Debates of Nov. 5th, 2012

Government Operations and Estimates

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. There is no doubt that the government has been determined to improve accountability and increase transparency since it came to power. The proof is not just in our words, but also in our concrete actions. Our record speaks for itself.

The measures I mentioned in my speech will make it possible to give Canadians the open and honest government they deserve, a government that acts transparently, is accountable and optimizes the use of public funds.

Both the committee's recommendations regarding the supply cycle and the estimates process, as well as the government's response, aim to provide similar transparency regarding the financial information that we, as parliamentarians, need when examining estimates and supply.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will at least recognize the hon. member’s courage in standing up here in the House. The other Conservative members do not appear to want to talk about the government’s record in terms of budgets.

And they have their reasons. Just think of the G20, the F-35s, and the whole issue of renovating the West Block. Every time, the government has been unable to establish a budget it could follow. Every time, we saw a government that looked out of control. Either it presented estimates that constantly changed as time went on, or it spent more than had been budgeted. The government’s record is pitiful. That must be said.

I think that all Canadians watching us tonight, all over the country, are aware that the government has come up short every time.

Now we have a report that says it will clean up the country's finances and set up a process, yet the government says it does not want it, even though there is a consensus, and even though all parties agree that the system is seriously broken and must be repaired. The Conservatives now say that they do not want to repair a broken process; they do not want to clean up the government’s budget process.

The hon. member did not answer the question everyone is asking: why are they opposed to a report that simply says that the government’s procedures in terms of the budget must be cleaned up? Why? Can he tell us which recommendations the Conservatives do not agree with? Can he give us at least one answer tonight?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. He wanted information about the government’s plan, and I will be pleased to discuss it with him.

Our plan is to strengthen and consolidate the business sector and make it the engine that drives job creation and economic growth. We are doing that by focusing on the factors behind growth and job creation, something the opposition says little about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to clarify something. This is the third time the hon. member has been asked a question and has not answered it. Are there rules about answering?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Hon. members have the opportunity to ask questions and make comments, and members who have made presentations have the opportunity to respond to that. There is no process by which the Chair determines the validity of the answer. That is in the hands of the member.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, to answer the question put to me earlier, which was very broad, I would like to talk about the economy, because it remains a priority for us. We are taking action while putting the emphasis on the key drivers of growth and employment, innovation, investment, education, skills and communities. That is where open data come into play. We see this as a launching pas for creating businesses and jobs. We think it is very important to create jobs, particularly to support 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 will never be a better time to do this. We currently have those tools, whether it is computer technology, cloud computing, mobile applications or web platforms. This is just the beginning and the sky is the limit.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary must take Canadians for fools, when this debate is about how much money the government is spending, when it is going to tell us, how we are going to be able to know what it is spending and what the effects of it are. The Parliamentary Budget Officer stated:

Despite PBO requests, the government has not provided clear baseline information used for any of the expenditure reduction initiatives in a manner that would allow Parliament to assess impacts on government programs and services.

That is the problem. We here in Parliament cannot do our job because the government will not give us the information.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think he is referring to transparency and to access to information. In fact, our country, Canada, is a leader in providing accessible information to citizens. We were one of the first countries to pass access information legislation, almost three decades ago. That is why, since taking office, our government has worked to open its doors and windows and to make information available not only to its partners, but to all Canadians.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I begin my speech this evening, I have to say that I have never seen a situation in the House where the government essentially sends in one player to rag the puck on a debate that is of such fundamental importance to Canadians, which is the tax dollars that are sent to Ottawa and how that money gets spent. Fundamentally, it is about the democratic process and democratic accountability. It is clear from the speech and the response to questions we have just heard by the government member that the Conservatives do not want to talk about accountability. It is especially shocking given that we are here tonight debating a report that was recommended by all parties at the committee stage.

To now have a motion calling for this report to be sent back to the committee for further study really does a disservice to all of the hard work done by the committee, to all of the witnesses who appeared before it, to all of the work done preparing the report and to the seriousness with which I know my colleagues on this side of the House take this subject. The subject is, of course, the tax dollars Canadians send in, how the money is spent and how it is accounted for.

