Hon. Leo Housakos: I appreciate that — I’m glad you find it such. It’s a simple question.

The government says that they are so committed to helping print media, as well as diverse local and regional media. Can you explain to me why the government spends about $140 million a year in media buy-in for all of their government agencies, and why do they spend a maximum of about 2% to 2.5% on ethnic and local media, while the rest of the budget goes toward the giant broadcasters in Canada?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable colleagues, initially, I thought I might actually support this bill, believe it or not, despite the report I gave earlier. The Coles Notes version that journalists should be fairly compensated for their work sounded noble enough, and, colleagues, we all recognize — as the reflex is — we want to protect and ensure a thriving free and independent press. It’s crucial to our democracy. It’s crucial to our society.

I remember as a young man in my university days that newspapers were teaching tools. All of us relied on them for more than just information. It all sounds good that we’re trying to save, in a noble way, struggling journalism today, but you need only scratch the surface of Bill C-18 to understand that that’s not what it seems to be really doing.

Yes, traditional news media in this country is struggling. I say “traditional” because the truth is the industry as a whole isn’t struggling. It is just evolving, changing. It’s not just in journalism. We see it in every walk of life. We see it the way the restaurant industry works, the food industry and the transportation industry. The digital world has made significant changes. The whole world and everything we do is moving online. It’s progress. That’s why you see even the traditional broadcasters slowly abandoning their business model and their old way of doing things because the world, eyeballs and consumers are going in a different direction.

Is that concerning given the lack of regulation and the rise of misinformation and disinformation available on the internet? Sure, but that doesn’t mean, as Liberal MP Lisa Hepfner claimed, that online news is fake news, for example.

Somehow that we come to the conclusion that what’s going on in online news is misinformation and somehow traditional news broadcasters are more accurate or that they have more rigid standards, I think, is exaggerated. The news industry has been self-regulated for years. They’ve been setting their own standards.

Shame on MP Hepfner for maligning decent, hard-working Canadians who are making their living in this country delivering solid online news. The fact is online delivery is the future of news, and traditional media know it to be true. They have to adapt their business model or they will be left behind.

Many have adopted their models. In the meantime, there are massive job cuts and have been for several years. Bill C-18 isn’t going to fix that. I would support the bill if I were convinced that it would.

Certainly, it will give more revenue to large news outlets. It will make the big even bigger and the strong even stronger. The objective of trying to help diversify local news in the country will not be achieved with this bill. I believe quite the contrary. It will give more revenue to Bell Media, Rogers, Quebecor and tonnes more revenue to CBC, the government’s favourite place to put taxpayers’ money.

I want to also extend my concern, colleagues — and we all should — to the 1,300 employees who were fired yesterday by Bell Media. It is ironic. A lot of people are arguing that Bill C-18 is going to save media and journalists.

Well, we are on the cusp of passing this extremely important bill that is maybe not a magic bullet. I agree with Senator Harder that it is not a magic bullet, but why wouldn’t they wait and see the outcome? We’re rushing this bill through. Despite my reservations that this bill will not save and diversify journalism in this country, we are still giving it a shot. As you can see, we are not distracting from the objective of the government trying to put this bill forward.

I believe journalism is changing. It is inevitable. The reality of the digital world is changing, and journalists have to change with it.

Colleagues, once we pass Bill C-18, I suspect the 1,300 employees at Bell Media and all these journalists who lost their jobs in the next six months will be hired back, right? All the fat cats at Bell Media and CTV — I say fat cats because I guarantee the cuts we’ve seen in journalism over the years are not equivalent to the cuts we see in upper management of these corporations. I invite you all to go to the annual reports of Bell Media, Rogers and Quebecor and see what the executive salaries are. People think there are fat cats in the Senate and the gatekeepers here. Go check out the salaries of some of these executive vice-presidents. You’ll find it staggering. These same people who are so concerned about journalism and our democracy, go see how much they get paid compared to some of the hard-working journalists in this country.

It’s stunning to me that government talks a good game on following the science and embracing technology, but are doing the very opposite when it comes to digital internet media. The truth is companies like Bell have to adjust to the reality of the internet.

