Debates of May 30th, 2018

Natural Resources

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I move that the second report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, presented on Wednesday, September 21, 2016, be concurred in.

I look forward to splitting my time with the hon. member for Carleton.

It is timely today that we talk about the study submitted by the natural resources committee entitled “The Future of Canada's Oil and Gas Sector: Innovation, Sustainable Solutions and Economic Opportunities”.

Before we talk about the future, we need to discuss the importance of responsible resource development to Canada with respect to its impact on the standard of living of Canadians and on our country's ability to provide jobs and funding for social services and social programs that are valued across the country, but also in terms of Canada's position in the world as a global leader. There is no doubt about the importance of responsible resource development, and energy development in particular, to all of Canada.

A professor of economics from the UBC Vancouver School of Economics recently submitted an editorial to The Globe and Mail and eloquently outlined the importance of responsible resource jobs for sustaining Canada's middle class. He said:

Opinions on pipelines [and there sure are more today than ever before] are flowing around Canada more quickly than the oil. The ultimate decisions on natural resource projects, however, ought to derive from facts. As an economist studying income inequality over the last 15 years, I can offer a key fact to the debate. In my view, nothing has contributed more than natural resources to buttressing the Canadian middle class against the rapidly changing global economy of the 21st century.

The importance of resources to middle-class incomes is most clearly seen by looking at a simple measure: the earnings of the middle worker in the economy (the median). Between 2000 and 2015, Canadian median earnings rose by just 6 per cent after inflation.... However, underneath this national number lie vast differences across provinces. While Alberta saw earnings growth of 27 per cent and Saskatchewan topped 44 per cent, Quebec only saw growth of 6 per cent and Ontario suffered a loss of 4 per cent. When researchers have pushed beyond these basic comparisons, the same essential fact holds up: Without income derived from the resource boom, Canadian inequality and the well-being of the Canadian middle class would be much worse than we’ve experienced.

He points out that it is important for social services, nursing, education, and transit. Those benefits help the provinces by providing plentiful resources, but importantly, he notes that, “since our equalization formula uses the federal purse to top up provinces without comparable resource-revenue streams”, even when that revenue is derived in certain provinces in the energy sector, it is shared across the country and benefits all Canadians.

He notes the benefits of resource development to indigenous communities living near natural resources. He also talks about the sharing of economic benefits that indigenous communities deserve for their future, and about the opportunities for them to be partners and beneficiaries of responsible resource development.

As an Albertan, that is something I have seen in my backyard and in northern Alberta for a long time. I often find myself questioning whether I am in a twilight zone when I hear members from other parties spinning the myth and narrative that indigenous people and indigenous communities are of one mind and are opposed to oil and gas and pipelines. It is not at all the truth. In fact, holding back Canadian oil and gas development disproportionately harms people in rural communities and remote areas, and in particular indigenous communities, which deserve to pursue prosperity, a legacy, and opportunities for future generations and for all their young people, just as all other communities deserve to do that through responsible resource development in Canada.

The professor says:

The stakes we face are high. To maintain public support for pro-growth initiatives such as trade agreements and for doing Canada’s part in limiting climate change, we need to ensure that economic growth is felt by everybody in society. Economic growth that brings everyone along gives all families a stake in Canadian economic success. This increased economic security energizes social forces that pull us together.

He also points out:

Around the world, the relentless pressures of technology are hollowing out middle-class employment, leading to stagnating middle-class incomes and exacerbating social tensions. These same pressures appear in Canada too, but resource development has allowed the Canadian middle class to push back on these pressures better than almost any other advanced economy on earth.

It is a reality today that more energy investment has left Canada under the current Prime Minister and the Liberals than in any other multiple-year period in seventy years, over half a century. The Liberals have suggested at times that this is a function of prices. Of course, there are many more factors impacting oil and gas and resource development in Canada other than prices. It has to do with certainty, predictability, stability, and clear, concrete measures, outcomes, roles and responsibilities. Oil and gas proponents talk about the devastating impacts of the cumulative costs of layers of regulations, additional red tape, duplication with other jurisdictions, and tax increases. Therefore, we have to review what has caused investment to leave Canada at historic rates and hundreds of thousands of Canadians to lose their jobs in the energy sector under the Liberals.

Last year, the Prime Minister told the world that he wanted to phase out the oil sands. In case Canadians thought that this was a slip of the tongue, unfortunately he reinforced it again just a couple of weeks ago in Paris, when he said he regretted that Canada cannot get off oil tomorrow. Therefore, at the outset, is it any wonder that oil and gas proponents and investors around the world might be wondering whether or not the Prime Minister and the Liberals actually welcome oil and gas development in Canada? The Liberals campaigned in co-operation with anti-energy activists, denigrating Canada's world-leading track record as the most responsible oil producer in the world, and denigrating our track record for the highest standards, second to none, for science-, evidence-, and expert-based decision-making, and for consultation with impacted communities and first nations, including the incorporation of traditional knowledge.

