Debates of Feb. 7th, 2013

Consumer Protection

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth.

Since coming to office, we have taken action to protect consumers. Contrary to my colleague's claims that accessing the Internet is not important, it is. It is very important; it is today's new technology. I invite the NDP to join the 21st century.

When we adopted the broadband program, the NDP opposed it. This proves that the NDP is completely out of touch with reality.

The Environment

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I spoke to the mayor of the Magdalen Islands.

The people of the Magdalen Islands and eastern Quebec are worried about the serious environmental impact of developing the Old Harry prospect.

Furthermore, a spill could wipe out the regional economy of the islands in one fell swoop. The report of the Commissioner of the Environment, which confirms that there are gaps in the risk assessments and that no one is prepared to respond to an oil spill, backs them up completely.

Will the government stop shirking its responsibilities and impose a moratorium on the development of Old Harry?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I received the report from the Commissioner of the Environment the other day. When he spoke about our working with other departments and jurisdictions, he said:

For me, it's been a model of cooperation with senior government officials, both in terms of working through difficult files and in terms of the government accepting our recommendations.

We continue to work with the governments of other jurisdictions, and we will continue to work on that.

Oral Questions

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the Prime Minister made a suggestion that I had—publicly, I guess, because he had some evidence—suggested that we should pull out of the present EU trade talks. I would offer him the opportunity to table such documentation here in the House.

I know it has been a hard day for the Prime Minister because of what has happened in the Senate, but there is no reason to make up things and then throw them across the way without evidence.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if I could clarify, in fairness to the hon. member, I think I was citing the NDP critic for foreign affairs for Canadian-American relations and not the general critic.

In fact, he was the one who actually said he was opposed to the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. Question period is over. There was a request for a document to be tabled. I did not see a document to be tabled. This is not a forum to continue on debate; that is what question periods are for.

If the hon. member has a legitimate point of order, I urge him to get to it quickly and not just continue in discussion of the facts.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Prime Minister for his correction, but I do want to assure him and tell him that it was my advice to the former leader and the present leader to support the Jordan free trade agreement and—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I encourage the hon. member to take that up at a future question period.

The hon. member for Saint-Lambert has the Thursday question.

Business of the House

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons what bills his government plans to bring forward for debate the rest of this week and next.

Last week, the hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley spoke about this government's lack of vision and direction.

For example, it has not tabled new legislation or announced new programs to address the needs of first nations or to help Canadian families cope with devastating changes to employment insurance. Instead, it has left that to the official opposition, which has used opposition motions to propose practical solutions. We are happy to keep fighting for those who have been abandoned by the Conservatives. We believe that Canadians deserve far better.

We had an important debate about Mali on Tuesday evening, but once again the government left it to the opposition to fill the void during debate on this critical issue. We were disappointed to see that no ministers showed enough interest to rise in the House to speak about the current situation in Mali.

Can the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons tell me what plans he has for the remainder of this week as well as next? Does he have a plan at all?

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

Yes, I have a plan, Mr. Speaker.

This afternoon, we will continue today's NDP opposition day.

Tomorrow, we should finish the second reading debate on Bill C-52, Fair Rail Freight Service Act. Then, we will resume the second reading debate on Bill C-48, Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012.

Before question period on Monday and Tuesday, the House will debate third reading of Bill C-42, Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act. After question period those days, we will turn to second reading of Bill C-51, Safer Witnesses Act.

On Wednesday, we will debate second reading of Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act. I do not expect that this bill, which responds to views of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, would need a lot of House time. I hope we can deal with it quickly. We could then turn to report stage and possible third reading of Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act.

Next Thursday shall be the fourth allotted day, which I understand will see the Liberals choosing our topic of debate.

On Friday, we will resume any unfinished debates on the bills we just mentioned, or we could also consider dealing with any of the many bills dealing with aboriginal issues. That being raised as a concern, we have Bill S-2 dealing with matrimonial property; we have another bill dealing with safe water for first nations; and we have another bill dealing with fair elections for first nations. On all of these bills we would welcome the support of the official opposition. We have not had that to date, but if we do, we can deal with them very quickly on that day. I would be delighted to do that. I will await with interest the response from the NDP.