The other reality is that not one of these people who were let go yesterday will get rehired once this bill passes. I’m ready to bet on that and have that discussion when we review the outcome in a few months or even in a couple of years.

Contrary to what they said in their statement that things would have been different had Bill C-18 been passed sooner — the problem is we didn’t move quickly enough; it’s our fault — not one of those people who were let go yesterday would have held their jobs had Bill C-18 been passed one, two or six months earlier. I do want to point out how cynical Bell Media’s move is, both the timing and the blaming of it on regulatory burden and the slow passage of Bill C-18. I noticed that unlike in the case of Facebook and Google and their responses in regard to the implications of Bill C-18, Minister Rodriguez didn’t question Bell and their timing or accuse them of scare tactics and say he won’t be bullied or intimidated.

Colleagues, Meta and YouTube have been hiring Canadians across the country for years. I invite you to go to any region of the country where Google and Meta and Facebook have operations and visit their facilities. They’re hiring young Canadians at a record pace — these fat digital cats that need to be reeled in by the Canadian government because these are just terrible international corporations that are doing harm to our basic way of life. Go see all the thousands of young Canadians coming out of IT schools — the engineers and programmers — and see what kind of jobs they have and what kind of environment.

I went to visit a couple of the offices of Google last year, and, boy, let me tell you that I wish I was 25 or 30 again. That generation of kids, they know how to work, they know how to be innovative and they know how to create work-life balance. I was very impressed, and the future is bright. But we have to embrace them and give them an opportunity to grow, flourish and continue to be innovative.

Also, he can and should sympathize — I’m talking about my good friend Minister Rodriguez — with the people who lost their jobs yesterday, but I notice he didn’t say anything about the people who made the decision or call them out about their timing, as I said. That’s because it’s very easy to demonize big tech.

I have issues with them as well. I don’t think Meta and Alphabet are perfect. No corporation needs to be free to run wild, but I’m also not defending management at Bell Media or Rogers Communications or Shaw Communications, and I’m not picking sides. My sense is that when you look at this legislation, the government has a propensity to continue to defend traditional broadcasting, which we all know — we had this debate with Bill C-11 — is dead and done with, and they continue to side with big corporations: Bell Media, Rogers and Quebecor. They’re giants in this country, and they’re not giants because they offer the best service at the lowest price. Most of us in here are old enough to pay cable bills every month. Take a look at that bill. Call your friends down south in the United States or in Europe or anywhere else around the world and compare some of those cable bills.

Senator MacDonald: Our phone bills.

Senator Housakos: We have cell bills and internet bills or connectivity bills, right? See what those giants are charging Canadians compared to other nations around the world.

By the way, they’ve become as big as they are because they gouge consumers and taxpayers and because of the regulatory protection we have afforded them for decades through the CRTC and through governments — successive governments, by the way — Liberal, Conservative and other ones. At some particular point, we’ve got to stand up for the consumer and for Canadians and say, “Enough is enough; some competition is good.” And let’s stop saying every time we have a business model that is failing because somebody is more innovative, more cost-effective and is garnering more customer service that we’re going to step in and we’re going to make it an equal playing field. We’re going to help those with the bad ideas and bad fiscal results and we’re going to prop them up with taxpayers’ money. Let’s call this what it is: a shakedown in an effort to protect the status quo.

Big tech isn’t stealing content. They aren’t taking the work of journalists and profiting off it without journalists being fairly compensated. The passage of Bill C-18 won’t result in one journalist in this country getting a raise. More importantly, let’s also keep in mind that a lot of the content that we are talking about that’s being stolen by tech companies is being downloaded and placed there by journalists themselves.

As I have said many times before, these platforms are actually providing a service to news outlets to drive traffic to their products and to their content. We aren’t talking about the reproduction of content without fair attribution or compensation. We’re not talking about links taking consumers to the actual Global News or CTV News websites.