The Liberals froze the regulatory system in February 2016, causing massive uncertainty for energy development in Canada. They announced interim measures, most of which had been hallmarks of the Canadian regulatory system for decades. However, one was not, and that was the consideration of upstream emissions for pipeline approvals. Not only was that an overreach into provincial jurisdiction, because that is where upstream emissions are regulated, but it was later magnified by the Liberals instructing that downstream emissions coming from tailpipes should also be attached to a pipeline for consideration of its approval. Ultimately, that is what caused the abandonment of the potential nation-building opportunity in energy east. However, before that, the Liberals had vetoed the northern gateway pipeline, previously approved by the Conservatives, which was the only new stand-alone opportunity to reach tidewater to get Canada's energy into the Asia-Pacific, which will continue to demand oil and gas for years to come. Then, the regulatory delays caused the abandonment of two LNG projects, holding Canada back by missing Asian contracts.

On top of all that, the Liberals decided, at the very worst time for energy workers, to remove the tax credit for new oil and gas drilling and exploration wells, and then imposed a carbon tax on all provinces, increasing costs right across the board. They imposed an offshore drilling ban, which the Premier of the Northwest Territories said destroyed hope for the future of people in his communities. The ban was imposed without adequate consultation, and it does not apply to any other Canadian coast. It stops exports, and it clearly targets the oil sands and the pipelines, because it does not address foreign tankers or American tankers in the region.

Here is the reality. The world is going to continue to demand oil and gas. Developing countries need oil and gas. Canada should be the choice as a world-leading, responsible provider of oil to the world. The Liberals need to stop implementing policies, legislation, and costs that shut down Canadian energy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, yet again, I would say that I am surprised, but I am not. The Conservatives have chosen to bring in a concurrence on a report. There are many concurrences on the Order Paper. We can deal with all sorts of reports between now and the next election. Obviously, they want to continue to play games, and that is really and truly what this is all about. I wish I had the time to expand on that particular point.

Having said that, yesterday was a historic day. Canadians from every region of our country would benefit from that legislation. It is good for our environment, and it is good for our economy. It is good for so many reasons, yet the Conservatives will continue to find something to criticize. If they were not playing this game today, right now we would be debating the budget.

Given that the member across the way appears not to want to debate the budget today, does she believe we should just allow the budget to pass? Given that the Conservatives want to debate something else, as opposed to the budget, what sort of time does she believe would have been appropriate to have on the budget, which delivers so much to Canada's middle class, and so much more?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I would like to hear what the hon. member for Lakeland has to say, so if the hon. members do not mind letting her speak, I am looking forward to hearing from her.

The hon. member for Lakeland.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the question by the hon. member confirms just how completely and totally out of touch the Liberals are.

The economic, constitutional, and fiscal crisis facing Canada today centres around one thing, the path forward for responsible energy development, because energy is the number one private sector investor in the Canadian economy. It is Canada's second biggest export. Canada has competitiveness challenges and a productivity challenge, and it is on the verge of losing both to our neighbours in the United States and to oil-producing countries around the world, which do not have anywhere near the environmental and social standards Canada does, nor the innovation and technology to be responsible providers in the future.

All of that is because of the Liberals' policies, regulations, red tape, and mixed messages, talking down Canada, bashing the regulator, and defending spending tax dollars on activists to stop pipelines. Then they are standing around wondering why capital is leaving this country, faster than under any government in my lifetime.

That is the key pressing issue. What is the future for Canadian energy development? The Conservatives will champion Canadian energy, and I hope that one day we will have the opportunity to say that Canada is open for business.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her speech about our committee's report, which we tabled a couple of years ago.

Just moments ago in the House, we passed a private member's bill, Bill C-262, from the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. Everybody in the House voted for it except the Conservatives, who voted against it. It is unfortunate. That bill talked about making sure that the laws of Canada match up with the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In our committee, we have heard a lot about indigenous peoples, first nations, and their ability to take part in the natural resource extraction sector. We have heard that the mining sector has been very good at involving those communities, and the oil industry less so. Here we have a pipeline, Kinder Morgan. Some communities have signed agreements with Kinder Morgan, but the majority of first nations communities have come out against it. We have a government here that says it will listen to those people.

Could the member comment on that initiative, the reconciliation we are facing as a country, and how we have to include that in our extraction of resources for the future?

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have so much respect for my colleague from the NDP, but I could not disagree with him more profoundly. That narrative from the left is a myth, because in fact the majority of indigenous communities in Canada are open to oil and gas and to pipelines. It is that narrative that puts at risk the most the ability of indigenous people to secure their own futures, which is what true reconciliation with Canada looks like.

