House of Commons Hansard #315 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pricing.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

It being 5:30 p.m., pursuant to an order made on Tuesday, May 29, 2018, and this being the final supply day in the period ending June 23, 2018, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the opposition motion.

May I dispense?

Opposition Motion—Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Opposition Motion—Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

[Chair read text of motion to the House]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Opposition Motion—Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Opposition Motion—Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

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

Opposition Motion—Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Opposition Motion—Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

All those opposed will please say nay.

Opposition Motion—Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Opposition Motion—Carbon PricingBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), the recorded division stands deferred until later this day.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline AgencyMain Estimates, 2018-19Government Orders

5:30 p.m.

Kings—Hants Nova Scotia

Liberal

Scott Brison LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board

moved:

That Vote 1, in the amount of $465,000, under Northern Pipeline Agency — Program expenditures and contributions, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2019, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, tonight, I am pleased to speak about the 2018-19 main estimates, which I tabled on April 16. The main estimates provide information to support the government's request that Parliament approve $276 billion in spending to deliver programs and services in the fiscal year starting April 1, 2018. This includes $113 billion in planned voted expenditures, and $163 billion in statutory expenditures.

The main estimates support two appropriation bills, the first Appropriation Act No. 1, 2018-19, approved $31 billion in interim funding for voted expenditure requirements in the first three months of the fiscal year. The second Appropriation Act No. 2, 2018-19 will approve the remaining $82 billion. Through these main estimates, the government continues to make important investments in the priorities of Canadians: growth, progress, reconciliation, and advancement as part of our plan to grow and strengthen Canada's middle class.

We are also delivering on our commitments in a manner that is open, transparent, and accountable to Parliament.

Canadians and the parliamentarians representing them have the right to know how public funds are being spent, and to hold government to account.

That is why we made changes to the estimates process to make it easier for Canadians and parliamentarians to track expenditures. For the first time in recent history, the main estimates will include all budget measures announced in this year's budget.

This is a major step forward, and it has been made possible in part by changing the tabling date of the main estimates to mid-April, after the budget. In the past, new initiatives announced in the budget did not appear in the main estimates because the main estimates were tabled before the budget. Parliamentarians were left largely in the dark about how spending announced in the budget would be allocated to departments. The Globe and Mail rightly called the system bad to the point of absurdity, with spending estimates usually coming before the budget and in a different accounting format, rendering them virtually meaningless. As the Globe put it, “It's a discredited practice that has only served to keep MPs in the dark about how tax dollars are being spent.” That is why our government has taken steps to address these problems and strengthen transparency to Parliament.

We have revised the Standing Orders so that the main estimates are much more likely to be tabled after the budget. To do this, we have added the new budget implementation vote to the main estimates. Changing the sequencing allows the 2018-19 main estimates to include all the measures announced in the budget for this year. Therefore, today, parliamentarians have a document in front of them that is relevant and complete so they are better able to hold government to account for how it spends tax dollars. By law, this money can only be spent on the measures announced in the budget tabled on February 27, 2018. Treasury Board, as a central agency, does not have any discretion to use the funds for any other purpose. Parliamentarians can now trace each and every allocation from this new central vote to a specific line in the budget. That is table A2.11 in the budget, and in the main estimates in annex 1.

Allow me to address some of the concerns that have been raised recently about the budget implementation vote. Let us take the assertion that the budget implementation vote does not allow sufficient oversight by parliamentarians. As someone who has served in this House for over 21 years, I respectfully disagree. In fact, parliamentarians still have the opportunity to study and vote on the budget and the estimates and the appropriation bills for the main and supplementary estimates. In both the budget plan and the main estimates, they have a detailed disclosure of the measures to be funded from the central vote. Former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, recently called the detailed table in the 2018 budget, “a 'clear signal' that the federal government wants and is working to give a more accurate figure of the year's upcoming spending”.

Parliamentarians will also be able to see allocations to departments and remaining balances for the line-by-line budget measures in monthly reports online and in the next available estimates.

I would add that former Department of Finance officials and economists, Scott Clark and Peter DeVries, gave budget 2018 an A grade for fiscal credibility, writing:

With respect to transparency the 2018 budget provides more detailed financial analysis and information than any budget that we can remember, and we go back a long way. For critics of the budget who felt such information was lacking, they should perhaps take the time to read the Annexes.

Let me now turn to the suggestion that the constraints placed around the use of the funds in the budget implementation vote are not sufficiently binding. This is completely untrue.