The estimates we deal with here in Parliament are significant sums of money. We are talking about $254 billion of Canadians' tax dollars. Of that amount, $160 billion is committed through statutory agreements, but $94 billion worth of Canadians' tax dollars is what Parliamentarians debate and decide on. That is what we are talking about this evening with respect to this report on financial accountability. It is about how we account for this money in a way that is organized, clear and task-specific so that, when members of Parliament are representing their constituents and looking at the estimates, we know clearly and precisely what it is we are talking about.

Budgets are about how money gets spent. That is what the estimates detail. It is about the decisions government makes. An example is the fact that we continue to have a number of people who are unemployed, a level 25% higher than before the recession started, with 1.4 million still out of work. The fact that we still have these people facing a human crisis every day is certainly of concern to Parliamentarians and something we should be dealing with through the estimates process, especially when only 40% of Canadians are able to even get the employment insurance benefits that they and their employers have paid for through premiums. Therefore, how we deal with unemployment is one area of concern.

Another concern is whether or not we are investing in infrastructure and transit. In my city of Toronto, the Board of Trade estimates that lack of transit investment is a $6 billion drag on the economy of our region, which is especially shocking given that the direct and indirect benefits of transit investment would create hundreds of thousands of construction jobs, not to mention the general importance to our economy, our environment and the daily lives of Canadians.

Whether or not we are spending money on other kinds of infrastructure and whether or not we are providing affordable housing is of concern. My area, the GTA, delivers about 20% of Canada's GDP, but it is increasingly becoming an unaffordable place to live. A decision was made by the government not to invest in affordable housing, even though it would have created many new jobs for Canadians and made life more affordable.

All of these decisions are important for parliamentarians to review through the estimates process, and it is fundamentally the work of parliamentarians. I commend the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates for the work it has done. There are a number very positive recommendations in this report, which generally we in our party supported. We want to see adequate information, because we do not have a lot of time to assess the estimates that are given to us. One of the recommendations is about providing more time to parliamentarians, but making the whole process more coherent, providing clearer, more consistent, more reliable information so any member of Parliament could have a common reference point to study the spending plans of the government. That is certainly something very basic that all Canadians expect of us.

There are many positive recommendations in this report and a terrific amount of hard work that has been done. It is astonishing that the Conservatives want to send this report back again to the committee. They want to rag the puck just as they are doing tonight in this House by not treating this report seriously. That sends the message to Canadians that the Conservatives do not treat the spending of their tax dollars seriously and they are basically saying they have noblesse oblige, that whatever they decide is up to them and that parliamentarians and therefore Canadians should not be able to provide adequate scrutiny.

There is one area in which the report is sadly deficient, and this again fundamentally comes down to transparency and accountability, and that is in the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It is well known that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's position was created in order to provide transparency and accountability and to ensure there was an independent analysis of the financial numbers that are before members of Parliament, taken out of the politics of the daily cut and thrust of Parliament.

When this position was created under the Federal Accountability Act, Bill C-2 at the time, it was touted by the government as doing just that. It was to prevent some of the problems of previous governments, whereby spending was overestimated, deficits were overestimated and then at the end of the year we were able to see that the numbers were not very accurate all along. It was also important in the wake of the sponsorship scandal that there be this kind of more stringent accountability. The position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer was created, and it was a significant step forward that we supported.

However, what we were calling for, and continue to call for today and have recommended in this report, is that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's position be as an independent officer along the lines of the Auditor General, so that the Parliamentary Budget Officer could have full access to all the information that he or she would need to conduct the work of the PBO. It is a shocking state of affairs today that the PBO has been driven to the point of saying he needs to take the government to court to get the basic financial information he needs from government departments to do his job.

I have introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-381, calling for the Parliamentary Budget Officer to be made an independent officer of Parliament, like the Auditor General, so he would have full access to the resources and numbers he needs and the full authority to do his job in the way that I believe Canadians expected when this position was first created.

I thank my colleague for Ottawa Centre who, prior to my introducing this bill, had introduced a similar bill calling for the independence of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It was a groundbreaking position when it was created, but the position has failed to have the full authority the PBO needs to do the job.