I consider Facebook to be the Uber or even the cab driver, and Global News is the restaurant. Would we expect the cabbie to give the restaurant a percentage of the fare that was collected? Of course not. Just because someone, in this case, has figured out a way to monetize someone else’s product, it does not mean they are stealing that product. It doesn’t mean the manufacturer of that product is being any less fairly compensated. As long as the copyright laws are being respected — and they are here — nothing is being stolen.

None of us are forced to post our work. Senators, local restaurants, every single business in the country, artists of all sorts — they’re posting their stuff. We’re all posting our stuff on these websites, and we’re posting it because we’re getting more reach. We’re getting more of our constituents in our home provinces to see the work we do here in the Senate, advocating on their behalf.

Journalists add their links to their stories on Facebook because it accentuates their work; it drives more people to their website. So if you’re writing articles for La Presse in Montreal and you post it on your Facebook account, it’s because that journalist is benefiting from people that are being driven to La Presse‘s website, and, of course, that’s a paywall. If more people are driven to the site because of a journalist promoting their product, that paywall grows, and that business grows.

By the way, back to my earlier point, there is a lot of print media in the country that is flourishing because of digital platforms. There are a lot of them that have to be lauded because they were ahead of their time and they realized they needed to adjust. The Globe and Mail adjusted. The Globe and Mail is as effective today as they were when I was a kid. They have great coverage. They still have a great product, and they are still making money, but they were also one of the first to sit down and make a deal with these platforms, and the platforms understood that this was a good product for them to make a good deal with.

And there are many more. Village Media was cited by one of the colleagues who spoke earlier. They’re a huge success story, as is Western Standard News Media Corp. There are so many out there, and, really, I don’t want to miss any, but Blacklock’s Reporter is another one. They’re an online subscription digital paper. They’re doing as well as ever.

The only one trying to steal their content, colleagues, is the government. They are in court right now because the Trudeau government that wants to protect independent journalistic organizations has been taking their product and spreading it around ministries without giving them their due. But Bill C-18 is going to save the industry? Why don’t we start with having our government departments respect paywalls of journalists and respect their content before we start passing legislation to protect certain giants?

Traditional media and some journalists themselves are struggling to adapt to the digital world and what that means for delivery and consumption of news. Shaking down big tech and driving them to the point where platforms like Meta and Alphabet will stop promoting your content is not the win this government and a lot of people in media think it is. I fear this legislation will have the opposite of the desired effect.

We have seen how serious Meta is about stopping the dissemination of news information. The people that will be hurt when that happens — and I believe it will happen. I think there is no reason why a business model that’s designed to be free to give consumer choice and to drive traffic is going to continue to drive traffic for the media and the journalists in this world if they have to pay for that service. Their whole business model will be disrupted, and the loser will be Canadian consumers. The loss will be the taxpayers’ because I think there will be a detrimental growth. We had witnesses who came before our committee, including print associations that represent journalists in this country, who say that thanks to Meta, their traffic is up as much as 31%, 32% or 33%.

We all know that the only way you make money — I don’t care if you’re a journalist or if you’re selling hotdogs or if you’re a local gas station — is you need traffic and you need people to be attracted to your product. The only people who don’t need to attract consumers are government agencies or government Crown corporations, because they have taxpayers’ money to compensate, so they don’t have to be that agile and they don’t have to be that good. That’s the truth.

Facebook and Google are at a point right now where, like any business, when you have a government that wants to come in and regulate you and tell you what to do with your business enterprise — and I don’t care who it is — at some point, you’re going to say, “You know what, I’m going to shut down and go elsewhere; there’s no future here.” Again, the loser will be our country because we live —

[Translation]

Senator Housakos: Can I ask for five more minutes to wrap up?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, as a friendly critic of this legislation, not only am I rising to express my unreserved support for this bill, but, in so doing, I also promise not to take up the full 45 minutes of my allotted time.

I’ll start by thanking the sponsor, Senator Jane Cordy, for bringing this legislation forward, and for all of her hard work, and that of her team, in getting it to this point.

