Debates of Feb. 7th, 2013

Opposition Motion—Parliamentary Budget Officer

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have been clear that I support the PBO being made a full officer of Parliament.

To the member's point, I served in Paul Martin's cabinet at that time as Minister of Public Works. I was there during the time of the Gomery commission, which was appointed by a sitting government. The hon. member will read in Justice Gomery's report that he credits the government by saying that it was a remarkable statement of political courage that a sitting government would appoint a judicial inquiry into its own actions and those of its party.

That is the kind of openness, transparency and accountability that led to the Liberal government introducing accountability measures that were unprecedented and that actually made a significant difference.

Let us be very clear. It was not the Liberal government that tried to sweep something under the carpet. We tackled it, and we did what was right on behalf of Canadians and taxpayers.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with this place is that instead of members asking questions to the member for Kings—Hants on the subject at hand, they go back and try to reinvent history. My question really is on the subject at hand.

How important is it for Canadians, not just for us in this House, to have independent parliamentary officers who, on behalf of Parliament, can do the kind of reviews the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been doing? What does it mean to our democracy and our country?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will relate a specific experience we had with the F-35s. The House of Commons finance committee was seeking the true cost of the F-35s. Members of the committee were told that it would be perhaps $9 billion. Then we were told that it was $16 billion, and when the Parliamentary Budget Officer told us that it could be $29 billion, we were told that this was fundamentally wrong. In fact, it was during the election. If we even questioned the cost of the F-35s, we were accused of being against the military. Our patriotism was questioned as well as our commitment to Canada's role in the world. It had nothing to with that. We needed the facts.

Conservative members of Parliament are also well served by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Regardless of party, whether a member on the government side or in opposition, members have the same fiduciary responsibility to Canadians and taxpayers to do their jobs and know the cost, and that is what the PBO does.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today in support of the opposition day motion, which states:

That this House: (a) reaffirm the essential role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in providing independent analysis to Parliamentarians on the state of the nation's finances, trends in the Canadian economy, and the estimates process; and (b) call on the government to: (i) extend the mandate of current Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page until his replacement is named; and (ii) support legislation to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer a full, independent officer of Parliament.

The Liberal Party supports the work of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and I think that is well known throughout the country as we have listened to Mr. Page take a responsible position in terms of being conscientious and looking closely at the expenditures of the government. The political stripe of the government in question does not matter. The role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is meant to be one who examines how money is spent when we consider it is taxpayer money.

We previously tabled a motion at committee to extend Mr. Page's term and to continue to call for the parliamentary budget officer to be made a full, independent officer of Parliament.

At the heart of today's debate is the question of fiscal accountability. In 2006 the same Conservative government, filled with a moral sense that clearly no longer burdens it, introduced the Federal Accountability Act. The Liberals supported the increased accountability called for in the act, which is why we cannot now sit idly by while the same Conservative government discredits the very institution it created.

The cornerstone of the act was the creation of a parliamentary budget officer through an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act. The act formally defined the parliamentary budget officer as an officer of the Library of Parliament and granted free and timely access to government information. In addition, the Federal Accountability Act established that the PBO's mandate would be to:

—provide independent analysis to the Senate and the House of Commons on the state of the nation's finances, the government's estimates and trends in the Canadian economy; and upon request from a committee or parliamentarian, to estimate the financial cost of any proposal for matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction.

On March 25, 2008, the Conservative government appointed Kevin Page as the first ever parliamentary budget officer and from the outset Mr. Page took his job seriously. In fact, it would not be an overstatement to say that he continues to excel in his role, ensuring accurate economic information and analysis are available to the House of Commons so members of Parliament from all stripes have some facts to compare to the questionable statements that are made by the Minister of Finance.

Sadly for Canadian taxpayers, after coming to the realization that the Parliamentary Budget Officer was unwilling to accept, without question, directions from the Prime Minister and his finance minister, it became clear that the government would stop at nothing to discredit the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the office itself. It seems that seven years in, the government is doing everything in its power to avoid being accountable to the Canadian taxpayer.

