Phil McColeman

[Supplementary Estimates (A), June 14th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, once again, can the President of the Treasury Board give absolute assurance that the bill is in its usual form?

[June 14th, 2017]

Mr. Chair, can the President of the Treasury Board assure the House, with utmost competence, with absolute certainty, with no election-style promises, please, that the bill is in its usual form?

[Main Estimates, 2017-18, June 14th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, it kind of goes back to the question of, what is the motive here? Is it truly pure, as has been attempted to be presented, that this would truly make things more understandable for parliamentarians?

There is nothing in these changes to simplify how the numbers are reported. Frankly, if we look at the size of these documents, and the detail to which they go, they are not an easy read. They are not easy for people who do not have an accounting numbers orientation to be able to sort through. I would rather see the emphasis of the government to try to make them more understandable, make them more readable, than with the alignment.

The alignment is a good thing. I am not suggesting it is a bad thing. However, the real motive here is to actually chip away at the scrutiny that we have as parliamentarians, all parliamentarians, not just the government, because the government can do what it wants when it has a majority. However, the question has to be asked, if we make these changes, and we have a minority government, what are the long-term effects of these changes? In this case, it is taking away some of the scrutinizing powers that opposition has if we go with these changes, as written.

There has been some talk of them being open to amendments, and open to negotiation on certain things. I await what those might be. However, the reality is that, as proposed, the real motivation is just to make life a little easier for them.

[Main Estimates, 2017-18, June 14th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, I do. We do reconcile them, through the supplemental estimates that we have right now. The process we have has worked well. As the parliamentary budget officer said in his quote, parliamentarians have done an admirable job in lining them up. They will never be lined up totally. That would depend on when the Minister of Finance decides to table a budget. It will never be perfect. This by no means even comes close to those alignments being perfect.

Frankly, The Globe and Mail is wrong about that. I have been here nine years, and I have worked through the supplemental estimates process, lined up what the spending has been relative to, what the budget presentations have been and, frankly, I agree with the parliamentary budget officer and not The Globe and Mail.

[Main Estimates, 2017-18, June 14th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton Manning.

I am here tonight to speak about the estimates and about the part of the process that I am specifically charged with, which is being the critic of the Treasury Board and is also related to the budgetary things we find the government doing, the out-of-control spending we are watching, the fact that the debt is growing, and the fact that this will be put off to future generations. I will touch on a few things first, if I am allowed. I want to talk about what has been proposed by the government in terms of estimates and the reforming of estimates.

First, we should indicate that changes to the Standing Orders of the House are traditionally done with the unanimous consent of all parties. We do not take lightly the proposal to change the Standing Orders for estimates reform, although the government thinks differently. It thinks it can ram it through unilaterally and do what it wants. Its proposal would drastically reduce the time Parliament has to examine how government spends taxpayers' money. The government can improve this kind of accountability to parliamentarians without a change to the Standing Orders.

When it comes to the rationale for why the government is proposing to table the main estimates on May 1, the stated goal of the proposal is to delay them and therefore improve the alignment of the main estimates with the budget. However, there is no fixed date for the budget, or even a requirement by any government to table a budget, and there have been times in this country's history when it was appropriate not to table a budget in this Parliament. If we change the rules around what a government can and cannot do all of a sudden without that government agreeing to table a budget on fixed budget dates, then we are starting to take out the accountability factor that the government seems to want to have in terms of the House of Commons and parliamentarians.

Ultimately, alignment of the two documents will depend on streamlining the internal government processes and the timing of the budget, which are both under the full control of the government, so it should be very clear that a change in terms of when estimates are tabled could easily be done by the government without putting changes into the Standing Orders.

The primary implication of this change would be to drastically reduce, as I have mentioned, the time Parliament has to consider the main estimates for their approval. As this debate has been going on for some time, at least since the end of last year and into this year, several people have weighed in on it. I will read three quotes, and this is from the parliamentary budget office in terms of the report they wrote called “Considerations for Parliament in Reforming the Business of Supply”, dated November 22, 2016. The first quote comes from pages 11 and 12:

Unless the Government is able to present a clear plan to reform its internal management processes, this example shows that it is unlikely that delaying the release of the main estimates by eight weeks will provide full alignment with the budget.

In other words, the stated goal would not be achieved in terms of what the analysis of the parliamentary budget office said when it looked at what was being proposed. The second quote comes from the same document and it reads:

The Government asserts that Parliament does not play a meaningful role in financial scrutiny. [The parliamentary budget officer] disagrees with this view. We note that notwithstanding the Government’s performance information of admittedly poor quality, and their inability to reconcile the Government’s spending proposals, parliamentarians have performed a commendable job of asking pertinent questions in standing committee hearings, Question Period and Committee of the Whole.

