Debates of Nov. 5th, 2012

Protecting Canada's Seniors Act

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you defer the vote to tomorrow following government orders.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The vote will be deferred accordingly.

Bill C-24 Notice of Time Allocation

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that the Canada-Panama free trade agreement is implemented as soon as possible. We need to give Canadian workers and businesses more market access for their exports. Unfortunately, we find that the NDP is ideologically opposed to free trade, so it is not surprising that I must advise an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-24, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the Republic of Panama, the Agreement on the Environment between Canada and the Republic of Panama and the Agreement on Labour Cooperation between Canada and the Republic of Panama. Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed from October 24 consideration of the motion.

Government Operations and Estimates

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “that” and substituting the following: The Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates presented on Wednesday, June 20, 2012, be not now concurred in, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates for further consideration.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Markham—Unionville.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rather shocked and surprised at this decision by the government because the committee worked in an entirely non-partisan way. Other than one small issue which came in supplementary reports, all government members agreed with all opposition members. The President of the Treasury Board had expressed enthusiasm for our work and we spent many meetings with many witnesses.

I wonder if the government side can tell us why it is rejecting the recommendations, not only of Liberals and New Democrats, but their own Conservative members, and why after all this work is it necessary for the committee to restudy these questions?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my hon. colleague that the government is not rejecting out of hand all of the recommendations made by the standing committee. As the member well knows, the government has made a response to the committee's recommendations. In that response the government has agreed with many of the recommendations, but it has also observed and pointed out that perhaps some of the recommendations could be amended and in fact strengthened and enhanced. That is all that is happening here.

I believe the committee would find it useful to be able to consider the government's response to all of the recommendations, and upon further consideration, the committee may, if it so wishes, decide to come back with yet another report to the House.

Quite simply, we are not trying to reject out of hand all of the recommendations; it is quite the opposite. We are merely trying to make the recommendations a little stronger and give them a little more precision and clarity.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I am flabbergasted. This is the third review on this subject matter in over a decade. The committee spent a dedicated six months with experts from around the world and from the Parliament of Canada reviewing this matter.

I find it amusing, and perhaps the hon. member could clarify something for us. One of the recommendations was that the matter of the role and mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer be referred back to our committee for review and study. The government flatly rejected that. Could the member clarify whether the government is now changing its mind and deciding that in fact it is appropriate for the committee to review that matter?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my response to the first intervention, the government has responded to the list of recommendations from the committee. That is a matter of record. In fact, the government has agreed with many of the recommendations contained in the original report. However, the government has pointed out to the committee, through its letter to the chair of that committee, that there are other items we believe the committee should give further consideration. That is all this is about.

The amendment I have proposed is merely asking the committee to take a further look at some of the potential clarifications and enhancements to its original report. Therefore, should the committee feel it is necessary to either amend or create a new report and present that back to the House, it can do so. If it feels it is satisfied with the original report, it has that option as well. This is merely an attempt by the government to provide to the committee new information and a new perspective from the government for its consideration.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion of October 24, 2012, moved by my colleague on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the member for Markham—Unionville. He moved that the seventh report of the said committee presented to the House on June 20 of this year be concurred in.

The intent of this committee report is clear on its face and in its recommendations. The intent is to finally institute long-overdue and widely called-for reforms to strengthen the capacity of Members of Parliament to effectively deliver their constitutional duty to review and approve federal estimates and spending.

It is widely recognized that one of the primary responsibilities of Parliament, and consequently its elected members, is the approval of the funds required to meet the government's financial obligations. This is known as the business of supply.

Each year, the Crown delivers to the House of Commons its spending plans or estimates for parliamentary scrutiny and approval. It is important to recall that it is Parliament that has the sole authority to grant the supplies.

O'Brien and Bosc, in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2009, reiterates the powers of Parliament to review and approve spending and the duties of the government to enable a process to deliver that duty:

The manner in which Canada deals with public finance derives from British parliamentary procedure, as practised at the time of Confederation. The financial procedures adopted by the Canadian House of Commons in 1867 were formed by the following principles:

These principles are important. We have the government frequently referring to past matters. This is an important matter, the very point of the foundation of this nation.

