admitted that there will be delays of three and six and who knows how many more months.

The record is two years. We wait for the government to get dollars out the door but it does not seem to be able to resist the prerogative that it feels it must have. I would enjoin the members opposite to step down and let go of that, to actually allow the dollars go to the municipalities, let the dollars be seen to be doing some good for Canadians, and actually employing them and not exercise that prerogative.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member raised a good point. Much of the funding will be undertaken by the municipal levels of government. As he knows, this stimulus funding that we are asking for, which will go to build bridges, roads and other projects in municipalities across Ontario and Canada, part of the accountability measures will be that the municipalities and the provinces will be working with us to identify important projects across Canada.

I am wondering why he is so concerned about accountability measures that do include the provinces and municipalities.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are no accountability measures for the method mentioned by the hon. member. There is no publication, no certain audit and no looking at applications ahead of time.

Audits are in place. The municipalities do not need to match but they often do. The Province of Ontario says that it will match. However, that member wants to stop $45 million from coming into York region. He should explain to his electors why he wants to designate the projects or have some political control over it. Why does he not just let it go to the municipalities and let it do some good? Let us get Canadians back to work. He should let go of that old way of doing politics.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate. We are having a very critical discussion for several reasons. One reason is that the stimulus package coming out quickly and efficiently is very important to Canadians. It is very important to changing the climate of concern and fear about what the economic future holds.

So is accountability very important to Canadians. We are spending tax dollars that are harder and harder to find at a time of economic downturn. Each of those dollars is precious. These are not government dollars, they are not Conservative dollars, they are taxpayer dollars. They need to be respected and treated as such. There needs to be accountability and reporting on these funds. That is the intent of the Liberal Party motion.

The motion calls on the government to provide information about the departments and programs which are likely to require access to this extraordinary authority of an additional $3 billion and to report on how and where these dollars are being spent.

This is a very reasonable motion. As the critic for finance mentioned a number of times in his speech, the motion calls on government to take actions that will not delay the spending and will not cost additional dollars. In fact, the Obama administration is doing just this kind of transparency.

The Obama administration has set up a website, www.recovery.gov, that will track every dollar of federal economic stimulus spending. Approximately $27 billion in infrastructure spending has been announced. The website breaks down how much will be available to the various states, which projects, et cetera. This is possible to do and I am mystified by the resistance that has been put up by the Conservative government.

Three billion dollars is a vast sum of money. It would build 12,000 affordable housing units even in an expensive area like metro Vancouver. That is a huge program and taxpayers deserve to know what is being planned for these funds.

There is really no policy or practical reason to reject this motion. The President of the Treasury Board claims that there is no reason to support the motion because “the economic action plan initiatives is what this money will be spent on”. In fact, that is not necessarily correct.

In the language of vote 35, which outlines how these funds would be used, it says that they would be used to enact programs announced in the budget, but also gives the government flexibility to supplement other appropriations outside of budget 2009. Further, no list of programs was given in this vote to outline how this money would be spent. In fact, it is the blank cheque that it is accused of being, and the defence is inaccurate.

I will read a quote about the importance of accountability from a practical and policy perspective. It states, “To instill confidence, the government must be open and it must be more accountable. It must ensure that Canadians and parliamentarians have the right controls in place and it must provide them with the information they need to judge its performance”. That is what the Liberal motion calls for: no more, no less. That quote is by the former president of the Treasury Board, on April 25, 2006. We are calling on our Conservative colleagues to act on their very own rhetoric in this matter.

The motion will not slow down the provision of stimulus funds and it will not cost more. The list exists that we have asked be provided to Canadians. That list has been seen by the Liberal critic for finance and it should be made available. There is no reason why it should not be provided.

On March 3, the Prime Minister claimed that he had consulted the Auditor General on this matter. I have a little advice for our Prime Minister. Consultation actually involves listening to what the person has to say and incorporating her advice. The Auditor General has said that it is not unreasonable that there be accountability for these funds. Three billion dollars is a fair bit of money and the government must have ideas, even in broad strokes, about how that money will flow between April and June. I do not buy the argument that it cannot tell the opposition members something.

The Prime Minister has claimed to have consulted the Auditor General and then completely ignoring her advice and response on the matter. That leads to this question. Why not support this motion and provide this transparency? Why hide rather than provide the transparency that their own members have called for?

I can only think there must be one of two reasons. Either there is a hidden agenda that the Conservative government would like to obscure from the Canadian public and opposition, or its record of fiscal and financial incompetence has been so stunning and consistently incompetent that it feels the need to hide and obscure this spending from the public and opposition for fear of a continuation of that incompetence.

Let us test out the hypothesis of which of those two it is. Is it a hidden agenda, or is it a fear of the government's r own incompetence? When it comes to incompetence, there has been an unbroken track record of failure on the economic front by the Conservative government.

This is a government that, despite all its claims to fiscal prudence, cut the Liberal surpluses that were provided to it, during a time when the economy was just fine, with record spending and ill-advised GST cuts. It essentially spent the cupboard bare so that when the difficult times came, we were already in recession.

