Debates of Feb. 7th, 2013

Opposition Motion—Parliamentary Budget Officer

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, for her work in this area.

I appreciate the review of the budget process, but people need to understand that the budget is a policy document. In actual fact, to look at the budgets that we have produced, and not just our government but all governments, there are a lot of numbers in there. It is the policy of what we will do from a financial perspective as a government. Out of that comes implementation bills, which put money to those projects.

Does the member feel that it is the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to comment on the policy aspects and policy direction of the current government, or any government, now or in the future?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question from my colleague. We have looked at the analysis done by the PBO and, as he indicated, the budget that will be presented is a very vast document. If we look at the presentations from the 600 individuals who came forward, they were not about numbers but how we as a country could move forward. An example is how we might look toward improving some programs with our first nations communities and economic opportunities.

It is important to recognize that where we go with the budget is really about growth and long-term prosperity for Canadians and it is truly a policy document.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time.

The Federal Accountability Act specifically states that the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or the PBO, shall provide the Senate and the House of Commons with independent analysis on the state of the nation's finances, the government's estimates and trends in the Canadian economy.

The Act also provides that the Parliamentary Budget Officer shall undertake research into the nation's finances and economy and the government's estimates, that is expenditures in general, and that he must provide estimates of the financial cost of any proposal that relates to a matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction.

In his first term, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and his team produced at least 150 key reports, some on a regular basis and some at the request of parliamentarians. I requested reports when I sat on a committee.

A good number of these reports shed light on important financial details that were not found in government publications, which are often too partisan. I must say that, on other occasions, these reports confirmed the key findings of certain government publications.

I found a few key reports that were particularly useful. One of these reports deals with the estimated financial impact of the F-35 procurement program. Imagine what we would not have known had the Parliamentary Budget Officer not spoken out about this program.

A report on the financial impact of the mission in Afghanistan was key in informing Canadians of the cost of a military intervention in a foreign country.

A report on old age security clearly affects members of the aging population who need services in my riding and in all of our ridings.

What is more, a report on the financial impact of the Safe Streets and Communities Act addresses the issue of the safety of Canadians, our children and our families.

Finally, the Parliamentary Budget Officer also released a report on the funding needs of schools on first nations reserves. Hon. members may already be aware that there are two first nations communities in my riding, the Barriere Lake reserve, which is also known as Rapid Lake, and the Kitigan Zibi reserve. This report is therefore essential to the lives of people in these communities, their schools and their education.

The truth is that the Parliamentary Budget Officer did his job very well but he never received any recognition from the government, which never hesitated to attack him.

For example, let us consider this quote:

The Conservatives said on Thursday they are not budging from their earlier estimates. They have not made full forecasts, but Mr. Page's office said figures released by the government have suggested the total cost of the planes would be $17.6 billion.

Department of National Defence procurement experts stand by their cost projections...

That quote was from the Globe and Mail on March 11, 2011, and we know how that went.

There is also another quote, which states:

We also have significant concerns about the completeness of cost information provided to parliamentarians. In March 2011, National Defence responded publicly to the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report. This response did not include estimated operating, personnel, or ongoing training costs.

Let us consider what the President of the Treasury Board said:

I would give some advice to the budget officer. He should spend his time worrying more about his mandate, which is about how we spend money not the money that we do not spend.

In this case, the Minister of Finance talked about the Parliamentary Budget Officer and his figures and said, “unbelievable, unreliable and incredible”.

However, we know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report was sounder with regard to certain figures and facts. I continue, again:

I don't agree entirely with some of the assumptions.

On his part, the Prime Minister said:

The government of Canada today is in surplus. The government of Canada today is not planning a deficit....

Consider the following from page 202 of budget 2009:

...the Government is projecting a small surplus in 2008–09, followed by deficits of $15.7 billion in 2009–10, $14.3 billion in 2010–11, $8.3 billion in 2011–12, $2.3 billion in 2012–13 and a surplus of $5.5 billion in 2013–14.

The actual numbers, which were confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, were $5.8 billion in 2008-09, $55.6 billion in 2009-10, $33.4 billion in 2010-11, and $26.2 billion in 2011-12.

Yet on that side of the aisle, there seems to be some form of collective denial with regard to the accuracy of the facts and figures of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

The importance that the government gives to the role of Parliamentary Budget Officer can also be seen when we compare his office to others across the world. For example, the PBO has only 12 full-time staff and 2 interns, while the Congressional Budget Office has over 200 staff. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has a budget of only $2.8 million, while the Congressional Budget Office in the United States has a budget of $46.8 million.

