Debates of Nov. 5th, 2012

Government Operations and Estimates

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the committee made several recommendations directed at both Parliament and the government to help improve parliamentary scrutiny and review of the government's spending plans.

We know that the government has committed to ensuring that parliamentarians have the information they need to consider the estimates and supply bills. In fact, the government has already taken many steps to improve its financial reporting and support for parliamentary scrutiny of estimates and supply.

I have already mentioned the publication of quarterly financial reports. Other measures include posting financial data sets on the TBS website and the open data portal, and ongoing improvements to the form and content of reports on plans and priorities and departmental performance reports.

Our government is committed to ensuring that we have the information we need as parliamentarians and to improving the information that we have.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it fascinating that we have a report that was put together with some 16 recommendations. We like to think that they were all done in relatively good faith. From the Liberal Party's perspective, we were, from what I understand, 100% behind 15 of the 16. We had some concerns with one of the recommendations but were prepared to accept it.

In reading through the 16 recommendations, believing there was considerable support coming from the Conservative caucus, what has happened here is that someone from within the Prime Minister's Office is offended by something in the report, otherwise, I suspect that it would have been concurred in. One cannot help but draw the conclusion that the Prime Minister is upset with something in the report.

What does the member believe the Prime Minister's Office is not comfortable with to cause it to offend many members of the House of Commons, and even members of the Conservative Party, to the degree that it has? What is in the report that she believes the Prime Minister does not like?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, what we do know is that the President of the Treasury Board was very encouraged by the scope of the study and noted the range of views and perspectives presented to the committee. We know that he also noted the complexity of the matter and possible approaches.

Of the 16 recommendations, 8 were noted to be directed to the government. The rest concerned matters of parliamentary procedures. Of those recommendations to the government, the response indicates that the government agrees or agrees in principle with the recommendations that we made.

I could go on to read all eight of those recommendations that were made but I believe that the President of the Treasury Board commended the committee for the work we did and supported the recommendations that were ours to look at in principle.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask a question. If I understood correctly, the hon. member spoke about recommendations that the government agreed to.

My question is very short and simple: does the hon. member support the amendment of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons that seeks to refer the report back to the committee for further consideration?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee, it t became very clear throughout the entire study that this was a complex issue. There are many pieces of information that are available to members of Parliament. That was noted as well. It was noted that we have quality information available.

What we absolutely need to do is make the linkages between the budget, the estimates, the departmental performance reviews, as well as the reports on performance, plans and priorities.

I am always willing to continue to do whatever it takes as a parliamentarian to broaden my understanding of the estimates and the business of supply. What we noted as a committee is that one of the strong reasons for doing this was to encourage other parliamentarians to understand the process as well.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my committee colleague for her contribution to the debate.

At the beginning of her speech, she bragged a lot about the reforms and improvements her government has made since 2006. Obviously, in spite of all that, the results are not very convincing and the government has not done enough, since we are studying the estimates. I would like my colleague to comment on the addition to the report we tabled, which would make the Parliamentary Budget Officer an officer of this House. I would like to hear her opinion on that. Would it be a good thing to upgrade the status of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to help us improve our understanding of the budget process?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the government noted that the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the location of this position within the Library of Parliament were previously studied by the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament. The joint committee found the Parliamentary Budget Officer's services to be a natural extension of those provided to parliamentarians by the Library, which include non-partisan and customized research and analysis services to assist parliamentarians in committees in considering legislation and holding the government to account. As the joint committee noted, the Library provides these services with full independence from the government.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, these subjects are not necessarily sexy, but we will try to make them simple and understandable. What we have before us is something that, although dry, is very important to democracy in this country, and I hope that the average Canadian watching at home will be able to better understand the issue and see where this report will take us.

First, what do we want to do with it? When we started the study, it was simple; most of all, we wanted the estimates—those famous documents we get three or four times a year—to be understandable for the members of Parliament who must adopt them. What is important is that in a British-style Parliament, the House authorizes the government to spend. That is a basic principle.

