The third issue I want to respond to is the point of order raised by the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona on May 29, 2018, with respect to the Treasury Board vote 40.
My hon. colleague, in his statement, asked the Speaker to strike vote 40 from the main estimates. In his argument, the hon. opposition member argued that in his opinion, the budget implementation vote is not consistent with the legal mandate of the Treasury Board.
To the point of the vote being consistent with the legal mandate of the Treasury Board, the member's whole argument against vote 40, as well vote 5, is based on a narrow reading, or outright misreading, of subsection 7(1) of the Financial Administration Act. Also, nothing in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons presumes to clarify or constrain the limits of Treasury Board's policy authority.
Furthermore, I would like to reiterate the statement made by the Speaker in his decision of May 29, 2018. In his decision, the Speaker indicated:
There are ample precedents of monies being granted to a central fund. The most well known of these is vote 5 under Treasury Board for government contingencies. Ultimately, the government determines the form its request for funds will take.
With regard to vote 5, which the hon. member addressed in his statement, there has not been any criticism by the Auditor General on this subject since the 2002 report. That is 16 years ago.
As for the proper way to strike such a vote, I would once again refer to the aforementioned decision by the Speaker. In it, the Speaker emphasized:
While committees have no power to change the destination of the spending, as this would violate the crown's right to initiate spending requests, they do have the power to reduce or even reject the amount of a vote if they are not satisfied with the information provided.
Also, on whether or not the explanation of the particular request is sufficiently detailed or if the destination is the appropriate one, the Speaker noted:
[these] are matters for members to consider when studying and voting on the estimates.
As such, I believe it is impossible to qualify vote 40 as inconsistent with the mandate of the Treasury Board. Consequently, I respectfully submit that there are no grounds to strike vote 40 from the main estimates.