In its short existence, the PBO has been able to publish, as indicated before, over 150 analytical reports. It is clear that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is doing a lot with very little. I would also like to point out the fact that the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, South Korea, the Netherlands, Sweden and many other nations have, or planned, well-funded and well-staffed budget research offices to serve their national legislatures. That is unlike the Government of Canada, which claims it is undying in its support of accountability.

We in the NDP want to make clear and practical changes that will increase transparency in this country. That is why, for example, the NDP wants to strengthen the already outstanding work done by the Parliamentary Budget Officer in all respects. We want to ensure that there are no interruptions in the day-to-day operations of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. With that in mind, we want Kevin Page's mandate to be extended until his replacement can be found.

The Conservative attacks on the Parliamentary Budget Officer and his team clearly showed the need to ensure that the office is independent. The NDP wants to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer a full, independent officer of Parliament. The NDP also wants the selection process for the new Parliamentary Budget Officer to be open and transparent, because many Canadians fear that the government will not fill the position or will appoint someone who is incapable of doing the job or does not want to do it.

We want to expand the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We are of the opinion that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's mandate must be broadened to ensure that the office can report on all aspects of the economy and public finances without being subject to political attacks. These are practical solutions that will make our country and our public accounts more transparent.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to emphasize the fine work that the Parliamentary Budget Officer does for all Canadians, especially if one looks at his overall budget. I think most people would be quite surprised how much value the Parliamentary Budget Officer provides the House for only a few million dollars. In terms of accountability and compared to the amount of money it costs to have one member of Parliament, it is quite significant. There is great value in the Parliamentary Budget Officer. There are arguments to be made that we should be looking at how much the office is actually financed with.

I applaud the motion. It is very specific. It really wants us to get that extension and wants the parliamentary budget office to be more independent.

When the member thinks of an independent Parliamentary Budget Officer is he referring to one that would be not only direct to the House of Commons but also hired through an all party committee of sorts, much like some jurisdictions do for independent officers? How would he see a Parliamentary Budget Officer being hired?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, essentially what we want to do is to ensure that this particular officer has more independence and a greater budget. Imagine what he or she could do with a budget and staff twice or three times the current size and a government behind that office that truly believes in transparency and accountability. There is no reason why this officer could not function in the same way as the Auditor General, or some other officers, do.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the riding of the hon. member for Pontiac is very similar to mine in terms of size, population and economy.

Earlier, I heard the parliamentary secretary talking about all sorts of resources available on the Internet. Since I know my colleague's riding well, I would like to ask him how many people in Ladysmith, Chapeau, Lytton, Otter Lake and so on have high-speed Internet and how much it costs for those who do have it?

In my riding, I constantly meet people who tell me that Internet access is extremely expensive and does not work. It takes three hours to download a two-page PDF document.

Should the government not be ensuring that people have Internet access before closing offices and putting all of the information online? That will be of absolutely no help to some people.

I would also like to ask my colleague another question. Is there a business in his riding that could continue to function knowing that the accountant will retire in a month, but not knowing if he will be able to stay on while they find another one?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. He knows my riding well and I know that he spends time in my community.

Internet access is still a problem in some areas of my riding. We are encouraging companies to set up shop and provide high-speed Internet access. It is increasingly becoming an essential tool for small businesses, but it is also needed just to have access to government services.

Naturally, if there is a seven-month opening in the Parliamentary Budget Officer position, just as the budget is being written, that could hinder Canadians' knowledge of the government's investments and use of public funds and so on. Obviously, that would be problematic.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Pontiac for sharing his time with me. It was my great privilege to welcome him to our committee. He will do a fantastic job in deliberations on such matters as strengthening the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I was honoured today to second this important motion tabled by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park, to reaffirm, strengthen and extend the critical mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or the PBO.

One of our primary obligations as parliamentarians is to scrutinize the government's spending plans as outlined in budgets, estimates and the reports on plans and priorities. This duty applies to all members of Parliament regardless of political affiliation, opposition and backbenchers alike.