Then, at the beginning of the study, we all received a letter from the President of the Treasury Board encouraging us to continue with the study. He asked us some questions. We tried to respond to his questions with some recommendations. But the very essence of the task was for each member of Parliament on each committee to be able—for the department on behalf of which they were looking at the estimates—to understand the figure on the third line on the right. What does it mean? What does it refer to? Why is it there and is it appropriate?

It is very difficult to do that today. I would like to quote Kevin Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer. When he testified before our committee he said the following:

The House must be able to satisfy itself, as the confidence chamber, that all spending and taxation is consistent with legislation, Parliament's intentions, and the principles of parliamentary control. When this is accomplished, Parliament is serving Canadians.

That is the importance of the process. Unfortunately, even after this report, I do not think that we will have that kind of understanding.

Naturally, as we prepared the report, we heard a number of witnesses, including some who had worked on the two previous reports, in 1998 and 2003. They were very pessimistic and did not believe we would succeed where they had failed. Of course, we did not want to become pessimistic as well, and we wanted to work together with the government in order to make the necessary amendments. We wanted the outcome to be that all members of Parliament in all committees could really understand the figures they had in front of them, and that the public, like the people watching at home, could understand the general outlines. That is the foundation. A budget must be passed. It is one of the fundamental tasks of the House and we have trouble doing it.

Some witnesses told us that all Westminster-type parliaments, like ours, have had trouble making the budget process really dynamic. Perhaps it is tradition. We did not get very far on that point. Perhaps we could look at it again one day.

Nevertheless, we have a more than $260 billion budget, of which nearly $100 billion is in budget votes—a substantial proportion. The budget cycle, the supply cycle, is important and it is long.

The supply cycle takes at least 18 months from the time the estimates are presented to the time the public accounts are tabled. Thus, when we examine the estimates from year to year, at 12-month intervals, we have not even seen the public accounts report. Because we cannot see the complete supply cycle from the previous year, it is difficult to compare apples to apples, because we do not know the final numbers. It is quite unfortunate.

We were asked to look at the accounting procedures, which I will leave to the experts. That is not the most important thing in this debate. We were also asked to look at the presentation, whether this is a capital or a program budget, and so on. I will also leave that aside, because I think it is a field for experts. What is important to us is that when the work is complete, the figures will be understandable to the people who must vote on the budget. That is the essence.

I said that the supply cycle is quite long. I will provide some details so people have an idea what we are talking about. It always begins with producing the estimates. Then there is a budget, which is a somewhat more political statement. A little later, there is the report on plans and priorities from departments like Public Works, for the current year. That report is supposed to help us understand how the money is spent on the department’s various programs. Ideally, there should be a close connection between the estimates and this tool.

One of our recommendations was intended to have these documents published closer together, eventually synchronizing them so that there would be discussions of the estimates in the report on plans and priorities. That is the goal. It is necessary to make connections between things, and at present, there are no such connections. One almost needs to be a master of the dark arts to find the connections. I do not know how many people in the government are able to do it. I might not need all 10 fingers to count them, because it is so complex.

The structure is quite old. The figures and the budgets are bigger and there are many more programs, yet we have kept on using pretty much the same old methods. Therefore, we have to bring these methods up to date, and this is the challenge we face.

Then there are supplementary estimates. In the current budgetary cycle, in addition to budget estimates and the budget itself, there are three supplementary estimates that come in during the year. In order to have a good idea of your budget, it is necessary to add up what is shown in the main estimates and in the supplementary estimates A, B and C. After that, they go to the public accounts committee, but as I said, we study the estimates before we have seen the results and before we have seen what was really done.

This makes no sense. The cycle should be shortened so we can understand more clearly and more specifically and see connections from one year to the next. We made recommendations in this regard, primarily about the reports on plans and priorities. We wanted to be able to see a number of years in advance and go back a few years so we could track things. Right now, the hardest part is understanding where all this is heading. This brings me of course to the role of the House.