The first principle states:

that although Parliament alone might impose taxes and authorize the use of public money, funds can be appropriated to Parliament only on the recommendation of the Crown (royal recommendation), in Canada represented by the Governor General;

The second principle states:

that the House of Commons has the right to have its grievances addressed before it considers and approves the financial requirements of the Crown;

The third principle states:

that the House of Commons has exclusive control over the business of public finance (taxing and spending) and all such business is to be initiated in the lower house;

The fourth principle states:

that all legislation sanctioning expenditure or initiating taxation is to be given the fullest possible discussion, both in the House and in committee.

That last principle is the very crux of the report and recommendations from my committee: that all legislation sanctioning expenditure or initiating taxation is to be given the fullest possible discussion, both in the House and in committee.

It is widely acknowledged that the various House of Commons standing committees are intended to play an important role in assisting the House with the scrutiny of planned and actual spending and performance, but therein lies the rub.

Unfortunately, it has long been acknowledged that Parliament does not effectively fulfill its role and standing committees are at best giving perfunctory attention to the government's spending plans. The information provided to members of Parliament in committees is simply lacking in the detail necessary to ensure an informed vote. That is one of our most profound obligations here as representatives of the people of Canada.

In fact, in some recent instances the committees have been denied the opportunity to review the estimates at all because of tight deadlines imposed by the government.

Three recent reviews of the estimates process have been conducted with the objective of addressing this long-standing record of failure: a 1998 review by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; a 2003 review by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates; and the recent 2012 six-month-long review by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, hereinafter referred to as “the committee”.

A total of 75 recommendations were made to Parliament in the first two reports. In January 2012, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, or the committee, determined that few changes had been made by successive governments to act on these recommendations, and many of the barriers remained to delivery of this parliamentary duty.

The committee decided to revisit the constraints with appropriate officials and experts and to identify and address the most critical problems. Our committee worked diligently and co-operatively over six months, producing a focused consensus report with 12 modest recommendations. The many experts who work in these matters who came before us from around the world encouraged our committee to work in a non-partisan manner and to try to work together on a consensus with some strong recommendations. I can attest to that, and it is clear in the face of the report that across parties we worked diligently and came forward with a very logical plan to improve the role of members of Parliament in these important decisions.

The stated objective of the report was improving members of Parliament and committees' access to timely, understandable and reliable information on estimates, as well as the support and capacity necessary to complete an informed and constructive report to Parliament. As reported, the end goal of the committee study and recommendations to the House was to enhance transparency and accountability, agreed key elements of good governance and supposedly the very foundation of the government of the day.

As mentioned previously, the committee worked diligently to forge a consensus report, one that was practicable and readily acted upon in a timely manner. That determination was formed in concert with leading experts from around the world who had familiarity with the experience in other jurisdictions and with our own parliamentary procedures. There was only one dissenting opinion.

Both opposition parties supported expedited action, on the advice of experts, for the appointment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer as an officer of Parliament, along with a requisite enhanced budget. Regardless, it was the consensus of the committee that the mandate and function of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer merited study by our committee, including the option of reporting directly to Parliament as an officer of Parliament.

One would logically assume that as the committee is composed in the majority of Conservative members of Parliament and the review proceeded over a six-month time period that the recommendations that the Conservative members concurred in, along with those of us in the opposition party, had been vetted and received concurrence of their party. The government, in its response to the report, has in some instances supported recommendations and committed to action. In a number of instances, the Conservatives responded that the required actions are the prerogative of Parliament.

We just heard moments ago from the representative of the government that even in its response the government did not suggest that these matters be referred back to the committee. The government members simply stated that many of the matters that we were raising are the prerogative of Parliament to determine, which is precisely the reason why we wish the report to be concurred in, so we can move forward and begin taking action to improve our capacity in this place.

