Debates of Feb. 7th, 2013

Opposition Motion—Parliamentary Budget Officer

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park for moving this very important motion today.

Like many of the world's democratic countries, in 2008, Canada created an entity to ensure government accountability, in the form of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This office, which was created by the Conservatives with the support of all parties, also ensures that parliamentarians are given accurate information about public finances.

The NDP is committed to ensuring that public funds are managed properly and is of the opinion that Canada needs a strong and independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is why it is imperative that hon. members support the motion moved by my colleague from Parkdale—High Park, 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.

Passed in 2006 and supported by all parties, Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act, provides for the creation of the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer, whose role is to provide MPs and parliamentary committees with objective analyses concerning the state of the nation’s finances, trends in the national economy, and the financial cost of proposals under consideration by either House.

Under this legislation, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is also responsible for conducting research on the country's economy and finances, as well as on the government's estimates. On March 14, 2008, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons announced that Kevin Page would be the first person appointed to the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada for a term of five years. In my opinion, Mr. Page has done a remarkable job of fulfilling the mandate he was given with a team of only 14 people. In the United States, the team is made up of 200 people.

He shed light on some outrageous inaccuracies in government information presented to parliamentarians and Canadians, such as the real cost of the F-35s and the sustainability of the guaranteed income supplement and old age security programs. Mr. Page also proved that Canadians trusted him to carry out his duties and to inform the public about the state of the economy and the manner in which public funds are spent.

Over the course of his brief mandate, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has released over 150 analysis reports, with a budget of only $2.8 million. These reports include a few key reports that helped shed light on important financial details that were nowhere to be found in the government's publications.

One of these key reports was An Estimate of the Fiscal Impact of Canada’s Proposed Acquisition of the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter. This report revealed that no competitive bid process was held for the F-35s, and that acquiring these jets would not cost $16 billion U.S., but $29.3 billion U.S., nearly double the amount the Conservatives had announced. That is very shameful.

In 2012, the Parliamentary Budget Officer also released a report on old age security, in which he showed that the old age security system was perfectly sustainable, as our NDP colleagues have said time and again. This conclusion was echoed by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, which proved that there was no financial basis for the Conservative government's decision to increase the age of eligibility for old age security from 65 to 67.

In addition to these sporadic reports, the Parliamentary Budget Officer submits periodic reports to Parliament on the country's long-term financial viability. This is an important type of study that helps ensure that young Canadians, like me and other members in the House, do not inherit an economic mess.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer also pointed out that the Department of Finance was unable to specify the intergenerational impact of the budgetary changes, and God knows there have been many budgetary changes here, for example in Bill C-38 and Bill C-45. That is rather worrisome, since another budget will be tabled, and we have no idea what to expect.

These reports are just a few examples of the outstanding work that the Parliamentary Budget Officer and his team have done since the start of his term. In order to reinforce the exceptional work that he has done, we want to ensure that the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer can continue its work uninterrupted.

To that end, we want to see Kevin Page's term extended until a replacement is found. We believe that interrupting his term could severely impact the government's obligation to be accountable. This obligation is all the more crucial given that the government will soon be tabling its annual budget.

For the sake of accountability, it is also crucial that parliamentarians continue to benefit from the financial expertise of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Under no circumstances can we support the elimination of this office. Can the Conservative government confirm in this House that the PBO will be replaced by the end of his term? If not, can the Conservative government assure us that Mr. Page's term will be extended? I have my doubts, because the Conservatives, it seems, have plenty to hide.

This motion also seeks the government's support for legislation to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer a full, independent officer of Parliament. The Conservatives have repeatedly attacked Mr. Page because he has constantly pointed out their fiscal mismanagement in various areas. This should come as no surprise, though, given that the Conservatives attack anyone who dares disagree with them.

For example, the Conservatives got rid of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy because its reports and recommendations were inconsistent with the government's objectives. It was a purely partisan decision, one that was incompetent and irresponsible.

These constant political attacks indicate the need for a strong, independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. The NDP also wants the selection process for the new PBO to be open and transparent. It may be difficult for the Conservatives to be transparent, but we can always hope.