Normally, I myself would wait until everyone in this House—unanimously— really wanted to have financial statements and budget estimates that were more precise and easier to understand, but I am sensing some resistance.

Apparently, the government likes to talk about transparency and clarity, but when it is time to apply those principles, things do not move very quickly. If we say that it might be necessary to start afresh, we hear how difficult and complicated it all is.

Do we want to fulfill our role or not? That is the main question. Do we just want to surrender control over spending to the government or do we want to remain a Parliament? It was Parliament that, in the beginning, authorized the King's expenditures. That is how it all started, and this has always been the case. In a Westminster-style Parliament, it is Parliament that gives its authorization, but Parliament must still understand what it is authorizing. That is the point.

Otherwise, if we do not do this, if we do not try to improve the situation, between you and me, Mr. Speaker, it is pointless. We will not get very far. We have to wonder what we are doing here.

That is why, among other things, it is important to remain focused on our goals here. I will give an example. The budget estimates are sent to committee for consideration. That is all well and good, but there are some committees that do not have the time or do not take the time to study them, or perhaps they do not understand what they contain and they send them on really quickly, even though seeing how the department for which they are responsible spends its money should be one of their main activities.

There is a standing order that says if the estimates have not been studied within a few weeks, according to the calendar, they are deemed approved, but have we done our job? Why are we here if not to study the estimates? Of course, there are the statutes, the legislative part, but, between you and me, the estimates are quite a significant part of the annual parliamentary cycle. If our purpose is not to consider all that, what are we doing here? I ask you, Mr. Speaker.

This is why we were really trying to go a little bit further and bring the estimates analysis into the 21st century, because now our procedures are really closer to those of the 19th century than the 21st century. It is all still pretty mysterious.

I want us to examine this in a clear manner. I want the people whose job it is to look at, study and vote on the budget to do so very conscientiously. The partisanship can come later; whether we are for or against it is another matter. Properly understanding how this works is a fundamental prerequisite.

Here is a fairly straightforward example of what we could do. I mentioned this earlier. We could group government documents pertaining to the estimates. We would have to shorten the cycle. The estimates, the Minister of Finance's budget, and the report on plans and priorities are all tabled at specific times. All this would have to be done in a much shorter time frame so that each of the documents would be as pertinent as possible. In that way we could truly draw a connection between the various documents, between the programs, the expenditures and the announcements, and we would not have to wait until the public accounts are released to say that that is what the government wanted to say, that is where it wanted to spend the money, and that is what that meant.

We are behind by 18 months if we are forced to say things like that. It makes no sense. Except for the people who ensure that the accounts are right, very few people do this exercise. Therefore, we are not moving towards our objective, which is to have a good understanding of how our public funds are spent.

We talked about a specific period for tabling the budget. Obviously, the government thought that it was a fixed date, whereas we were thinking of a period that ends on a specific date. That would allow the machinery of government to have a schedule and to produce all these documents within a shorter time frame in order to have the greatest possible impact. That is not complicated.

It is important to remember that Canada is a federation. The provinces, therefore, are also interested in knowing what the federal budget contains. That, too, is important to consider. The provinces rely, to a certain extent, on what is in the budget. Our vision also helps the provinces to tailor their own budgets. Everybody benefits when the budget is presented at a specific time of the year. The precise moment is open for discussion; that is not a problem. The basic idea is to always have timely publications and announcements to avoid—as we are currently seeing—having a budget prepared in February followed by a report on plans and priorities tabled in May or June, at a time when information and things in general have changed; in other words, when things no longer add up. That is very important.

Here is another thing to consider: it is important in this debate to get out of our comfort zones and think outside the box, to be willing to look at things differently, and not just see them from an accounting perspective. It is true that old habits die hard.