This is a government that in September claimed that Canada was effectively immune from the downturn and denied the reality that we saw all around us, from the United States to countries right around the globe. This is a Prime Minister who, in fact, when the downturn did come and the stock markets crashed in Canada, advised investors that it was a good time to invest. I presume he did not take his own advice because that would have been very costly to his own portfolio.

This is a government that projected ongoing surpluses as recently as the end of November, at a time when the government was already well into deficit. What could the Conservative government do in the face of all of this failure and economic mismanagement? It shut down Parliament for almost two months, leaving Canadians hung out to dry for any action, stimulus and spending. There is a record of incompetence, so that could be why the government is resisting the motion.

However, perhaps it could be because of the hidden agenda. Perhaps it could be that there is an agenda of partisan advantage. Again, we have seen that throughout the government's record and time in office. The Conservative record of secrecy has been quite stunning. Here is a report from the privacy commissioner, Mr. Marleau. In his recent summary of the previous year's activity, he asserts:

Our analysis has confirmed what Canadians have been hearing and experiencing for a while now, when trying to obtain government-held information...There are major delays, particularly with extensions, with some institutions routinely taking months to respond to information requests. Canadians expect and deserve far greater efficiency and accountability from their government.

That is what we are calling for: efficiency and accountability. Mr. Marleau goes on to say:

The poor performance shown by institutions is symptomatic of a major information management crisis throughout government.

These gaps are clearly indicative of a lack of leadership at the highest levels of government...As the organisation responsible for ensuring policy compliance, the Treasury Board Secretariat has yet to exercise the high-profile and forceful leadership which is required in the area of access to information.

Essentially, in his diplomatic way, the Information Commissioner is saying that from the Prime Minister on down there is an absence of transparency and a lack of provision of information.

This supports my hypothesis that it could be the hidden agenda, as opposed to the incompetence, which is leading the government members to resist the simple provision of information being asked of them. This is a group playing politics with the money of the taxpayers of Canada. The members need to stop that now. They need to provide information on their spending and not ask for a blank cheque when they have no credibility and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Oak Ridges—Markham.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, this government is doing all that it can to address the economic downturn. We are pouring billions of dollars into keeping Canadians working, improving our infrastructure, building roads and bridges in my riding, new roads projects across York region, new funding for GO train stations.

One thing that is so important is that we continue to work closely with our provincial and municipal partners to get the money out the door.

I know the hon. member was a member of a provincial Liberal government, a cabinet minister nonetheless. Could she comment on how she would have felt if the federal government made a unilateral decision with respect to infrastructure in her province and if it asked her and the municipalities to pay two-thirds of the cost, but did not ask their opinion on what was important?

The member knows that the stimulus funding we are asking for includes a number of accountability measures, not the least of which is, as she mentioned, that it has to be in the economic action plan, that there must be a request for Treasury Board approval and that reporting will be done through supplementary estimates.

More important, why is she so frightened that municipal and provincial governments cannot make the decisions necessary to see that funding gets done and gets brought into the right places for roads, bridges, sewers in their communities?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very interesting question coming from a member of the Conservative Party that voted against the very motion put forward by the Liberals, which would have enabled municipalities to have access to these funds and to make the decisions as to how to spend them. It is unbelievable that he has asked me how I would justify that.

The Liberals are saying, yes, that half of the infrastructure money should go out as a gas tax directly to the municipalities so they would not need to come to the federal government, so they would not need to get matching funding and so they could go ahead and invest. When I hear a question like that, it makes me think of the number of times the members opposite have talked about shovel-ready, but I wonder what they are shovelling.

Furthermore, the member started out by talking about the infrastructure grants in his riding. That is exactly the point. That is exactly why those members want to hide what they are doing. That is why the secrecy. The money is all going into Conservative ridings.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about an awful lot of money, $3 billion in special funds that the government has asked us to deal with. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the resolution before the House. I have listened to the government speakers all day and it is as if not one of them has even read the resolution.

We are talking about a list of departments and programs which are likely to require access to the extraordinary authority. Specifically, we are asking the government to disclose the name and location of each project to which funding is being provided.

What does the member think the government members are hiding?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a difficult question to answer. If the member were to ask me why I think the government members are hiding something, my answer would be that they have a consistent track record of hiding things from the Canadian public and from opposition members.

Whether it is the Conservatives' response to being involved in bribing a dying member of Parliament for his vote or whether it is suing Elections Canada for having identified them as cheating on election spending, it is a government that apparently has a lot to hide. According to the commissioner, the government is very good at secrecy and covering up what it is doing while delivering very high-minded rhetoric.

This motion is about putting on the record what the money is for so that we are not vulnerable to it being spent on pork-barrel projects all across Conservative territory, as with the New Horizons for Seniors grants, where one out of thirty-two goes to Conservative ridings.

I am concerned about that because their record is clear--

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Kitchener Centre. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on this motion.

We are in extraordinary times. We have not gone through a recessionary period like this one since the second world war. It is obvious that Canadians from coast to coast are feeling the effects of this recession. They are concerned about their jobs, their savings and about the impact on their families, their businesses, their homes and their communities.