Two successive studies by parliamentary committees have identified a significant failure by MPs in delivering this duty. A unanimous report that I had the privilege of contributing to, tabled last fall and entitled “Strengthening Parliamentary Scrutiny of Estimates and Supply”, calls on the government to take action to improve the capacity of MPs to enable more meaningful scrutiny of estimates and supply. This report recognized the important role played by the Parliamentary Budget Officer in this process. The report noted an OECD finding that best practices for budget transparency require that “Parliament should have the opportunity and resources to effectively examine any fiscal report that it deems necessary”.

The committee heard testimony from an array of Canadian and international experts, who concurred that the PBO is a key player in improving and supplementing the capacity of MPs.

Dr. Joachim Wehner, associate professor of public policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science, testified that in order to improve scrutiny of the estimates and supply, “The first [requirement]...is to protect and enhance the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.... Internationally, the Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada is very highly regarded, and it's certainly a major change...in the degree the parliament in Canada has access to an independent, highly professional research capacity”. He added that the role of the PBO could be further strengthened if made a full officer of Parliament with total access to all relevant information. Dr. Wehner shared that his views were premised on international experience with such officers in other jurisdictions.

What is the PBO and where does his mandate arise? The PBO was created in 2006 with the enactment of the Financial Accountability Act. His mandate is clearly prescribed in law to “provide independent analysis to the Senate and to the House of Commons about the state of the nation’s finances, the estimates of the government and trends in the national economy”. He is also mandated to undertake research and assist committees in the review and analysis of estimates. Clearly, the PBO must have ready and open access to financial and economic data to deliver on these duties. MPs and committees have found this information and advice indispensable to their scrutiny of government spending and estimates. Accessibility to all information has regrettably been a matter of ongoing contention for the current PBO. He was ultimately forced to seek a court ruling due to access denials.

While the official opposition was pleased that the government operations and estimates committee report recognized the valuable role of the PBO, in a supplementary report the New Democrats also called on the government to take immediate action to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer an officer of Parliament. Valuing his role, we also recommended that the PBO be legally mandated to report not just to the finance committee, but also to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates with respect to its estimates work.

This call is reflected in proposed legislation tabled by my colleague the MP for Parkdale—High Park. Our call is endorsed by Canadian expert Dr. David Good, professor at the School of Public Administration at the University of Victoria, who testified: “First, I would make the Parliamentary Budget Officer a full agent of Parliament to assist parliamentarians and committees. I think the role and mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer needs to be clarified and strengthened by making the office legislatively separate and independent of the Library of Parliament, thereby operating as a full agent of Parliament”.

The important work of the PBO is highly regarded in Canada and abroad. In fact, next week the Parliamentary Budget Officer will welcome the OECD network of parliamentary budget officers to Ottawa for their fifth annual meeting.

PBOs exist in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, Australia and even Korea. As I said, the OECD network of PBOs is scheduled to meet in Ottawa to continue deliberations on improved parliamentary oversight of fiscal stimulus, deficits and risk management. It is most regrettable that they are arriving in this country at the very moment in time when there is a dispute over providing important information to the PBO and when we are facing a vacuum in accessibility to his important expertise.

Other countries provide analogous examples of providing support to elected officials. For example, the Congressional Budget Office in the United States of America, created in 1975, provides budget committees and Congress with objective information about budgetary and economic issues.

As mentioned, strong support for an independent Parliamentary Budget Officer has been voiced by experts who lauded Canada for the initial establishment of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Dr. Wehner spoke of the need, and I quote:

...to protect and enhance the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. A number of countries are creating similar institutions, and the Parliament in Canada has really been at the cusp of this development. Internationally, the Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada is very highly regarded, and it's certainly a major change, in my view, at least, in the degree the parliament in Canada has access to an independent, highly professional research capacity.

He then added:

I believe that some adjustments are possible to the legal framework for the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In particular, this role could be strengthened, or the status be strengthened, if he were a full officer of Parliament. Moreover, steps could be taken so that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has total access to all relevant information. In the past I believe there have been incidents where departments have not been quite as forthcoming with providing information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer as perhaps they should have been. But overall, I see this as a very positive development, and I see some scope for strengthening it also on the basis of international experience.

There we have it. Even international experts are watching what is happening in Canada and what will happen with our PBO.

New Democrats have long supported the establishment of an independent PBO. New Democrats stood in the House and voiced their support for the creation of a Parliamentary Budget Officer in 2006. We remain in support of the PBO, regrettably now under attack by members opposite.