The government, in its response to the report, has in some instances supported recommendations and committed to action. In a number of instances, it responds that the required actions are the prerogative of Parliament. The government has outright rejected some of the other recommendations.

The President of the Treasury Board has committed to action by March 31, 2012, on at least two of the recommendations. An ongoing evaluation of accrual-based budgeting and appropriations would be completed and reported, as well as a model and timeline for transitioning estimates and related appropriations based on program activities. This would allow members of Parliament to review spending within a context of actual program delivery. We look forward to these changes. I know that all members of the House look forward to these reforms, and hopefully they will be expedited following the report in March of next year.

Where the government held that a number of the recommendations are simply within the purview of Parliament, it logically follows that the report be concurred in so that Parliament can proceed with the recommended reforms.

Regrettably, the government has also opposed a number of the key recommendations. Notable among those were changes to the timing and configuration of the tabling of the budget and estimates. This would have enabled members of Parliament to review proposed spending against the budget by also having access to information on actual programs and policies.

The suggestion was why not—like other jurisdictions including New Zealand, Australia and South Africa—simultaneously bring forward the budget, the estimates and the plans and priorities so that we can have a full debate on the substance of the proposals of the government. This, we were advised by experts, is the practice now followed in a number of other jurisdictions and is highly recommended as the more constructive and informed process.

What appears doubly odd in the refusal to accept the sensible recommendation is that it was the President of the Treasury Board who wrote to the committee at the outset of its study recommending consideration of exactly these reforms. The government also rejected the recommended review of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. I am now left deeply confused because just before I rose to speak, the government suggested that the matter can perhaps be referred to the committee. Therefore, perhaps there is a change of mind, and that review is useful.

The decision to reject the recommendations of the PBO is disconcerting for a number of reasons.

The PBO was created by the Conservatives with the stated objective of improving the flow of timely and accurate information to enhance the capacity of members of Parliament to deliver their duties to review government spending, which is precisely the objective of our review, precisely the task that was assigned to us.

The government of the day created that very position to assist us in that review. Of note, in 2004, the Standing Committee on Finance, following an extensive review, recommended the establishment of an independent budget officer reporting directly to Parliament. Despite 2006 election promises made by the Conservatives to create this independent budget officer, after winning the election the Conservative government enacted the PBO office but reneged on the commitment of an independent budget officer reporting to Parliament.

During the course of the six-month study, strong support was expressed by parliamentary experts for the creation of an independent office of the PBO, including his critical role in supporting and enhancing the capacity of MPs to effectively do their jobs.

As Prof. Joachim Wehner at the London School of Economics and Political Science testified:

The first [change that could be considered] is to protect and enhance the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

[S]ome adjustments are possible to the legal framework for the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In particular, this role could be strengthened...if he were a full officer of Parliament. Moreover, steps could be taken so that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has total access to all relevant information.... I see some scope for strengthening it also on the basis of international experience.

Those views were echoed by Robert Marleau, the former clerk of our House of Commons, who said:

The PBO should be the core staff of this committee. The PBO should be moved out of the library into the committees branch, and made a full-fledged officer of the House. Half of his budget should be spendable by this committee [of government works and operations] on studies, and the other half by other committees on estimates, as they apply for it.

This view was echoed once again in testimony by John Williams, well known to the House and now chief executive officer of the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption. He said:

I think the Parliamentary Budget Officer should be an officer of Parliament serving this committee, very much like the Auditor General serves the public accounts committee. Therefore, it would have the staff and the resources to do that program evaluation and also have the access to the documentation too.

We certainly know that is the question of the day, access to that information. Major concerns have been raised throughout the term of the current PBO regarding constraints on his ability to effectively deliver his legislative mandate due either to denied or delayed access to financial information and limited resources available to his job.