Annex 1 of the main estimates details, line by line, the limitations of the vote. It includes specific measures, departments, and maximum funding available for budget 2018 through the central vote. In addition, as I mentioned, on page 261 of the TBS main estimates, we reiterate these details.

Treasury Board cannot allocate additional funds or otherwise reallocate funding from other initiatives to support these programs.

Let us say, for example, that circumstances change, and the government proposes increasing funding for a budget measure identified in the budget implementation vote. The result would be that a separate funding decision would be required. Parliament would then be asked to approve the items separately in future estimates. I will provide an example.

Budget 2018 proposes a number of important investments, including $154 million to the Department of Health to address the opioid crisis. These funds are reflected in the 2018-19 main estimates budget implementation vote. Let us say that over the course of the year the opioid crisis worsened and the government decided it needed to invest more. If the government wanted to increase funding for this, or for any other budget measure identified in the budget implementation vote for that matter, a separate funding decision would be required and Parliament would be asked to approve the items separately in future estimates.

I spoke with the Parliamentary Budget Officer about the idea of amending the wording of the vote to create even more clarity and provide him and Parliament with even greater assurance. I am pleased to report that based on that conversation, we have amended the vote wording in the appropriation bill to incorporate by reference the details in annex 1 of the main estimates.

I invite members to turn to page 29 of the supply bill, which states, “Authority granted to the Treasury Board to supplement any appropriation of a department or other organization set out in Annex 1 to the Main Estimates for the fiscal year, for an initiative announced in the Budget of February 27, 2018, and set out under that department or other organizations name in that Annex, in an amount that does not exceed the amount set out opposite that initiative in the Annex.”

With this amendment, it is even clearer that funding may only be provided for the measures, amounts, and organizations detailed line by line in annex 1 of the main estimates.

It is also worth noting that Auditor General Michael Ferguson has said “he’s less concerned by the $7-billion vote because...the government is bound to the line-by-line promises.” He said, “You have to allocate it”, funding for the budget measures, “on that basis, you can’t just decide somebody else should get more and somebody else can get less. To me that’s not the authority that they’ve been given by Parliament.” We wholeheartedly agree with the Auditor General.

Finally, I would like to address the view that the initiatives to be funded through this vote are not reflected in the departmental plans, that there remains a lack of alignment between the budget initiatives and the planned results. Allow me to clarify that alignment between the main estimates and departmental plans has not changed. Instead, we have actually improved transparency by including budget 2018 funding in a central vote managed by the Treasury Board Secretariat.

As the year progresses, parliamentarians will be able to better track budget allocations because they will be reported in the monthly online reports; the next available supplementary estimates; the departmental results report, after the fiscal year has ended; and through a budget implementation tracker on the GC infobase. This is a level of transparency not available in previous estimates that parliamentarians have been debating and voting on for years.

I would now like to talk about budget 2018 and highlight some of the measures our government is taking for the middle class. Canadians want to ensure that more and more people benefit from a growing economy.

That includes Canada's talented, ambitious, and hard-working women. By supporting women entrepreneurs, reducing the gender wage gap, and increasing the participation of women in the labour force, we are helping boost economic growth for all Canadians.

Budget 2018 also aims to close the gap between the living conditions of indigenous peoples and non-indigenous peoples, facilitate self-determination, and advance recognition of rights.

As of today, 63 long-term drinking water advisories on reserves have been lifted, but there is still much more work to be done. Our government is committed to ending long-term drinking water advisories on public water systems on reserves by March 2021, and we are making greater investments through budget 2018 to try to beat that deadline.

To help address employment gaps between indigenous and non-indigenous populations, we are investing $2 billion over five years to create a new indigenous skills and employment training program.

Budget 2018 also creates new opportunities for innovators since its invests nearly $4 billion over five years to support the next generation of Canadian researchers. This is the most significant investment ever made in basic research in Canada.

Through these estimates, we are investing in the priorities of Canadians. We are creating economic growth for the middle class and those working hard to join it. In addition, we are making important changes that will improve the clarity, transparency, and accountability of government spending. In doing so, we are continuing to raise the bar on openness and transparency to Parliament and Canadians.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline AgencyMain Estimates, 2018-19Government Orders

5:40 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the past PBO on the use of the estimates for a slush fund. Kevin Page said, “There’s no way it’s an improvement.” He likes to cherry pick a couple of comments from the past PBO, but this is what he actually said of the vote 40 slush fund, that there was no way it was an improvement. He continues, “The irony is they’re asking Parliament to write a cheque, to provide these authorities, when the executive has not scrutinized the measures.”