The vast majority of Lebanese immigrants came to Canada between the years of 1975 and 1990. They were fleeing the Lebanese Civil War, which drives home the point that so many immigrants have come to this country fleeing desperate situations in their homeland. They’ve come here seeking freedom, peace, opportunity and prosperity.

Like every single Canadian — arriving directly or indirectly — who has been here for years, we’ve come here fleeing either civil war or economic hardship, looking for freedom and opportunity. Of course, that is what this great country has offered to immigrants for decades and decades.

But Canada’s Lebanese communities date back much further than that. There are some who can trace their roots all the way back to the first influx of Lebanese immigrants who came through Halifax’s Pier 21 in 1880.

My own parents came through Halifax in the late 1950s, seeking refuge from a beautiful homeland but, nonetheless, one that was ravaged by civil war, economic hardship and the devastations of World War II. They came here with the dream of a better future for themselves and their children. They achieved that through hard work and perseverance.

I remember saying to my parents — and my mother, in particular, who is no longer with us; God rest her soul — “You left your country at the age of 17, and travelled halfway around the world. Many years later, what are your thoughts about your decision?” My mother said, “I’ll never trade that decision for anything in the world, and I’ll never trade this country. As a young woman in my country, I worked extremely hard; and the harder I worked, the more I remained standing in the same place. The future seemed bleak. I came to Canada with one dream: following the rules and laws and working hard. The harder I worked, the further I got.”

That is what Canada is all about to all the immigrants whom we have embraced. Of course, the Lebanese community is just one of the sums of all the parts of this great country. Like many immigrant groups, they came to this country, worked hard and contributed to the fibre of our country — they have done so culturally in terms of the wonderful Mediterranean cuisine that we all enjoy, and that has emulsified into Canadian cuisine. It doesn’t matter whether you’re Asian, South Asian, Greek, Italian, Irish or French; you put it all together, and that’s what Canada represents — the best of all that the world has to offer.

The Lebanese community has excelled as entrepreneurs. We’ve seen this from coast to coast to coast. They have added to the cultural fabric of this country. Many who fled Lebanon came to this country already being officially bilingual — they didn’t need to enrol in the French immersion program — and they blended into that fibre in terms of our bilingualism. The Lebanese community is vibrant in Halifax — in English.

[Translation]

The Lebanese community is also vibrant in Montreal — in French. It is a minority community, but one that is well integrated into Quebec, in French.

[English]

In Canada, we have many examples of members of the Lebanese community who have excelled in all walks of life. In athletics, Nazem Kadri is an NHL hockey player and Stanley Cup champion; and Marwan Hage is a Grey Cup champion who played for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. There have been many politicians of Lebanese descent. The former premier of Prince Edward Island, Joe Ghiz, was such a good premier that, years later, they elected his son as premier.

In the Parliament of Canada, in our own chamber, Senator Pierre De Bané was one of those giants from whom I learned about how to do my job in the upper chamber. Ziad Aboultaif is a Conservative member of Parliament from Alberta. Lena Metlege Diab is a Liberal member of Parliament from Nova Scotia. Fayçal El-Khoury is the Liberal Member of Parliament for Laval—Les Îles. There are so many others, including Kevin O’Leary — we can go on and on. We all recognize their great contributions.

I thank Senator Cordy for moving this bill — it is important. Some will make the argument that we already have too many heritage months and too many days, and pretty soon we’re going to run out of days. Senator Plett and I have had a couple of debates on this in private. I am of the view that our institution has to represent all the sums of our country, and we have to celebrate the contributions of every single group. If we have a multiple number of celebrations on a multiple number of days, so be it. At the end of the day, we, as parliamentarians, have to recognize and celebrate our diversity. That’s what being Canadian is all about. That is why I wholeheartedly support this initiative by Senator Cordy, and I hope that we provide it with unanimous support. Thank you, colleagues.

Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you, honourable colleagues. I want to thank all my colleagues for their collaboration on this very important bill. I also want to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, committee chair Senator Omidvar and all members of the committee for their significant and important contributions to this bill in such a short period of time.

