I would like to explain.
The budget has been tabled and passed. We must now study the budget implementation bill.
We must avoid overly partisan discussions about the budget. We are meeting here in committee, and we will have to study the bill clause by clause, so we need to start off on the right foot. Welcoming an independent officer of Parliament is the best way to get off on the right foot. The Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer is a credible officer of Parliament who was appointed by the government; he does not report to the government, but to Parliament. We have all worked with Parliamentary Budget Officers for several years, so we know how remarkably competent and independent they are. They are at our service; we are their clients.
When the Parliamentary Budget Officer raises criticisms and questions, or voices budgetary concerns, there are two possible reactions. The first is the Trump-style reaction, which is to disrespect the institution. It is a bit like attacking judges, commissioners or independent officers of Parliament. This must be avoided.
If we do not want to behave like some of our neighbours to the south, who show gross disrespect for institutions, we can adopt the second response and invite the Parliamentary Budget Officer, because we will have questions about methodology for him.
We are not opposed to innovation and redefining categories. We have had discussions with Mr. Turnbull and the Conservatives on this subject. We are innovating in the presentation of budget data, but it is important to understand the ins and outs of this innovation, especially since, as I understand it, the definition used by the government is not consistent with what is done in either the United Kingdom or Singapore. In any case, it is stated in the budget that it does not comply with generally accepted accounting principles. This means that if a private company decided to use the government’s definition in its financial statements, no accountant with the title of chartered professional accountant would agree to sign those financial statements without risking serious professional misconduct and possible disbarment from their professional order. We sense this unease among professionals and government officials, and we also sensed it during some in camera meetings. We would therefore like to have explanations so that we can then study the budget on solid grounds. I therefore believe that this is the first step that must be taken and it should precede any work by the committee on the implementation of the budget.
That is the essence of this non-partisan motion, especially since the text is essentially a summary of the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s independent report.