Debates of June 14th, 2018

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline Agency

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my problem with the arguments the hon. member makes about carbon pricing are similar to those that were just raised by the hon. member from the other side. He is focusing on the upfront costs, but he is skipping what happens if we do not take effective action on climate change.

When we look around British Columbia, where I am from, we see the families that are bearing extreme costs from flooding, families that can no longer get insurance because floods have become more and more frequent because of climate change. We see those who have lost their homes due to forest fires, which are becoming evermore fierce and evermore frequent.

Therefore, I really cannot understand this obsessive focus on the front-end cost here, which completely ignores the massive costs to families and to our society of ignoring climate change.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I came here to talk about the main estimates and how the government was trying to pull off a new measure in order to hide the $7 billion in spending. However, the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke asked a very important question on carbon pricing and the effects of climate change, which we do know have a significant effect on the world.

However, where we fundamentally disagree is when we have policies that are putting a tax on everyday Canadians, on everything from their groceries to their fuel. My colleague said earlier that $200 was what separated many families from being able to make their payments.

As a country, we really need to look for technological solutions. A Saudi prince once said many years ago that the stone age did not end because of a lack of stones. The oil age is not going to end because of a lack of oil. It is going to change because of technology. We need to be looking there for the solutions, not taxes on Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting day to say the least. We have heard the Conservatives talk a great deal about taxation. They talk a lot about revenue, among a few other things. I was hoping to take this opportunity to share with my friends across the way a few thoughts, maybe introduce a few facts, and see if they could realize some of the errors in their ways and possibly reflect on the reality of the situation.

Where to start? The Conservatives continuously try to push a myth. The Government of Canada has been very strong in terms of good sound environmental policy. We have witnessed that virtually since day one, when the Prime Minister went to Paris with a number of different stakeholders, including provinces, indigenous peoples, and others. He came back as the signatory to a fantastic agreement, which was actually being acted upon around the world. At the time, we had countries all around the world recognizing that we do need to put a price on pollution.

Then the Prime Minister and cabinet focused on getting provinces together to have a discussion. It was an historical agreement that we needed to look at the environment and look at a price on pollution. It should not be of any great surprise, in fact well over 80% of Canadians already have a system in place where there is a price on pollution.

This gets us right to that whole issue of a myth that the Conservatives are trying to say exists today. It is as if there is going to be this super-huge tax coming between now and 2019, and whether it is true or not, it does not really matter because the Conservatives are going to say it is true. They want to plant the seeds of doubt and fear in Canadians.

Truth be known, when it comes to taxation, the government has nothing to learn from members opposite. In reality, we just need to look at the actions of the Conservative Party since the last federal election. Those who might be following the debate would be very much aware that one of the very first initiatives of the government was a substantial tax break for Canada's middle class. There is absolutely no doubt about that. There was a clear tax break, at the same time there was, in fairness, a tax increase to Canada's wealthiest 1%.

The Conservative Party voted against that. On the one hand, Conservatives are saying, “Look out, Canadians, the Government of Canada wants to impose a tax.” In fact, that is not the case. In reality, it is the Conservatives who voted against a tax decrease to Canada's middle class.

I listened to hours of Conservative after Conservative standing up and clearly demonstrating that they are in fact completely out of touch. They are not listening to what Canadians expect from good government, a government that will demonstrate leadership on important files. The price on pollution is one of those issues that the government takes very seriously.

It was interesting. I heard one member from the Conservative Party talk about the importance of revenue. She made reference to the fact that we develop natural resources or we raise taxes, or we increase the deficit. Those are the three things she focused on. We have heard a lot coming from the members opposite. I can comment on each and every one of those separately, but there was one that she missed out on, growing the economy.

The government, working with Canadians in all regions of our nation, has witnessed some of the greatest growth in terms of real jobs. We are talking in excess of 600,000, most of which are full-time jobs that have been created as a direct result of Canadians working with the government to ensure that every region has seen a benefit, in a very real and tangible way.

If we grow the economy, we also grow the revenue of the government, and that is something the Conservatives have completely forgotten.

If there is an area in which Stephen Harper demonstrated failure, it is dealing with development in the prairie provinces. I could come up with a number of examples, but one example that has often been referred to today and in the past number of days is the issue of natural resources, in particular the Trans Mountain expansion.