As far as I am aware at this date, numerous senior departments and agencies have yet to respond fully to the PBO request for information on spending, savings and cuts. I am advised today that the recalcitrant list of senior agencies and departments has now provided some information. I am advised by the PBO office that it is still not sufficient. Included among those recalcitrant entities were Finance Canada, Treasury Board, Privy Council Office, Citizenship and Immigration, Canada Revenue Agency and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

As the end of the term of the current PBO is imminent, now is the logical point in time to openly assess the terms of his mandate and the adequacy of the resources allocated to effectively deliver the services needed by Parliament. The concurrence by the government in the committee report provides the opportunity for the government to finally deliver on its commitments to openness, transparency and good governance.

I therefore call upon the government to concur in the report so that the government and Parliament can work together to expedite the reforms necessary to finally effectively deliver their mandate. By simply concurring with this thoughtful report and committing to work with all members of the House, the government could finally, in truth, claim credit for removing the blindfolds and handcuffs on the democratic process.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the way in which we hold government accountable is an area of interest that I have had for many years as a parliamentarian. Given the magnitude of the amount of tax dollars the government spends, one would like to think that, as we evolve into the future, we build a system of rules and procedures that allows for more transparency and accountability.

In looking at the report in its entirety, does the member feel that this is at least a step forward and that we need to recognize change is something that is ongoing? To adopt the report would at least keep us going somewhat in the right direction. I would have loved to have seen all sorts of other changes and when I get the opportunity to speak, I will enunciate some of them.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on how important it is that we do not just leave the status quo but move towards more transparency and accountability.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I had mentioned at the outset, there were two previous reports in the last decade that included a total of 75 recommendations. When our committee reviewed those recommendations, it was with great regret we determined that very little action had been taken by successive governments, and that includes the previous Liberal government, the previous Conservative government and the current Conservative government.

We worked diligently to analyze all those recommendations and to pull out the key matters that needed reform. Interestingly, the very issues that we pulled out and recommended were close to identical to the ones that the President of the Treasury Board recommended that we look at.

We reviewed those matters and came forward based on what the experts recommended and the history of the countries within the western world and how they are proceeding into the 21st century to modernize their system of review of estimates and budgets, and plans and priorities, to actually make sure that those who are constitutionally obligated to vote on spending are actually informed in that vote.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech. These matters are not easy and certainly not very sexy, but they are fundamental to the democratic functioning of our country.

During the study, we examined the question of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, for instance, which had not been examined in earlier studies because the position did not exist.

In my colleague's opinion, would the Parliamentary Budget Officer's resources best be used as a possible avenue for improving our understanding of the estimates?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question and I have to say that it is an absolute pleasure to serve on the committee with him. He provided invaluable advice to the committee and this review.

Absolutely, what the member refers to came clear from every expert who came before our committee. This was not something that we singularly determined. It was raised by these experts on parliamentary procedure. They all recommended that we endorse the position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and make him a full officer of Parliament. In fact, they recommended to embellish his budget because it is his very office that is created to assist us, the lowly members of Parliament, in the review of estimates and budgets, and plans and priorities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech, which helped us to better understand the issue. Unfortunately, although I would like to be, I am not a member of that committee.

I get the impression that the government is asking the committee to waste its time in the coming months. The committee has already submitted a report, and now, in the amendment that we are debating today, the government is asking the committee to review that report and perhaps change it. It seems that the government is asking the committee to waste its time.

Does the hon. member believe, as I do, that the government should not propose this amendment today?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very cogent observation and for the compliment. It is an extremely complex area. It is an area of responsibility for members of the House, which we all take seriously, yet many of us come to the House without those very skills. That is why the review is so important.

The whole reason for this review was to take former recommendations and try to pare them down to a clear action plan to actually enable us, the duly elected representatives of Canadians, to make sound decisions on spending their tax dollars.

Frankly, I find it reprehensible. First the government's response was that it liked some of our recommendations and would work on them, and for other ones it was that it is the responsibility of the House. Now it is saying it is not the responsibility of the House and to send it back to committee again. That is absolutely reprehensible.

I think we did a stellar job of reviewing an extremely complex area. We brought in the best of the best witnesses and experts. We brought in officials of the government of the day and completed what I think is a very useful plan of action to improve our ability to do our jobs here, as we are mandated by the Constitution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased as a member of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to participate in this debate today.

