Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised on November 17 by the member for Edmonton West respecting a letter from the Parliamentary Budget Officer concerning the response from the comptroller general of Canada, which was tabled by the Speaker on November 17. I submit that the government is working in good faith to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with the information his office has requested in a timely manner. This is in keeping with subsection 79.4(1), which states the Parliamentary Budget Officer is entitled to free and timely access to information under the control of the government. This is not in dispute at all.
The letter from the comptroller general to the Parliamentary Budget Officer states the government will comply with and endeavour to respond to the request by early December. I would further note that the request for information by the Parliamentary Budget Officer had a due date of November 19, which is seven days after the Parliamentary Budget Officer filed notice with the Speaker, on November 13, and three days before the member raised his question of privilege.
This is not a new concept for members to understand. When the House or a committee of the House would like information from the government, government members work with opposition members to come to a compromise on or an understanding of when the information can practically be provided, and in some cases, they agree to a mechanism to provide protected information that would not otherwise be made public. In exceptional circumstances, the Speaker is called upon to mediate the request.
The facts before the House are clear. The Parliamentary Budget Officer requested information from the government, and the government responded that it was working on compiling the information but needed some more time to produce it. That is how this works.
The comptroller general provided a justification in her letter as to why the government would need a bit more time to do so. She said:
As you know, proposed savings from the CER are subject to parliamentary approval. Once approved, they will be communicated to all relevant parties in a timely manner in accordance with the obligation of the Employer to do so when an employee's position may be impacted. Circumventing this process by providing the information to a third party beforehand could compromise employees' trust in the Government and jeopardize the management-union relationship.... Once departments have had a chance to review decisions, update their plans where relevant, and once the Budget has received the support of Parliament, implementation, including workforce changes, will begin in a transparent and respectful manner. This will ensure that we are providing you and your office with accurate and reliable information.
The member is suggesting something that is not the case. The government wrote to the Parliamentary Budget Officer on November 10, nine days before the due date set out by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, to advise him that certain steps would be required in order to comply with the request. Moreover, the member suggested that members needed this specific information before they could vote on the ways and means motion for the budget. This is not accurate.
The motion the House had before it on Monday, November 17, was, “That this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.” A slight delay in providing the information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer did not in any way interfere with members' ability to vote on the general ways and means motion on November 17, nor has the government stated or intimated that it will not comply with the request of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In fact, the opposite is true. The government has stated compelling reasons for a slight delay to the Parliamentary Budget Officer to ensure that he and his office are provided with accurate and reliable information to enable him and his office to report to Parliament.
In conclusion, there are no facts before the House or any grounds to find this matter to be a prima facie breach of privilege.