Shockingly, the finance minister has even attempted to reduce the importance of the role of the PBO to a “sounding board” for the Prime Minister's Office. Worse, he accused Mr. Page of not doing his job and “wandering off and going in other places”. Although unbecoming of a finance minister of Canada, the constant attacks to the credibility of this vital parliamentary office are undeniable and inexcusable. While the finance minister was busy denying Canadians the right to fiscal transparency, Mr. Page was fighting an uphill battle against the Conservative government for accountability.

That is why we are concerned that as Mr. Page's remarkable service to his country comes to an end, it seems the government is delaying in finding a replacement for him. With Mr. Page's last days as the PBO fast approaching and no obvious process to hire a replacement under way, I am worried that the Conservatives are using stall tactics to silence the Parliamentary Budget Office once and for all.

These types of stall tactics would not be uncharacteristic of the government. This is the same government that has often refused to share the vital information, the financial data, which Mr. Page requires to do the job he is mandated to do, in an effort to try to prevent the PBO from keeping Parliament informed.

After the Conservatives spent the last four years doing nothing but attacking the person integrity of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, it comes as no surprise that there is not exactly a bevy of eager candidates lining up to fill his shoes, which is all the more reason why the government should have started the hiring process months ago.

According to Don Drummond, a former senior official at Finance Canada who was instrumental in hiring Mr. Page as part of the 2008 hiring panel, it will be even harder to fill the position this time, given the lawsuit the PBO is currently involved in with federal departments over documents.

When the government finally puts out its hiring ad, what exactly should it list as important job requirements? The individual must be able with withstand daily personal attacks, or previous experience not offering professional opinions that contradict the Conservative Party of Canada Ideological objectives? Mr. Page himself considers the role of the PBO to be a career ender in the public service.

Furthermore, the Parliamentary Budget Officer functions under the Library of Parliament, instead of being granted the full independence of other watchdogs, such as the Auditor General.

In the words of Mr. Page:

In watchdog parlance, I am appointed by the person (the prime minister) who I am supposed to watch...I work at ‘pleasure’ and can be dismissed ‘without cause’.

It is completely unreasonable to expect a parliamentary watchdog to function if he or she can be fired for criticizing his or her boss.

I appeal to those in the Conservative government who once favoured transparency over the prime ministerial cone of silence. The vote on the motion will prove once and for all if there are any Conservatives who still champion transparency or if their introduction of the Parliamentary Budget Officer was merely a political ploy that they never expected to function as well as it does today.

It is clear that the work that Mr. Page has been doing, and is continuing to do, is work that then Conservatives never thought would lead to criticism of their actions. Otherwise, they would be more supportive of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and they would accept and respect the position that he holds.

Governments are not always right. Governments make mistakes. It is unfortunate that the current government refuses to admit that it does not have all the answers.

With tax season well under way, my constituents of Random—Burin—St. George's, like Canadians everywhere, are duly reporting their hard-earned income to the Conservative government and paying their taxes. They rightfully expect the federal government in turn to tell them how their money is being spent.

As the government that created the largest deficit in Canadian history, the Conservatives have proven that they are not capable of spending taxpayer money prudently. With a government like this, my constituents rely upon the Parliamentary Budget Office for the truth, just as parliamentarians do. For example, while the Conservatives were trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Canadians with respect to the costs of the F-35 fighter jets, the Parliamentary Budget Officer was busy reporting the true costs of the purchase. Thanks, in part, to Mr. Page's timeless efforts on the file, Canadians knew all along that the government was not coming clean with the facts.

By revealing the true cost of the Conservative government's initiatives, such as the F-35 procurement process, as well as the Conservative crime agenda, it is the PBO, not the Conservative government, who has shown Canadians the real fiscal transparency and accountability.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that my Liberal colleagues support this motion. It seems they are starting to recognize that they made mistakes in the past. But it will take concrete action to prove that they have truly changed their ways.