One would think that the Conservative Party would have been happy when the Government of Canada made the decision to acquire assets so that we could move forward with a pipeline to tidewater. For months, they were asking where the pipeline was, and to show them the pipeline. Stephen Harper failed at delivering. Not one inch of pipeline to tidewater was built under his government in 10 years. In two and a half years, we have put in place an opportunity that will see a pipeline to tidewater actually built. I believe everyone in the Prairies will recognize that.

The Conservatives are nervous about this and say that we spent public money on the issue. Why did Stephen Harper invest in the automobile industry when it looked like it was not going to survive? He did that because it was in the national interest to do so. The Conservatives spent billions and billions on the automobile industry, a lot more than we will be spending on the Trans Mountain expansion, with no reservations. We recognize that as a positive thing.

Today, the hundreds of thousands of jobs we have in the automobile industry might not have been here if the government had not become involved. That means the Conservative Party can be brought into doing the right thing at times. It can be a challenge to drag the Conservatives into doing something that is right. In the back rooms, they would probably concede that the government acquiring the assets of the pipeline is a good thing, but they cannot say that publicly. Shame on them for not recognizing that the national interest and Alberta are worth it.

If they are prepared to fight for the automobile industry in the national interest, they should have been prepared to fight for Canada getting involved and investing in a national pipeline. However, every one of the Conservative members of Parliament from Alberta did nothing but criticize this government consistently throughout. At least there are some Albertan MPs on the government benches that recognize the true value in terms of what is happening here.

We can contrast that with my NDP friends, who have made it very clear. Rachel Notley, the NDP Premier of Alberta, understands, as this government does, that when it comes to the environment and the economy, they go hand in hand. We have heard the government talk about that now for over two years, and the pipeline is an excellent example of this. Like NDP Premier Rachel Notley, we believe that the Trans Mountain expansion is in the best interest of our nation.

The NDP, on the other hand, at the national level here in Ottawa said no. Let there be no doubt that they are, in my opinion, completely abandoning the province of Alberta, and I would argue beyond Alberta to include the Prairies. They are abandoning what is in the national interest. That is shameful. If they cannot support this particular pipeline, then what pipeline can they support? They do not support any pipeline. They are trying to out-green the Green Party. They believe there is no need for a pipeline.

I come from Manitoba, which is a beautiful province. We have unfortunately been in a position where we have been receiving literally billions of dollars every year through equalization payments. Contrast that to Alberta. Alberta generates on the positive side billions of dollars every year.

What is the difference between Manitoba and Alberta? Many of my constituents would say that Alberta was somewhat blessed by having a lot of oil. There is no doubt that oil has really been responsible for a lot of the success of Alberta, and it has contributed immensely to the many different social programs. If we did not receive those billions of dollars, we would not be able to provide that quality health care that we have in Manitoba, the type of education we provide, the repairs, and many other wonderful things, including financing environmentally sound projects. The Government of Canada, the provinces, and the different regions have benefited immensely by Alberta and its contributions through equalization payments.

My New Democratic friends want to throw that out the window. NDP Rachel Notley has said that they have a cap. They are being very responsible with respect to the environment. That is something we have recognized. Even the New Democrats will say Rachel Notley is being wonderful and she is abiding by emissions and she has this cap. The only thing that they disagree with her about is that she wants the pipeline. However, the pipeline is all part of the Rachel Notley package. One cannot cherry-pick and say that the pipeline is a bad idea to Rachel Notley or to the NDP in Alberta. They will never agree to that. Only the national New Democrats will agree, and team up with the B.C. New Democrats.

I find that the New Democrats are making a big mistake. We will see that once we get the pipeline moving forward and the jobs being created, and the potential for ongoing revenues, all in an environmentally sound way that incorporates different levels of government, indigenous peoples, and many other stakeholders. That is in regard to that source of revenue. In terms of natural resources, that was often referred to.

One never runs out of incidences of hypocrisy within the collective Conservative caucus when it comes to the issue of deficits. Imagine that we have the Conservative Party of Canada trying to give advice on what is good or bad when it comes to deficit financing. Let me expand as to why I say that. When Stephen Harper actually became the prime minister of Canada, he inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus. Even before the recession started in Canada, not only did he blow the surplus, he created another deficit.