I also want to say how proud I am today, because it is in moments like these that I feel we are fulfilling our role, as senators and as an institution, to advocate for minorities, for people who may, from time to time, feel forgotten by their government, their Parliament or their society. Today, we can be proud of this institution.

I also want to sincerely thank Senator Boehm, whom I feel has been the co-sponsor of this bill since the start. He has given his unflagging support to this bill at every stage. I am also very grateful to former senator Jim Munson.

[English]

Senator Munson, for years, was a strong advocate for people on the spectrum and for people with special and unique needs. Even though he is no longer in the chamber with us, of course, this bill speaks to his heritage and his work, as well as that of all senators who worked so hard for so many years to put this issue on the table with the historic report Pay now or pay later: autism families in crisis, done a number of years ago, that brought a lot of attention to the cause.

Aside from Senator Munson, of course, I want to thank all my other colleagues who have come on board and embraced this cause. We all have personal stories that touch us. Thank you for your speech, Senator Loffreda. Senator Loffreda and I have been fighting for this cause for many years, and he brought up Giant Steps, which is close to my heart and his. I want to thank all the stakeholders who participated in putting together and supporting the legislation and who testified before the committee, particularly the Canadian Autism Spectrum Disorder Alliance, or CASDA, and the dozens of advocates and members that CASDA works with across the country.

I have been involved with this issue for a number of years, and there are two recurring themes when I talk to family members of children, particularly, who are afflicted with autism spectrum disorder. They say, “Senator, we feel alone. We feel helpless.” If our institution can pass this bill and send it to the other place, calling for what has been needed for a long time, a national framework to serve as a springboard that will hopefully become a national strategy on autism, then we can send a clear message to those Canadian families, grandparents, parents, brothers, sisters and friends who are dealing with the challenges of autism: We have been hearing you. We are listening. You’re not alone and you’re not helpless. We feel you, we will respond and we will be there in solidarity, because at the end of the day, those are just words for me. I think a society can only achieve its true greatness if we use our resources to make sure that no child is left behind and that we take advantage of the wonderful skill sets every Canadian has to offer.

I also want to thank my wife, who just finished her master’s degree in health administration from McGill University. It was her master’s paper that served as the inspiration for me to sit down with Senator Boehm and Senator Loffreda and all my colleagues to push forward this project. I also want to send a thank you to a young, brilliant man, Manoli Katalifos who, 20 years ago, introduced me to autism spectrum disorder. He has ever since become one of the people I advocate for. Manoli, thank you. This is in large part for you.

Colleagues, this is just the beginning.

I hope we pass this bill unanimously and send a strong message to the other place. Of course, the work doesn’t end there. We all need to advocate, and I call upon Senator Gold to put his shoulder to the wheel one more time once we pass this bill to advocate for our institution and this bill in the government. I hope that all parties over in the other place embrace this and receive it in the spirit in which the Senate is sending it over there. I hope it serves as a tool for them to build an autism strategy that responds to today’s challenges that the autism community faces and to tomorrow’s challenges as well. Thank you, colleagues, for your indulgence, support and hard work. I hope we do send a clear message of great things to come.

Thank you.

Hon. Leo Housakos (Acting Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-16, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023.

This bill provides for funding what we call interim supply, which gives the government the authority to spend before the Main Estimates are approved.

[English]

The publication House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit explains it this way:

Since the fiscal year begins on April 1 and the normal Supply cycle only provides for the House to decide on Main Estimates in June, the government would appear to be without funds for the interim three months. For this reason, the House authorizes an advance on the funds requested in the Main Estimates to cover the needs of the public service from the start of the new fiscal year to the date on which the Appropriation Act based on the Main Estimates of that year is passed.

Colleagues, as someone who came to this place with a fairly extensive background in the private sector, I can assure you that this process raises flags for me and it should for all of you.

We are being asked to provide approval for the government to spend about one quarter of its voted expenditure plan prior to a detailed examination of those expenditures and prior to the approval of the Main Estimates, which won’t happen until sometime in June.

Furthermore, it is important to realize that, regardless of what Parliament decides about the Main Estimates in June, any spending approval which is granted through this interim supply bill cannot be withdrawn later.