That narrative completely ignores the fact that the Trans Mountain expansion is supported by every single indigenous community touched by it and within the 10-kilometre buffer zone. It ignores the fact that, for the northern gateway pipeline, there were 31 equity partners worth $2 billion. It ignores the indigenous people who opposed the tanker ban and the indigenous people in northern Alberta who would be in utter poverty. Oil and gas can provide futures for their young generations and services for their elders. What is damaging to the indigenous people of Canada is exactly that kind of narrative.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to discuss the matter before the House, and we know what that matter is. It could not be a more appropriately timed subject to bring before the House than the one before us, because there are two raging controversies at this time.

One deals with the government's decision to allow a $7-billion private sector pipeline expansion to be wrapped so thoroughly in red tape and so burdened by taxes that the investors decided to take their money and run. The government gave that company $4 billion of Canadian tax dollars to take with it. The government spent that $4 billion, and we do not have a single centimetre of new pipeline to show for it. All we have is a promise that a company and a project owned by politicians will be more successful in building a pipeline than a project that was previously owned by one of the biggest pipeline companies on planet earth, a company that literally has tens of thousands of kilometres of pipeline around the world and that makes a living and pays its shareholders by profiting from those pipelines, believing, in the Prime Minister's words, that this project had become “too risky”. Now those risks belong exclusively to Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer.

This project is really an economic and environmental no-brainer. Economically it is a no-brainer, because the company had already been willing to put forward its own resources to pay for the construction of that pipeline.

There is a gap between Western Canadian Select prices received in Alberta and Saskatchewan for oil and the world price this pipeline would enable Canadian producers to receive. That gap could have been arbitraged out of existence by allowing an extra 600,000 barrels of oil to go from where oil is cheap, in Alberta and Saskatchewan, to where it is more expensive, on the world market. The world Brent price has been consistently higher, sometimes $20 a barrel higher, than the Western Canadian Select price with which our producers have been stuck because they are landlocked. Of course, those producers would have been willing to pay a handsome sum for access to those higher prices, making this investment an economic no-brainer.

It is an environmental no-brainer as well. We know that, because it is actually not really a new pipeline. It is just the twinning of an existing pipeline, one that has operated since 1953, 65 years, and that delivers 300,000 barrels of oil per day without incident and without any environmental problems. The right-of-way is already there. Bulldozing a new direction or charting a new course do not need to be done. I do not even think any land has to be confiscated, which most large projects require. Therefore, it is an environmental no-brainer just as much as it is an economic no-brainer.

However, because the government, along with left-of-centre allies at provincial and municipal levels, have so wrapped our natural resource projects in red tape and taxes, the company believed that it could no longer get a reasonable, risk-adjusted rate of return and headed for the hills. That $4 billion will go not to a pipeline in Canada but to a pipeline company in Texas, which will likely use it to build new pipelines that compete with the Canadian industry.

How did we get here? Before now, a Texas company wanted to invest $7 billion in Canada, and now we are giving $4 billion of Canadian tax dollars to that company to take out of Canada. That is where we have arrived, and the Prime Minister today trumpets it as a grand success.

We still do not know what it will cost to actually carry out the construction of the new expansion. The government will not tell us. Presumably, it would know. One would think that people spending $4.5 billion would know what additional costs they would be forced to bear if they went ahead with such an investment. One would think, but again, the Liberals are using other people's money, so such calculations perhaps are not as important to them as if it were their own.

Speaking of other people's money, the government is planning to impose a carbon tax, which will collect billions of dollars of other people's money. It would not be the first time a government raised taxes. Governments do that, although typically, they tell us what they are collecting and how much we will pay.

Many taxes are so visible and transparent that we can look at our bills when we pay them. When people purchase something for their kids at a sports sport, they can look at the HST or GST right on the receipt and they will know exactly what it cost them. At tax time, they can calculate what they will pay in income tax. Those taxes are visible, and calculable, to the folks who are paying them.

A carbon tax, however, is far more insidious. The price effect of it is buried in the consumer products themselves and is not broken down item by item. If we buy some fresh fruit at our local grocery store, that fruit will be even more expensive, because it was transported by truck to that store, but we will not know how much more expensive, so we might be inclined to blame the local grocer. However, do not blame the grocer. Do not get angry at the grocer, because part of that pricing is actually the carbon tax the Liberal government is imposing on the grocer and on the farmers and the transportation company that brought that fruit to the storefront.

To my knowledge, it is unprecedented for a government to impose a tax without revealing what that tax will cost people. As a result, we in the opposition are of the view that the government is engaged in what many Canadians are now calling a carbon tax cover-up. We believe that the government should end the carbon tax cover-up by telling people what this thing will cost them. We know the government knows, because it has the documents. There is a 2015 memo that calculates how much families will pay based on the income they earn. Unfortunately, all the numbers are blacked out.

