Rodger Cuzner

[Employment, June 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the flagship of the Conservatives' employment program is the totally shambolic Canada job grant. It is more of a ghost ship than a flagship. Seven of the ten provinces have said the program is pretty much shipwrecked. British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, P.E.I. and Nova Scotia all said that the program was sunk before it sailed.

Why will the Conservatives not abandon ship on this ill-fated program and help Canadians who are so desperately looking for work?

[Ethics, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty simple. An election is like a competition, a democratic competition. Candidates compete for the privilege to serve. There are rules. Candidates must abide by the rules, but obviously the Conservatives do not think the rules apply to them.

I would like to ask the government this. When did it adopt the new credo, “If you ain't cheatin', you ain't competin'?”

[Ethics, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we have the leader of the NDP running from the RCMP. We have the Prime Minister running from Elections Canada, and we know that there are numerous election spending violations. They have a certain pattern. They break the rules, they get caught and then they call it an accounting dispute until they are eventually found guilty.

Canadians are not buying it. My question is very simple. Why does the Prime Minister not simply instruct his members of Parliament to abide by the Canadian election laws?

[Parliamentary Budget Officer Act, June 10th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is a big day today. I just exchanged pleasantries with the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, and it is his birthday. We are expecting to maybe put forward legislation identifying today as a national holiday.

I am happy to put in my two cents' worth on this important bill. This is a significant and important piece of legislation, and certainly my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, during first reading of the bill, identified the fact that our party will indeed be supporting it because we believe in the spirit of the bill and that, in essence, it would be an important step forward. I also recognize the fact that my colleague, the member for Markham—Unionville, had tabled the first motion before Parliament in February 2009, calling for the parliamentary budget officer to be made an independent officer of Parliament. That is worth noting as we begin to discuss this particular bill today.

Although this bill is about the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, it is hard to talk about it without talking about the first parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page. For obvious reasons, the two will be inextricably linked. My thoughts on this bill will therefore be very respectful of the experience Mr. Page had over his five years as PBO, and his comments on the office, including the challenges that he faced and the worries he had about its future if not strengthened and protected.

One of Mr. Page's comments sums up the issue around transparency and accountability under the current government. He summed it up well when he said, “Our institutions of accountability are in trouble. Parliament does not get the information and analysis it needs to hold the executive...to account.” Of course, “the executive” refers to the Prime Minister and cabinet. Later in his comments he said, “In a culture where secrecy is far too common and analytical dissonance is not welcome, the future of my office, the legislative budget office is in doubt.”

This is a debate that has taken place here in the chamber, but also right across this country in the court of public opinion. I believe it was one that Mr. Page put forward. Canadians understand the significance around this issue and certainly are respectful of the courage, the vision and the passion he had for this position, and as well of his ability. It has been proven time and again, issue by issue, that the parliamentary budget officer was very often closer to reality than what we were hearing from the government benches and the spin around the various issues or crises of the day.

Mr. Page is a man who dedicated five years of his life to the service of Parliament and to Canadians to provide and promote financial transparency and accountability. Seven years ago, the current government promised a new standard of accountability. We know the Conservative government rode in on the white horse called “accountability”, promising a different era, certainly a more open Parliament and a more open government.

We have not seen that. That horse has been dead for quite some time, as much as the government might want to beat it. In the eyes of most Canadians, whether the horse ever arrived in Ottawa or not, it is certainly gone now. The government had a golden halo of transparency that was very much touted and highly talked about, but that halo is considerably tarnished now.

That is what happens when the standard method of operation is “do as I say, not as I do”. It is very significant, in the wake of what transpired this past week, when we saw the former Conservative member for Edmonton—St. Albert comment, “I barely recognize ourselves and worse I feel that we have morphed into what we once mocked.”

I certainly do not agree with everything the member has said or with his views on many issues. However, I think it was eloquent, poignant and truthful. Many Conservatives across this country, certainly Conservatives in my riding with whom I have great friendship and for whom I have great respect even though we may have different political views, are very concerned about how the government has taken those principles of transparency, openness and accountability, and just sort of put them in the back of the bus.

The departure of the member for Edmonton—St. Albert brings that to a very poignant point in the life of the government.

Bill C-476 stands for principles, including the principle that the parliamentary budget officer should be an independent watchdog and provide independent analysis to Parliament, not cheerleading for the government.

The purpose of the office itself is to help with forecasts on economic and fiscal planning, help with costing new programs, and help with the scrutiny of departmental apportionments and appropriations. We have seen the debacle with the F-35s. The numbers continue to change. I think it was my colleague, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, who first brought the issue around the F-35s to the House two and a half years ago.

We were given a snow job then. We were given numbers that certainly dismissed any concerns around the procurement of the F-35s. It was with a clear vision, clear thinking and a commitment to get to the truth that the parliamentary budget officer pursued what was real within the tendering process. Through those numbers, the parliamentary budget officer was able to bring it around to what many other nations across the world that were involved in the procurement of this particular aircraft knew all along.

I want to commend my colleague, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie. I want to again echo support for this bill on behalf of our party. We think the parliamentary budget officer should be independent from the executive. The role of the PBO is essential in providing this House with the important information that it needs, so that it can base its decisions on truth, not spin; on fact, not fiction; and on hard numbers.

It is for those reasons that we will stand and support this piece of legislation.

[Committees of the House, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, just to clarify the record.

Earlier this week, during question period, I unintentionally shared some information that was not correct when I accused the government of spending $90,000 for 30-second spots advertising the Canada jobs grant on the playoff hockey games each evening. The amount of $90,000 was not correct; it is the semi-finals now, and it is $110,000, so—

[Ethics, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, for three weeks now the Prime Minister's story about how he felt about Mr. Wright has sort of evolved.

First he wanted Canadians to believe that Mr. Wright was a good Samaritan and did not have to resign. Then, as this thing blew up, Mr. Wright became Mr. Wrong and he had to go. Canadians do not buy it.

My question for the Prime Minister is very simple, and he should answer. On May 15, when he received the information about this situation, did in fact Nigel Wright tender his resignation?

[Ethics, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the former Conservative caucus member, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert, said earlier today that the Prime Minister's Office “...doesn't seem to be accountable to anyone, not even the Prime Minister”.

Is this why the Prime Minister contends that he knew nothing about the Nigel Wright-Mike Duffy situation?

[Main Estimates 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from London, home of the London Knights. It is a good team that of course lost to the Halifax Mooseheads in the Memorial Cup this year.

I have been here 13 years and I have heard a lot of speeches in this House. That was certainly one of them. I have been able to join in on a great number of debates on a lot of topics, but I have never seen a motion brought forward before that lit up the political universe.

On Twitter I am following all the journalists and people who like to weigh in with a political opinion. They are commenting on just how flaky this particular motion is. “Flaky” should not be offensive to anyone, but I would like my friend to comment on that.

[Main Estimates 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Now you just stay at home.

[Main Estimates 2013-14, June 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, the past minister of intergovernmental affairs, Peter Penashue, would have been charged with the responsibility to deal with provinces on such issues. I cannot ask him that question because he is no longer here.

However, would he have been charged with consulting with the provinces? Would he have had the opportunity to meet with the provinces? Indeed, if those types of meetings took place, would the minister share with us where the provinces are with this issue?