Access to Information—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on January 31, 2013, by the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier regarding the procedures of the Department of Public Works and Government Services Canada with respect to providing information to members of Parliament.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, the hon. opposition House leader and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House for their comments.

The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier charged that government procedures requiring elected officials to seek public information through the minister’s office, while ordinary citizens could obtain the very same information directly from the department, impeded him from carrying out his duties as a member, particularly as this information was required for him to prepare to ask questions during question period. He worried that it was the government’s intention to make it difficult if not impossible for him to serve his constituents.

The member further stated that he believed this disparity in procedures was being applied in such a manner so as to create an inequality of access to information between government members and opposition members.

The parliamentary secretary expressed the view that constituency-related duties of a member are not covered by parliamentary privilege and suggested that there are other ways for the member to obtain the information that he is seeking, namely through written and oral questions.

Given that a member’s access to accurate and timely information is an essential cornerstone of our parliamentary system, it is perhaps not surprising that, in the past, other members have raised very similar concerns about access to departmental information.

Simply put, the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier raises the question of whether an alleged interference with a member’s ability to access departmental information in a timely and equitable manner constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege.

When the hon. member first raised this matter, he spoke of the need to have a, “level playing field of access to information for the benefit of the constituents we have been elected to represent”.

A careful review of various precedents on the issue of whether parliamentary privilege covers a member's constituency responsibilities reveals that Speakers have been quite categorical in stating that parliamentary privilege applies only in instances where members were participating in what is deemed to be a parliamentary proceeding. On October 9, 1997, at page 689 of Debates, Speaker Parent explained:

The Chair is mindful of the multiple responsibilities, duties and constituency related activities of all members and of the importance they play in the work of every member of Parliament. However, my role as your Speaker is to consider only those matters that affect the parliamentary work of members.

In the same ruling, Speaker Parent added, at page 688 of Debates that:

in order for a member to claim that his privileges have been breached or that a contempt has occurred, he or she must have been functioning as a member at the time of the alleged offence, that is, actually participating in a proceeding of Parliament. The activities of members in their constituencies do not appear to fall within the definition of a “proceeding in Parliament”.

In a ruling on a similar matter on February 4, 2008, which can be found at page 2540 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken came to the same conclusion. Other Speakers have likewise had occasion to clearly define what constitutes parliamentary work or a proceeding in Parliament.

The hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier did in fact attempt to make that very link to the proceedings in Parliament when he said that he needed the information in question as part of his work in preparing to ask a question during question period. It is the view of the Chair that this falls short of established definitions of parliamentary work. Again, Speaker Parent’s October 9, 1997, ruling is very instructive in this regard. He stated at page 688 of the Debates that:

After careful consideration of the precedents, I conclude that activities related to the seeking of information in order to prepare a question do not fall within the strict definition of what constitutes a “proceeding in Parliament” and, therefore, they are not protected by privilege.

For his part, the opposition House leader reminded the House of Speaker Bosley's ruling on May 15, 1985, at page 4769 of Debates, in which he declared:

I think it has been recognized many times in the House that a complaint about the actions or inactions of government Departments cannot constitute a question of parliamentary privilege.

This is not to say that the hon. member does not have a legitimate grievance or that the departmental response and process that he encountered does not warrant review, if only for its apparent inefficiency. The member may wish to approach the minister to see if a satisfactory accommodation is possible. In addition, as Speaker Milliken once suggested in a similar case, the member could also seek to have the appropriate standing committee inquire about the departmental procedures in place to assist members of Parliament in seeking information with a view to making recommendations for improvement.

However, as Speaker, I am obliged to assess situations of this kind within the strict parameters that flow from our precedents and usages as they relate to parliamentary privilege. It is beyond the purview of the Chair to intervene in departmental matters or to get involved in government processes, no matter how frustrating they may appear to be to the member.