It is not just New Democrats who are saying this. We had excellent testimony, before the committee, making this recommendation. I would like to quote one of the witnesses, Dr. David Good, Professor, School of Public Administration, University of Victoria, who said:

First, I would make the Parliamentary Budget Officer a full agent of Parliament to assist parliamentarians and committees. I think the role and mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer needs to be clarified and strengthened by making the office legislatively separate and independent of the Library of Parliament, thereby operating as a full agent of Parliament. A confused mandate, which I think we've had since its creation, only serves to increase partisanship and the scoring of political points rather than channelling substantive information to elevate the level of debate to assist parliamentarians in the scrutiny of the budget and the estimates. As a full agent of Parliament, the Parliamentary Budget Officer would have authority to have greater access to documentation.

That is exactly what my private member's bill would do. However, we do not need a private member's bill to make this change for the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It could be included as a recommendation to this report. We have added it as a supplementary recommendation. It ought to be included, and the government can make that a reality.

The current mandate of the PBO includes providing independent research and analysis to government on the government's estimates and financial management. In fact, it has been the PBO that has had groundbreaking reports that have been more accurate than the government's own numbers.

A case in point is the work the PBO did on the F-35s. It was through his office, as opposed to the government, that parliamentarians first became aware that the cost estimates by the government for the F-35 procurement program were wildly off the mark, to the tune of billions of dollars. It was the PBO who alerted Parliament, and therefore Canadians, that this was a problem. The accounting the government was providing to Canadians was very different from its own internal accounting by billions of dollars. In fact, it was the PBO's numbers that were accurate, and the numbers the government was issuing publicly were not.

Similarly, there was the PBO's costing of the impact of the government's crime bills and what they would mean in terms of greater costs for the criminal justice system and greater costs for provinces due to greater incarceration rates. The PBO's numbers have, in fact, been more accurate in that regard.

In the accounting for our military engagements, the PBO has been very helpful as well.

When the Parliamentary Budget Officer comes before the finance committee, he is able to tell us more accurately, and I believe more frankly than the government, the impact of budget decisions. For example, when the PBO came before the finance committee this spring to talk about the impact of the government's budget, he told the finance committee that the austerity decisions, the cuts being made to programs and services by the government, would be a drag on the overall economy, would lead to greater unemployment and would reduce the GDP of Canada.

Sadly, that is what has been happening where governments have been pursuing austerity measures in countries around the world. We are seeing Europeans belatedly coming to the realization that many of the cuts they are making to budgets are creating more of a drag on their economies and increasing unemployment in those areas.

The PBO has been very frank and very helpful, and for his efforts he has been the target of significant criticism and attack by government members. When the PBO came before the finance committee, government members have been excessively aggressive and dismissive, which is unfortunate because of the valuable information he has been able to provide.

We just heard from a professor from the University of Victoria. There are other witnesses who gave similar testimony. We heard from Dr. Joachim Werner, associate professor of public policy from the London School of Economics and Political Science. His recommendation was:

—to protect and enhance the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. A number of countries are creating similar institutions, and the Parliament in Canada has really been at the cusp of this development. Internationally, the Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada is very highly regarded, and it's certainly a major change, in my view, at least, in the degree the parliament in Canada has access to an independent, highly professional research capacity.

He was very complimentary. However, he said:

I believe that some adjustments are possible to the legal framework for the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In particular, this role could be strengthened, or the status be strengthened, if he were a full officer of Parliament.

In that regard, we on this side have recommended that the government take immediate action to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer an officer of Parliament, and further that the Parliamentary Budget Officer be mandated to report to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates with respect to its estimates work.

We believe that this would help parliamentarians. It would help Canadians understand estimates. It would help us understand the budget process and it would enable the PBO to do the job that Canadians expect him to do and that he is endeavouring to do today. However, if he has to go to court to get the information he needs, then clearly something is broken in the process.

I see I do not have a lot of time left, but in concluding I note a section of the report from the committee that talks about the underlying principles of Canadian parliamentary financial procedures, going back to the days of the Magna Carta signed by King John of England in 1215. Basically it was recognized that when aid or supplies were required, the king needed to seek consent, not only to impose a tax but also for the manner in which the revenues from that tax would be spent. They proclaimed later on in 1295 that “what touches all should be approved by all”.

