Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this evening to the main estimates, and of course, the important vote tonight. I think this is one of the most important debates we have in this House. We are talking about spending a lot of Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars.
There are many good things the federal government can do for Canadians, but we need to be very particular about how we authorize and how we look at the government's plans for spending money, because every penny has come from citizens who work hard. When they give money to the government, it means that it is perhaps a hockey lesson their child cannot do. It is something they are foregoing with that money going to the government. I think as we have this debate tonight, that should be very clear.
Perhaps, by the end of the points I make, anyone who might be watching this debate is going to realize that the government is betraying its commitment to transparency and accountability. I am going to give a few examples of how that has happened. They have taken what was an imperfect system and made it a whole lot worse than it was.
First of all, I want to talk a little bit about the normal process at committee and how the government has degraded that normal process that used to happen, and then I will talk about the infamous vote 40.
It used to be that for the main estimates, the minister would come to committee. We would usually have an hour with the minister and an hour with the officials to talk to them about their spending and their spending plans. I am going to use the indigenous affairs portfolio as an example.
Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, as members know, has been split into two parts. What happened this year was that the government decided it would have one minister for one hour and the other minister for the other hour. It was quite interesting. We would have liked to have that televised, because it was important. We heard that there were ministers at many committees. There were four committees that had ministers for a two-hour session on that particular day.
What happened was that there were votes, so in our first hour, we actually had 30 minutes of time to talk to the minister and her departmental officials, and then there was another vote, and we only had 30 minutes for the second minister. What that meant, in reality, was that once the minister had given her 10-minute presentation, the official opposition had a grand total of seven minutes to question the minister on her spending plans. We had seven minutes for the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and seven minutes for the Minister of Indigenous Services.
What does that mean? We had seven minutes to talk to the minister about Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, which has not been separated yet. We had seven minutes to talk about $3 billion for the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, and seven minutes to talk to the Minister of Indigenous Services about $9.3 billion.
How can the official opposition do an effective job when the government does not even have the courtesy of looking at what is happening and planning its votes and its need for adjournment and stopping debate? The Liberals plan them for times when they know that committees are meeting and ministers are there. They are eroding accountability. That is a significant concern, because to be quite frank, seven minutes is absolutely nothing for spending of almost $10 billion.
Of course, that does not include talking about the $1 billon that is in this very elusive vote 40. The President of the Treasury Board has stated that he is going to align the budget so that we have more information.
Let me tell colleagues what people have said about vote 40. We had seven minutes to talk about $9 billion. We had seven minutes to ask questions of the minister about $3 billion, and we really do not know what is happening with that $1 billion. The member is trying to proclaim that this is better for Parliament and good news to know that we are going to authorize spending.
Let me get into what a few people have said.
As an article written in The Hill Times reported, “If the $7-billion central vote passes with the main estimates on Thursday, former PBO Kevin Page says it represents 'a new low' for Parliament's financial oversight system.”
We have already talked about having a challenge in terms of proper oversight, and now we have a new system that further erodes that. I would like to give credit to the member for Elmwood—Transcona. He said, “something irregular and abnormal [is] happening here in terms of the way the government is asking to approve spending”. That is pretty significant.
I will go back to the former parliamentary budget officer, because the Liberals certainly liked him in the past. In the last Parliament, they talked about the important work he did.
Mr. Speaker, you made a ruling on whether there was a legitimate process for the $7-billion slush fund.
The article continues that former parliamentary budget officer said by email that he respectfully disagreed with the ruling:
“Not all central funds are the same,” he said, noting the government proposes that this central fund asks Parliament to approve “new appropriations” in the latest budget. “This is a very bad precedent for Parliament.”
“Financial control and ministerial accountability are being undermined. This is a new low for our appropriation system,” he said.
“How can the Parliament hold the President of the Treasury Board...responsible and accountable for all authorities requested in the latest budget?” he asked, for money allocated for Indigenous people, veterans, and more.
Despite a 2015 campaign promise of estimates reform, Mr. Page said we are left with “the false pretence of reconciliation at great cost to accountability.”
I listened very carefully to the speech from the President of the Treasury Board, and he certainly cherry-picked positive comments.
The article continues,
...a Parliamentary Budget Office report last month suggested the approach is “somewhat novel,” because it asks Parliament to provide funding before it goes through the Treasury Board submission process, which scrutinizes intended...spending.
I was not there, but I understand that during a meeting of the government operations and estimates committee, which is tasked with some of this important work, the Liberals walked out. They would not participate in the debate. This is what they chose to do instead of talking about the new system and the estimates. In the time I have been in Parliament, I have never seen that from the representatives of the government on a committee. The Liberal members on that committee walked out. They did not come back to committee, and then, of course, the estimates were deemed considered. If this is the government's commitment to transparency, accountability, and dialogue, it is really quite shameful.
We have heard significant concerns. I could go on with quote after quote. As the article said, a Conservative senator from Newfoundland and Labrador in that other place “accused the government of promising an Australian model but offering nothing like it”. She said, “I feel like we’ve been led down the garden path”.
We have a system that has always been a challenge. The are significant dollars. These are important dollars. These are taxpayers' dollars. The government is spending a lot of taxpayers' dollars, and it is eroding the system and doing the exact opposite of increasing accountability and transparency. Tonight we should stand up and make that point very clearly.