Accordingly, in keeping with the precedents cited, the Chair cannot conclude that the member for Ottawa—Vanier has been impeded in the performance of his parliamentary duties and thus I cannot find that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.

I thank all members for their attention on this matter.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Parliamentary Budget Officer

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The Hon. member from Louis-Hébert has five minutes left for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for York Centre.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

I welcome this opportunity to address today's NDP opposition motion. Even though the NDP claims that today's motion is about the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the party has been using it to attack and talk down the Canadian economy as they always do, such as calling our resource sector a disease, sending a delegation down to Washington, D.C., to argue against the creation of Canadian jobs and its determination to impose a $21.5 billion carbon tax.

It is essential that my friends across the way and all Canadians understand just how important Canada's economic and fiscal health is to our Conservative government. Since day one, the economy has been priority one for this government. This government focuses on what matters most to Canadians: jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. We have the strong record to prove it. It is a record that Canadians trust and that has garnered international recognition. As Tom Donohue, president of the American Chamber of Commerce said recently, “The great Canadian miracle is something we should follow”.

However, at the same time that we are proud of our economic accomplishments, we understand that we cannot become complacent. With an uncertain global economy, especially in Europe and the United States, we must remain focused on creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. What does this mean? It means making sure that Canada offers the right environment to attract business investment, making sure that we continue to innovate and making sure that Canadians have the skills they need to get high-quality jobs.

As I mentioned earlier, it is important to remember that Canada is positioned relatively better than many of its G7 peers. Contrary to what the official opposition may believe, our economic policies, such as Canada's economic action plan, have placed Canada on the right track for jobs and growth.

Let us take a minute to consider this. We all remember the show Dragnet where Sergeant Friday would say, “Just the facts, ma'am”. Let me give members the facts. Canada has more than recovered all of the jobs lost during the recession. Since July 2009 we have created 925,000 net new jobs in this country, the strongest job growth record in the G7. In short, Canada has weathered the economic storm well and others are noticing. Do not take my word for it. Let us hear what others are saying.

Just last week the Chicago Tribune praised Canada's economic policies saying:

The key to Canada's success has been avoiding some of the worst mistakes made by its neighbor to the south.

Americans failed to regulate their banks. Canada's banks are stable.

Americans overinflated their real estate market. Canada's housing market never went pop.

While it is gratifying to highlight Canada's economic strengths, as I said, we cannot afford to be complacent. Today's advantage will not carry into tomorrow simply by luck or good intentions. Do members know what will not maintain this advantage? Increasing taxes on Canadians and job creators, particularly by introducing a $21 billion carbon tax, or the introduction of other risky schemes such as imposing a transaction tax on our world-class banks. When will the NDP get it right? Higher taxes and bigger government do not create jobs. This is especially true in today's global economy.

As we have always said, Canada's economy is not immune to forces beyond our borders. A number of external threats could have severe consequences on the Canadian economy. Yet rest assured, our government is aware of these global challenges and that is why our government has taken action to protect Canadians and the Canadian economy.

That brings me to another issue I would like to highlight today, how our government's record of responsible fiscal management has made Canada's economy more resilient and our finances more sustainable. In an era when we see governments crippled by decades of living beyond their means, or when we have governments without any viable realistic plans to ensure long-term fiscal sustainability, our government has followed a different path. Indeed, between the time we formed government in 2006 and the global economic recession, we aggressively paid off $38 billion in federal debt. In fact, we have the lowest federal debt to GDP ratio in almost 30 years.

This gave Canada more flexibility to react to the global economic recession. We were able to take the necessary action to stimulate the Canadian economy and to protect Canadian jobs. Even after taking this action, we were able to maintain the lowest debt to GDP ratio in the G7. Now that is good fiscal management.

Unlike many European countries as well as our neighbours to the south, our government has a plan to return to balanced budgets and ensure our long-term fiscal sustainability.

However it does not end there. We have also taken other concrete actions to make government spending more efficient and sustainable. For example, we took steps to ensure that public sector pension plans are brought in line with those of the private sector. We also took action to ensure that Canada's social programs remain sustainable over the long term, so that they are still there for the next generation. We have also eliminated tax loopholes, to ensure that everyone pays a fair share.