It would serve members opposite well to be reminded of their own previous support of an independent PBO and the value of objective analysis. The Prime Minister in 2006 said:

Such a body would ensure that the government is genuinely accountable for taxpayers' dollars and that we maintain fiscal discipline

The finance minister in 2006 said:

Governments cannot be held to account if Parliament and Canadians do not know the real state of public finances.

In fact, the Conservative 2006 electoral platform endorsed the creation of an independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. How attitudes have changed. Time after time the PBO has faced delays or denials to his requests for financial information. As I mentioned, he was forced to take the matter to the Federal Court.

Now in the face of his imminent termination, the government has dragged its feet in ensuring his timely replacement. The process for filling the PBO office took 18 months last time. MPs now will face review of the coming budget and estimates absent the PBO's analytical support. The simple answer is presented in this motion: extend the term of the current PBO.

What happened to the government members who once proposed support for the PBO?

I can personally attest to the value of his reporting and the assistance of his office in my participation in a parliamentary committee and my review of estimates.

We are meant to be stewards of the public purse. We can choose to support institutions that ensure informed decisions. An independent PBO reporting to Parliament offers that window. I call on all members to support this motion to make the PBO a true officer of Parliament.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the interventions today by the NDP members on their opposition day motion, the member and several of the NDP members mentioned the existence of parliamentary budget offices, or some equivalent, in other countries. However, they do not talk about the structure or the relationship they share either to parliaments, legislatures or the executive.

For example, one of the other members mentioned earlier that in England, it is housed inside the treasury department. In Canada we choose to house it under the Library of Parliament. There are many models, and they can all work.

In this case, if we judge the independence of the current Parliamentary Budget Officer, he has been highly critical of the government and has not lost his job. His appointment comes from a non-partisan committee. The Prime Minister makes the appointment, but the nominees are all chosen that way.

Is it not, in fact, that there are a variety of options? This one is actually independent. In fact, it is better, because it is not housed in the treasury department and is providing the material necessary for members of Parliament on both sides of the House to hold the government to account.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to suggest that everybody copy what is done by the Government of Canada at this moment in time.

I can only attest to the expert testimony before our committee when we undertook a review of how we could strengthen the role of the PBO and support the role of MPs in reviewing estimates and supply. Resoundingly, all the experts made exactly the same recommendation, which was to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer a full officer of Parliament to ensure his independence, and furthermore, to expand his resources so we could fully build our capacity to review the estimates in supply.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that the Parliamentary Budget Officer should be an officer of Parliament. Could she provide some insight in terms of how she would envision such an individual being hired? There are different ways in which one could do that. I am interested in knowing what she believes is the ideal way of hiring an independent officer of the House of Commons.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, part of the way to ensure the integrity and respect of the Parliamentary Budget Officer who is being made a full officer of Parliament would be to have representation from all parties in the House for the selection and review process. That would be my recommendation.

However, the first step is to get the government to agree that the Parliamentary Budget Officer should become a full officer of Parliament. Then it should reach out to the other parties and discuss how that process may proceed.

I suggest that we take advantage of the meeting this month with the OECD network and seek its advice on how we might move forward.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 2006, New Democrats and Conservatives worked together on the Federal Accountability Act. It was this partnership that allowed it to pass in a minority Parliament. This legislation would never have come about without the NDP's cooperation. Sadly, since then, the Conservatives have found and used loopholes in the law to skirt accountability, loopholes that we are trying to correct today.

Does the hon. member believe that we need to fix the legislation we have before us and that the Conservatives, government members and the NDP need to continue to work together in cooperation to fix this legislation, strengthen it and make it better so that the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer can actually have true clout and real teeth to continue doing the great work the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been doing?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I want to reserve my judgment on whether we need to strengthen the legislation. That is exactly the issue the Parliamentary Budget Officer has referred to the courts.

His reading of the legislation, and frankly, my reading of the legislation, is that he has the full power to command that the information he has requested be provided.

What needs to be strengthened is the PBO budget and having the PBO made an independent, full officer of Parliament so that there would be less interference.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to what is a very important motion. The Liberal Party has indicated that it will be supporting the motion, and for good reason. It is no surprise that the party will be supporting the motion in the sense that we have been talking about it a great deal.