We contend that in order to be approved by all, it needs to be understood by all. Canadians need to know what we are debating, what the numbers represent, what the full significance is of the estimates in order to do our jobs and in order to be approved by all.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the report contains a number of recommendations that all of us felt had a great deal of merit. There is a sense of frustration that when the work of the committee comes before the House, the government has already made a decision. I have asserted before and will continue to assert that the Prime Minister's Office likely got involved in the process and decided that the recommendations in the report are not good. We do not know what aspects of it the Prime Minister's Office does not necessarily like, but the report now has to go back to committee even though it and its 16 recommendations were passed by consensus. All one needs to do is to look at the makeup of the committee to see that there were Conservative members who were in support of the report.

For whatever reason, the Prime Minister has said no, go back to the drawing board. I wonder if the member might want to speculate as to why she believes the Prime Minister was not happy with the report.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question and the hard work by his party and all members on the government operations and estimates committee.

Any comment on this would of course be speculative, but we can check the record. We do know that the government does not embrace transparency, in spite of having created the position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, for example, when it was a minority government.

I believe in all good conscience that the individual members of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates embraced these recommendations as part of the consensus decision, because they truly believed they would improve our work as parliamentarians. However, the government as a whole does not seem to embrace transparency. Witness, for example, the Parliamentary Budget Officer having to go to court to get information and the difficulty we have had as individual parliamentarians in finding out basic information from budget decisions, including what programs have been cut, what programs are going to be funded and what the impact of the decisions will be. It is a very unfortunate message to send to Canadians that somehow the government does not trust them to share information with them. That is a sad message.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. member, who is the NDP finance critic. In my speech, I mentioned that our government was very transparent and was carefully presenting a vision for Canadians.

On page 4 of its platform, the NDP talks about a new tax. For the past year and a half, we have not seen much transparency on the part of this party regarding what it wants to do with this new carbon tax.

This evening, since the hon. member is the NDP finance critic, I would like to give her an opportunity to elaborate on the initiative mentioned on page 4 of her party's election platform. I would like her to explain to Canadians what a vision for the future of Canada might look like with this tax proposed by the NDP.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question, which surprises me somewhat, first of all because it has nothing to do with the debate here this evening on the committee's report, but also because we support a carbon market.

That is the same policy that has been adopted by his party. I am really surprised that he would ask this question, because we see pretty much eye to eye on adopting this policy, which is good for the environment. I do not understand why he would ask this question. It is as though he suddenly opposes a carbon market.

I do not understand why his party has flip-flopped on this policy.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for giving such an informative speech on the importance of taking a stand on a report that talks about the budget, taxpayers' money and how it is managed and spent.

Can she tell us why the Conservatives are so afraid to vote on it? What are they trying to hide? Do they not want Canadians to know, because they want it referred to committee, even though the report is coming to us from committee, where it was examined?

Experts gave their opinions and an enormous amount of work was done by all members from all parties. They Conservatives still want to hide information and play a shell game, so that no one knows what is really going on. There are 16 very important recommendations, if I am not mistaken.

Why does the government want to hide them?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very pertinent questions.

That really surprises me because 16 recommendations were supported by all members of the committee. These 16 recommendations make a lot of sense. We wanted to add a recommendation concerning the Parliamentary Budget Officer, but the government abruptly changed its mind and has decided that it no longer wants a consensus or accountability. It decided to hide the information and to negate the committee's good work. This truly shows a lack of respect for the committee, a lack of transparency and a lack of respect for Canadians and taxpayers, who pay billions of dollars to the government, money that Parliament is responsible for. It is truly shocking and I do not understand it. The government is afraid of Canadians and transparency.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her pertinent speech. We can now truly talk about real things.

The member who spoke before her talked about open data. I would like her to comment about that. Would it not be right for parliamentarians to have open data? Could she comment on that?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

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

Providing open data would be a real change for the government, which just torched the gun registry data. That is why the information being sought by the Parliamentary Budget Officer is so important. As members of Parliament, we need the information to do the work that we were elected to do. We are here for that reason: to make decisions on behalf of our constituents.

If we do not have the basic budget information that we need, how can we make reasonable and informed decisions? That is the fundamental question we must ask ourselves. Why is the government so afraid of data, transparency and Canadians?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and honour to rise in the House this evening to contribute to this debate on the estimates and supply.

As a member of the government operations committee, I can say we have definitely had a very rigorous and fulsome debate on this issue. I just want to give a brief recap of where the government has come from and where it is going, moving forward in an open and transparent manner.