Rest assured that our government's commitment to ensuring the most efficient use of taxpayers' dollars is constant and it will always be core to our agenda. Indeed, government program spending is projected to steadily decline over the next few years and fall well below pre-recession levels.

Direct program spending will decline from $120 billion to $118 billion next year. It will remain below $120 billion for the next four years. Overall, program spending will continue to fall as a percentage of GDP from 13.8% this year to 12.5% in 2017-18. While our government is committed to balancing the budget, unlike the previous Liberal government, we have not and will not reduce transfers to Canadians such as seniors and children or transfers to other levels of government for services that Canadian families rely on, such as health care and social services.

Canadians trying to balance their household budget know the importance of living within their means and the dangers of not doing so. They expect the government to know the same. That is precisely what our government is doing and the Parliamentary Budget Officer agrees. In his recent report, the PBO said, “PBO and Finance Canada both assess the federal fiscal structure to be sustainable over the long term”. In addition to that, the PBO said: “The take-away from this is, federally, we are in a good spot right now”.

Canadians understand the consequences of unsustainable finances. International observers understand it. The PBO understands it. Why does the NDP not understand it? Why does the NDP want higher taxes for Canadians and job creators? Why does it want bloated government? Why does it want to waste hard-earned tax dollars of Canadians on interest costs?

If New Democrats really want to badmouth the Canadian economy, then they should be upfront with Canadians and tell them they want a debate on the implementation of a carbon tax or bank transaction tax, or any hare-brained, risky socialist scheme they can come up with. Certainly they have a bunch of them in their bag of tricks.

Despite the NDP's misguided direction, one thing is clear. Since 2006, our government has continually taken the long view in managing our economy, and that will not change. Our priority is jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, most of the speech had really nothing with the PBO. It was basically trying to push his government's record. It is a record of inaction for the most part. We look at the fact that the PBO's position is really to look at what the government is putting forward and get the necessary information to make sure the numbers actually are what the government says. However, we see a government that keeps making sure the documentation is not provided.

We would not have known about the F-35 fiasco had it not been for the PBO, and that is exactly what he is there for, for accountability. However, the government keeps going back in time when it comes to accountability.

The evidence speaks for itself. How can the government member disagree with making the PBO an independent officer of Parliament, given that it was Mr. Page who alerted Canadians to an impending deficit, despite contrary and misleading claims by the government?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that it was this government that set up the Parliamentary Budget Office in the first place.

The member talks about facts. Perhaps she was not listening the first time so I will repeat it a second time. The fact of the matter is that, in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's recent report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated that, “PBO and Finance Canada both assess the federal fiscal structure to be sustainable over the long term.” He went on to state, “The take-away from this is, federally, we’re in a good spot right now.”

This government remains focused on jobs, growth and long-term prosperity, not risky, socialist schemes like imposing a $21.5 billion carbon tax and calling for more bloated government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the member is fairly straightforward, regarding the importance and the valuable work that the Parliamentary Budget Officer does for the House of Commons and, through that, to all Canadians.

We do recognize that, come mid-March, Kevin Page will be leaving his post, unless of course he is given the extension. There is a valid argument to be made that an extension is warranted.

I want to know why it is the government members would not see the merit of having Mr. Page stay on for a couple of additional months just to ensure there is a proper transition with whomever takes on that responsibility going forward. The benefits of having Mr. Page there would be enormous.

Why would the government not at least acknowledge that it would definitely be advantageous to have him stick around longer than his contract, which will be expiring in March?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a process underway right now, which was set up when the Parliamentary Budget Office was established. There is a process underway, and we will have a new Parliamentary Budget Officer in place in due course.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member could comment on what government it was that brought this office into being and what was the position of the opposition at the time it was voted on?

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all remember that the Liberal governments from 1993 to 2005 had economic estimates that would never jibe with reality—bloated spending, bloated government and higher taxes. The Liberals never saw a tax they did not like.