The leader of the Liberal Party has had the opportunity to ask a number of questions related to this issue, given the direct appeal to thePrime Minister to recognize how important it is that we give an extension to Mr. Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He is our first Parliamentary Budget Officer. One reason the position receives worldwide recognition is because of the efforts of Mr. Page. We want to make sure that whoever replaces Mr. Page, as long as he or she is bilingual, we will be able to continue a very strong tradition of having a Parliamentary Budget Officer who contributes immensely to the way the House of Commons works in terms of accountability and transparency.

The member opposite said that at least we have not fired him. He has not lost his job, which means he is independent. Because Mr. Page still holds the job does not necessarily mean that the office is independent and meets the objectives suggested in the motion today. Moving toward true independence of the office is a step in the right direction. That is something we should be embracing. We should look at ways we can further enhance the parliamentary budget office.

In listening to the debate throughout the day, there were a number of things I could not help but notice. Many of the Conservative speakers would take today to reflect not necessarily on the parliamentary budget office but on the performance of the Conservatives. One after another they talked about how great things are here. Of course, they would talk about how bad it was in the 13 years prior to their arrival. They are somewhat selective in terms of what they bring to the table in making those presentations.

Some things are absent. For example, when the Conservatives took over the books, they had a huge surplus. That is a significant fact they never make reference to. They never make reference to the fact that they had a huge trade surplus. There are many things the previous government put in place that have had a very positive impact during the Conservatives' term in government. One reason the government has been able to succeed in certain areas, such as in our banking industry, is because of the previous government's regulations in the 1990s.

I would like to think that the focus of this debate is not necessarily on those types of issues. It should be on the parliamentary budget office and the role independent offices play. Earlier I articulated how things change through time. A number of years ago, we brought in the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is a relatively new concept. It is proving to be very successful, and that is good, but it is nothing new in the sense that we have independent officers of the House. Provincial jurisdictions have independent officers, and they do a wonderful job on the tasks that have been assigned to them.

The auditor, for example, has been well established in Canada for many years. In fact, every province and I believe every territory has adopted an auditor. Federally we have the Auditor General and we have provincial auditors as well. They provide tangible results. Their budgets are allocated so that they are able to do the work that is necessary to cut through some of the political partisan ideas or statistics that come out.

A good example of that is the gun registry. If we listened to the Conservative line, we would have thought that the gun registry cost $10 million to $40 million a year to administer. We know that there were some significant upfront costs, but the actual annual cost coming from the Auditor General was somewhere around $3 million. This is important information to have because it assists in holding the government accountable.

As I said, the Auditor General has that opportunity from a different perspective. Once money has been spent or there are ideas or policies that have been put in place, auditor generals across the country are often called in to investigate and report back to their respective legislatures or to the House of Commons. Their reports are well read and there is this huge expectation that government will follow up on the recommendations that our auditors provide.

I have gone through years of listening to auditor reports being presented. In my case, it was primarily in the Manitoba legislature, but on a couple of occasions it was here in Ottawa in the House of Commons. When we go through the reports, we find that ministries respond to them. There is a sense of accountability to those reports. Opposition members are very reliant on the Auditor General making reports. The reports have helped shape public policy and have allowed us to reflect on some of the decisions that were made.

The establishment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer here in Canada five or six years ago is something that, in time, we are going to see more of. There is a relatively small number of countries that have parliamentary budget officers or the equivalent thereof. I suspect that as we continue in time, we will see different forms of this type of office established because there is great value in having that independent assessment done.

We need to recognize that Mr. Page, or the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, has a certain amount of expertise and resources that average members of the House of Commons do not have. When the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer uses those resources and that expertise, it is in a better position than we are to provide an analysis on the wide variety of issues that come before the House of Commons.

It is important that we make note of the degree to which government spends tax dollars. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars. In the next number of weeks we will receive a federal budget that will have an impact on every Canadian and permanent resident who calls Canada their home. That budget is being financed by tax dollars. Canadians want to know that there is value for the money that is being spent. They have a right to see whether that money is being spent appropriately and intelligently.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer plays a critical role in that. Today, more than ever before, there is a higher demand for transparency and accountability. I like to think that the Internet played a critical role in that. Information is so easily accessed today compared to 10 years ago. I have been an elected official for well over 20 years and I know the difference in research capabilities and how the Internet has opened up opportunities for Canadians from coast to coast to coast to get engaged in how those tax dollars are being spent.