Let me provide an example. We had witnesses appear before us to discuss the government's response and at some point, I asked a question. It is clear that once you start tinkering with the budget—with the way that it is set out and in the terms of the documents put forward—it translates into a huge amount of work for the public service. That means there will be major transformations in terms of financial management. That much we know, and we know that it can be a lengthy process. However, it is worth doing even if it takes a long time. I would not like to see a desire for change quashed solely because change takes time. That is what we are here for, and that is what is required.

So I asked the following question: if we were to use the Parliamentary Budget Officer and his resources to enhance our understanding, would that lessen the load on the public service? Do you know the answer that I got? I was told that was not something that had even been considered.

In closing, I remind members that the objective is to make things clearer and more concise. What the machine thinks is not really important; what is important is that the House and members be given figures that they understand, and that they know what they are voting on.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for making this a little more understandable for us parliamentarians. However, it is not understandable to most Canadians, which is one of things I want to ask him about.

This report may not do what it is Canadians might want it to do. I will give him a couple of examples of when Canadians were somewhat baffled by budgetary issues. Maybe he can comment.

One was the move of $50 million from the border infrastructure fund into equipment or gazebos in one of the ridings, purportedly for the G8 Summit. The other was the decision by the Minister of Natural Resources to spend less than half the money in the ecoEnergy retrofit program by unilaterally determining to cut off the program before its program date.

Both are examples of when the government makes announcements, and we vote on budgets. We vote on appropriations. Then the government unilaterally changes those things. I would like Canadians to understand how those things can happen in this parliamentary system of ours.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very interesting question, which was addressed during the examination of the report. It is possible in the example of the G20, because the transfer of money from one sub-program to another is allowed without parliamentary approval. However, in a situation where funds can be presented for each program, controls could be tightened up in that regard. Some improvements could be made in that area.

Concerning the other program that was mentioned, even if those funds are voted on, it is up to the government to decide whether or not to spend the money. However, I agree with my colleague that when programs are good for Canadians, I do not see why money would not be spent to meet the targeted objectives.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Louis-Hébert. It is a privilege to serve on the committee with him. As is clear from his presentation today, he lives and breathes this subject area. He is very educated and informed on the subject area, and we were grateful to have him as part of the discussion.

The member alludes to what I think is missing here and has been missing for quite some time in this place, which is the political will to actually reform this place so that we, the duly elected representatives of the citizens of Canada, can actually watchdog the spending of their tax dollars.

One of the kingpins of the current government of the day in ousting the Liberals was that it was going to be this new, open, transparent, accountable government. The Conservatives promised, during the election, that they would create a Parliamentary Budget Officer who would be an independent officer who reported to Parliament. However, when they were elected, they created the office, but they did not create it as an independent officer of Parliament.

It has been commonly stated, and stated by a number of the experts before our committee, that essentially, the government is leaving members of Parliament blindfolded when they are making these critical decisions the Constitution imposes on us. I wonder if the member could speak to that.

The government is now suggesting that the matter simply go back to committee again. That will be the fourth review by committee in a decade. Does the member think that is a responsible and credible response to the hard work of this committee and the sage advice we provided?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I am honoured to work with on this committee. Indeed, we should be wondering about the real objectives. In fact, I have the impression that the government wants to side with the pessimists we encountered at the beginning of the study. If there is truly a desire for transparency and openness—words the President of the Treasury Board likes to repeat—then, as the expression goes, they need to walk the talk. The Conservatives need to demonstrate this willingness and desire for change. That is what is missing.

Should we focus on half measures by saying that certain documents have been superficially improved, that another one has been published to add to the pile? Or, on the other hand, is there a sincere desire to do what is best for the well-being of Canadians? In other words, the members of this House need to be given precise, complete and understandable information that they can vote on. That is the goal of this report, and I hope we will head in that direction.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for Louis-Hébert, who is obviously quite steeped in this information. However, I want to offer something from my own experience, having sat for 16 years in another Parliament. Each year we would have a budget presented, and along with the budget the estimates were presented. The estimates said here is what we said we were going to spend last year; here is what we actually spent last year; and here is what we are proposing to spend this year. All members of the assembly could look at this and could ask questions about it and ask why it was increasing or decreasing, or new expenditures would show up. The public accounts would come out later and we could look at those as well in terms of more detail.