The committee's work has provided an opportunity to further strengthen the business of supply, a process that goes to the heart of our system of parliamentary government.

One of the fundamental roles of Parliament, of course, is to hold the government to account for how it spends public funds. As stated in the Financial Administration Act, “No payment shall be made out of the consolidated revenue fund without the authority of Parliament”, and it is by scrutinizing, reviewing and approving government spending that Parliament fulfills this important function.

Our government is as committed as ever to supporting parliamentarians in exercising this constitutional duty. It is part of our strong commitment to make the government more responsive, transparent and accountable to Parliament and Canadians. I believe that our actions speak for themselves in this area.

Indeed, over the past few years, we have taken a number of steps to ensure that Parliament and Canadians are better informed about public spending. This includes steps to improve financial reporting, which has, admittedly, changed significantly in recent years.

We have all heard the expression, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”. It was made famous by former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who used it to refer to the benefits of openness and transparency.

Financial reporting is sunlight in the world of any organization. It shines a light on its operations and allows for the proper evaluation of its performance, which is why the government has been committed not only to improving the quality of financial reporting to Parliament and to Canadians but also to increasing its frequency.

To that end we have introduced quarterly financial reporting on government spending for departments agencies and crown corporations. This practice has been in place since April 2011, and it has made government operations more transparent and helps Parliament exercise its oversight role.

It is worth noting that up until recently, parliamentarians could get information on how departments spend only once a year. That was through the Public Accounts of Canada, which include the government's consolidated financial statements and are tabled several months after the end of the fiscal year.

The introduction of quarterly financial reports has changed all of that. These reports provide information on how money has been spent over the past quarter and how that spending compares with prior periods. I would add that these quarterly report are among the existing mechanisms that the government is using to provide information on the implementation of economic action plan 2012 measures.

Anyone interested in the impact of the budget should pay particular attention to a new section called “Budget 2012 implementation”. This section has been a part of quarterly financial reports since the first quarter of 2012-13. It includes information on the initiatives and savings announced in the last budget, including planned expenditures in relation to personnel.

I would add that not all departments would have seen the impacts from the economic action plan 2012 restraint measures in the first quarter of the year. This is because these measures are being implemented by departments and agencies in accordance with their plans over a three-year timeframe. However, I can assure hon. members that departments and agencies will continue to report on the implementation of economic action plan 2012 in their quarterly financial report as savings measures are gradually implemented over time.

Quarterly reporting is just one of the many things we have done to strengthen the way we manage public expenditures. Another important change has been the introduction of annual departmental financial statements. Since 2006, departments and agencies have been publishing their own financial statements every year on the nature and extent of their activities. These statements have contributed to Canada's leadership in financial reporting. Indeed, very few jurisdictions publish annual financial statements at the departmental level.

Our leadership is also evident in the fact that the Public Accounts of Canada have consistently received a clean opinion by the Auditor General of Canada. In fact, the Auditor General has given these financial statements, which are one of the most important accountability documents prepared by the government, a clean opinion for 14 years running. This testifies to the high standards of the government's financial statements and reporting.

I could go on describing the actions this government has taken to strengthen the way it manages and reports its public expenditures. I would just say that the reforms I have been talking about are all about sound stewardship of public services. They are just some of the ways the government provides more timely and relevant financial information for parliamentarians and Canadians. They demonstrate that the government is as committed as ever to supporting parliamentarians in exercising their constitutional duty of holding the government to account for how it spends taxpayers' money.

Moreover, these actions complement the many steps that parliamentarians have taken to improve the oversight of government spending. Today, for example, the Leader of the Opposition can select two departments or agencies to have their estimates considered by the committee of the whole in the House. The responsible ministers are then required to submit to questions by the entire membership of the House of Commons for up to four hours. This change, made possible through an amendment to the Standing Orders, puts a direct spotlight on the activities of individual federal organizations and their ministers in a very public and open way, and I believe it has added an important level of scrutiny to government spending.

