Thank you for coming.
It's ironic, because on the one hand you have the opposition claiming we're a secretive government, but you're here today because they're also telling you that we advertise and we communicate too frequently with people. They are upset that we communicate too frequently about changes to taxes, with respect to the economic action plan, and the budget.
I note that when we talked about the economic action plan and the stimulus, we were told that we weren't telling people what's going on. Then when we worked with our provincial partners to advertise and put up signs at all the locations so people could see the progress in action, we were told they didn't want us telling people what was going on, that's not what they meant.
So it's very difficult for you. Especially in this committee over the last year or so, the public service is brought in and they are told this and that with respect to the West Block construction, and then we find two, three, four layers of accountability is built in. With the G-8 and G-20, layer after layer of accountability is brought in.
What I find most offensive, to be honest with you, is the wording that comes from some of the members of the opposition. Earlier in his questioning Mr. Regan used the word “regime”. I don't know if he's being funny or if he just has a complete lack of respect for the public service, as opposed to me. I think the public service is doing a spectacular job. It's just a commentary on the fact that when he says things like that, and when the Liberals in particular say things like that because they think they're being funny or they think they can score some cheap political points, what they're really saying is that they don't trust the public service, the professional public service. And we've seen it time and time again in this committee over the last year.
I'll say this. I think you've done a spectacular job. This has been a very difficult couple of years. We've been focusing on jobs and the economy. I know that's not what the opposition has been focusing on.
When it comes to advertising, you look at H1N1. We're being criticized for spending on H1N1.
On August 12, 2009, the opposition issued a press release saying the government should spend more on communicating with respect to H1N1. They repeated that on November 3, 2009. The leader of the opposition in the House of Commons said the government needed to do more to communicate to people what's going on, and yet you're brought here today and told you shouldn't have spent $23 million telling people about H1N1; you shouldn't spend money telling people about elder abuse; you shouldn't spend money telling victims of crime where they can go to access help and information; you shouldn't be told about jobs and the economy; you shouldn't be telling people you can access tax cuts and the changes that have happened as a result of the budgeting process; you shouldn't tell homeowners that you can get a tax credit for the work you're doing at your home.
For some reason, these are all bad things. You know what? After a decade of darkness and misery in the Canadian armed forces, this government put in an action plan to restore the pride and the effectiveness of the armed forces--but we don't want people to know about it, so don't tell people about it. We can buy this new equipment, give them the resources they need, but let's not do anything to recruit more people.
I know it frustrates the opposition to no end that this has been a government that has been extraordinarily accountable and effective with people's money, but just to go back, how do you ensure the integrity of the contracting process when you do your advertising?