Therefore, there is a higher level of expectation. A higher level of accountability is required and more transparency is the order of the day. That is why I believe that going forward the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and the work that he or she is going to be doing, is going to become that much more critical. What the House should be doing is supporting that evolution and allowing the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to expand, with the idea that in fact there is great value there. We actually save money if we invest in this particular office and I would like to give a couple of examples of that.

Before I do, I want to highlight an issue where the Parliamentary Budget Officer played a very important role in appeasing the concerns and anxieties of a great number of Canadians from all over the country. I raised it earlier in the form of a question regarding the pension issue.

The Prime Minister was in Europe giving a speech. He made the decision that our pensions are in a bit of a crisis situation in Canada, and as such we would have to increase the age of retirement from age 65 to 67. That was the message that was given from overseas and it was communicated down from the Prime Minister's Office to all the different ministries and all the Conservative backbenchers. All of a sudden they started to create communications and speaking points that said we are in this crisis situation with an aging population. They had to create the impression that if we did not do this we would not be able to sustain pensions going forward.

Seniors from across Canada stood up and made very strong efforts, whether petitions, post cards, emails or letters. They got engaged on that particular issue. I suspect they met with some success because the government did not go as far as it was going to go. Instead, it just left the change from age 65 to 67.

My personal advice to the government would be to actually acknowledge that it has made a mistake here and put it back to age 65. That would be the smart thing to do because if it does not do it I can assure the House that a Trudeau-led government or a Marc Garneau-led government will do that. We will make that change and bring it back to age 65.

It was the Parliamentary Budget Officer who came out and said there is no crisis, that it was a minuscule fraction of a per cent. We would have to get out the old decimal in terms of the impact on the GDP. That is really all it was. Yet if people were to listen to the Conservative government, and after all that is who has the books, they would have thought that it was a serious crisis and that it was going to happen.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer was able to alleviate a lot of anxiety out there, because using the actual numbers he was able to demonstrate that Canadians did not have to be fearful, that the money and future revenues were there to sustain the fund so that we could in fact leave it at age 65, and that the sky was not in fact falling. That is one example.

Government makes serious policy changes. Let us remember the policy change that the government made on the 40-year mortgage. The Conservatives like to take a lot of the credit for former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, as minister of finance, when they came out and said, “We want strong banking regulations.” We had the 25-year mortgage. We saw the value of insuring that industry.

Thank goodness for that. Canada was almost alone in terms of when the banking industries around the world started to crash. Canada did exceptionally well. It had nothing to do with the current government. It was because of the former government. What did the Conservative government do when it took office? It actually came up with the 40-year mortgage. It took the idea from the States.

I give the government credit, after a little period of time it recognized that it was a bad policy and reversed it. Now we are going back to the 25-year mortgage. It is good that it made that change. However, I suspect that if the Parliamentary Budget Officer had the opportunity to do the assessment, and it is quite possible that he had already done the assessment although I am not 100% sure of that, we would find that the numbers would have reinforced the reason why it was good to make the change the government made.

At the end of the day what we really want to see is acknowledgement from the government that, given the billions of tax dollars that the government is going to be proposing to spend in the upcoming weeks, it makes sense to give an extension to Mr. Page's contract. He needs to stick around for at least a few more months. Even if somehow we get that new Parliamentary Budget Officer appointed, there is an argument to be made that there is nothing wrong with having Mr. Page around because of the numbers. He is familiar with the numbers.

I would ultimately argue that the leader of the Liberal Party was correct when he challenged the Prime Minister to ensure that office had someone in place. We are suggesting that it should be Mr. Page, at least for the next couple of months, so that we can ensure we have the right person, whoever he or she might be. It is the responsible thing to do.

In terms of the future of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, I think we should be looking at ways in which we can make it truly more independent and more effective. We think it is an issue of priorities. We believe there is in fact great value to having a healthy, strong, parliamentary budget office. At the end of the day, the numbers that it provides and the information that it gives us are very important.

A good example of that would the F-35. Let us think about the F-35, the benefits of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and how much money Mr. Page would have saved the taxpayer. Again, we are talking about billions of dollars.

I would suggest that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has proved how effective and how valuable that office is to every Canadian taxpayer, to every Canadian citizen and resident of our country, and provides an enormous service to the House of Commons. We should support it by giving that extension and by looking at ways we can make it truly more independent—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Just as a reminder to all hon. members, there have been some occurrences today where members have mentioned the proper names of other hon. members. This is something that can happen quite easily, but I just remind hon. members that it is in fact prohibited in the standing orders.