Our government brought in the Parliamentary Budget Officer and office to have an independent assessment of the government books, government spending and government fiscal management.

I thank the member for her question because it gives me an opportunity once again to quote the Parliamentary Budget Officer as he praises our government. I quote him once again because the NDP did not hear it the first or second time.

In his report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, “PBO and Finance Canada both assess the federal fiscal structure to be sustainable over the long term.” In addition to that, the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated “The take-away from this is, federally, we’re in a good spot right now.”

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to lend my voice to the debate today on the NDP motion presented by my colleague on the finance committee.

While I may not agree with her and the NDP's economic agenda of higher taxes, carbon taxes and more deficit spending, I also recognize that the majority of Canadians do not either, so I think we can take some degree of comfort in that.

Right from the start I will note, as many of my Conservative colleagues have done already, that we have no intention to move the Parliamentary Budget Officer outside the Library of Parliament. We want to see a Parliamentary Budget Officer who is a non-partisan, credible source of opinion on fiscal matters, and allowing the Library of Parliament to do that is the best course of action.

During my time, I would like to focus on our Conservative government's landmark achievements in enhancing budget and fiscal transparency since forming government in 2006. This issue has certainly received a lot of media attention of late, especially in the context of today's debate. Therefore, I am happy to provide some insight to parliamentarians and all Canadians.

I am really proud to say that our Conservative government has already established a solid record of keeping Canadians very well informed about government expenditures. This includes creating the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Preparing the federal budget essentially means drawing a blueprint for how the government intends to set the annual economic agenda for Canada and how we will allocate taxpayers' money. It sets out our country's economic priorities and the means by which these goals will be achieved.

Because the budget is ultimately funded by Canadian taxpayers, we not only believe Canadians have every right to know exactly how and where their tax dollars are being spent; we also believe that all Canadians should participate in the process. I would like to highlight a few specifics of the budget-making process and talk about the consultations phase, a process that really engages Canadians directly.

The way we prepare the budget has changed dramatically since the first budget was presented on December 7, 1867, but the basic principles behind it have changed little.

Traditionally, the budget process was done in the backrooms of Ottawa, with little consultation with everyday Canadians. Today, things are very different. This year, as in previous years, our government undertook a series of extensive public consultations, as did the finance committee.

Additionally, when it comes to economic projections, no longer do we rely on projections made in secret with little transparency of where or how they were determined. That has changed so much. For instance, in 2012, the Minister of Finance consulted with private sector economists in March and October on their forecasts, before presenting the budget and fall update.

Indeed, this has been a long-standing practice, where the government surveys more than a dozen of the most prominent private sector forecasters—Canada's leading independent and impartial economists from Canada's leading banks and academic institutions—to obtain their projections of economic growth and other key variables such as interest rates, the unemployment rate and the inflation rate.

I should also note that all these details and all the details on the government's spending are, for the first time ever, often available free of charge and displayed openly and transparently on websites of the Department of Finance and the Treasury Board Secretariat.

I would encourage all hon. members to explore those websites, because the information on those websites is absolutely phenomenal. On the finance website, the publications and reports contain detailed information that is very illuminating. I encourage everyone to explore those websites because they are quite phenomenal in terms of the information that is there, which can really guide us as we move forward in our decision-making.

The economic forecast that is used as the basis for fiscal planning in the annual budget and update of economic and fiscal projections is the average of that survey of private-sector forecasters. This gives the government an impartial, outside view of the economy and introduces an element of independence into the government's fiscal forecasting process. This is supported and applauded by such organizations as the International Monetary Fund.

This is an approach that has made a significant contribution to the strength and resiliency of the Canadian economy, a record that most others envy.

I would like to remind the NDP, which is so fond of talking Canada's economy down, that we have created over 900,000 net new jobs since July 2009, 90% of them are full time and 75% of them are in the private sector. This is the best job growth record in the entire G7, which is something that even the NDP cannot deny. In fact, what people will not hear from the NDP is that many around the world are looking to Canada's economic leadership as a model to follow.

