Debates of Dec. 9th, 2019

Supplementary Estimates (A), 2019-20

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Chair, again, there is no specific plan for Alberta. There is a plan to spend $265 million for wealthy Canadians to buy foreign-made cars, but there is nothing in it for Alberta. Why is the government giving subsidies to create jobs in other countries while Canadian communities suffer?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, as I said, I am delighted to be part of this evening's committee of the whole. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House that, over the past four years, by investing in infrastructure, the middle class and environmental protection while growing the economy, we were able to deliver better results across the board.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Chair, $99.7 million is allocated for electric vehicles in the government's contingency vote, vote 5. Why is the government using the contingency vote, which is supposed to be for emergencies, for electric vehicle subsidies? What is the emergency?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, this is a procedure that has been followed since the start of Confederation to protect the integrity of the government and its ability to invest in Canadians at a time when all information is not yet available. This is the usual practice of the government in the House of Commons.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Chair, that is not usual practice. Contingency funds are for emergencies.

The government emphasizes making energy-efficient homes more affordable for the average Canadian, yet the government has $200 million for wealthy electric-vehicle owners and $300 million to fight climate change in foreign countries. Where are the benefits for the average Canadian homeowner?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, this is another example of the importance of investing in workers and middle-class families and helping more Canadians join the middle class. It is the best way in the 21st century to grow the economy. Unlike other philosophical foundations in economics, we have learned in the last years that this is the best way not only from an economic efficiency perspective but also from a fairness perspective.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Chair, the tax cuts the Liberals announced today would mean a savings of only 38¢ a day for taxpayers and 76¢ a day for families. Meanwhile, the government is handing out $265 million for cars that the middle class cannot even afford. Why the hypocrisy?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, it is a perfect opportunity to remind members that the government did exactly the same thing in 2015. The first thing we did was reduce taxes for middle-class Canadians, which helped reduce the tax burden on nine million Canadians. Again this year, with the promises we made in the campaign, we are able to reduce taxes for middle-class Canadians and those aspiring to be members of the middle class, some 20 million Canadians. This is something we are proud of.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Chair, I am not sure how spending $265 million on electric cars is going to bring people into the middle class.

However, does the President of the Treasury Board agree that parliamentarians must have all information before voting on important measures like spending plans?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, our colleague makes a very important point. It is not only the privilege but the responsibility of members to do all they can to support an open, transparent and accountable government. We have strived to do this in the last four years, but there is always more to do and we are counting on members of the other parties to help us do that.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Chair, does the President of the Treasury Board agree that incomplete plans should not be put to a vote, as the parameters of the plans may change significantly?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, as I explained earlier, there are certain elements that, for reasons of transparency, as well as integrity and governmental prudence, have been appearing a certain way in the public accounts and estimates since the start of Confederation.

I would be very pleased to explain to the member in greater detail why this is.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, it is the custom in committee of the whole that the government be given the same length of time to answer a question as given to a member asking one. I understand that when it is a difficult question, a member can have a bit more time, but regarding a member's time on a simple yes or no question, I would ask, Mr. Chair, that you follow the rules we generally follow in committee of the whole and allow the government the same time to answer a question as allowed when the question was asked.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I do watch the time intervals closely. I can say that through the course of all of this exchange, it is within about a five-to-10 second difference. However, we will keep an eye on that.

I will say, as the member raised the point, that if a member poses a question in seven or eight seconds that requires a more fulsome response, then, obviously, the minister has to have a little time to be able to answer accordingly. However, we will be diligent to make sure that it is even. I thank the hon. member for raising the point of order.

The hon. member for Edmonton Mill Woods.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Chair, we are still seeing updates to the 2018 vote 40 slush fund. Will the President of the Treasury Board admit that this attempt at this alignment is a farce and commit to removing this unaccountable mechanism for future estimates?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will do my best to respond as clearly and concisely as possible to these important questions from the opposition members.

In response to the question I was just asked, I can use precise, technical language. The Treasury Board uses “Vote 5—Government Contingencies” to help organizations when the amounts initially approved for them in the main estimates are insufficient.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Chair, I was asking about vote 40, not vote 5.

The pilot for the budget implementation vote, formally the vote 40 slush fund, has clearly failed. The government is not approving funding any faster than before. In fact, the current PBO and the two previous PBOs have said that it is a failure. Will he commit to transparency and end this failed practice?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, once again, I am very pleased to answer this important question.

As the member said himself, there was a pilot project in recent years that tried, with some success, to increase not only transparency in government spending, but also opposition members' ability to help the government do the important work of investing in people and infrastructure.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Chair, three PBOs have said that it was not successful.

In the 2018-19 supplementary estimates, there was a central vote allocation for $90 million to LNG Canada, and no officials knew what it was for. Now, Industry and Western Economic Diversification have $72 million in central vote money for LNG Canada support measures in these supplementary estimates. The department has known about this project for over a year. Why are these funds circumventing the normal process?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, once again, this is an important question about the need to invest in both people and infrastructure.

In Canada, we are fortunate to have considerable natural resources that we absolutely must be able to deliver to foreign markets. By working with opposition members, we will find even better measures that will allow us to benefit from these natural resources, grow the economy and grow the middle class.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Chair, the question was not about the importance of LNG. Actually, it was about why the funding is circumventing the normal process.

In addition to the $99.7 million allocated through the Treasury Board central vote, the Department of Transport is asking for $165 million in additional funding for electrical vehicle subsidies. Why is the funding being split?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Minister of Transport]

Mr. Chair, of course, transportation is responsible for a quarter of all greenhouse gases and out of that, 50% comes from motor vehicles, which is why we put in place an incentive for people to buy ZEVs. The take-up on this has been exceedingly good in the past five months, and we want to continue to make sure that those who decide to invest in electric vehicles are going to be able to get their rebate from the federal government.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Chair, from the historical average of zero use, the current government has pumped hundreds of millions out through the Treasury Board central vote 10, which is subject to less transparency. Why are these programs subject to special treatment?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am very pleased with the questions being asked.

I am also very pleased to be able to count on the collaboration of opposition members to tell us how they would like to make these accounts more transparent. We have made significant progress in recent years, and we are counting on this Parliament to make further progress.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Mill Woods, AB]

Mr. Chair, the government contingencies vote has historically been used for unforeseen expenditures such as natural disasters or emergencies. Over a 10-year period, the current government is the only one using it for grants and contributions. Why are these grants so urgent that they require emergency funds?