Leading up to the budget we did consult Canadians. We launched the largest national consultation in Canadian history, leading to what many have described as the earliest budget in Canadian history. Canadians told us that we must do what it takes to keep our economy going and to do what we can to protect them during this extraordinary time.

That is why our government introduced Canada's economic action plan in January. This is the plan to protect Canadians during the global recession, to create new good jobs for the future and to equip people in our country for success in the years to come. It is designed to stimulate economic growth, restore confidence and support Canadians and their families during this global recession.

It takes action to build infrastructure, to stimulate housing construction and to support businesses and communities. It also reduces taxes, freezes EI rates, and helps Canadians through the Canada skills and transition strategy. It approves access to financing, certainly the one thing mentioned to me and many others in the finance committee by businesses across this country in terms of strengthening our financial system.

The preparation and the announcement of the budget gets us only halfway down the road to economic recovery. To get the rest of the way, we need to implement these measures. We are not the only ones who think so. In a recent report, the International Monetary Fund called our economic action plan “large, timely and well targeted” and said our immediate focus should be on implementing the budget to mobilize spending. We need to get the money into the hands of Canadian individuals, families, communities and businesses.

To assist the hon. member who introduced this motion in understanding why this House needs to pass the main estimates as quickly as possible, I would like to explain the budget implementation process.

The implementation of budget spending measures typically requires two types of approval. The first is what is called policy approval and refers to the requirement that certain measures be approved by the appropriate cabinet policy committee and Treasury Board. That is why we are streamlining the review and approval of policies and programs while ensuring appropriate controls. This means, for example, using simplified or omnibus Treasury Board submissions for straightforward extensions or top-ups. The second type of approval is parliamentary authority over appropriations.

Typically, the earliest opportunity for budget measures to receive such funding is through the supplementary estimates (A), which Parliament votes on in June. However, if we are to help Canadian families, communities and businesses weather the current economic storm, we need to deliver stimulus funding as rapidly as possible. That is why we introduced the recently passed Budget Implementation Act, to make payments totalling $7.6 billion. These payments will be used to fund large priority initiatives as specifically identified in the Budget Implementation Act. This act includes statutory authority for ministers to spend money on these initiatives directly from the consolidated revenue fund. I would refer members to the budget document to see exactly what the government will be spending on.

We have also created a special time-limited budget implementation vote in the main estimates. With Parliament's approval of the main estimates, this vote will give departments money to spend on key budget initiatives as early as April 1. This vote will only be available between April 1 and June 30, until supplementary estimates (A) are in place. This vote is limited to $3 billion and will be used to provide initial funding for ready-to-go projects and initiatives identified in our economic action plan. This funding will get the ball rolling until departments and agencies can receive funding through future supplementary estimates following the normal supply process.

The allocation of funds from this vote must be approved by Treasury Board. Members opposite say they are concerned about accountability, and it is appropriate to raise accountability. In fact our government, certainly in the past session with the introduction of the Federal Accountability Act, through this measure is being accountable to Parliament and to Canadians.

All moneys distributed under this time-limited vote will be reported in upcoming supplementary estimates, as well as through regular reporting to Parliament. Parliamentarians will be able to review all of this.

The government will be tabling regular whole of government reports on the status of economic action plan initiatives. The first of these was recently tabled by the Minister of Finance. Tomorrow at the finance committee the Parliamentary Budget Officer will comment on the first of these tabled documents.

Furthermore, a committee of deputy ministers and chief financial officers is providing departmental oversight. Finally, the Auditor General will audit the spending.

We believe it is absolutely critical to strike the right balance between appropriate due diligence and transparency and rapid delivery of stimulus measures. I would like to emphasize that point. These extraordinary times require fast action. That is why we are moving so quickly with the economic action plan, but at the same time, with these measures we are ensuring that we will be accountable to Canadians and to Parliament. That is an important point we must emphasize.

It is obvious that Canadians who unfortunately are losing their jobs are looking for action in terms of employment insurance. Canadians in terms of small businesses are looking for action with respect to access to credit and financing that was in the budget. Canadians in terms of small businesses are looking forward to the tax reductions we have put in place. Canadians at the lower end of the income scale are looking forward to the tax reduction measures we have put in place.

The businesses, families and Canadians across this country are looking for action from the government. They have demanded action. We have acted in terms of our budget which was adopted by Parliament before the break. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to act upon that action plan and get the money flowing out the door to the families, the individuals and the Canadians who need it.

I am asking members of the House to therefore oppose this motion and to support the government's action plan, not only in terms of its passage, but in terms of its full implementation, so that Canadians can truly see the benefit of that action plan.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member closed off his speech by calling on the House to vote against the motion, a motion regarding accountability. I do not think the member actually read the motion. It just says that after the government has spent the money, the day after, it simply provide the information about what it was spent on, and the member is saying to vote against that. We should think about that. He wants members to vote against letting Parliament and Canadians know on what the government spent some of the $3 billion. The motion does not say let us approve or not approve the $3 billion unless the government tells us what it is for. This is after the fact.

I know the member, and he is a good member, but if the motion simply asks to disclose information after the fact, is the member telling Canadians that Parliament should be opposed to that and that he would rather be unaccountable to the people of Canada?