The supply process of which the estimates are a part is one of the cornerstones of Canada's democratic government. It dates back to the British feudal system and the development of Parliament as a check on the spending authority of the monarch.

Although the system has evolved since then, its overall principle has remained the same. No payments can be made out of the consolidated revenue fund without the authority of Parliament. The legislative process, including supply, is the mechanism through which this authority is given. The supply process is rooted in both law and parliamentary tradition.

Estimates present information in support of supply bills, and while there have been changes to the presentation of estimates over time, there have been only a few changes to their fundamental form and content. These were largely as a result of recommendations from parliamentary committees.

I am pleased this evening to recognize the significance of the committee's work, as well as the significance for parliamentarians of today and the future, who will be better able to serve Canadians as a result of the committee's efforts.

I was especially encouraged by the scope of the study and the range of views and perspectives presented to the committee. As I mentioned, we had a variety of witnesses from across Canada and around the world giving their input and sharing their wisdom and experience.

I believe this shows the complexity of the issues being studied and the approaches to improving them. In short, the committee has taken considerable time and effort to review the evidence, and its effort is a good start to reforming the estimate process.

I would now like to summarize the government's overall response to this report. First of all, we agree with almost all of the recommendations directed to government. As members know, some of the other recommendations were directed to parliamentary committees and the House of Commons, as has been alluded to this evening.

We have taken note of these other recommendations and offered observations or comments where appropriate. Let me elaborate briefly on the recommendations directed to the government.

Recommendation 1 is that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat complete its study of accrual-based budgeting and appropriations and report back to Parliament by March 31, 2013. We agree. This is consistent with our response to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts report tabled in August 2012.

Recommendation 2 is that the Treasury Board Secretariat transition the estimates and related appropriation acts from the current model to a program activity model—that is, taking the current model and moving to a program activity model. We are going to assist the federal departments with this process and prepare a timeline for this transition by March 31, 2013, and transmit this timeline to our committee.

We consider this to be a very significant recommendation to come from a report, a change in the vote structure, so that estimates align with specific strategic outcomes and program activity spending, providing a clear, traceable line between authorities, strategic outcomes and related program activities. The government is committed to developing and consulting on a cost-effective means of implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation 7 is that the government identify separately, in the main estimates and the supplementary estimates, all new funding that is included in the votes and that it be cross-referenced to the appropriate budget source.

Once again the government agrees. We will identify new programs that are receiving first-time funding in the main estimates and the supplementary estimates with the appropriate source of funds from the fiscal framework.

Recommendation 12 is that the departments and agencies include tax expenditures in the reports on plans and priorities, as determined by the Secretariat, to best fit their mandate.

Currently, the expenditures are included in the Department of Finance's tax expenditures and evaluations report. We agree in principle with this recommendation. We are offering a little different approach in the sense that tax expenditures are the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. The allocation of tax expenditures to other departments could be subject to interpretation. Tax expenditures are estimated on the basis of the calendar year, not the fiscal year. We have to make sure there is an understanding that one is based on the calendar year and the other on the fiscal year.

The government believes that information on tax expenditures should not be included in the reports on plans and priorities of other departments and agencies.

Having said that, to give parliamentarians a broader perspective on government expenses, the government will coordinate the release of the tax expenditures and evaluations publication with that of the main estimates on or around March 1 of each year. We will also add a reference with a hyperlink to the tax expenditures and evaluations publication in departments' RPPs. This will include a note indicating that the tax measures in the publication are the sole responsibility of the Minister of Finance and directing Department of Finance officials to provide briefings on the publication at the committee's request. As the committee recommends, Department of Finance officials will update the committee.

Recommendations 4, 5 and 16 are linked. Recommendation 4 is that departments' reports on plans and priorities, otherwise known as RPPs, should contain financial information by program activity for three previous fiscal years and three future years. We are looking at three past and three forward, giving the committee a good perspective and parliamentarians an understanding of the six-year time span. The government agrees with this recommendation. This information should be made more readily available. The secretariat will also look at the electronic presentation of the reports on plans and priorities.

Recommendation 5 is that the reports on plans and priorities include an explanation of any changes in planned spending over time and any of the variances between planned and actual results by fiscal year, as available. Once again, we agree. The secretariat will provide guidance to departments to enhance the appropriate sections of the reports on plans and priorities and the departmental performance reports.