I am standing right next to the hon. member for Lakeland, Alberta. She is the pride and joy of Lakeland, Alberta, who is here fighting for jobs in her community, and it is indeed lucky to have her.

I move:

That this House do now adjourn.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #685

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion lost.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Foothills, International Trade; the hon. member for Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Heritage.

Main Estimates 2018-19

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in keeping with our agreement to address once more some of the procedural points with respect to vote 40 and again, as per our discussions, I will try to do that in the briefest possible period without compromising the integrity of the arguments.

Part of the reason for having these points of order and the number of them is that vote 40 is a significant departure from the usual practice. The estimates document itself, in part I, page 3, reads under the heading, “Significant changes in voted spending from 2017-18 include: the Budget Implementation vote to provide new funding for Budget 2018 Initiatives”, so the estimates themselves tell us that this is a very different and very significant change in the way the government approves funding.

My point has to do with the statutory authority for a number of the votes in the estimates. I would refer you to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, which tells us on page 873 that:

The Chair has maintained that estimates with a direct and specific legislative intent—

Mr. Speaker, this speaks to your ruling from Monday.

(those clearly intended to amend existing legislation) should come to the House by way of an amending bill.

Speaker Sauvé nicely traced the development of this principle in her June 12, 1981, ruling on certain items in the estimates, and I believe it is worth quoting that ruling at length. She said:

...members have objected that in one way or another the estimates that have been submitted from time to time by the government have attempted to do more than set out the spending requirements of the government for the next fiscal year. This is of course supposed to be the acknowledged purpose of estimates and appropriation acts.

In 1971 the Chair ruled that items in the estimates that attempt to amend existing statutes are out of order. This was confirmed by most subsequent rulings.

In 1974 and 1976 the Chair went further and dealt with the question of matters of substance being put in the estimates. The Speaker, in effect, ruled that the Appropriation Act is not the place to seek authority to do something such as to establish a program. Rather, the Appropriation Act should only seek authority to spend the money for a program that has been previously authorized by a statute.

In 1977 the Chair continued to lay down these principles that should be followed in the use of the estimates and added that it makes no difference whether the item attempted to spend a large sum or simply one dollar. The distinction is unimportant. The test is whether or not the government is putting forward a spending estimate under authority it already possesses, or whether it is really seeking new legislative authority to do something.

In March of that year the Speaker said:

The government receives from Parliament the authority to act through the passage of legislation and receives the money to finance such authorized action through the passage by Parliament of an appropriation act. A supply item in my opinion ought not, therefore, to be used to obtain authority which is the proper subject of legislation—

I continue to quote from Speaker Sauvé's ruling:

In other words, the government may not by the use of an Appropriation Act obtain authority that it does not have under existing legislation.

The then Speaker summed it up in this way in December 1977:

Supply ought to be confined strictly to the process for which it was intended; that is to say, for the purpose of putting forward by the government the estimate of money it needs, and then in turn voting by the House of that money to the government, and not to be extended in any way into the legislative area, because legislation and legislated changes in substance are not intended to be part of supply, but rather ought to be part of the legislative process in the regular way which requires three readings, committee stage, and, in other words, ample opportunity for Members to participate in debate and amendment.

In that ruling, Speaker Sauvé emphasized the sequence of events required to obtain authority in a manner that is in order: First, the government must establish the appropriate legal or statutory authority for an expenditure item, and then it may seek funding for that item through an appropriation act.

Thus, she ruled three votes under Energy, Mines and Resources out of order and ordered them deleted from the main estimates. In so doing, she cited evidence that the government intended to introduce legislation with respect to the program it was seeking spending authority for under those votes. Given the need confessed by the government to enact legislation to support the programs in question, the Speaker ruled that “By asking for money now, the [President of the Treasury Board] would be putting the cart before the horse.”

She further said that:

While the significance of such a ruling is not lost, as was said on March 22, 1977, the function of the Chair is to ensure that what Parliament attempts to do is procedurally correct. Furthermore, the Chair is comforted by the fact that the President of the Treasury Board said on June 1 last, in reply to the point of order at issue here, that legislation will be introduced with respect to these programs.

While it would be a stretch to say that vote 40 alters any statutes in and of itself, it is not at all a stretch to say that it puts the cart before the horse in the way ruled out of order very clearly by Speaker Sauvé. These main estimates clearly seek funds for initiatives that require legislative changes in order to move ahead. For the benefit of the House, I will provide two examples, although I do not pretend that this is an exhaustive list, and I just want to mention again that my objections and these examples are about the procedure and not about the substance of the initiatives at hand.