Is that what we are looking for here: something that we can understand what is going on? I have been here since 2008, and I was here a long time ago, and it seems to me what we have is a recipe for obfuscation by the government, where members can delay answering questions, where they can say “read the budget, read the budget”, but the budget does not tell us what is going on, because what is really going on is in the estimates. What you say is that we do not get the estimates for 18 months.

Why do you think the government is not responding favourably to this report and recommendation?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the answer, I remind all hon. members to address their questions and comments to the Chair rather than to their colleague.

The hon. member for Louis-Hébert.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. In fact, it would seem that the government is using this greater complexity to bury the information we want. Is this intentional? I do not know. The result is that we do not have the information we need.

According to the government's response, it does not seem to want to change. However, as my colleague mentioned with regard to his province—and we could give other examples—things could be done differently, we could think about things in a different way, and parliamentarians could be given the information they need.

First and foremost, I believe we need political will in this House, and I believe that it is sorely lacking at this time.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the speech by the member for Louis-Hébert. As usual, he did a very fine job.

The Conservatives do not seem to agree with a report to which they contributed. At one point they said that they agreed. A planning process is now included, which could prevent the kind of problems we had with the G20, the F-35s and many other matters where the budget process failed miserably.

I want to ask my colleague some questions. The real problem is that the Conservatives do not want to use this financial framework. Is that why they want nothing to do with the report and want to send it back to committee?

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I believe that the Conservatives want to make only superficial changes; they do not want to make profound changes to a system that is serving them well. As I said earlier, there is simply not enough political will to transform these numbers, to transform the budget presentation in such a way that Parliament can return to its original role—to approve budgets for the various departments and agencies.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise here this evening to address the government's response to the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates entitled: “Strengthening Parliamentary Scrutiny of Estimates and Supply”.

As part of its study, the committee heard testimony from academics, representatives of federal and provincial governments, independent consultants and other stakeholders. The committee should be praised for the variety of witnesses who appeared and for having taken such range of opinions into account.

Clearly, the government and the committee agree that parliamentarians must have access to the information they need to examine the estimates and the supply bills. This is a fundamental part of our political system and is key to guaranteeing to Parliament and to Canadians that public funds are being used efficiently and effectively.

In our parliamentary system, the government is responsible for developing its budgetary programs and policies, and Parliament is responsible for asking the government to account for its actions and the results of those actions. That is why, since we came to power, we have been working to ensure that Parliament has the information it needs to hold the government to account.

Each year, the Government of Canada prepares main estimates, and supplementary estimates as required, in support of its request to Parliament for authority to spend public funds. This request is formalized through the tabling of appropriation bills in Parliament.

The purpose of the supplementary estimates is to obtain the funding requested by departments and agencies to implement programs approved by the government. The supplementary estimates are also necessary to transfer the funds approved in the main estimates between organizations or within organizations, from one vote to another.

The supplementary estimates also serve to inform Parliament of changes made to the estimated cost of programs that are authorized by legislation other than a supply bill. The tabling of the main estimates and the supplementary estimates, which seek Parliament's authority to spend, is an important part of Parliament's monitoring of government spending plans.

We provide information not only to parliamentarians but also to Canadians. We have all heard the saying that information is power. Well, by making information accessible, we are also giving Canadians the power to hold their government accountable. In fact, Canada is a world leader in providing the public with accessible information.

We were one of the first countries to pass access to information legislation almost three decades ago. That is why, since our government has come to power, it has worked to open the windows and doors of government and to make information available to parliamentarians and all Canadians.

For example, in 2006, our government greatly broadened the scope of the Access to Information Act through the Federal Accountability Act, which contained the most significant changes to the Access to Information Act since it came into force in 1983.

More importantly, these changes extended the Access to Information Act to a larger number of public institutions.