As stated in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice:

. . . during the examination of the main estimates, neither the House nor its committees can reduce a vote to an amount less than the amount already granted in interim supply.

This applies to the Senate as well. Even though the Senate’s National Finance Committee has not yet cracked open a single page of the Main Estimates, this chamber is required to approve $75 billion of interim spending and there is no recourse to withdraw any of that spending approval once it has been granted.

If the business of supply were operating properly, this would be an acceptable process. Checks and balances would be in place to ensure that adequate accountability and oversight was in place. But this is not the case. When it comes to the business of supply, parliamentarians are receiving inadequate information, receiving it late and are not being provided with a plan to see this rectified.

We always complain about it, but it is the same, ugly cycle. I want to be clear, colleagues. This is not a new problem. It has occurred many, many times. We rip our shirts in indignation when it occurs.

[Translation]

The Parliamentary Budget Officer brought up this problem in the report he released in November entitled Considerations for Parliament in Reforming the Business of Supply. He noted that there was, and I quote, “increasing unease among many legislators regarding their ability to provide informed consent of the government’s proposed financial plans.”

He goes on to say the following, and I quote:

This wariness is most palpable in the number of parliamentary standing committee reports issued since the mid-1990s offering recommendations to improve legislative scrutiny of the Business of Supply.

The mid-1990s, esteemed colleagues. That was 30 years ago, and this is still going on.

[English]

Colleagues, I think I can safely speak for most of us when I say that when the Main Estimates arrive, you open them up to take a look and almost immediately feel overwhelmed and exhausted, as stated by many of our colleagues. No doubt there are a couple of exceptions to this, perhaps Senator Marshall and Senator Loffreda, but I’m sure that for a great many of us perusing the Main Estimates can be like drinking from a fire hose. There is simply no way we can be expected to adequately review and digest that amount of financial information in the time frame that’s expected.

In the end, I wonder how many of us slap the estimates shut and are more thankful than ever for Senators Marshall and Loffreda, and others who more readily consume all that information and are able to drill down on it, because, colleagues, it represents an awful lot of money that is going out the door in an awfully quick fashion.

But the truth is no parliamentarian has the ability to properly scrutinize the government’s expenditure plan and Main Estimates because the information necessary to do so is not made readily available. And my raising the red flag on this isn’t just partisan rhetoric; this is a widely acknowledged problem which has been left unaddressed for a long time.

In his 2016 report — six years ago — the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted that there were three core problems with the business of supply: one, the budget presents new policy initiatives but the estimates present functional adjustments to the allotments. Why does this even matter? Well, because, as stated in the PBO report:

Parliament does not have control over new policy initiatives, allowing money to be transferred between policy initiatives without parliamentary approval.

The second problem is that the Main Estimates do not include new budget measures:

Parliament spends its time scrutinizing a spending plan in the main estimates that does not reflect the current reality presented in the budget.

Third, the budget and Main Estimates have a different scope and basis of accounting. As noted by the PBO, this means that:

Parliament is asked to vote on a spending plan in the main estimates that cannot be easily reconciled with overall spending.

[Translation]

Colleagues, I mention these three points to emphasize that the problems that affect parliamentarians’ ability to provide effective oversight of public spending are well known. There is no mystery there.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s 2016 report summarized the findings of a House of Commons committee report published in 2012 entitled Strengthening Parliamentary Scrutiny of Estimates and Supply.

That report, which was supported by all parties, not only identified some of the problems at the time, but also proposed practical and meaningful measures to address them.

That was 10 years ago, and parliamentarians are still waiting for the proposed solutions to be implemented.

[English]

To its credit, this government did not simply ignore the proposals. It admitted the system is broken and that it needed to be fixed.

In November 2016 — again, six years ago — the government published a document entitled Empowering parliamentarians through better information, the government’s vision for estimates reform. The very first paragraph in the document, which is available online, reads as follows:

The inability of Parliament to play a meaningful role in reviewing the Government’s spending plans is a frequent source of frustration. It stems from an incoherent Estimates process, where Budget items are not included in the Main Estimates, spending plans are difficult to understand and reconcile, and departmental reports are neither meaningful nor informative.