My first example pertains to the item “Making Employment Insurance More Responsive and Effective”, which appears in table A2.11 of the budget as well as in the annex of the main estimates that itemizes initiatives in the budget implementation vote. On page 57 of the budget, we read:

This pilot project is scheduled to expire in August 2018. The Government proposes to introduce amendments to the Employment Insurance Act to make the current EI Working While on Claim pilot rules permanent, providing $351.9 million over five years, starting in 2018-19, and $80.1 million per year ongoing. The legislation will also include a provision to grandfather claimants who have chosen, under the current pilot project, to revert to more flexible rules....

Again, I will dispense with the rest of that quote for the sake of time.

Along with the announcement of new funding, the budget clearly signalled the government's intent to modify existing legislation. Indeed, it is quite clear that the money announced is for the program after its legal infrastructure is altered. Announcing this intention in the budget is perfectly in order and presents no problem in and of itself.

The problem comes once this item is included in the estimates prior to the government's instituting the required legislative changes. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the government has done.

How do we know this is what the government has done? We know because on the one hand, the item “Making Employment Insurance More Responsive and Effective” appears in the main estimates annex for Treasury Board—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is trying to rise on a point of order. Of course, she cannot interrupt another point of order. However, I can see why she is rising: members are making too much noise. I would ask them to cease and to maintain some order in this place.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona has the floor.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you, and I thank my colleagues who have called for order in the chamber.

How do we know this is what the government has done? We know because on the one hand, the item “Making Employment Insurance more Responsive and Effective” appears in the main estimates annex for the budget implementation vote, seeking a little over $130 million in spending authority to implement the changes the budget tells us require legislative changes to implement.

However, we do not just glean this from the budget document. More important, the legislative changes contemplated in the budget document are currently in Bill C-74, the budget implementation act, 2018, No. 1, and that bill is currently before the House.

In the Department of Finance's briefing binder for the clause by clause review of that bill, we read, “Amendments are proposed to the Employment Insurance Act (EI Act) to make permanent the default rules of the current Working While on Claim pilot project.” This is essentially exactly what we are told the money is for in the proposed appropriation act. It then goes on to say, “Transitional provisions are proposed to allow claimants to revert to the rules of a previous pilot project on an optional basis.” Again this is the same language for which we are being told the money is being appropriated. Again, for the sake of time, Mr. Speaker, you can check out those documents on your own, but I think I have quoted enough to give you an idea.

These changes in the budget implementation act are clearly meant to authorize the program changes for which the government is seeking appropriations under the item “Making Employment Insurance more Responsive and Effective”. The budget implementation act is still before the House and has yet to go to the Senate. In other words, it is some ways away from being passed, even if the government acts on its propensity for time allocation in order to pass the budget implementation act through the House once it returns from committee, which it now has. Forgive me for the notes, having prepared them a little in advance. It will nevertheless have to pass through the other place.

We cannot prejudge how quickly the bill will pass in the other place. Nor do I think the possible use of time allocation would be a basis on which to say that the proposed allocation for this item would be in order. The cart is clearly before the horse in this case, and the vote ought therefore be ruled out of order.

It is likewise with the item “Ensuring Security and Prosperity in the Digital Age”. Under the rubric of Treasury Board vote 40, the government is seeking to appropriate a little over $100 million across eight different departments, including $43 million for the Communications Security Establishment. From the budget document, on page 203, we learn:

Canada's plan for security in the digital age starts with a strong federal cyber governance system to protect Canadians and their sensitive personal information. To that end, the Government proposes to commit $155.2 million over five years, and $44.5 million per year ongoing. to the Communications Security Establishment to create a new Canadian Centre for Cyber Security.

In order to establish the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security, the Government will introduce legislation to allow various Government cyber security functions to consolidate into the new Centre. Federal responsibility to investigate potential criminal activities will remain with the RCMP.

It is clear legislative changes to establish the new Canadian centre for cybersecurity are integral to the purpose for which the government is seeking to appropriate funds under the Treasury Board vote 40 item, “Ensuring Security and Prosperity in the Digital Age”.

It is also clear that the government has chosen to seek spending authority for this initiative without first obtaining the requisite legislative authority. The evidence that it has is undisputable, as the legislative measures required to establish the Canadian centre for cybersecurity are also in the budget implementation act, 2018 No. 1 currently before the House.

The Department of Finance's briefing binder for the clause by clause review of the bill reiterates verbatim the passages from the budget I just quoted, so I will spare you, Mr. Speaker, quoting from that document because the two are in fact exactly the same.

Once again, the budget implementation bill is currently before the House. It has not passed. It may not even be close to passing, though the timeline here is irrelevant.

To quote Speaker Jerome from March 21, 1977, the matters touch:

... very fundamentally upon the right of parliament to function, the right to examine the spending program and to control the spending program through parliamentary votes, which is perhaps the most fundamental aspect of the work of parliament.