Since April 1^st 2007, the Canadian Wheat Board, five foundations and five officers of Parliament are subject to the provisions of the act.

The Federal Accountability Act added a total of 69 public institutions to the list of entities to which the act applies.

This means that some 250 public organizations are now subject to the Access to Information Act. The services provided by these institutions are very diverse and far-reaching, and they include many important activities and services for all Canadians.

However, to ensure greater transparency and increased accountability, we must not merely extend the act to more institutions.

Recently, we made it compulsory for all departments and organizations subject to the Access to Information Act to release summaries of their access to information requests. Each summary includes the request number, a summary of the full request and the number of pages disclosed.

I am pleased to say that departments, organizations and crown corporations are complying with this new requirement.

Over the past year, we also published thousands of information packages and we posted them online.

We sort of give access to a large storehouse of useful information which, until recently, was diligently collected and stored, just like our grandmothers' silverware.

The Government of Canada produces and collects data in areas such as health, the environment, agriculture and natural resources.

The purpose of open data is to give free access to machine readable data through portals, metadata and research tools, so that jurisdictions, citizens, volunteer organizations and the private sector can reuse them in new and original forms. The doors are now open and the possibilities are really very exciting.

In March 2011, we launched the Open Data Portal pilot project. This is a single desk providing access to federal government data that can be downloaded freely by Canadian citizens, researchers, volunteer organizations and private sector businesses.

This initiative is the result of a collaborative effort between the Government of Canada's departments and organizations to provide access to data generated by the government which can be used by citizens, businesses and communities for their own purposes.

These information packages deal with various issues, including construction permits, wait times for elective surgery, polluting emissions or border wait time.

For example, Statistics Canada provided its community-level health profiles, as well as 2001, 2006 and 2011 census data, as well as socio-economic and geographic data.

Moreover, in accordance with the spirit of our open government initiative, Statistics Canada stopped charging users for access to all its data in 2012.

Environment Canada provided data about fish stocks and freshwater quality indicator data from the Canadian environmental sustainability indicators program.

The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency provided data on projects approved by the agency since 1995.

Health Canada posted data on licensed natural health products and authorization dates for all drugs that have received a notice of compliance since 1994. The department has also published information about the suspected adverse reactions to health products.

Industry Canada provided data on broadband coverage and the technical and administrative frequency list that contains data on radio system frequencies.

Treasury Board Secretariat provided data on financial expenditures of departments and agencies, 2011-12 main estimates tables, and the public service employee survey data for 2008 through 2011.

We are proud that our open data portal is constantly evolving and we continue to add new data sets every month.

To make the portal even more effective, it is important that we bear in mind business people and innovators, and that we work with them to transform this raw data into practical applications to be used by all Canadians and to stimulate innovation and economic growth.

For example, at MétéoMédia, updated meteorological observations and advanced modelling provided by Environment Canada are used to provide radar images of the weather from coast to coast.

There are numerous other examples of Canadians with imagination who create and market applications using our government's data. They give us an idea of the trade and research opportunities available through the rapid use of government data by members of the public. And the major advantage of the portal is that it makes all this data accessible at a single location.

More government data can therefore be adapted for various uses. Over the past year, some 273,000 data sets from 21 departments and agencies have been published, and they can be downloaded free of charge—I would note—from the government's open data portal. This has become a global trend.

The United Kingdom, for example, intends to publish the graduation rates of every school. In health care, there are plans to publish the cancer care performance of general practitioners. This is incredibly powerful. Access to this information enables citizens and consumers to make informed decisions about essential aspects of their lives. This gives them choices, and the fact that they have choices means that public services, such as health care and education, will have to be more accountable, which will promote innovation and improved service.

I am talking here about the power to make information available to everyone, but there is more. This is also a tool to stimulate economic growth and long-term prosperity. The European Commission estimates that the open data revolution could mean up to $55 billion a year in economic spinoffs for the continent.