The current PBO, whom the Treasury Board president seems to think is in agreement with him, said that because not one penny of the slush fund was in the departmental plans, the Treasury Board president had not aligned the estimates and the budget.

Seeing that the whole point of this was to align the estimates with the budget, which the PBO has said is clearly not done, could the President of the Treasury Board tell us why he is taking away the scrutiny and the power of Parliament when he has not accomplished what he tried to set out to do?

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline AgencyMain Estimates, 2018-19Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I would draw the attention of the hon. member to the words of the Auditor General, who did recognize that our government could not move funding arbitrarily from one of these commitment to another, one of these investments that are listed quite clearly in annex 1 of the main estimates and referred to in the supply bill, without coming back to Parliament.

It is a little rich, coming from the Conservatives, to talk about openness and transparency to Parliament or respect for the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In the last Parliament, the PBO had to take the Harper Conservatives to court to get information on government spending. Furthermore, the Harper Conservative government was the only government in the history of the British Commonwealth to have been found to be in contempt of Parliament by Mr. Speaker Milliken for not providing the information required by Parliament to do our work.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline AgencyMain Estimates, 2018-19Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, one of the important aspects of accountability is the challenge function. That is true for Parliament. Part of our job in opposition is to challenge the government on its planned spending.

One of the problems with Treasury Board vote 40 is that when departmental officials are called before committees to answer questions about what they plan to do with the money, in a number of cases they tell us flat out that they have not planned what to do with the money. They have a basic idea, high level, but as to how they will deliver on that high level, the work will not be done until the money is approved.

That makes it hard for Parliament to do its job of holding the government to account when the government itself says that it does not have any plans for which we can hold it to account. Is that a model of accountability that the President of the Treasury Board would accept?

If department officials went to Treasury Board, asked for funds, told officials not to worry because they would post online monthly reports with respect to what they did with the funds, and they could be held to account after the fact, does the minister think that is an acceptable model for accountability in Treasury Board?

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline AgencyMain Estimates, 2018-19Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, Treasury Board is not only acting more rigorously than under the previous government, but is acting more transparently.

I suspect the hon. member is familiar with the search engine Google. If he were to google Treasury Board Canada budget implementation vote 2018, he will see monthly updates on how much of the funding has been allocated and how much remains. If he wants to go further to understand the activities of departments and really follow the money, he could use that search engine, Google, and google departmental results framework with the name of a department. He will not only see greater information and clarity on the activities of the department, but he will see, for the first time ever, that our government is reporting on results of investments. We are not just focused on outputs, on how much we are spending, but we are focused on outcomes, what we are achieving.

Further, if he would like to google Treasury Board Canada departmental plans, he can review the annual plans for each department.

I have great respect for the hon. member and I have great respect for—

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline AgencyMain Estimates, 2018-19Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Order, please. Perhaps the hon. President of the Treasury Board could elaborate on that point in the next iteration.

The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline AgencyMain Estimates, 2018-19Government Orders

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague talk about the budget was a delight.

My riding is north of Montreal. It is a prosperous suburb with many small and medium-sized businesses, including some in the aerospace sector, and a lot of export activity. I am also fortunate to be a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade, which studied a number of free trade agreements, including the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, and the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, the CPTPP. The latter will be implemented under Bill C-79, which was introduced today.

I would like to know how this will help the middle class in my riding and the rest of Canada. Will it help grow the middle class by opening up opportunities for female entrepreneurs in our ridings? I would like my colleague to talk about the opportunities these agreements and the budget will create.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline AgencyMain Estimates, 2018-19Government Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the question.

Let me start off by saying that it is patently obvious we have to diversify our international trade relationships. That is why our Minister of International Trade, our Prime Minister, and our whole team are working very hard to sign free trade agreements such as the CPTPP and CETA.

Diversifying our relationships is of vital importance. We need to make sure that our businesses, be they large or small, have the means to increase prosperity and create middle-class jobs. That is an important part of our plan.

It is also crucial that we enhance economic opportunities available to women across Canada, and our commitment to that is clear in the latest budget.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline AgencyMain Estimates, 2018-19Government Orders

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly McCauley Conservative Edmonton West, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue about the transparency, or lack thereof, of vote 40. When we had the Minister of Public Services and Procurement at committee to discuss the $650 million, almost two-thirds of a billion dollars, in vote 40 and what it was for, she was not able to answer. She referred it to her assistant deputy minister and senior CFO.