Honourable senators, those were the government’s own words in 2016. That statement was made in a document published by the President of the Treasury Board at the time, none other than the Honourable Scott Brison.

Now, on the one hand, perhaps we can take some comfort in the fact that the government has acknowledged there is a problem and that it needs to be addressed. But on the other hand, that acknowledgment was made five and a half years ago and nothing has substantively changed since then; absolutely nothing.

[Translation]

In this year’s report on the Main Estimates, the Parliamentary Budget Officer again sounded the alarm. He wrote the following, and I quote:

As noted by the PBO in previous reports, while there is a fixed tabling date for the Main Estimates (no later than March 1st), no such guarantee exists for the other supporting information (notably the Departmental Plans and the Departmental Results Reports). While this discretion provides greater flexibility to the Government, it does create the risk of misalignment between the money parliamentarians are asked to approve and when details of the planned (and actual) spending are available. This undermines the ability of parliamentarians to meaningfully scrutinize proposed spending.

[English]

There was more. The PBO went on to say:

While the Government refers to the Main Estimates as the “Government’s Expenditure Plan”, they generally fail to include any measures in the corresponding Budget, nor do the Departmental Plans, and therefore present an incomplete picture of government spending. Tabling the Main Estimates prior to the release of the budget has allowed for more detailed Treasury Board scrutiny of budget measures prior to their consideration by Parliament in the Supplementary Estimates. However, this results in asking parliamentarians to approve funding through the Main Estimates that were incomplete as they do not represent an accurate picture of the Government’s planned spending.

The PBO goes on:

As previously admitted by the Government, this lack of cohesion between two of the Government’s primary fiscal documents engenders confusion. As such, it hinders the ability of parliamentarians and Canadians to understand the overall federal spending strategy, track new policy measures announced in the Budget, or identify the expected results of new Budget measures.

The PBO then repeats the three all-party recommendations made ten years earlier by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates:

Parliament should establish a fixed tabling date for the budget;

This tabling date should be early enough to ensure that Budget measures can be incorporated in the Main Estimates; and

The Departmental Plans should be tabled at the same time as the Main Estimates.

In addition, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, repeated two recommendations he made earlier this year:

. . . Move the publication date of the Public Accounts to no later than September 30th; and

Require the Departmental Results Reports to be published at the same time.

According to the PBO, these five changes “ . . . would create a cohesive, intuitive and (critically) transparent financial decision‑making process for legislators.”

Honourable senators, the truth of the matter is that not only are the problems well known, but the solutions are equally well known. The government’s clear acknowledgment that these problems exist needs to be addressed. You would think this equates to a clear and simple path forward.

Yet, not only has nothing been done, but this lack of information and accountability has also progressively been getting worse over the tenure of this government. Consider the fact that in 2020 we never even received a budget. Then, in 2021, the budget didn’t arrive until the third week of April. Of course, the government blamed the lost budget in 2020 and the late budget in 2021 on COVID. Yet, even this year, the budget will not be tabled in Parliament until April 7.

The Financial Administration Act requires that the public accounts are tabled in Parliament before December 31 of each year, but by convention, they are usually tabled in October. Last year, they were not tabled until November 30. The year before that, they were tabled December 12. This year, the public accounts were not tabled until December 14, 2021, which, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer pointed out, was the latest publication date since 1993-94.

[Translation]

In his January report entitled Economic and Fiscal Update 2021: Issues for Parliamentarians, the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated, and I quote:

Comparatively, Canada was among the last of the G7 countries to publish their financial accounts for the 2020‑21 fiscal year.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer added the following:

The federal public accounts are published later than most provincial and territorial public accounts, with nearly half of the provinces and territories publishing their respective public accounts within six months.

The government’s tardy publication of the Departmental Results Reports is further evidence of its inability to provide information in a timely fashion.