It is therefore not surprising that British MP Francis Maude, Minister of the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, has described data as the new basic resource, the new raw material of the 21st century.

We in Canada are well aware of the importance of capitalizing on resources. The development of our resources—our natural resources—has helped make Canada one of the most prosperous countries in the world.

As we advance into the 21st century, the key to our prosperity will lie in our human capital and our potential for innovation.

In this context, data will be Canada's new resource, and the development of that resource will support the goals of the government's economic action plan 2012.

The goal of our plan is to reinforce and consolidate the corporate sector and to make it our job creation driver—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona on a point of order.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened diligently to the speech and I am still waiting for the hon. parliamentary secretary to address the matter before us, which is the estimates report.

I hear him talking about the government's economic action plan. I am just wondering, will he, in his speech, be addressing the matter before the House at this moment?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I am looking at the motion that was placed before the House regarding the business before us this evening. It says that the Chair shall not receive any quorum calls or dilatory motions. It is my understanding that calls for relevance would be considered a dilatory motion in this context, and as such, the parliamentary secretary has the floor to address the matter in the manner in which he chooses.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will be so kind as to not subtract that time from my speaking time.

Our plan seeks to strengthen and consolidate the entrepreneurial sector and to make it an engine for job creation and economic growth. We are doing that by focusing on the key drivers of growth and job creation, namely, innovation, investment, education, skills and communities. That is where open data comes in.

We see this as a launching pad for creating businesses and jobs, and supporting economic growth. By partnering and collaborating with the business community, government can provide the raw material that, through entrepreneurial innovation, is transformed into a value-added and highly sought-after finished product. There has never been a better time for this kind of partnership.

We have never had the kinds of tools—whether it be cloud computing, mobile applications or web platforms—now at our disposal. This is only just the beginning; the sky is the limit. That is why, going forward, we are working on developing a new platform for our open data portal, which could include enhanced search capabilities, Web 2.0 features, international open data standards, the launch of interactive forums and the provision of more preprogrammed application interfaces.

By expanding and improving access to government data, we want to further encourage use of these data sets by the public. We also plan to adopt a new open licence—another idea inspired by international best practices in this area—which will free users from now outdated restrictions on the re-use of this data.

Our hope is that smart minds across Canada in small businesses, non-profit organizations and academia will use this data to create new applications that Canadians will be able to access from whatever device they prefer. We believe that leading-edge entrepreneurs can be key to the country's future prosperity, and we want to tap into that resource to revolutionize government and boost Canadian businesses. We want to build this new resource together, with our entrepreneurs and our innovators.

We know that the current portal is not perfect, and we will continue to work to improve it. We want to do this properly in the best interests of everyone.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my colleague a question. He seems to have deliberately avoided the topic we are discussing this evening. My question is quick and simple and has to do with something he has not yet spoken about. I asked this same question earlier and did not get an answer.

Does the member agree with the government amendment to refer the report back to the committee? If so, why?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. I did not finish my speech, but if I had, he might have had an answer to his question.

Nevertheless, I really want to stress the importance of the portal I mentioned in my speech. This is a tool of the future for all Canadians, and they currently have access to it free of charge. This portal will represent an economic revolution in our country and around the world.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I sat patiently listening to the member.

There is this sense of frustration when a government representative gets up and does not address the issue at all. We want to see the member actually respond to the core issue. The core issue is that the government, from the Prime Minister's Office, I would suggest, has made the decision that this report is to go back to the committee, even though many of his colleagues would have agreed with the report.

We were supposed to give the report concurrence, accept the report and then move forward. However, for some odd reason that only the Prime Minister's Office really knows, it is being sent back to the committee.

I am wondering if the member could tell us, without looking at his speaking notes, whether he believes that his colleagues, who put in the time, energy and resources to come up with this report, are being done a service when the Prime Minister's Office comes to the House of Commons and says that we should send this report back? Obviously the Prime Minister is not content with some aspect of it, even though we do not know which part.