There is always room for improvement. This is the case with most things in life and it is certainly the case with the estimates and the business of supply, which have seen innumerable changes over time. That is not surprising when considering that we are talking about something whose origins can be traced back to medieval England.

That said, the government welcomes the committee's recommendations to strengthen this long-standing practice. The recommendations include a number of suggestions to make the estimates and supply more meaningful for members of Parliament and the general public. They also represent a good balance of recommendations applying to parliamentarians, on the one hand, and the government, on the other. This balanced approach speaks to the fact that ensuring greater and better scrutiny of public funds is indeed a shared responsibility, and I can assure the House that it is a responsibility that the government takes very seriously.

The committee's report has given the government much to think about and I am pleased to say that we are generally supportive of the recommendations falling within our purview. This includes the recommendations that address the contents of the reports on plans and priorities. As I am sure many of my hon. colleagues have noticed, the reports on plans and priorities have already seen many positive changes in recent years. For one, they have become a lot more user friendly. This is due to the efforts that have been made to streamline the reports to make them more concise and written in plain language. It is also due to a focus on results-based management, requiring federal organizations to demonstrate clear outcomes for their programs.

Today, RPPs must clearly state how an organization will achieve results for Canadians, and the departmental performance reports provide information on the results achieved. These changes have certainly shed sunlight on the workings of government. To put it bluntly, it has made it easier to follow the money.

The recommendations proposed for the RPPs by the committee would also make it easier to track performance. This includes the fourth recommendation that financial information by program activity be included for three previous fiscal years and three future years. It also includes the fifth recommendation that an explanation of any changes in planned spending over time be included, as well as any variance between planned and actual results by fiscal year as available. The government agrees with both of these recommendations.

Another straightforward recommendation is the one calling on the government to identify all new funding in the main and supplementary estimates and to cross-reference that funding to the appropriate budget source. The government agrees that doing this would add clarity to the estimates process and, as such, we are committed to identifying all new programs that appear for the first time in all estimates documents. We will also link them to the appropriate source of funds from the fiscal framework.

These changes reflect our government's commitment to strengthening the linkages between the budget and the estimates. By the way, we will never have a perfect alignment of these two documents. It is simply not possible.

I bring this point up because the committee has also called on the government to change the timing of the budget and adopt a fixed date of no later than February 1. This recommendation is an attempt to have budget items for a given year reflected in the main estimates to the greatest extent possible.

The government has offered reasons why this has not been adopted. First, it would restrict the government's flexibility to respond to global and domestic economic conditions, such as the economic downturn and the troubles in the Euro zone. In many cases, these global and domestic comparatives 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.

Second, a fixed date would simply not ensure that the budget items are included in the main estimates. This is a question of process. After the budget is tabled, departments then go about the complex process of developing detailed program terms and conditions that need to be approved by Treasury Board. Therefore, if we respect that process, it may take several supply cycles before we see budget items in an estimates document. This is an important point to remember.

The government has committed to ensuring that parliamentarians have the information they need to hold the government to account for how it spends public funds. I believe the government's response to the report, which I have discussed in part today, supports this commitment. Parliament represents a crucial link between the federal government and the public, who expect the best use of their tax dollars. By supporting the vast majority of the committee's recommendations we are making that link stronger.

I would like to thank all the members of the committee for the excellent work that was done. It builds on the many positive changes that we have seen to the estimates and the business of supply in recent years.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am sitting in the House a little stunned. I listened to the comments by the hon. member, who is a member of my committee that submitted the report. I appreciate her helpful contribution to that review.

I am at this moment a little stunned. It was a consensus report, not in any way revealing how anyone voted. Everyone knows it was a consensus report. I am troubled. In many ways it makes me question what the point is of working hard as a member of Parliament in the committee, listening to myriad experts and representatives of government and then coming to conclusions and recommending very concise measures necessary for us to do our jobs as constitutionally required.

My question for the member is this: Does she no longer stand by the report?