Could the member tell me why it is that the Liberals did not attempt to create a similar position during their 13 years in power? I am certain that the government knew that this type of position existed.

The Congressional Budget Office in the United States has a similar role. They could have tried something like that in Canada.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the motion from the NDP. However, I find it ironic when questions come up about why we did not introduce a similar position. The fact is that there were other ways and other motions put forward that dealt with accountability in the House of Commons, in the Parliament of Canada. Under the Martin government, as my colleague mentioned, we put in place the Gomery inquiry. Just because we did not put in place a parliamentary budget officer does not mean we think any less of it. In fact, we are supportive of the position, as we have said time and time again.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to correct the record, the Liberals did not support the Federal Accountability Act and so I do not know where this new-found support comes from for the office. However, I have not heard yet today from either opposition party a cogent reason as to how the system is somehow broken currently and how the Parliamentary Budget Officer is not independent.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is with the Library of Parliament, which everybody knows is non-partisan and is under the Speaker, who everybody knows plays a neutral role in the House. On the fact that the Parliamentary Budget Officer could be dismissed at any point by the Prime Minister, as opposition members keep alleging, he has not been, despite at times unfavourable criticism. The system is not broken, which is the actual truth.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is independent. He has been critical of the government. Nobody can argue that he is a lapdog of the government in any sense. We may disagree, and I have heard arguments of style and how we may not agree with his opinions. However, the opposition members have not put forward a cogent argument as to how the system is broken and therefore needs to be fixed.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we always support accountability and we supported accountability in the aspect of the financial act.

When we have a parliamentary budget officer who is being denigrated and publicly abused, who has been said to be doing things other than which his mandate includes, then how can one possibly say that the office is working as it is meant to work?

Clearly, we have an individual now who has done his job. However, to look at how he has been treated by the Conservative government, people will wonder why anyone would apply to be put in the same situation and be treated in that manner.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could my colleague emphasize why we believe it is important that the term of the current Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page, be extended? When the government presents its budget, we might be in a better position if the present Parliamentary Budget Officer is given the opportunity to provide some feedback on that specific budget.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, when a government brings down a budget, we know that it involves a great deal of expenditures on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer. If we do not have the Parliamentary Budget Officer in place, who is going to provide the oversight? Who is going to be there to answer the questions that parliamentarians and Canadians may have about the budget?

Right now the process has been so delayed in replacing Mr. Page that there is a very real possibility he may not be replaced before the budget is brought down. Therefore, it is absolutely imperative that Mr. Page's term be extended until after the budget if the Conservative government is not intent on filling his position prior to that.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

I am honoured to speak today on this important motion by my colleague, the member for Parkdale—High Park, our opposition finance critic.

This motion calls on the government to do two distinct things: first, to extend the mandate of the current Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr. Page, until his replacement is named; and second, to make the PBO a full, independent officer of Parliament. I am going to speak to both of those issues.

I think we would all acknowledge that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has played, and continues to play, a critical role, one that is necessary for this Parliament to do its work and is ultimately making it easier for us to fulfill our responsibilities as parliamentarians in a functioning democracy.

However, if a replacement for the current Parliamentary Budget Officer is not named prior to the completion of Mr. Page's term on March 25, it is possible that the PBO may cease to function, with the staff effectively being returned to the Library of Parliament, we understand. That would be absolutely unacceptable.