[English]

These reports outline the government’s actual performance by department for the most recent fiscal year and enable parliamentarians to review what was actually accomplished through all that money being spent. Yet, this year, these reports were not published until February 2022, which was 10 months after the end of the fiscal year. This is no small thing.

As noted by the PBO:

The lack of timely, comprehensive results data makes scrutinizing proposed spending more difficult. It is important that parliamentarians can understand the results organizations expect to achieve, how they will be measured and how these compare to previous years in order to make informed decisions.

Colleagues, there is no lack of clear action that the government could be taking in order to correct the problems that plague our ability to provide proper oversight and accountability to the expenditures of public funds, which is our fundamental role in this place. Instead of doing so, they continue to make things worse instead of better. A perfect example of this is found in the interim supply bill before us today. As I mentioned earlier, interim supply is supposed to provide an advanced appropriation of money needed for three months: April, May, and June.

Yet, under this government, the amount of money included in the interim supply bill has sharply increased since they took power from 29% to more than 40% of total voted appropriations in the Main Estimates. How high do they plan on allowing that number to go? It’s like they are stuffing as much spending as they can into an interim estimate just to diminish accountability even further — 29% to 40%. It’s unacceptable.

Colleagues, we desperately need this government to get its act together and to do the right thing, but all the indicators are pointing in the wrong direction. Spending is going up, while accountability is going down. Disregard for the role of Parliament has become what we all know it to be. Even those that deny it sense it and see it.

Take note that this interim supply bill is for $75.5 billion. That is almost as much as the entire voted supply in the 2015-16 Main Estimates when this government took power. That year, total voted appropriations in the Main Estimates came to $88 billion. This year, that number is $190 billion. That is a 116% increase in only seven years.

In 2015-16, interim supply was $29 billion. This year, it is 193% higher at $75.5 billion. This government has almost doubled their voted spending requirements in only seven years.

[Translation]

Colleagues, don’t forget that the Main Estimates do not take into account any of the new spending the government will announce in its budget or any of the spending promises it had to make to buy the NDP’s support to save the government.

This government will not hesitate to open the floodgates of public spending and print as much money as necessary so it can keep sprinkling it all over the place.

[English]

They don’t care that our debt is ballooning. They don’t care that the inflation rate has exploded. They don’t care that last year’s fiscal sustainability report warned that current fiscal policy in Canada is not sustainable over the long term and they don’t care that they have no plan to balance the budget.

The truth is, colleagues, they have no fiscal anchor. They are irresponsible. They are short-sighted and dangerously negligent in their stewardship of public finances, and they can’t be bothered to make the fundamental changes necessary to ensure proper oversight by Parliament. It is our obligation to make sure they do.

At the end of the day, I want to remind colleagues that the way this democracy is supposed to work is not the way it’s working. It’s not the Prime Minister at the top with his cabinet under him, and his MPs under him and his senators under him. It is supposed to be the other way around. It’s supposed to be Parliament at the top. Under Parliament, it should be ministers, and under the ministers, at the bottom of the totem pole, it should be the Prime Minister. That’s where the word “prime minister” comes from, servant of the people. That’s where the word “ministers” comes from. The word means servants of the people. Somewhere along the line, we have lost track of that reality. We think that our Parliament, our bureaucracy and our ministers are all accountable to the Prime Minister’s office.

It has to stop at some point if we want to defend fiscal responsibility and we want to defend democracy in the true spirit that we’re supposed to be practising it in. This government has no interest in doing what is right and no qualms about heaping all the obligations to pay for their profligate spending habits on future generations. Clearly, we are seeing a debt right now that generations will be saddled with for decades to come. This government has been reckless and unapologetically incompetent.

Honourable senators, today, I suspect in all likelihood this Senate will pass this bill. We the opposition, the Conservative Party, will continue to call for transparency, for accountability and for fiscal responsibility in our governance. We will redouble our efforts to ensure that after the next general election Canadians will once again have a responsible and competent government that works to ensure the future rather than the present and that takes into consideration that decisions we make today will have a huge impact on future generations of Canadians. Thank you.