There was $300 million for Phoenix. We asked him specifically what it was for. He was not able to answer. He told us it was preposterous to expect parliamentarians and taxpayers to know what the money was being planned for and what the planned results were before we approved it.

I am wondering if the President of the Treasury Board believes it is preposterous that parliamentarians and taxpayers should know what the plans are and what makes up this money before we approve it.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline AgencyMain Estimates, 2018-19Government Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member's question was specifically on Public Services and Procurement Canada.

To go through that, the investments will be $307 million, through the 2018-19 main estimates, for PSPC to stabilize the government's pay system. That is a mess we inherited from the Harper Conservatives, who, in cutting $70 million from the budget at that time, eliminated 700 pay advisers and created the genesis of the situation we have now.

Also, $275 million will be invested to maintain and repair real property. The Government of Canada, through Public Services and Procurement Canada, manages about seven million square metres of office space. Of that, 3.5 million square meters are owned, and 3.5 million are leased. That will help repair real property. There are a lot of deferred maintenance issues in our real property portfolio that simply need to be addressed.

It will also include $52 million to be invested to find a simpler and better procurement solution. We know the importance of using modern tools and digital technology to improve the relationship between the Government of Canada and the people we serve. That includes the vendor community, which is why we are investing to make it easier to do business with the Government of Canada, grow their businesses, and provide great services for the people.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline AgencyMain Estimates, 2018-19Government Orders

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

That will conclude the period of time for questions and comments. I have taken note of the interest of hon. members in participating in questions and comments and will make sure we can fit you in during subsequent rounds.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline AgencyMain Estimates, 2018-19Government Orders

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

One of the most important principles we have as elected members of Parliament is what we call the responsibility of government.

This means that when a government tables a budget or potential expenditure, it will be analyzed by the elected representatives of the people. This is one of the founding principles, a pillar of our system, and we must maintain and support it. We certainly must not ignore it, which is why we are here today talking about the latest main estimates tabled by the President of the Treasury Board for the upcoming year.

There is one thing in particular in these main estimates that members of the official opposition and members of the second opposition group are worried about, namely the infamous vote 40.

This vote would give the government access to a $7.4-billion envelope to spend according to its priorities, and it would not have to report on this envelope until the fall of 2019. I remind members that there will be an election in the fall of 2019. The government is essentially getting a blank cheque so big that it is almost grotesque, but that is the truth. The government is getting $7.4 billion, and it can do whatever it wants with it. Life is good, and we will talk about it after the election.

This is not how things work in our democratic system. It is important and imperative that every dollar spent be subject to scrutiny.

If by some misfortune this vote is approved and we accept this situation, that is more than $7 billion that will be sheltered from the scrutiny that we are all subject to in accordance with our mandate. The sad thing is that the programs are vague and it is even written that way in the legislation. The money can be associated with departments or agencies, but the legislation does not specify where the money will go, how it will be spent, and what their objectives are. It is worrisome.

There are also no progress reports. Usually we would get a report every three to four months. That makes sense because it allows us to know how far we have come, are we on course? Are we following the curve? Is the spending in line with what was projected or are we spending too much? It is important to have an update every three or four months, depending on the expenses. In this case, reports are not required. That is another concern.

There is also no legal controls around the use of this fund, which should be a top priority. It is very important. When we vote on budgets, on envelopes, we have some idea of what is in store. Sometimes there are some contingencies, which is totally legitimate, but we know where we can spend and where we cannot. That is what we call legal controls. None exist in the case of vote 40. We believe that is a concern that absolutely must be addressed.

The same goes for the budget. There are things in this budget that are vague and lack legal restraints. Everything is left to the goodwill of the government. It can spend as it sees fit with the margin of manoeuvre that it gave itself.

I am sure that, later on, my colleagues across the way will very keenly claim that I do not know my history and that I should know that my own government, meaning the previous government, did the same thing with a $3-billion budget.

Given that Canada and the entire world were in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the great recession, it was perfectly normal for the government to give itself three billion dollars' worth of latitude. I would point out that that is less than half of the amount currently at issue, and back then, the economic climate called for swift, immediate action.

Everyone knows that the situation is reversed today, because the economy is booming around the world, not just in Canada. That means our economy is flourishing and jobs are being created, all thanks to the global economic boom. We need to keep that in mind.

Naturally, as soon as the subject of public finances or budgets comes up, since that is what we are talking about, I feel impelled to remind the members that the government betrayed the trust Canadians had placed in it. Almost three years ago now, these people got elected on the promise of small deficits and a zero deficit in 2019.