It was a whopper of a deficit. It was a multi-billion dollar deficit. It took him no time whatsoever to do that. My friend across the way says we told him to spend more. Have I got news for him. Saying the Liberals told him to do it does not cut it with Canadians. The Conservatives are the ones who turned a multi-billion dollar surplus into a multi-billion dollar deficit in a year. Then, they continued to add billions of dollars to it.

We have heard the Conservatives say they want to see a balanced budget within four years. They could not do it. In budget after budget, and I could say that nine or 10 times, they kept on adding to the deficit. The total was over $170 billion of Conservative debt.

Then when they tried to get it to balance, what did they do? I told members about their purchase of GM shares. They tried to sell $1 billion of GM shares to try to cover their back ends, to try to give the false impression that they know how to balance a budget 10 years later. It is a stretch.

I am hoping that those listening, and Canadians, will understand that when it comes to the balancing of a budget, or the managing of an economy, or dealing with important issues related to the environment, this government understands what Canadians expect of it. We have a Prime Minister who consistently says within his caucus that as members of Parliament, we are to bring our concerns from the constituencies we represent to Ottawa, and build the types of budgets and support programs that we believe Canadians expect of good governance. That is, in fact, what we have witnessed, budget after budget, with respect to Liberal budgets. I believe that Canadians are quite satisfied with the priorities this government has.

I made reference to the number of jobs. We created 600,000-plus jobs over two years. We believe in Canada's middle class. Canada's middle class is our number one priority, and that predates the Prime Minister becoming prime minister. When he was elected the leader of the Liberal Party, one of the very first statements he made was about getting behind Canada's middle class and supporting it, and supporting those who are aspiring to be a part of it. That has been priority one with this government from day one, and it will continue to be a priority of this government. If we invest in Canada's middle class, ultimately we are going to have a healthier economy. It is the middle class, and those aspiring to be a part of it, that push the economy.

Let me give members a specific example. Every month, millions of dollars goes into Winnipeg North, the riding I represent, through two programs that have been greatly enhanced by this government. One is the Canada child benefit and the other is the guaranteed income for seniors. These programs lifted hundreds of seniors and children out of poverty in Winnipeg North, and the same principle applies across this country.

Those individuals are consumers, and they are participating in the economy. They are helping to create the jobs that ultimately led this government, working with Canadians, to generate over 600,000 jobs. The Conservative Party votes against every progressive initiative, whether it is increasing funding to Canada's poorest seniors or supporting the children in our communities or giving tax breaks to Canada's middle class or giving the 1% a tax hike. It is never-ending.

The Conservatives will consistently find a way to be critical and to oppose. They make a darn good opposition. We hope to keep them there for many years.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I am gauging a great degree of interest in participating in questions and comments. Therefore, I will ask hon. members to keep their questions and comments concise so we can get as many in as we can.

The hon. member for Durham.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I love responding to my friend, the deputy House leader for the Liberals. I normally start off by reminding him that the omnibus budget implementation bill that is related to a lot of the debate tonight is something that he used to call an assault on democracy in all those old quotes. However, his speech was so interesting that I am not going to talk about his old chestnuts from when he was in opposition. I am going to compare how he talks about the NDP of Rachel Notley, their ideological friends, as opposed to the NDP's NDP in B.C.

It is interesting to see how far the mighty Liberal Party of Canada has gone on the spectrum. The Liberals are now left. He is admitting it. He was referring to his NDP friend as “Rachel” in the House. I would refer to her as Premier Notley. I think that is the respect she deserves. However, they are so far left, they are now comparing their left allies against the NDP's NDP.

Who are the member's favourite people on the left? Is it his friend Rachel in the NDP in Alberta, or is it the NDP from B.C.?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that we support good governance, and where there are good decisions being made, we can get behind them. Premier Notley, to make my friend happy, is doing a fantastic job with respect to the economy and the environment. As premier, she gets it, as the Prime Minister does. She recognizes that it is not only in Alberta's best interest but is in Canada's best interest. It is only the national NDP that has conceded the national best interest.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Québec debout, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to know that what I like about my Conservative friends is that at least they are honest. Some of them said earlier that they believe climate change is not caused by humans, but a side effect of human activity. That is why they think they can go on extracting oil, western Canada's dirty oil, even if it causes terrible, negative consequences, since they do not acknowledge them. They think that since oil makes money, they should continue to drill and develop this resource.