The PBO has produced an outstanding body of top-quality work with very limited resources. We understand there is a skeleton staff of some 14 people. They have already exposed gross mismanagement of our economy to parliamentarians such as the true cost of the F-35s, the sustainability of the old age security and guaranteed income supplement program, and more.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer was a position created by the Conservatives and received, in principle, support across party lines. It is an independent officer, as I said, but as I will describe later, it is a very different kind of officer than the classic independent officers, such as the Auditor General, the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner. I will try to delineate those distinctions in a moment.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer's responsibilities include providing an independent analysis of the state of our economy, the nation's finances and the government's expenditure plan, and an analysis of the estimates of expenditures of any government department or agency when requested to do so by a parliamentary committee that is reviewing the estimates.

The officer is also mandated to provide an estimate of costs for any proposal that falls within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.

Now, I am urging members across the floor to support this motion. Many of them, if not all of them, supported the creation of the office in the first place. Therefore, surely they would share the same concern and understand why it is so vitally important to make sure there is no vacancy in that office.

The New Democratic Party is committed to sound public administration and as such believes that Canada requires a strong and independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is why my colleague from Parkdale—High Park moved this important motion, and that is why I felt so strongly that I would speak to this matter today.

On March 14, 2008, the government House leader first announced the appointment of Kevin Page as Canada's first Parliamentary Budget Officer. The government announced:

The appointment fulfills another commitment made to Canadians during the last election. “As promised in the federal Accountability Act, the Parliamentary Budget Officer will provide independent analysis to Canadians on the state of Canada's finances,”

said the hon. House leader:

“With his expertise in economics, Mr. Page is a fine choice to fill that position.”

We agree. We therefore say that he should remain until his successor is named. He has proven over time that he has the confidence of Canadians in exercising his duties and informing the public on the state of the economy and how our tax dollars are spent.

For the sake of accountability, it is our position that it is crucial that parliamentarians, who are ultimately responsible in the coming months for providing input and oversight on the government's budget, continue to benefit from his invaluable advice.

Conservatives have attacked Mr. Page because he has continuously highlighted financial and fiscal mismanagement on many files.

These constant political attacks only serve to underscore the need for a strong and independent Parliamentary Budget Officer.

On November 21 of last year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer felt compelled to refer questions to the Federal Court to seek the court's guidance as to whether work requested by the leader of the official opposition was within his jurisdiction. The work requested that the PBO analyze the government's estimates to determine if the savings contemplated were achievable and/or had long-term fiscal implications, critical for him to do his very vital work.

The creation of the PBO was supported, I reiterate, by all parties in Parliament. However, it appears the current government has decided that it no longer considers fiscal accountability as a priority.

At the finance committee on February 5 this year, a committee of which I am a member, the Conservatives used procedural tactics to block the extension of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's current term. This action was disappointing, to say the least, particularly when they know as well as we do how important and cost effective this officer has been.

Let me give examples. The PBO has a grand total of 12 full-time staff, I am advised, with two interns. Contrast that with the Congressional Budget Office, which has 200-plus staff. The budget of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is $2.8 million. The budget of the Congressional Budget Office: $46.8 million. Yet, in its very short existence, the PBO has published over 150 analytical reports. That's not bad for such a small operation.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in our view, provides tremendous value to all Canadians, by ensuring the government meets the basic tenets of financial and fiscal accountability. He has played an essential role in protecting our seniors, for example, who are critical in my riding of Victoria, by reporting that the OAS and GIS programs were sustainable prior to the Prime Minister's cuts to the program.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer regularly updates Parliament on the long-run fiscal sustainability of our country, an important type of study to ensure that young Canadians will not inherit a fiscal economic mess. In fact, the PBO has also pointed to Finance Canada's failure to provide intergenerational impacts on budget cuts.

Yet, the Conservatives have attacked anyone who has dared to disagree with them: Statistics Canada, our scientists, labour organizations, charities, and now, sadly, the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

In conclusion, New Democrats want to strengthen the already outstanding work of the PBO. We want to ensure there is no disruption to the continuous operation of this officer. To this end, we want his term to be extended until a replacement is made.