Again, this is part of the analysis of the parliamentary budget officer in terms of what the government wants to do. The third quote comes from The Globe and Mail, November 2, 2016, which quoted the former parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, as saying:

On budget and estimates alignment, the report suggests that MPs should consider a delay in the tabling of main estimates until well after the start of the fiscal year. How does that improve financial control? Bureaucrats are effectively saying Parliament would review requested spending after the start of the fiscal year on April 1, with budgets tabled in late winter. If you start from the perspective of financial control, Parliament should see the fiscal plan, departmental plans and requested authorities (voted and statutory) before April 1.

The point of reading these quotes is that, to get our agreement to unanimously support this, we have been simply told to trust the government. At the end of the day, when we have brought up the issues, the President of the Treasury Board essentially ends the conversation by saying we just have to trust the Liberals, because he has been in Parliament for so long, over 20 years, and he has experienced more of Parliament from the opposition benches than the government benches, and he knows that this would help.

Estimates reform is a worthy goal. It is one which many Parliaments have tried to tackle. However, this is done in such a way as to not want to take input from the opposition and to, in fact, reduce the amount of scrutiny that the opposition has. The bottom line, in many ways, is that Parliament would have less scrutiny by way of confidence votes on financial matters in the House.

Why does that matter to the opposition? It matters greatly, because many times in our country's history, especially in minority governments, there are times when other issues are crowding in around the administration of a minority government. On every occasion, to have a confidence vote is an important occasion for the opposition in terms of having a tool to hold the government to true account. Therefore, when we reduce those, we are taking away some of that. This is reminiscent in many ways of what was tried by the government with Motion No. 6.

Motion No. 6 was a reactionary, spiteful motion put before us which basically took away many of the powers that are given through our parliamentary democracy for the opposition to use to hold the government to account. In that scenario, Canadians spoke up, and told the government that it was wrong, and it eventually backed-off from Motion No. 6.

There are some parallels here to being told what it is we are going to have in terms of financial accountability on the government side to the opposition in saying, “Well, we just need to do it, because we feel it is the right thing”. This goes against the traditions of the House.

I want to tie this to the record of the government on financial issues or its economic record. We see in the overall scheme of things, especially now with what is being debated in the Senate today, there are escalations on certain forms of taxation being automatically put into the budget bill. Of course, our friends in the Senate are debating them today, and will continue to debate them whether this is good for Canadians or not.

In looking back, I want to focus on two things in terms of not only the broken promises, the $10 billion tiny deficit the Liberals campaigned on but also the things that really affect Canadians. However, my time has run out, and so I will stop there.

[Cannabis Act, May 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, how does the government propose to handle the production and distribution of cannabis from first nations? We have done a very poor job of controlling tobacco from first nations, to the extent that 62% of the product that is consumed in Canada is contraband tobacco coming from operations on first nations. How does the government propose to govern and handle the production from first nations?

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 19th, 2017]

With regard to at-risk and bonus payments to employees of the federal public service, broken down by year from 2013 to 2016 and by department or agency: (a) how many federal public servants received at-risk payments; (b) how many federal public servants received bonus payments; (c) what amount was allocated in each department’s budget for at-risk payments; (d) what amount was allocated in each department’s budget for bonus payments; (e) what was the cumulative amount of at-risk payments paid out in each department; (f) what was the cumulative amount of bonus payments paid out in each department; (g) how many public servants were eligible for at-risk pay but did not receive it; (h) what were the reasons given for each public servant who received an at-risk payment; (i) what were the reasons given for each public servant who received a bonus payment; and (j) what were the reasons given for each public servant who was eligible for an at-risk payment but did not receive it?

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member both for her passion and for the emphasis she has put on this being so unbelievably simple to do and so small in relative terms to what the government prioritizes as spending.

This is a whole-of-life issue for individuals. Someone on the government side said this earlier, that the biggest situation that people had to deal with was what would happen when they were not here any longer. Who would take care of these individuals? This group would help define that, would help give direction to that, and would help families that were dealing with that very question. If we do not fund this group, it is incredibly shameful.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be respectful of the member for what he just said. I will look at the transcript, but I believe I used the words “one of the most important issues”, although I might have used the words “most important” I will check the record on what I said.

However, the member reacted so strongly on this issue and tried to give a spin on this, that it had something to do with the responsibilities of the provinces and territories. We are talking about a motion on the floor today that we as legislators can do something about. We do not have to be third partying it off to someone else.

Frankly, the tone and the way the member shaped his words around that question do not do service to the fact that we should treat this as one of the most important issues facing Canadians today.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, frankly, as I stand today and speak to this issue and have listened to the debate in the House, I cannot think of a more important subject matter that we could be addressing. Anecdotally, some school children who were watching from the gallery today commented about how meaningful it was in the few moments they were here listening to the debate on this issue.