How is that actually playing out? The deficit is three times higher than promised, and we have no idea when the budget will be balanced. Then the Liberals have the gall to ask us to trust them when they say the $7.4 billion will be put to good use. We want to believe them, we know they are not dishonest folks, but the problem is that they said one thing to get elected and are now doing the opposite. The problem is that voters believed they could trust them. Unfortunately, they were wrong. The Liberals have not kept their promises. They have scrapped the agenda they campaigned on. Day after day, they talked about how they were bold enough, courageous enough, but also responsible enough to say that deficits were necessary to stimulate the economy and that everything would be fine. Great. Wonderful.

Today we see the truth of it. The Liberals have run up massive deficits and have no idea when they will balance the budget. That flies in the face of every single recognized, rigorous economic theory. Just because a country is enjoying a period of prosperity does not mean it should go into debt. We all know about economic cycles. Sooner or later, when prosperity is flagging, the government will have to pay for today's spending with money it does not have.

The government likes to crow about its lofty principles, saying how fantastic it is that it has lifted thousands of children out of poverty with more generous benefits than the previous government offered. It is so easy to hand out money one does not have and, I would add, so low to claim to be doing it for the children, when they are the ones who are going to pay for it later.

A deficit is a debt. When is a debt paid? Later. A debt is a bill that our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay because today's Liberal government does not know how to manage money responsibly. It certainly cannot manage it properly with the mandate it was given, which was specifically to run a small deficit.

Just to be clear, what the government is saying to us right now is, “Send us $7.4 billion. We know what is good, and people will see it a year and a half from now, because all the results will be in the fall of 2019.” What a coincidence. It will be just after what? It will be after the election. Who will have to get all the problems from that? For sure, the official opposition, which we are today, will be in office two years from now.

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline AgencyMain Estimates, 2018-19Government Orders

6 p.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Longfield Liberal Guelph, ON

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the hon. member's financial interventions. I like finance. I come from a business background.

One thing I noticed when I became a member of Parliament was that budgets and estimates did not align with each other. They were in different periods. They were in different years. It was confusing to see what we were budgeting and what we were actually spending and how we compared the two. Now when we go on Canada.ca, it is all in the same period. We can see last year's expenditures, this year's estimates voted on, next year's estimates, and estimates to date. Therefore, we now have full transparency between budgets and estimates, bringing them into the same period.

The $7 billion that was on the floor has to do with coming into the same period. Would the hon. member comment on how helpful or hurtful it has been for us to now have budgets and estimates in the same period?

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline AgencyMain Estimates, 2018-19Government Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, if it is so good, why do we have to wait until October 2019 to have the real results of what we are debating today? We are talking about $7.4 billion. When will we know exactly how that money will be spent? It will be a year and a half from now.

I was very interested in the comments of my colleague. He said he is very interested in finance and all of that. I am sure he has read what he was elected for. I have the platform of the Liberal Party. When the Liberals were talking about finance, they said they would produce small deficits for three years and get back to a zero deficit in 2019. They were elected on that. Where are the results?

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline AgencyMain Estimates, 2018-19Government Orders

6:05 p.m.

NDP

Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

When it comes to managing public funds, Canadians must be able to trust the members of the government, but we also need to have processes in place that are so transparent that Canadians and parliamentarians are left with no doubt that funds are being managed appropriately.

One of the problems with vote 40 for the Treasury Board Secretariat is that the government does not want to provide any information until after the funds have been spent.

Is it right to approve and allow spending without providing any information about it, or is is not important to have that information before approving it?

Concurrence in Vote 1—Northern Pipeline AgencyMain Estimates, 2018-19Government Orders

6:05 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by commending, thanking, and congratulating the member for the quality of his French. It is really remarkable and impressive. I see that my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé is nodding because she shares the same vision and has said the same thing. Let us be proud of all the members who speak admirably in French and English, which is appreciated. I will also commend the President of the Treasury Board, who answered some questions in excellent French.

Now, the issue raised by my colleague from British Columbia and a member of the second opposition party is quite pertinent and goes to the heart of today's debate. When we have to vote on a budget, we need to know the exact amounts that will be spent and where, how, and when they will be spent. Furthermore, the results should be reported on a regular basis.

In this instance, for the $7.4 billion, that is not happening. We are not even close to having ministerial responsibility. That is why we are very concerned and believe that the government should fix this situation, tell Canadians the truth, and not wait until after the election to disclose how it spent this money.