I want to now turn to the second of the issues I want to address, which is the need for the independent officer of Parliament status for this important office. We want this process to be open and transparent. There are widespread fears among Canadians that the government will either fail to fill the position or appoint someone unable or unwilling to act as effectively as Mr. Page has done. We want to further expand the outstanding work of this office in order for him to do his work without political attack.

This office is not the Auditor General; it is not like the Information Commissioner or the Privacy Commissioner. Each of them are officers of Parliament. What is the difference? They have a seven-year term. They are appointed upon joint address: a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Canadians have seen the value of an independent Privacy Commissioner working on behalf of all of us to look after that important issue.

There is a precedent. Like this, the office was initially situated in a government agency. Canada's first Privacy Commissioner, Inger Hansen, was within the Canadian Human Rights Commission at first, and then, under the Privacy Act, became an independent officer of Parliament.

Legally, Canadians need exactly that level of independence and integrity, and that is where putting it in a separate officer of Parliament statute would provide that guarantee. If we have an effective Information Commissioner, Auditor General, Privacy Commissioner, we say the Parliamentary Budget Officer should have no less of a degree of independence to serve all Canadians.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I found it quite amazing to listen to the speech.

If I have this right, the motion is that the NDP members want to take the position of the budget office, move it away from the independence of Parliament and give it to the government, which I suspect would lead them to say that if in 50 years they were maybe to form the government they would have the opportunity to influence the office.

NDP members always talk about accountability and transparency. What I find amazes me daily is that when it comes to standing up for accountability, whether it is for first nations or unions, they actually stand up to oppose it, not once, but every time anything about accountability comes up.

Could the hon. member comment on that?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think there were two points that were made. If I understood the question, the first was about moving away from the independence of Parliament and somehow giving the opposition the opportunity to influence that officer.

With respect, that betrays a misunderstanding of the role of officers of Parliament in our system. If I may repeat, the Auditor General, Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner are all examples of officers created by statute precisely so the government of the day cannot influence them. They have a seven-year term and an appointment by the Governor in Council, only after a joint resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That is the way in which Parliament guarantees independence. The NDP is asking for the same level of independence for the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I appreciate—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order. We will carry on with questions and comments. The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, across Canada, auditors general are the norm. Every province has an auditor general. Canada has the national Auditor General.

Over the last number of years, through the creation of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, there has been a need to have that additional set of eyes looking at government books, to bring more credibility to what the government is doing in terms of budgets.

Would the hon. member concede that this is a natural progression in terms of trying to have more accountability and transparency, and it is one reason members need to look at how to make this office even more independent going forward?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I accept in principle that there is a progression exactly as has occurred, as I pointed out, with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. She was initially housed within an agency of the government. This is a similar situation vis-à-vis the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Eventually a statute was passed, called the Privacy Act, requiring her to have the independence of which I spoke, which is a seven-year term by joint address of both Houses.

Why should members deprive ourselves of that with respect to this Parliamentary Budget Officer? I accept entirely that this would be a natural progression, as we have had in the past.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has pointed out the importance of the Parliamentary Budget Office.

In 46 days, the Conservatives will be moving to turn out the lights on the Parliamentary Budget Officer, leaving Canada as one of the only few large western democracies without an independent budget office. I think most Canadians would profoundly disagree with that. The hon. member for Victoria has very eloquently said why it is so important for the Canadian public to have this information.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Victoria what Canadians could do. Should they be phoning their Conservative MPs? Should they be writing to NDP members? Should they be raising a ruckus about the government turning out the lights on independent and impartial budget information?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The member for Victoria, a short response, please.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians must stand up and be counted on this. Canadians stood up when there was a desire for an Access to Information Act. A Conservative member, Mr. Ged Baldwin, devoted his career to achieving that goal. An Information Commissioner was appointed and Canadians have benefited by that statute.