I want to pick this subject matter up from a couple of points of view. Obviously, the actual statistics of the number of Canadians who are impacted by autism are about one in every 68, or if we add in other developmental disabilities, it would be a much larger number. It would be very unusual for a member in the House not to have been affected somewhere along the line with family or close friends dealing with the issue of an autistic individual within their family tree.

I am no exception to that rule. I have 30-year-old son who has developmental disabilities, and I wish to speak about his situation. I also have a granddaughter, eight years old. Jordan is my son's name and Maggie is my granddaughter's name. She is diagnosed on the spectrum. I want to say what life means for people and how meaningful this debate is for Canadians, including those who have connections in the House. How important it is, and how I implore the government to reconsider deleting this from the budget, not going forward with it in the budget.

There could be nothing more important than supporting families in some of the most difficult situations dealing with individuals with developmental disabilities in their homes and in their lives. It is not only difficult, but often most rewarding as well, as the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin can attest. We have both some of the best times that we could ever experience as a family member, and also some of the most difficult. Navigating our life through this labyrinth of what we built as supports in society is a very difficult task.

When we talk about this working group, it is essential that we have the experts guiding families who are not only dealing with it now in youth and adult phases of their children's lives and their family members' and friends' lives, but through the whole course for the long term. This initiative is one that could be picked up by the government, moved down field, and taken to the next level until we come to a day when the integration of these individuals into society is achieved.

Why the government would not prioritize this as being one of the most important issues is puzzling to me. As my colleague said, this would be a shame if this is somehow political, because this is nonpartisan. If there ever is a topic that we should be addressing in the House, it should be topics like this that could be truly nonpartisan.

Let me tell the House about Jordan, a 30-year-old guy who is developmentally disabled and recently, because of an initiative that people in our community took, is working in a social enterprise, a shredding business. What does any parent want for their child? I have four children, and what any of us wants for our children is for them to maximize their abilities and be the best person they can be in this world. Often that involves excelling at their vocation, doing their life's work, taking that forward, and excelling at it.

What does that mean to a young guy who could probably never have the vision to be able to work? It means taking paper and putting it into a shredder as being one of the most meaningful things to give him a sense of goodwill, contributing something, and having a healthy self-image.

Is that not what we want for all our children? Is that not what we want for all the children in this country, whether they are on the spectrum, off the spectrum, or out there in the world?

Today, we are talking about extending a very small amount of money. That is what this motion is calling for, a very tiny amount of money. Others have tried to put it in perspective, what this means in terms of supporting this group that is in true need. We all have examples.

My granddaughter, Maggie, who is eight years old, in Sarnia, has actually had the experience of living in Calgary with her family and experiencing what that province had to offer in her early years, and this will be of interest to members from other ridings. Her family had the opportunity to move to the United States, to Ann Arbor, Michigan, and experienced the supports that were available there. Currently, she is residing in Sarnia, Ontario. This is all due to the occupation and vocation of my son-in-law who works for Imperial Oil.

What my daughter and her family have seen in that transition between those places is a varying degree of support across those three locations. I was so happy when my colleague brought up the fact that his son, Jaden, had experienced wonderful supports in Alberta. That is exactly what my daughter and my Maggie experienced in Alberta.

Then moving to the United States, she also found great support in the state of Michigan. Then coming to Ontario, it was a different ball game there. In fact, recently, a few weeks ago, my daughter called me as I was driving one day. She asked where she should go for Maggie as she gets older. She wanted some ideas, some advice as to how to get a school going, something that is relevant to help her become the best person she can be.

I tell these stories because I think it is important for all members today to feel free to get up and tell stories of individual Canadians they know who are dealing with the issue of autism within their families. It is great, rewarding, and good, but it is also very difficult.

We can do something about it in this House. Today, we have not received an indication from the government that it will be supporting this motion. I hope many of the Liberal members will take our words to heart, and will say that in relative terms this is another way to move the yardsticks. They are taking cover in the fact that they have funded all of these other programs and organizations that deal with developmental disabilities. We take our hats off to that.

I worked with Jim Flaherty on the ready, willing, and able to work campaign, helping to put together an effort to bring meaning into the lives of adults who have disabilities. Some 800,000 Canadians who have a disability of some sort are ready, willing, and able to work in this country, right now. Some are more severe than others, but there are 800,000 of them. Of that, 350,000 of them have university degrees. However, we have a society that makes them feel they are a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. This is because organizations such as this one, the Canadian autistic community, have not been able to get their feet on the ground to be able to help people navigate the situation.

Many employers came to me, when we were putting that program together as a government, when we we went out and talked about what we were doing, and said they were more than ready to consider hiring a person with disabilities in their business. They wanted to know how to do it. It was not so much a lack of willingness as Canadians, but they needed to know how to navigate.

Again, this is one of the more important issues. I implore the government to put the funding back for this group.