I strongly disagree with the claim made by the government and the Liberal Party that it is possible to protect the environment and grow the economy at the same time. My colleague said that in his speech. Unfortunately, that is incorrect. It is just not true that we can pollute shamelessly as long as we rake in as much money as possible and use part of it to clean up the pollution. That is not how it works.

The American academic Jeffrey D. Sachs from Columbia University said that the government lost all international credibility on climate change when it decided to buy what my colleague referred to as a pipeline in the national interest or national pipeline, even though the Prime Minister spoke of creating a postnational state.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a very important aspect of this whole debate that needs to be reinforced at times is that through the Trans Mountain expansion, we will see a significant generation of additional revenues, much of which will assist governments, whether it is at the provincial level or the national level. Ultimately, different provinces will also benefit from those additional revenues that will be generated. Many of the initiatives that will be taken will promote and encourage a healthier environment, clean technology, and all sorts of research capabilities. A great deal of money is being spent, and I suspect that a number of those dollars that will flow will come from natural resources.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way spoke about good government at the provincial level. If we deliver government at the provincial level like the current government has, apparently we end up being able to hold caucus meetings in a van. That is hopefully where it is headed as well.

He spoke about the middle class and those working hard to join it. The numbers clearly show that the middle class are paying more under the government, and they are not particularly happy about it.

My question about the estimates is with respect to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I understand that the committee only met twice to look at these different aspects of the votes. Here is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer had to say about the government's approach to the estimates. He stated:

The Government’s approach to funding Budget 2018 initiatives provides parliamentarians with information that only marginally supports their deliberations and places fewer controls around the money it approves.

Here is the thing about the government. It thinks it is doing such a good job, but it always refuses to be forthright with the information. It will not tell us how much the carbon tax costs, and it is coming up with this new secretive way of reporting the numbers. If the government thinks it is doing such a good job, why will it not show the numbers so people know and can decide?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know my friend and colleague was very good friends with Stephen Harper and worked with the old PMO staff in many ways. I am sure he would know Ian Brodie. Ian Brodie was the former chief of staff for Stephen Harper. As opposed to listening to what I have to say about the changes, here is what Ian Brodie has to say. He salutes the changes and believes that they put us on the right track.

If my Conservative friend does not want to believe me, maybe he should believe the former chief of staff of Stephen Harper and recognize that we are on the right track. Canadians are seeing more accountability and transparency with this government. It does not matter what the opposition might try to say. 'ore information is out there than there ever before, and we are on the right track.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Winnipeg North has made a lot of great comments and shared important information. I like his focus on the Liberals really making responsible investments.

In 2011, the NDP filibustered for about 58 hours. An MP on the Conservative side, who now happens to be the opposition House leader, estimated the costs at $50,000 an hour for that extra time. The member for Carleton has now said that the Conservatives will play a game and that game will last approximately 30 hours, which is a cost to Canadian taxpayers of about $1.5 million.

Therefore, I would like to ask the hon. member to comment on what the Conservative game is costing taxpayers this evening, not only with respect to the money but also the time it is taking the MPs away from their constituencies so they can consult with Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that it was the current opposition House leader who made the assertion that it was $50,000 an hour so the House could function. Yes, the member is right that this new ploy would cost well over $1 million.

However, we need to understand why the Conservatives are doing this. According to the first speech from the Conservatives today, they are upset because they want to have a better understanding of the costs of the price on pollution, even though they were in government when the report was done. I suspect there might even be a few of the former cabinet ministers who are aware of it. However, if they read the document that was made public back on April 1, there is all sorts of information in there. Maybe they could save the Canadian taxpayers $1.5 million by just doing a little reading and their homework.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if the government is worried about finding $1.5 million, why not save $4.5 billion by not buying a rusty, leaky pipeline? Does the government not want to save that money?

Obviously, if I were an Albertan working in the oil sands, I would be happy with the Liberals' decision. However, what is so appalling about this situation is that the Liberals were unable to fulfill their role of coordinating between the provinces, so they decided to get out the strap, impose their will, and buy the pipeline.