In conjunction with that is the legislative role. It is clear that some statement ought to be attempted to separate those powers which the House possesses by way of supply and those powers which the House possesses by way of legislation. That is not a task that I look forward to with particular relish. It is an important task..

Clearly, the government is seeking to appropriate funds without first having established the legislative authority for the appropriation. It cannot assign funds to an entity that does not yet exist. This is a principle that at least some government departments seem to understand.

The government's pension for life initiative for veterans is announced in the budget, including an estimate of the cost. However, no request to appropriate funds was made in the estimates, and the departmental plan clearly states that legislative changes must be made before the department can include the expenditure in its financial plan. Presumably, the request for funding will come through a supplementary estimates after Parliament has passed the appropriate legislation.

There are other examples that are more vague. I was prepared to offer some detail, but I will try to go through it in a more rapid fashion. I will simply mention these examples.

The first one is the new intellectual property strategy. That is an item under vote 40. The language in the budget document very clearly contemplates the possibility of legislation as part of the program. The item “Modernizing Canada’s Regulatory Frameworks” also contemplates the possibility of legislation in order to realize the program for which it is requesting an appropriation of funds. The item “A New Process for Federal Election Leaders’ Debate” also very clearly contemplates the possibility of legislation in order to achieve the program purposes for which the government is seeking an appropriation of funds. The item “Stabilizing and Future Transformation of the Federal Government’s Pay Administration (Phoenix)” also contemplates legislative changes for the purpose for which it is requesting those funds.

What do all of these examples have in common? In all of these cases, the government is seeking an appropriation of funds under the main estimates. In all of these cases, the information we have, which is not always presented in the estimates but in the budget document instead, the government explicitly contemplates changes to legislation as an integral part of fulfilling the purpose for which it is seeking spending authority. In some cases, it seems more likely than in others that legislation would, strictly speaking, be required in order to spend the money toward accomplishing the program goal.

However, I humbly submit that while this level of uncertainty with respect to required legislative authority is perfectly acceptable in the budget, it is not acceptable in the estimates. Had these programs gone through the Treasury Board process, as items usually do before their inclusion in the estimates, we would have the necessary level of detail with respect to the programs contemplated in order to assess their legislative requirements. It is because of the novel mechanism of vote 40 that Parliament cannot make this assessment, a situation that undermines its ability to provide proper oversight of government spending and subverts the established supply processes of this place.

Some members may want to interject at this point and say, “But wait, vote 40 is structured in such a way as to prevent expenditures for which an appropriate legal mandate does not exist.” The problem with that defence is the question of who decides whether the appropriate legal mandate for certain expenditures exist.

Under the normal process, parliamentarians would be able to review appropriations and match them up with existing authorities prior to approving the estimates. If there were a dispute about proper authorities, Parliament would simply be able to withhold the funding until the problem was rectified.

Under vote 40, the funding would already be approved. Therefore, if the government goes ahead and spends money on a new program and reports on that in a supplementary estimates, and note I say “report” and not “request approval”, and a member suspects that the program requires new statutory authority, what is the member to do? The spending has been pre-approved and the money has been spent. Parliament cannot simply take it back.

The point here is that Parliament should be the arbiter of whether expenditures are within the legal mandate of the departments or organizations doing the spending. That is what our oversight role for government spending requires, and it is our right as the ultimate guardian of the public purse.

There you have it, Mr. Speaker. There are at least two items under vote 40 that are clearly out of order because they put the cart before the horse by requesting appropriations for measures that do not currently have the appropriate legal mandate. We know that because the legislative changes are currently before the House. The point is perhaps most succinctly put in Beauchesne's fifth edition, citation 486, where is says:

If a Vote in the Estimates relates to a bill not yet passed by Parliament, then the authorizing bill must become law before the authorization of the relevant Vote in the Estimates by an Appropriation Act.

The point was also clearly stated by Speaker Sauvé on June 21, 1982, when she said:

As I said in my ruling of June 12, 1981, an item that seeks to establish a new program in the absence of other legislative authority and the funds to put it into operation runs counter to the rulings of the Chair since 1974, which hold that legislation is required to authorize new programs, particularly matters of major substance.

This point was made again by Speaker Fraser on March 20, 1991, when he said:

It appears common ground in the arguments that have been made, first, that statutes ought not to be amended by means of items in the estimates; second, that authority to act in cases where statutory provisions already exist should be sought by the passage of amending legislation and only then the money to finance that action should be sought through appropriation acts...In both instances authority is sought, first, to implement the Senate committee report which recommended the allowances and, second, to pay the allowances. The very wording of the votes confirms that there is no existing statutory authority under which the allowances could be paid. If the statutory authority existed there would be no need to seek approval for implementation in this fashion. The type of authority sought here is akin to approval in principle and, as was made clear in the ruling of both Speakers Lamoureux and Jerome, should be sought through legislation other than appropriation bills.

