Evidence of meeting #36 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
I believe the quarterly budget implementation reports are a positive innovation. Attempting to improve the quality of this information through a report was a good idea. That is what I commended the government on.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Thank you.
It strikes me when listening to some of the exchanges, Mr. Page, that we need to remind ourselves that it was the culture of secrecy that allowed corruption to flourish under the Liberals, and it was the staggering dishonesty in the budget-making process in those years that gave rise to the call for the creation of a parliamentary budget officer. The former Minister of Finance used to deceive Canadians blatantly and then, at the end of the year, like pulling some sedated rabbit out of a tattered top hat, he would say “Ta-dah, here's $10 billion that nobody knew about.” That was the dishonesty that gave rise to a growing movement to have you put in place in order to check the veracity of the promises made—at the estimates instead of the public accounts stage. The Auditor General can read the entrails after the animal has been killed and we can assess them then, but it's at the front end that we need to know if they're being truthful and honest with us.
I think you can lie in a number of ways. There are lies by omission and lies by overt commission. But the misinformation associated with denying you the information you need is just as damaging as if they had just completely false numbers. I don't differentiate between the two.
By the way, I think the only time you were put on the spot today was when Mr. Holder put those questions to you. We appreciate what you're doing, and I think it's fundamentally wrong that the government rations out little tidbits of information when it's advantageous to them, but is not completely forthright with Canadians in plain language. There was movement afoot years ago, in the interests of inclusiveness and egalitarianism, that bills and legislation and things like that would be rendered down to plain language so that everybody would have, in the sense of natural justice, access to them. We need plain language in our financial statements in the same spirit of egalitarianism.
Maybe I don't even have a question.
4:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I'm just really pleased that you're here, Mr. Page.
When you do get down to some of the information you need, I think you're going to find there was a tendency to use this free-for-all spending.... No one can deny that billions of dollars were flying out the door at breakneck speed, at unprecedented breakneck speed, because in all the years I've been an MP, it's been a period of belt-tightening and cutbacks—anything but spending. So one would be silly not to acknowledge the room for abuse when that kind of money is flying out the door at that rate of speed. I'm not implying that anybody is lining their pockets; I'm not implying anybody is stealing or even misusing money. But the ways of spending that money to political advantage are irresistible, I believe, and I think we're going to find that the money has been sprinkled around in a partisan way to advantage certain areas, and that the outcomes are in fact questionable.
Maybe I do have one specific question, sir. Some of the stimulus package involves EI. The federal government doesn't pay into EI; it isn't their money. Do you believe that should be part of the equation in terms of the economic stimulus package? The money from the EI fund is contributed by employers and employees. The federal government hasn't contributed since 1985 or 1986, when Mulroney changed that. Is it being transparent to have EI factored in?
4:50 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Actually, we think there's a relatively high degree of transparency around these EI expenditures. I think that from an economic point of view some economists were concerned there wasn't a lot of stabilization existing in the some of the social programs we have in Canada and that it was necessary to supplement them. So we've seen supplements: the extension of EI benefits, the additional moneys for training—
4:50 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
No, but I think it does provide some support for a number of Canadians who desperately need those moneys, and it will some help soften the blow of the downturn we've seen in the economy.
In terms of counting it as stimulus, we made some comments a long time ago about whether or not we should be counting, for example, the freeze on the EI premium rate for the first two years. We've raised some issues around that from a stimulus total point of view, but--
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
We'll you've been bang on about the Afghan war and the national deficit projections, so we appreciate that.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Thank you.
We will now go over to Mr. Anders, and he might be sharing his time with Mr. Brown. I will watch. I'm just protecting you. If you wish to ask a question, do so. If you want to wait for your next round, it may come.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Anders Conservative Calgary West, AB
Okay. I just want to point out that I think what's going on here is that in the big picture, our economy is doing better than most of our economic competitors, so I notice that a lot of the debate today seems to be over semantics and statements, but not so much over details. I don't hear the chair or the opposition members taking issue with $333 million being spent in her riding in Don Valley East.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rob Anders Conservative Calgary West, AB
I don't hear criticism about the business credit availability program and the $5 billion there. I don't hear about the Export Development Corporation, and taking issue with the $350 million there. I don't hear them taking issue with the auto industry and the $2.7 billion there. I don't hear them taking issue with the $300 million for the Canada small business financing program. I don't hear them taking issue with the $14 million for aviation security. I don't hear them taking issue with regard to the Olympic Games and the $20 million there. I don't hear them taking issue with the industrial research assistance program and the $170 million, plus $30 million, there.