Is my colleague planning to do the same sort of thing with energy east in Quebec? If so, I will be waiting for him with a strap too.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is important to have good, solid social programming. I like to think that maybe someday we might have a national pharmacare program. I like to believe that we are going to be in a position to continue on with health care accords into the future. I believe that we need to continue to invest in infrastructure. I believe that we need to support our post-secondary education.

What the NDP does not realize is that our natural resources provide a tremendous amount of revenue to the Government of Canada and to our provinces, and it can be done in an environmentally sound way.

We on this side of the House agree with Premier Notley in Alberta when it comes to the Trans Mountain pipeline. It is the responsible way to do it. There has been a lot of consultation with a lot of stakeholders involved. It is in Canada's national best interest. It will be built.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton West.

Here we are, in the final moments of debate, the penultimate opportunity to speak to the 2018-19 main estimates. I am delighted to have this opportunity. For the benefit of folks looking in from home, the main estimates are supposed to list and outline the resources required by individual departments and agencies for the upcoming fiscal year, in order to deliver the programs for which they are responsible. The main estimates are supposed to be allotments of dollars and cents, many dollars and cents, aligned with specific spending plans, laid out by the government in the budget for the fiscal year.

As we know, budget 2018 was not an economic document. It was a virtue signalling, social engineering, shamelessly pandering, ideologically preoccupied pitch to what one respected national commentator described as “every conceivable Liberal client group and policy cult”.

This year, in budget 2018 the government told Canadians that total government revenues this year, taxes primarily, would amount to about $324 billion. Total expenditures by the government and its agencies and departments would be about $339 billion, leaving the budget in a deficit of more than $18 billion. Let us remember, this major deficit is much more than the modest deficits promised by the Liberals, and that their promise of a balanced budget by next year will also be broken, along with so many of their original 2015 campaign promises.

Getting back to the main estimates and how they are supposed to work, the various spending authorities are called “votes” with the amounts to be included in future appropriation bills that Parliament will be asked to approve to enable the government to proceed with its spending plans. That is the way it is supposed to work.

Members may recall the days when finance ministers explained in detail the planned expenditures to Parliament and to Canadians. Not here, there are scores of unknown and undetailed spending elements in the main estimates for 2018-19. That is why so many of my colleagues have shared with the House and Canadians their concern that the Liberals are changing the rules to suit their own suspect agenda.

Is “suspect” too extreme a characterization? I do not think so. After hearing so many opposition speakers, I am sure the Speaker shares our concerns regarding the unacceptable way the Liberals are trying to hide their spending intentions from Canadians. For example, we have the oft-referenced $7.4-billion example. Vote 40, a $7.4-billion vote, is either an attempt to hide next year's election year goodies funding, like the many million dollars dumped into the Quebec riding facing a by-election in just a very days, or it was a very large contingency fund to cover the President of the Treasury Board's unidentified spending priorities, as set by the direction of the Prime Minister and cabinet to avoid parliamentary oversight.

This $7.4 billion has been quite properly characterized by our shadow finance minister, the member for Carleton, as nothing more than a Liberal election-year slush fund. At committee earlier this month, departments that had received major allotments were unable to give meaningful answers about millions of dollars they were to receive or how the spending of those millions will be reported, if ever at all.

Instead, in something of a puppet show, Treasury Board officials stepped in to offer their answers for the department officials who could not. When it came time at that meeting to ask questions about how the mysterious $7.4 billion apparent slush fund would be spent, the Liberal members of committee walked out. Their abandonment of committee killed quorum, leaving those questions unanswered, as they are still unanswered today.

Among the scores of unanswered questions is another glaring question, which was debated in the House earlier today. That question involves the Liberal refusal to tell Canadians just how much the carbon tax obligations they have downloaded on the provinces to collect will cost the average Canadian family.

The Liberals know the answer. They will not tell us, and they will not tell Canadians. They have provided a document that quite clearly focuses on the potential impact of a carbon price on household consumption expenditures, but when the document comes to key findings, there is a blackout. Most segments of the rest of the document are redacted, hidden behind solid ink black blocks.

Members will recall that under our previous Conservative government, Canada worked to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by regulation. Even though Canada generates less than 2%, now far less than 2%, of the world's annual emissions, we acknowledged that we would work with the provinces to carefully reduce emissions while at the same time ensuring that we protected the economy, even as we protected the environment, lines that have since been taken by the Liberal minister and reiterated, by rote, in question period almost every day. As a result, our Conservative government was the first in history to achieve tangible, significant reductions of greenhouse gases.