I would like to share a quote from Tom Donohue, the president of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce. Recently he said this about our economic achievements, “The great Canadian miracle is something we should follow”.

Returning to the budget process, I want to underline the importance of public consultations with everyday Canadians in creating this document, which is something I am sure all finance committee members can relate to. Indeed, at finance committee, we met with hundreds of groups and individuals from across Canada. We heard from over 600 individuals, business groups and organizations.

Additionally, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, along with other ministers and MPs fan out across the country to directly consult with citizens on their budget priorities and how best to meet them. In my riding I am, and I am sure MPs from across the country are, taking that time to sit down with business owners and individuals. It is absolutely amazing to hear the very important suggestions and excellent insight that we get from Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and that actually forms the foundation of our budget.

Every year, I am so delighted to see some of those observations made by Canadians. When we look at it in the budget process, we have seen it come from a simple idea, or not so simple idea at times, into the format that will move Canada forward.

We really support and encourage consultation from coast to coast, This year, for the first time, we tried online prebudget consultations as another format. In fact, since 2006, our Conservative government was the first government in history to open doors to online prebudget consultations to all, again, ensuring that people who wanted their voices heard would have the opportunity.

In fact, even though it is getting a bit late, there is still an opportunity to have some input. Just go to the Department of Finance website, www.fin.gc.ca. The current online consultation that started on November 30 asks Canadians for their ideas on cost neutral or low cost measures to further solidify our economic recovery.

The budget planning process in recent years has opened up even further to encourage all governments to work together and consult with interested groups. That is transparency. That is engagement.

These consultations are critical to ensuring that, at the end of the day, the budget reflects the priorities of Canadians and that government maintains the focus on job creation, economic growth and long-term prosperity.

As our government has done since 2006, this budget will reflect our country's key priorities for creating a strong economy that will benefit all Canadians. Specifically, economic action plan 2013 will continue to build on the strengths and the key pro-growth initiatives our government has been working on in the past year.

We will remain focused on what matters to most Canadians, jobs and economic growth, and ensure that Canada's economic advantage today will translate into the long-term prosperity of tomorrow.

Canadians should expect nothing less from Canada's budget and their government.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, the government talks about accountability. Yes, it did create the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer. Yes, it did put an accountability bill forward and legislation. However, that is all it has done. It can talk about it, but when it comes time to act, when it comes time to do the right thing, it does not.

Once again, why do they always put up roadblocks every time the Parliamentary Budget Officer asks for information?

The other question I have is on the position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer being up for review, which is yet to be done. How can the government say that it is accountable when it does not even follow what it should be doing?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud that we created this position, which is a resource for all parliamentarians. We are certainly moving forward in looking at the replacement process with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. However, transparency and accountability is more than just one position. I would again refer all hon. members to look at the enormous resources and amount of information that is very transparent for the first time ever in terms of what our government does with budget consultations and with the prebudget process.

Again, I am very proud of our record, and our record is seeing results. Just look at how we have seen our way through a great recession and how Canada remains the envy of the world.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a question that I have posed to the member's colleagues and would now like to ask her.

Mr. Page's term is coming to an end in mid-March. The Library of Parliament is in the process of replacing him, but all we are hearing is that it will be “sometime”. Even government members are indicating “sometime soon”.

We have constantly suggested to the government that there is great value for all Canadians if in fact we recognize Mr. Page for the contributions he has made to date. Also, with the upcoming budget, we are proposing to spend billions and billions of tax dollars. Does the member not see the value in allowing Mr. Page to continue on for a short term to allow for more accountability and transparency within those budgetary numbers, which would benefit all parliamentarians and in fact all Canadians?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we are aware, the term of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is coming to an end. The Library of Parliament is undergoing a very active process in engaging the next parliamentary budget officer. We recognize that there is certainly more than one man. However, at the finance committee we have heard excellent input from the whole department and he often comes with many capable individuals to the table in terms of the analysis they do.

Again, I would like to reiterate that there are many areas that are available for all parliamentarians to get the information they need. Certainly, we all look forward to the budget that will be presented sometime this spring.