I know members are waiting for questions and comments, but before we get to that, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, in respect to Veterans; the hon. member for Montcalm, concerning Persons with Disability; and third, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, concerning Housing.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Burlington.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member opposite. I do not agree with most of what he said.

A colleague from the Liberal Party who spoke earlier did say that governments do, from time to time, make mistakes. That individual acknowledged that, which was great.

My question to the member opposite is: Was it a mistake of the previous Liberal government not to have put in place a Parliamentary Budget Officer? Was that a mistake by the Liberal Party, yes or no?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, governments do make mistakes. A good example of that is the one I just used about the 40-year mortgage and the impact that will have on Canadian consumers from coast to coast to coast.

It was not a mistake when Paul Martin recognized that there was a need to investigate issues related to a few bad apples, and ultimately we saw the Gomery inquiry. At the end of the day there was more accountability. I think there was a need.

At different times, there is a higher need to have different forms of accountability. What I see today is a Parliamentary Budget Officer whose office is warranted. It is not warranted because of a particular incident. It is warranted because, as we get more transparency and there is a higher demand for accountability, we are seeing offices of this nature established not only in Canada but in other countries of the world. This is relatively new to the world, not just to—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Surrey North.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in 2006, the NDP pushed the minority Conservative government to form this office. The Conservatives often talk about transparency and accountability. Yet we have an outstanding PBO who has done a brilliant job over the last number of years, and whenever Conservatives try to hide things or they do not want to let Canadians know, the PBO has continuously exposed the Conservatives, whether it is the OAS file, the F-35s or the budget estimates for deficits.

The member for Winnipeg North has talked about how the Conservatives do not want to talk about budget deficits. Ever since they have been in government, they have not had even one surplus.

My question for the hon. member for Winnipeg North is: Why would the Conservatives not want to strengthen this office to report to Parliament? Why are they against this? Are they against transparency and accountability?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me pick up on the member's point with regard to the F-35, and in my comments he might get the answer.

The government itself told us that it had found this wonderful fighter jet and told us what it would cost. Opposition parties, led by the Liberal Party, ultimately said that the government was underestimating the cost of the F-35 and that the way in which it got the contract was all wrong. I suspect it was pretty tough on the Prime Minister's Office when the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the government's numbers were all wrong. That is something opposition parties were saying, that the Government of Canada was not being honest. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has access to the numbers, and because he had access to the numbers he was able to clearly demonstrate to all Canadians in an independent fashion that the government was not telling the full truth in regard to the actual cost of the F-35. As a result, the taxpayer will be saved billions of dollars.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, early in the member's intervention he talked about how we brought in the independent Parliamentary Budget Office, as if somehow he had something to do with that. It should be noted for the record that the Liberals voted against that, and now he wants to take credit for it. Let us give credit where credit is due.

In his intervention and throughout his questions, he kept talking about parliamentary budget offices around the world being similar without actually talking about them contextually. I mentioned earlier that the UK parliamentary budget office is housed in the treasury department. In the United States it serves Congress. Every parliamentary budget office in the world is connected to the branch of government that formulates the budget, and in parliamentary systems that should be connected to the government, not to the Parliament. In Canada, the Parliamentary Budget Office is connected to the Library of Parliament for independence, not to the executive branch.

Is the member saying that every parliamentary budget office and comparable office in the world is somehow not independent, including Canada's?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I liked the member's opening remarks when he said “let us give credit where credit is due”. I would reinforce that particular point after listening to a number of his colleague's speeches. You should be giving credit to Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien in terms of the budget surplus you inherited. You should be giving credit for the trade surplus that Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Prime Minister Paul Martin provided to your government.

More specifically to the question that was asked, I am suggesting to you that the concept of parliamentary budget officers is relatively new in the world. Some countries have had this position longer than others. Canada is relatively new. I suspect—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. I will just give another reminder to all hon. members to direct their comments and commentary through the chair, not directly to other members, and avoid using second person references.

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Charlottetown.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the hon. member specifically relates to the potential for delay. We are coming up on a critical period in terms of the budget cycle nationally. The end of the fiscal year is upon us. The main estimates and the budget are coming up in fairly short order. If the term of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is allowed to lapse and there is a gap, I would invite my hon. colleague's comments on the impact that would have on transparency in this critical period.