We started with the transportation sector, the largest-emitting sector, and we created, in partnership with the United States, tailpipe regulations, which are reducing car and light-truck emissions and will, by 2025, reduce those emissions by 50%, and which will consume 50% less fuel. We set new regulations for heavy-duty trucks and buses that are seeing emissions from these vehicles, by this year, reduced by up to 23%, which means a saving of up to $8,000 a year for a semi-truck operator driving a newly purchased 2018 model vehicle.

We set marine emission guidelines, began work with the aviation and rail sectors, and then moved on to the next-largest emission sector: coal-fired electricity generating plants. We set emission-reduction regulations, and our former Conservative government imposed a ban on the construction of any new coal-fired units, the first government in the world to implement such a ban.

In every one of those emission-reducing regulations, scientists and economists at Environment Canada conducted a cost-benefit study, and in every one of those situations, we were able to show that the benefits of the regulations outweighed the costs. The regulated sectors and the provinces and the consumers knew what careful, reasonable regulation would cost. That is why we are so concerned by the Liberals' refusal to come clean on the estimated cost to the average Canadian family of their carbon tax.

I would like to end with just a couple of statements by past and present parliamentary budget officers. Former PBO, Kevin Page, said, of the unaccounted billions in the main estimates, “Financial control and ministerial accountability are being undermined.” He said that of the current government and the main estimates and the budget. Mr. Page said, “This is a new low for our appropriation system.”

The current PBO said, “virtually none of the money requested in the new Budget Implementation vote has undergone scrutiny through the standard Treasury Board Submission process.” In effect, the current Parliamentary Budget Officer is saying that the government is getting the money through its majority, without proper scrutiny and accountability to this elected House.

Therefore, we in the official opposition will, in the coming many hours, stand so many times, proudly, to oppose the Liberals' unexplained, undocumented, and unaccounted removal of billions of dollars from the national treasury, to be spent in ways that can only be described as highly suspect in the coming election year.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the price on pollution at the beginning of his comments. Guiding principle No. 18 of the constitution of the Conservative Party states, “A belief that Canada should accept its obligations among the nations of the world.” Our government accepted its obligations among the nations of the world by signing the Paris accord.

Why is the Conservative Party going against its own guiding principles on that issue?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of getting rid of the ineffective, unworkable, and unsubscribed Kyoto treaty, which the Liberals signed onto and then they raised emissions by 35%, our government signed the Copenhagen Accord and committed to responsibly balance reducing emissions and protecting our economy, lines which, as I said, have been appropriated by the current environment minister.

As I noted in my speech, and as has been noted by my colleagues any number of times, Canada contributes far less than two per cent of the world's annual global emissions, while China, the largest emitter, has an over-the-horizon commitment to do something someday, while still generating billions of tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere through coal-fired generating stations, which we have banned in this country.

We have balanced what the Liberals claim to balance, and it must be noted that when they went to Paris, they adopted our Copenhagen standards.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the just path is always the right one. So goes the Yiddish proverb, which I know the member for Thornhill will thoroughly enjoy. We know that the government is on the unjust path with vote 40 and how it is going to proceed on its spending plans.

The example I give to my constituents to explain what vote 40 means for them is this. I have three kids, and I hope we will be adding a fourth child in August. I have two boys. It would be like my youngest son coming to me and saying, “Dad, I need $20, but instead of me telling you what I am going to spend it on, just give it to my older brother, who will make sure that I spend the $20 wisely.”

Does the member think that this is the right way to do things, to allow the Treasury Board to be like the older brother, who really knows how the money is going to be spent without me knowing where that $20 is going?

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy my hon. colleague's introduction of humour and folk stories, very often some with a Yiddish origin. The lesson of the parable of the older brother that he has just reminded us of is a very good analogy to what the President of the Treasury Board is trying to get away with by explaining that the government knows best. It will take money from the national treasury, again with the force of the majority, the tyranny of the majority, and then it will spend that money in ways that will never be fully accounted for.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the member for Thornhill the opportunity to talk a little about the mismanagement we are seeing from the Liberals, especially when it comes to the $7-billion slush fund. Does he think the Liberals can actually manage a $7-billion slush fund?