That vote 40 does permit the establishment of new programs is clear in its wording. It does authorize the creation of new grants, and it said so. I do not have that wording because I have been trying to be brief, but I have referred to that wording in the past in other arguments. The caveat that they must conform to existing legal mandates is cold comfort to a Parliament that will have already authorized the disbursement of funds and finds out only after the fact how it was actually spent. Effectively, Parliament will have lost the power to decide for itself whether the government has acted within its legal mandate or whether legislative changes are required to authorize the new initiatives.

Beyond those two items, there are a number of others where it is unclear whether legislative changes would be required to legitimize expenditures that vote 40 seeks to authorize. Once again, in these cases, Parliament should get to judge once the program is adequately developed. This is ordinarily the case through the supply process as we know it, but the mechanism of vote 40 subverts that process and Parliament's power of oversight along with it.

Canada's constitutional monarchy is largely based on the British model, which developed largely through Parliament's efforts to limit or appropriate royal prerogative power. The most significant way in which it achieved that goal was by gaining control over public expenditures and the power to raise revenue. The creep of power does not always come by way of conniving maniacs. Sometimes it comes a little more gently with the sense of entitlement typical of those accustomed to power. Parliament is—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

Order, please. The hon. member said that he would be 20 minutes or so. I have been trying to get a sense of how many pages he has left, which is hard to do from this distance. Perhaps he can give me an idea.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. On this particular point of order, I think I can wrap up in about a minute or so, and with any time I have remaining, I will begin to address the second point of order.

Whatever its intentions, the government of the day has presented a very new way of approving funds in the estimates, which I think violates some of the long-standing principles of the process of supply. I believe it is incumbent upon you, Mr. Speaker, to strike vote 40 from the main estimates in order that the parliamentary process be upheld.

By way of explanation, I know that some members may, therefore, feel that the new budget initiatives are not going to get funded. That is simply not the case. Only $221 million of those programs have been allocated by Treasury Board. Those could appear in supplementary estimates.

Moreover, under Standing Order 82, if there are other initiatives that have since been approved by Treasury Board, the government does have an extraordinary way of seeking the approval of Parliament for those initiatives. There are many ways that the government can obtain funding quickly for an initiative that is actually approved and ready to go. The striking of vote 40 need not mean that those initiatives not get funded.

My second point of order today with respect to vote 40 has to do with the implications of vote 40 for study at committee. I know that the vote and the estimates are currently before committee, but the problem is that the structure of the vote actually undermines the committee study process. House of Commons Procedure and Practice is very clear that the appropriate standing committee, the subject expert committee, is the committee that ought to be studying the initiatives presented within the estimates for a particular department.

For instance, on page 1013, House of Commons Procedure and Practice tells us, “When the estimates are tabled in the House, each standing committee receives an order of reference for those departmental and agency votes which relate to its mandate.” However, by including all of the government's new budget initiatives under one Treasury Board vote, the government has disrupted the normal process by which votes are referred to the appropriate subject expert committee. Instead, the 247 new spending initiatives contemplated in the budget and proposed in the estimates by way of vote 40 are referred to only one committee, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, which is then expected to study and evaluate the new initiatives for every department, initiatives as disparate as strengthening the Canada Border Services Agency, indigenous sport, Canada's co-chairmanship of the G20 Working Group, and hundreds more.

Asking a single committee with no subject area expertise to examine all of those items would be an unrealistic expectation in the best of circumstances, but I would remind members that this House and its committees have even less time to study the estimates this year than they did last year or any other year before it. Last year, the Standing Orders were changed to allow for the tabling of the main estimates to occur as late as April 16, and in fact that was the date they were tabled. The putative reason for reducing the time for studying the estimates was that we would have more information to better scrutinize the demands in those estimates.

However, we are now in a position where, as I pointed out at previous sitting, the estimates contain less information about proposed new government spending, and have instead substituted promises of post facto reporting for offering information up front. Whereas that information would once have come through the supplementary estimates process concurrently with the request for spending authority, the government, this year, is asking for the authority up front. It is important that the study of the estimates at committee not be undermined by an unprecedented eccentric vote structure that excludes new initiatives from the scope of study of the appropriate committee. As you rightly pointed out on Monday, Mr. Speaker, the study of the estimates does not happen in this place; it happens at those committees. Therefore, it is very important that not be undermined by having—

I appreciate the demands of time. I hope I can resume this point once this important business is concluded.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I think I have been extremely lenient with the rule about being concise with points of order. I have heard the member a number of times and I think I understand the point the member is making.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from April 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-391, An Act respecting a national strategy for the repatriation of Aboriginal cultural property, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Aboriginal Cultural Property Repatriation Act

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-391, the Aboriginal Cultural Property Repatriation Act.