I think it's largely just semantics, because they've had an opportunity to go into the budgetary estimates, the supplementary estimates, and the opposition did not want to spend a lot of time on that. So it's not the details the opposition's interested in. It's just the semantics.
With that, I now pass it over to my friend Patrick Brown.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON
Thank you, Mr. Anders.
My question relates to the comments I've heard about secrecy. I think it's never been more obvious that spending is going on and what that spending is. Whether it's the website that illustrates it or whether it's the fact that in every community in Canada where you go, you see giant signs. It's not like anyone's trying to hide which projects are going on. If anything, the issue we have is that this is the most well-publicized, least-secretive campaign ever to create jobs. That's why I find it unbelievable when I hear some suggestions that there is secrecy to the reporting or to what projects are being undertaken.
My question is this. With the three reports to Parliament, is there any other OECD country that has had more reporting on stimulus spending than Canada?
4:55 p.m.
Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Expenditure and Revenue Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
As we noted, the United States has had what we consider to be the highest level of disclosure in terms of stimulus reporting, but one of the things we also have written about since last February is that while other jurisdictions don't necessarily report in a different manner, or a heightened manner, for stimulus, they may have more sophisticated quarterly reporting standards that allow parliamentarians in their jurisdiction to maybe have an improved connection between budget and estimates in the context of this committee.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON
Given that, do you think an explanation for that could be that we do have three levels of government in Canada, where in other countries the federal government may play a much larger role in their federalism? I know if the government wanted to get updates on projects in Barrie, the riding I represent, they'd have to check with the municipality, and the municipalities tend to have their own reporting mechanisms.
So we have 5,000 projects, and I imagine to get reports from municipalities across Canada, that's a big project. I think it's incredible that we've seen three reports, we've seen signs everywhere showing exactly what's happening, so I think Canadians are very well informed.
Do you know if there have been three reports to Congress from the President, or have there been other countries where we've seen such an incredible level of reporting given the federalism we have in this country?
October 27th, 2009 / 4:55 p.m.
Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Expenditure and Revenue Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Sir, we actually had that discussion with the Office of Management and Budget in the United States. They indicated they have a similar level of complexity in dealing with multiple levels of government, including the county level, which added another level of complexity to their reporting.
We've tried to outline in our report the nature of reporting that the U.S. government does provide. One of the other aspects we learned from their practice is that it's not necessarily done by institutional arrangement between the executive and the legislature in the context of their constitution, but it has been done by executive directive, so it's a choice they made to provide that level of transparency.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Patrick Brown Conservative Barrie, ON
The last question I have is on remarks that the funding hasn't been equitable. I look at the knowledge infrastructure program, for example, and no one likes to ask questions on that, because 62% of the projects in the knowledge infrastructure program have gone to opposition ridings.
When you look at the programs in their entirety, do you have any concerns with the statement made by Ontario's Deputy Premier George Smitherman that the program is equitable?
4:55 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
As budget officers, we don't necessarily look at the question of equitability from a partisan point of view. We've not been asked to do that. We tend to look at the stimulus more from the point of view of the impact on the economy, the impact on the nation's finances. We leave it at that.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Judy Foote Liberal Random—Burin—St. George's, NL
Thank you.
I know you're being asked to provide answers on information you obviously don't have, and I can appreciate that, but I'd like to go back to this announcement made on Friday. The federal government made the records public for $900 million in federal stimulus projects. It released numbers for 1,100 infrastructure projects, even though the details for many projects remain scanty. Were you given this information?
4:55 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
We have not been given it, but in my conversations with the deputy minister this week, I suspect I will be getting some of this information as soon as tomorrow.