They should stand up and demand no less in respect of accountability for our money. That is what is at issue and that is exactly what needs to occur. Look at value for money. The congressional budget—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take the floor in support of the motion introduced by my colleague from Parkdale—High Park. I am also happy to follow my colleague from Victoria, with whom I have the pleasure of working on the Standing Committee on Finance.

We had a very productive session this morning, and I must thank all my colleagues on the committee for examining the issues concerning tax havens in such a serious-minded manner.

Now, however, we are focusing on the fate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page. I will now summarize the essential demands set out in our motion.

First, we ask that the mandate of the present Parliamentary Budget Officer be extended until his replacement is named. If we want to be serious and transparent, we cannot tolerate any interruption in the work of the office that Mr. Page has so brilliantly managed. Second, we are seeking legislation to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer a full, independent officer of Parliament. We believe that aspect is essential, as my colleague from Victoria clearly indicated.

I would like to speak to the House about the role the Parliamentary Budget Officer plays despite the limits placed on him, particularly with regard to his staff and budget.

Under the Federal Accountability Act, the Parliamentary Budget Officer provides independent analysis to the Senate and House of Commons on the state of the nation's finances, the government's estimates and trends in the global economy. The act further provides that the Parliamentary Budget Officer undertake research into the nation's finances and economy and into the estimates of the government and that he estimates the financial cost of any proposal that relates to a matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction.

As some of my colleagues have previously noted, the Parliamentary Budget Officer manages this feat with limited resources, barely 12 full-time employees and two interns, as well as a budget of less than $3 million. Mr. Page and his team have produced more than 150 analytical reports, an extraordinary effort, in the office's brief existence since 2008.

We are making significant demands on Parliament and on our work as representatives of our constituents because, if we do not have independent and appropriate means to acquire sound analyses on which to base our decisions, there will be major interference in our role and that will definitely undermine the serious task we have to perform.

There is another extremely important aspect. In addition to this direct role that the Parliamentary Budget Officer plays with regard to us, his work has indirect consequences for all Canadians. As is said in matters of justice, when a court sits to render justice, there must be the appearance of justice. Regardless of the decision reached, all observers must be satisfied that justice has been rendered.

In a similar way, we must be able to trust in the accountability and transparency of the government's operations. The government must be accountable to the public's legitimate representatives in the House and to the population as a whole. However, that trust can very easily be undermined, as it currently is, and as I have seen over my three election campaigns, from 2006, when I was elected, to 2011. I obviously listen to all the citizens in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou because I want to know what the situation is and what they are thinking.

The appointment of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is a very important issue because becoming an officer of Parliament would afford him much greater leeway and independence than he currently enjoys.

I will simply draw a very brief comparison between an officer of Parliament and a staff member of the Library of Parliament, which is the Parliamentary Budget Officer's current status.

The members of the library's staff report to the speakers of both Houses. However, it is a well-established fact, which no one can dispute, that they do not enjoy the same independence as officers of Parliament. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is appointed by cabinet from a list of three names submitted by the Library of Parliament. That process has a certain value, but not the much greater, much more comprehensive and reassuring value of the process that leads to the appointment of officers of Parliament.

This is really very important. My colleague from Victoria and many of my other colleagues have clearly emphasized the disproportion between the resources available to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and those of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office, which has some 235 professional employees and a budget of more than $45 million. That was for the 2011 fiscal year.

Proportionally, based on Canada's population and economy relative to those of the United States, the Parliamentary Budget Officer and his team have approximately half the resources of their American counterparts. There is no need for complicated calculations to understand that; a simple rule of three is enough.

We could potentially even debate the percentage increase in the budget that would be necessary just to meet the challenges. I do not necessarily think that doubling those resources would be enough. First we would need to do a more detailed study in this House of what is needed. Perhaps we might conclude that additional resources are needed, but I will not be answering that question in my speech.

What is very important, based on these comparisons, on the established facts, is to understand what Mr. Page's sad fate has been during his mandate since 2008.