Recommendation 16 is that the government develop a searchable online database that contains information on departmental spending by type of expense and program. We agree.

Recommendations 4, 5 and 16 are also linked to our open government initiative. Open government is about sharing government information with Canadians. Therefore, the recommendations are timely. There are widespread possibilities for the use of open data to support the desire among stakeholders for better information on estimates and supply.

Once again, it only makes sense that we should take advantage of technology and recent initiatives to do that. I must say that the President of the Treasury Board has been a strong advocate already in many ways of implementing technology to help put this information online and make it more accessible, not only for parliamentarians but for all Canadians.

In short, the government agrees or agrees in principle with all but one of the recommendations directed to it. We disagree with the recommendation regarding the establishment of a fixed tabling date of February 1 for the budget. As a member of the committee, there was a lot of debate on this particular issue and, in the opinion of the government, this would restrict the government's flexibility to respond to global and domestic economic conditions. I understand flexibility is needed especially during these uncertain times globally, with the fiscal crisis that we have come through and uncertain times in the future.

In many cases, these global and domestic imperatives play a determining role in decisions related to budget timing and the government should not be bound by arbitrary dates that constrain its ability to respond to a dynamic economic environment. This is not a partisan issue. It is in the best interests of whichever party is governing our country at the time to make it sure has the flexibility required to make the best decisions for the specific economic situation at the time, at home and around the world.

The report also contains many recommendations directed to other organizations, including standing committees, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the House of Commons, where we are this evening, which is not within our purview to comment on. This speaks to the thoroughness of this work and the wide perspective with which the committee carried out its review.

Overall, our agreement with most of the recommendations directed to the government is a positive result. It is a testament, I believe, to the committee working very co-operatively, as alluded to by previous speakers, with the desire to improve the system and to the government's commitment to advancing accountability and transparency in our public institutions. It also speaks to the ability of parliamentarians to work together across party lines for the good of Canada.

Strengthening accountability and transparency was part of the government's promise to Canadians when we were first elected in 2006. January 23, 2006, as a matter of fact, was when I was first elected. The platform was accountability and transparency and we brought in Bill C-2 in that year, the toughest legislation on accountability. We continue to move forward as an open and transparent government. We have not wavered from that commitment and have been hard at work since then. I will provide a few examples.

One of the first things we did after coming into power was bring in the Federal Accountability Act, Bill C-2, and its accompanying action plan. When the legislation received royal assent in December 2006, we immediately acted to reduce the influence of money in elections. As a result, a law prohibiting contributions to political parties by corporations, unions and organizations and lowering the limit on individuals' political contributions came into force on June 12 of that year.

We also gave the government watchdog, the Auditor General, additional powers. Only individuals could contribute. Unions and corporations were prohibited.

If we look at our friends to the south, it is just a mess down there the way the money has taken over. It was such a prudent decision by the government that we brought this in and brought some reasonableness to the debate that happens during our elections across Canada.

We made deputy ministers the accounting officers who must appear before parliamentary committees as accounting officers accountable for the management of their departments.

We put in place measures to provide Canadians with broader and better access to more information from public organizations than ever before.

We extended the Access to Information Act to cover the Canadian Wheat Board, five foundations, five agents of Parliament, and most crown corporations and their wholly owned subsidiaries.

We also introduced measures to strengthen ethical conduct in the public service.

We conducted open and extensive consultations with lobbyists and Canadians related to regulations on the Lobbying Act to ensure that lobbying and government advocacy is done fairly and openly.

We brought into force the Conflict of Interest Act and named a Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner so that Canadians had the opportunity to voice their concerns about unethical behaviour in government and to hold violators accountable.

To give these accountability measures teeth, we introduced new criminal penalties and sanctions for anyone who commits fraud against the Crown, as consequences for their actions, which is only appropriate.

All these reforms helped restore Canadians' trust in our public institutions. However, we did not stop there. We also committed to ensuring that parliamentarians have the information they need to consider estimates and supply bills. We have already taken steps to improve financial reporting and to support parliamentary scrutiny of estimates and supplies.

We have amended the Financial Administration Act to include quarterly financing reporting. This ensures that parliamentarians and Canadians have access to information on government spending on a timely basis.