[An hon. member]

Just watch us.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the answer came from the other side, “Just watch us.” The glaring problem that not only we in the official opposition and the NDP, but all Canadians see is the manner in which the Liberal government disrespected accountability and transparency in committee. A member seemed to celebrate when I made the point that, when questions came around to the $7.4-billion slush fund, the Liberal committee members actually left the committee, killed quorum, and refused to answer questions, which they and the President of the Treasury Board still refuse to answer today.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Treasury Board president will stand fast for questions.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to the Liberal slush fund, vote 40 of the estimates. I want to quote from King Edward I when he said, “what touches all, should be approved by all, and it is also clear that common dangers should be met by measures agreed upon in common”. King Edward originally said this in 1295 when calling the model parliament. At the time, legislative authority was limited primarily to levying taxes. I am sure the current government would love to go back to that era when all parliament did was levy taxes. Edward's goal at the time was to raise funds for the campaign against the Scots and the French, nobel causes I guess, unless one happens to be French or Scottish.

What does this have to do with the budget? Some 753 years ago, King Edward I, in calling the model parliament, set up new functions for spending approvals and addressing grievances. The estimates, with their odious vote 40, violate such long-held functions of what touches all should be approved by all.

What is vote 40? It is basically a slush fund. I will give a quick glossary of some of the items we talked about today. For those watching at home wondering what we are doing, the estimates are basically the spending authority. The budget of course is just an aspirational thing. It is like having a plan to put something together, like perhaps a hockey rink on Parliament Hill, and they might come up with a budget of $8 million. Actually cutting the cheque and paying for it would be in the estimates, which is the spending authority. The public accounts, which I will talk about later, are the books that reconcile all the spending at the end of the year.

I want to read the PBO's letter about the public accounts, because it is important. Not one penny of the spending from the slush fund is going to show up detailed in the public accounts, unlike items such as the hockey rink, or perhaps the $200,000 Twitter account for the health minister. The $7.4 billion will not show up detailed in the public accounts. The Treasury Board president has tried to say otherwise, but the PBO says that currently the main summaries in volume 2, etc. provide dollar amounts to all authorities being transferred from each central vote. The spending data is rolled up and provided as a total number, not detailed, just a lump sum transfer.

There is no accountability for where this money is going to be spent. Why is that? It is basically to cover up the failed actions of the Treasury Board president. He promised us easier understanding of the spending, alignment of the estimates to the budget, and more transparency. We actually got the opposite. We get ministers not coming to committee to defend their spending. We have the Liberal members of the operations committee blocking. We tried repeatedly to add other meetings to have ministers and officials come and explain their spending. We were blocked. We had one extra meeting and Liberal members of OGGO actually walked out, denying us quorum. They had a chance to debate the $7.4 billion. It was the very first item we were debating. They walked out and deprived us the right to actually talk about it.

The voters put us here to approve all that touches us, and the Liberals are trying to stop us. They are the same people who gave us ad scam, the same people who had 10% of their cabinet under ethics investigations. It would have been 13%, but they threw out one of the members, the member for Calgary Centre. The Prime Minister and finance minister have been investigated under ethics. Of course it was not the first finance minister investigated. The current public safety minister, when he was finance minister, was also investigated for ethics.

With all these ethics issues, these are the same people who are saying give us $7 billion of taxpayers' money with no oversight, no plan, and no scrutiny. Remember, not one penny of the $7.4 billion slush fund shows up in any of the departmental plans. Why is that? We were told the plans are not mature. We were told they could not tell us what the money is for in the slush fund because they have not come up with a plan. They have no backup on how they got to the $7.4 billion and what will be spent from the program, but they do want us to preapprove it. they want it to be spent and never seen again. The government's own lauded GC InfoBase, which it claims will show the spending, will only show what the public accounts show. A lump sum transfer will not show details.

In committee, we asked procurement and public services what the details were of the two-thirds of a billion dollars in vote 40. We asked what the money was going to be used for, what results they were hoping to achieve. We were told they were preparing a case to go to Treasury Board, and when they do they will have that information for us. Not now, not in advance, but once they know what they are going to spend it on they will get back to us.

I asked if they had the information now and I was told no.