I cannot help but cite an excerpt from the Rick Mercer Report. He essentially said that Kevin Page did his job on old age security, deficit projections and budget cuts. He always did his job, and he was called every name in the book, often by people who had never even read one. Nobody wants the job. Why? Read the job description: serve your country, tell the truth and get attacked by the government for doing so. That is what was said on the program.

I enjoy comedy programs, and I am a big fan of cartoons. What always surprises me, what amazes me, is the turn of phrase, the way these talented people come up with just the right way to describe political life and the issues that affect our society. I thank Mr. Mercer. I think he really put his finger on something very important. He paid tribute to Mr. Page's tenacity throughout his mandate. Objectively speaking, this is ultimately a difficult and demanding job. I mentioned the lack of resources available to him, but, apart from that, his task was made even more difficult by constant government attacks.

Fortunately, when it comes to objectively assessing the value of his work, Mr. Page has some rather important non-partisan allies.

Take, for example, the debate over the sustainability of old age security. On February 8, 2012, the Minister of Finance called the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report unbelievable, unreliable and incredible, when it concluded that old age security was sustainable in its existing form.

But Mr. Page's report echoed reports produced by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

In light of all of this evidence showing the value of Mr. Page and the work he accomplished in this position, I think that our motion at least goes far enough to secure the usefulness of this position, to both Parliament and to all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we need to evaluate just how much work the Parliamentary Budget Officer does for Canadians and the amount of money that is actually allocated to his budget. The member made reference to $3 million. That is the budget provided to this particular officer and as a result we get a great deal of value. The member also made mention of the number of reports.

Just last year the Conservatives, with the support of the NDP I must say, proposed to increase the size of the House of Commons by 30 new members of Parliament. Canadians do not believe there is a need to have more politicians. That cost is estimated at somewhere in the neighbourhood of $30 million a year. Therefore, at 10% of that budget, we could have a well-financed parliamentary budget office. Many would argue that the amount of money that is given to the Parliamentary Budget Officer should be increased.

Does the member agree that the government has bad priorities in terms of the financing of the Parliamentary Budget Officer role and is not assigning it the true value of its actual worth?

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his question.

It is surprising to hear him bring up rearguard fights about a debate that is over and done with. What I am about to say may be mean, but this reminded me of my late father. He was a long-time card-carrying member of the Liberal Party of Canada, and during the sponsorship scandal he tore up his card in anger saying, “they stole my Liberal Party.”

I never forgot that. I make no bones about it. This makes me emotional, because we did not share the same political convictions, but we really had some meaningful debates. I respected my father a great deal for that. So I urge my colleague to continue working on rebuilding his party.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to over-simplify things, but I would like to know if my colleague agrees with me.

I get the sense that this is about respect for democracy and parliamentary institutions. Mr. Page's title includes the word “parliamentary”. He serves all parliamentarians. The problem is that some members of the House think there are only 161 parliamentarians. But there are 308 of us. Nobody can say that we are not doing our work or that we slack off. We spend our evenings and weekends working. We all—Liberals, NDP and independent members alike—take this job very seriously. We all represent our ridings with as much dignity as possible.

Some of the members opposite think that because we are on the wrong side of the House, we are clowns or nonentities, that we do not count. Personally, I feel that I am paid well, so I work hard to earn my keep. I find it insulting to be considered a bit player in a comedy.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle. We have been working together for nearly two years, and I must say that I would be the first to be surprised if he simplified any debate.

I derive deep satisfaction from the many debates and discussions that my colleague and I have about issues related to the health of our democracy and our shared future.

I think that he has put his finger on something important. Unfortunately, the governing party is oversimplifying, which could end up undermining the health of our democracy.

It is utterly fascinating to take part in everything that happens here in the House, to see how extraordinarily complex it is—much like a human body—and how fragile it can be. In general, however, it is a sturdy institution.

I will continue to discuss issues with my colleague so that we can find solutions for the future and for the common good.