Financial data sets are now being posted on the Treasury Board Secretariat website and the Open Data portal. The President of the Treasury Board is very aggressive in this matter and wants to use technology to ensure that the information is available to all parliamentarians and Canadians.

In addition, the form and content of reports on plans and priorities and departmental performance reports have been continually improved. Departments and agencies now post their reports of total annual expenditures for travel, hospitality and conferences on their websites. This is on top of other transparency measures already in place, such as proactive disclosure of travel and hospitality expenditures for ministers, ministerial staff and senior government officials detailed in the Public Accounts of Canada.

Let me add that the government has strengthened these internal audit policies and standards and has worked with the audit community to support professional development and capacity. As a result, we have a professional, independent appraisal function in place.

Heads of departments and agencies have to ensure that completed internal audit reports are issued in a timely manner, made accessible to the public and posted on the departmental websites for the public to see. I know it is hard to believe that this was not required in the past. We are holding department heads accountable. In fact, we have been recognized by the Office of the Auditor General for the significant progress made in improving the quality of internal audit across the public service.

Our record on advancing accountability and transparency in Canada's public institutions speaks for itself. We have bolstered parliamentary oversight of organizations, strengthened the rules and tightened scrutiny of government expenditures.

The agreed to recommendations from this committee will do even more to strengthen the understanding of government expenditures.

To fulfill the estimates' time-honoured purpose, such changes are necessary and welcome.

In closing, I once again congratulate the committee for working so hard to improve a process that is at the very heart of Canada's parliamentary democracy. It has been an honour and a privilege to be part of the committee, working together very collegially and in a non-partisan way. I thank the members for their efforts. I look forward to implementing many of the recommendations and to continuing to advance accountability and transparency in the government as these recommendations work through our government operations committee and other committees throughout the House of Commons.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure serving on the committee with the hon. member and I have always appreciated his contribution.

We did a lot of work over an intensive six-month period. The committee determined at the outset that past governments had abjectly failed to take any action on the previous 75 recommendations to improve the capacity of members of Parliament to be informed in their voting on budgets. The Conservatives have now decided that they are simply rejecting our report, apart from a number of matters they say they will look into and report back on. There is no real promise of action, but we will wait until next March to see whether they are really committed.

Has the member received marching orders from his government that, when the report comes back to the committee, if that is what the end result of the vote will be, the Conservative members reverse their decision on a good number of the recommendations of the committee?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague across the way for her collegiality in working together and representing my old hometown of Edmonton, on the south side of Edmonton where I grew up. I know we have the same interest and desire to ensure there is openness and transparency and that the information is available for all parliamentarians, as I mentioned, and for all Canadians.

Specifically, as a committee member free to work on resolutions, the government has clearly stated that we are implementing these as the ones recommended to the committee, where we will discuss them. The ones that have other implications will be passed through other committees.

The bottom line is that we have already implemented several measures for transparency, including via Bill C-2, which came into play in December 2006. We continue to use technology to make information available.

As the member mentioned, in 1998 and 2003 there were two reports tabled and 75 recommendations. Unfortunately, the previous government did not implement these recommendations. We are still moving forward with our plans to ensure open and transparent government and the understanding of government, and after spending nine years in local government—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We have time for one short last question.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep my question simple and straightforward. There are 16 recommendations. We were hoping to be able to see concurrence with the report, but the report is now being sent back to the committee. We do believe that is a mistake and that is why the Liberal Party moved the motion that it has, which led to the discussion we are having right now.

Why does the member feel that the House could not have continued moving forward with the report, which appeared to have the support of members on all sides of the House? Why did the report have to go back to committee?

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I spent nine years in local government as a city councillor in the city of Kelowna and understand why budgeting is very important for elected officials to make wise decisions on. I believe this is a prudent decision for the government operations committee to review these recommendations.

The government continues to move forward in an open and transparent way to ensure that the estimates and our supply bills and all the rest of our budgeting processes are easy to understand and user friendly. That will take place over time. It is not something that is going to change over one budget, but over several years. As I mentioned, there were 75 recommendations, but unfortunately the previous government did not act on those. We are acting on them and will continue to ensure that there is an open and transparent government.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 9:12 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, the question on the amendment is deemed put and a recorded division is deemed requested.

Consequently, pursuant to Standing Order 66, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 7, 2012, at the end of government orders.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.