I have a keen interest in the subject matter of this bill. I have great respect for history and greatly enjoy learning more about it. I will try to keep my remarks brief and to the point. I liked it when Diefenbaker said, “don't get me started on history, because then you shall know the meaning of eternity.” I will continue in that spirit.

This bill is well-intentioned, and I will be supporting it. However, I do believe it has a couple of flaws that should be amended at committee.

I have great respect for the important role artifacts play in fostering an appreciation for history. They are a tangible and irreplaceable link to our past. It is one thing to read about history in a book. It is another to actually see a historical object created by another person living in a different era, like in the time of the Greek Acropolis, or the terracotta warriors in China, or the Machu Picchu of the Incas. To see those things in person, to see the artifacts, to see the real things that people created centuries and centuries ago makes such a difference.

Historical objects help bring history to life. They provide a window into how others really lived. They remind us that the historical figures we read about really existed in the flesh and blood. If we want future generations to truly understand how their present is linked to our country's past, we need to make sure these objects are not lost.

They are are not just an invaluable means through which to remember the past. They are also a key to understanding the present. I strongly believe that their protection and preservation should be a priority of the government.

This bill seeks to establish a framework through which aboriginal peoples of Canada can reacquire these invaluable links to their proud histories. It would implement a mechanism through which any first nation, Inuit, or Métis community or organization may acquire or reacquire aboriginal cultural property to which it has a strong attachment. It would encourage owners, custodians or trustees of aboriginal cultural property to return such property to aboriginal peoples and support them in the process. This is a laudable goal.

In my riding of Bow River, we have Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park. They maintain a collection of many incredible historical objects and provide a great educational service to their community there. They also provide an economic benefit by attracting visitors and promoting tourism in the region. I was fortunate enough to visit and receive a guided tour of it last year. I was greatly impressed by the wealth of history and knowledge on display. I believe they are an example of a success story that deserves to be emulated more broadly.

Despite being well-intentioned, I do think that several parts of this legislation could be clarified, and possibly improved. First, we need to ensure that the public interest is considered so that artifacts are available to Canadians in a way that enhances knowledge and appreciation of aboriginal culture. Access to history is always in the public interest. As I noted, we cannot comprehend the present without understanding the past.

I again point to the Blackfoot Crossing Historical Park in my riding as a great success in this regard. It is located on a historic site of great significance to the Blackfoot Confederacy, where thousands gathered on September 22, 1877, for the signing of Treaty No. 7. This historical site is visited by thousands of people annually. I can assure anyone who is interested in visiting that it offers a fantastic educational experience in aboriginal history.

I also believe that this bill should ensure that consideration is given to how best to adequately preserve and protect the quality and integrity of aboriginal property. At the heritage committee, we have heard about the challenges the museum industry faces in attracting qualified staff. For a variety of reasons there are not enough professional curatorial staff in Canada. Many artifacts are fragile and require a good deal of expertise to be handled and preserved.

Operating costs related to the preservation of historical objects can also be a real challenge for smaller historical museums. The Haida Museum, which I was fortunate enough to visit, has some difficulties due to its remote location. It has a fantastic collection, but very few people get to see it.

This legislation should be amended to reflect this reality. We need some sort of safeguard in place to ensure that these tangible links to history are not lost to future generations.

We also need to make sure that the legislation does not have unintended consequences for aboriginal artists and creators. I own several pieces of tremendous artwork produced by Siksika artists in my riding. This industry yields great economic benefits in many indigenous communities, and helps to foster appreciation for their cultures. It should not be jeopardized in any way. The bill must not dampen enthusiasm for the incredible work produced by aboriginal artists by suggesting that what one has purchased might some day be repatriated. That would be a very unfortunate unintended consequence.

Finally, I note that in his previous remarks on this legislation, the member for Cumberland—Colchester said that the bill's intent is not to force people to give up their artifacts. I do not believe this is made explicit in the bill's language, which should be amended to clarify this point.

I was also disappointed to learn that the Canadian Museum Association was not consulted during the drafting of the bill. This is a great organization in our country with tremendous knowledge. Perhaps some of these issues could have been highlighted at an earlier stage in the process had that consultation taken place. The Canadian Museum Association has a great working relationship with first nations. Its input could be very valuable going forward.

I would also echo the comments of my colleague from York—Simcoe that this legislation must strive to develop a framework that builds on common interests to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.

We want to continue to ensure that Canadians understand and appreciate the first peoples of Canada. With their artifacts in appropriate locations, handled scientifically and correctly, this could happen. We would then be respecting property and the great significance of these historical objects to the aboriginal people themselves.

As I noted, I will be supporting this legislation, but I hope to see it amended significantly at committee to ensure that it does not result in unintended consequences.