Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The importance of the PBO speaking, I think, is evident just from the well put together report that he's made. He's also put together quite a few criticisms—I wouldn't say serious criticisms but some criticisms—about moving forward.
The reason I want to have Mr. Wernick here is that the PBO states:
Before agreeing to the changes proposed by the Government, parliamentarians may wish revisit the core problem that undermines their financial scrutiny: the Government’s own internal administrative processes.
That's what you were referring to, I think, with the term “sclerotic”. I think we need to address and hear about that. Again, it's about putting the cart before the horse.
There are a couple of other quick quotes from the PBO that I just want to mention. He states it is “unlikely that delaying the release of the main estimates by eight weeks would provide full alignment with the budget.” Again, I think it's important that we hear from him specifically on that.
There are other points the PBO has made that relate to what's been said last month:
The Government asserts that Parliament does not play a meaningful role in financial scrutiny. PBO disagrees with this view. ...parliamentarians have performed a commendable job of asking pertinent questions in standing committee hearings, Question Period and Committee of the Whole.
I think what the PBO is saying is that, despite all the obstacles thrown up, parliamentarians, current and past parliamentarians, when in opposition, have done a very good job. I think what he is saying is let's not affect the Standing Orders, change the very reason that we exist, for an issue that doesn't exist as much in his eyes.
That's why I'd like to have the PBO here specifically, and Mr. Wernick, to address his comments asking what the point is of addressing this when we're not addressing the main problem, which is our own internal administrative processes. Then Mr. Page has dealt with us before and has commented on these changes. I only saw very briefly parts of Mr. Page's commentary on the proposed changes, and I think I agree with what he says. Yes, he wants to see it moved forward, but I think I recall that he had some very specific comments or criticisms that we need to hear as well before we make such drastic changes to our system and our Standing Orders.