Financial Procedures / Business of Supply

Legislative phase: main estimates; admissibility of a Vote

June 12, 2001

Debates, pp. 5022-4

On June 11, 2001, John Williams (St. Albert) rose on a point of order with respect to the Main Estimates tabled in the House on Tuesday, February 27, 2001,^[1] and specifically to Vote 1 under National Defence. Mr Williams cited the Auditor General’s Report of October 2000 to the effect that approximately $2 million of the $4.8 million in operating expenditures provided for in the Vote were being used for the development of the Downsview Park site in Toronto. He argued that the $2 million was not a valid charge against National Defence Vote 1. He added that if the Government had wanted to finance the project, it should have introduced legislation to that end, and then sought the appropriate funding through the estimates. Mr. Williams concluded by asking the Speaker to strike the National Defence Vote 1 from the Estimates. After hearing from other Members, the Deputy Speaker (Bob Kilger) took the matter under advisement.^[2]

On June 12, 2001, the Deputy Speaker delivered his ruling. He pointed out that Mr. Williams, David Collenette (Minister of Transport and formerly the Minister of National Defence), and the Auditor General, were in agreement that: the Department of National Defence continued to hold title to the lands in question; that in its 1994 Budget, approved by the House, the Government had indicated its intentions with respect to the Downsview base; that the Auditor General had found the development of Downsview Park to be in accordance with the relevant governing legislation; and that the House had previously, in 1999-2000, given its approval for the allocation of funds for its operations and development. He acknowledged the disagreement between the Government and the Auditor General with respect to the extent of the existing authority of the Department of National Defence to allocate funds to Downsview Park but noted that the House had up to that point not seen fit to challenge the Government’s view of the matter. He stated that when the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs had met to consider the main estimates, no questions had been raised with respect to Downsview Park and that the Committee had elected not to present a report to the House. The Deputy Speaker emphasized that it was not for the Chair but rather the House or its committees to decide about the disagreement between the Auditor General and the Government concerning certain accounting practices. He concluded that he saw no clear evidence that any procedural irregularity had occurred and, accordingly, ruled that there was no valid point of order.

Decision of the Chair

The Deputy Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for St. Albert concerning Vote 1 under National Defence of the operating expenditures in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002.

In his argument the hon. Member states that the estimate should be ruled out of order because in his view and that of the Auditor General the expenditures related to the development of the Downsview Park site, approximately $2 million of the $4.8 million, are not a valid charge against National Defence Vote 1 and that the Department of National Defence should not be funding Downsview Park from its operation expenditures. If the Government wants to develop and operate Downsview Park, it should introduce legislation accordingly, then seek the appropriate funding through the estimates rather than through National Defence.

Before beginning, I would like to thank the hon. Member for raising the matter and I also want to acknowledge the contributions of the hon. Minister of Transport, the hon. House Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the hon. Leader of the Government in the House, the hon. Opposition House Leader and the hon. Member for Athabasca on this point.

In his point the hon. Member for St. Albert stated that in the 1994 Budget the Government announced the closure of Canadian Forces Base Toronto at Downsview and indicated that it was to be held in perpetuity as a unique urban recreational green space. For the project to go ahead, the Government issued an Order in Council authorizing Canada Lands Company Limited to incorporate a new Crown corporation, Parc Downsview Park Inc., as a subsidiary of Canada Lands Company Limited pursuant to the Financial Administration Act.

The hon. Member also stated that management of the Downsview lands has been transferred from National Defence to the Canada Lands Company and that National Defence still continues to hold the title to the lands.

In addition, initial funding to the Parc Downsview Park Inc. was provided for from an existing National Defence vote. The Government issued an Order in Council authorizing the transfer of the first parcel of land to Parc Downsview Park Inc. pursuant to the Federal Real Property Act.

The parties to this complaint, that is, the hon. Member for St. Albert, the Minister of Transport (formerly the Minister of National Defence), and the Auditor General, are in agreement on several key elements.

First, as all three have noted, the Department of National Defence continues to hold title to the lands in question.

Second, in its 1994 Budget, approved by the House, the Government announced its intention to close certain Canadian Forces bases, and referred to the National Defence budget impact paper tabled with the budget, which spoke of the intention to hold the Downsview site “in perpetuity and in trust primarily as a unique urban recreational green space for the enjoyment of future generations”.

Third, as the Auditor General has noted “each step in the founding and development of Downsview Park was completed in accordance with the relevant governing legislation”.

Finally, the House has previously, in 1999-2000, given its approval for the allocation of funds to operations and development of Downsview Park.

These facts are not in dispute. The Minister has informed the House that in addition to retaining title to the lands, the Department of National Defence maintains ongoing activities on the Downsview property.

The Auditor General in his report takes the position in paragraph 17.73 that:

—if the Government of Canada wishes to set up an urban park and invest… public funds therein, it should have… approval from parliament to do so.

The Government takes the position that it has the necessary approval, having received parliamentary approval first on its budgetary policy of 1994 and second on its allocation of funds in 1999-2000. I note the observation in the Auditor General’s report:

The mandate and purposes of Parc Downsview Park Inc. are fully consistent with those of the parent corporation, the Canada Lands Company Limited, and the other current and past subsidiary corporations of the parent, for example, the CN Tower and the Old Port of Montreal.

That is, there is no departure here from previous Government practice.

There is a disagreement between the Government and the Auditor General with respect to the extent of the existing authority of the Department of National Defence to allocate funds to Downsview Park. However, on the basis of the evidence submitted by the hon. Minister of Transport, it seems that the House has up to this point sided with the Government.

For example, when the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs met on March 13 of this year to consider the main estimates, my understanding is that no questions were raised pertaining to Downsview Park and the Committee elected not to present a report in the House. In this regard, therefore, the Speaker can find nothing out of order.

It also seems evident that the Government and the Auditor General are not in agreement concerning certain of the Government’s accounting practices. If this is indeed the case and if it is something hon. Members wish to investigate further, that would be for the House or its committees to pursue. It is not a matter for the Speaker to decide.

To conclude, I see no clear evidence that any procedural irregularity has occurred, and accordingly I rule that there is no point of order here. I thank the hon. Member for St. Albert as well as those who contributed to the discussion.