We asked the procurement minister if she thought that Parliament should rubber-stamp $650 million of taxpayers' money without a plan on how to spend it. When we asked how she even came up with this total, we were told to check with Treasury Board Secretariat. Maybe the Treasury Board president could tell us how he came to that $650 million.

We asked about the $300 million for Phoenix and why there was no breakdown of spending details. I was told it would be presumptuous to put it in the departmental plan when the money had not even been approved by Parliament or by Treasury Board.

We are asked to pre-approve money in vote 40 with zero backup, yet we are told it is presumptuous to expect a budget or details. Imagine going to a bank and saying, “Give me a million-dollar loan.” The bank manager asks me what I want it for and I say I am not going to tell. I tell the manager to give me the money and let me spend it, but I will not say what I spent it on. However, I say I will provide a copy of the cancelled cheque to show it was spent.

It is no different with vote 40. We have repeatedly asked what the money is to be used for and the government tells us it does not know. How is this being accountable to taxpayers? How are we going to see what we are getting for the money? We do not know. Not one penny of that is in the departmental plans.

The government goes on and on about trying to provide safe drinking water on reserves. There is $100 million in vote 40, but it does not show up in the government's departmental plans. Not once does it show up as a target on how or what the government is going to achieve with that $100 million.

I asked someone in Treasury Board about the $300 million. I asked for a breakdown, because that money could be used for anything. What is stopping the government from spending that $300 million by providing a thousand dollar payout to every single employee as a reward for putting up with Phoenix? I was told nothing is to stop the government from doing that. The government is actually being sued by the public service. The gentleman from Treasury Board was intimating that perhaps that is what the money was going to be used for. Again we do not know what it is going to be used for.

We asked Privy Council officials about their spending and we were told they could not tell us the details because the money is not approved yet. They do not have a plan as to how that money will be spent. Who is the minister responsible for the Privy Council? It is the Prime Minister. This is a perfect example of what is going on with this department and what the plan is.

We have heard throughout the evening from Liberal members that the Parliamentary Budget Officer supports them. They say the previous Parliamentary Budget Officer supported them. Here is the truth. This is what Kevin Page, the former Parliamentary Budget Officer has to say about the vote 40 slush fund. He said that there was no way that this was an improvement. He did not say it could be okay, or maybe there was some good stuff about it. He said there was no way that this was an improvement.

The PBO says that because not one penny in the slush fund is in the departmental plans, so the estimates and the budget cannot be considered aligned.

The Treasury Board president is taking away accountability and transparency under the guise of making it easier for Canadians to understand because it is now aligned. However, here we have the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who he was happy to quote earlier supporting vote 40, telling us that the Treasury Board president's main reason for taking away accountability has not even achieved real alignment.

I want to finish with a final word from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He said, “Over the past twenty years, the Executive Branch has gradually ceded additional support and control to Parliament.” Perhaps we could go 753 years back to the model Parliament, but Treasury Board vote 40 would represent an inflection point in this trend going the other way, where Parliament would now receive incomplete information and be able to exercise less control. He goes on to say that the main problem, as has been stated before by him and as said by the Treasury Board president, is not the alignment of the estimates; it is the government's inability to get their programs out the door.

He states in his review of the estimates process that parliamentarians have to decide whether it is worth it to allow the government to continue their incompetent way of getting the programs out the door and to allow them a blank check to spend $7.4 billion of taxpayers' money rather than getting their act together.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here tonight to pose a question for my friend and colleague from the Conservative Party. Of course, I would gently remind him that it was the Conservative government that in fact was taken to court by the Parliamentary Budget Office for not sharing information on spending with Parliament. Furthermore, it was the Harper Conservative government, the first government in the history of the British Commonwealth, to be found in contempt of Parliament for not providing the necessary information on government spending to Parliament.

Beyond that, I would refer the member to the measures that are listed very specifically in the estimates in annex 1, which will give him, granularly, the amounts of money being expended, specifically by the department or agency.

I would also give him the opportunity to benefit from the monthly updates on how much money was allocated and how much is remaining, which will be available when he uses a search engine to look at Treasury Board Canada budget implementation vote 2018.

Furthermore, if he looks at the departmental results framework, he will find that in fact this is unprecedented in terms of transparency to Parliament. However, I fear the hon. member would not know the difference between a frozen allotment and a slush fund at this point, having heard his comments tonight—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Edmonton West.