Many Canadians are worried that the government will not fill the position or will appoint someone who is unable, or unwilling, to do the work as clearly, concisely and independently as Mr. Page has done.

It is therefore imperative to remove any ambiguity and inconsistency regarding this position, which is provided for in the Federal Accountability Act. In fact, according to David Good, a professor at the University of Victoria, the confusion resulting from legislation serves only to:

...increase partisanship and the scoring of political points rather than channelling substantive information to elevate the level of debate to assist parliamentarians in the scrutiny of the budget and the estimates.

As a member of the Library of Parliament staff, the Parliamentary Budget Officer does not have the same independence as officers of Parliament. As my colleague said earlier, the Conservatives have sometimes asked the PBO not to table certain reports, which meant that the information in question was not available to parliamentarians—we, the MPs—or to the general public.

Making the PBO an officer of Parliament would give Parliament access to an independent research capacity, thereby improving its access to important information.

The Conservatives claim that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is impartial, so then why are they opposed to the PBO becoming an independent officer of Parliament?

In closing, I urge all members of this House to vote in favour of the motion moved by the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park because Canada needs a strong and independent Parliamentary Budget Officer who will help to ensure the sound management of public funds.

It is important that taxpayers have confidence in the government and in all members of this House and that we assure them that expenditures and revenues are managed in a fair and responsible manner. Canada needs a Parliamentary Budget Officer who will let the facts speak for themselves so that they are not interpreted in one way or another.

The PBO successfully fulfilled his mandate. All parties supported the creation of the Parliamentary Budget Officer position and, if the current government votes against this motion, it will be admitting that it no longer considers fiscal accountability to be a priority. We in the NDP want transparency.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry on her great speech. She is very gracious and works very hard in the House. The voters of Beauharnois—Salaberry are well represented.

She talked about the many blunders made by this Conservative government. As we know, at the end of every year, the Department of Finance releases a report on financial results. For the past 20 years, it has compared NDP, Conservative and Liberal governments. For the past 20 years, the NDP has always come out on top thanks to our wise financial governance and our ability to balance budgets and reduce debt.

So, the NDP are better than the Conservatives when it comes to fiscal management. Does the member think that that is a valid reason for the Conservatives to shut down the office that acted independently to keep an eye on the nation's finances? After all, the Conservatives are not very good at managing finances.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster for the question.

That is exactly what the years have proven. Various assessments and analyses comparing NDP and Conservative governments have shown that NDP governments know how to balance their budgets. The NDP are so transparent and care so much about the sound management of public funds that they insist that a completely independent officer of Parliament be allowed to continue that work in order to ensure that taxpayers' money is well managed, well spent and properly distributed.

I understand that the Conservatives have some reservations about this, because they are completely partisan, they want to hide information and they want to keep on cultivating ignorance among Canadians.

On this side of the House, we want to restore people's confidence in the role of parliamentarians. We want people to continue to engage in the democratic process. I believe that this is one of tools we can use to ensure that the activities of Parliament remain transparent and fair.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

I thank my dear colleague for her very interesting speech.

Since being appointed, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has asked questions to ensure that there is sound fiscal management in this country, which obviously bothers the Conservatives and the government. Every time the Parliamentary Budget Officer comes out with figures or makes a statement, the Conservatives contradict him. Why are the Conservatives doing this?

What can we do to give the Parliamentary Budget Officer the powers he needs to continue his excellent work?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pontiac.

That is a pertinent question. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown great courage and tenacity. He has demanded that the government hand over crucial information that he needs to properly prepare his reports.

If the Parliamentary Budget Officer were to become an independent officer of Parliament, he could do his job without the government constantly putting up roadblocks. If he were completely independent, as we are asking in our motion today, it could make the PBO's job easier because he would not be constantly hindered by the Conservatives.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member of Parliament for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, who I might add does an excellent job representing his constituents here in Ottawa. He also serves with me on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, where he makes a big contribution.

I welcome the opportunity to stand in this place to speak to the role of the non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer in promoting accountability in government. Our government is committed to increasing accountability. Accountability is the foundation of Canada's system of responsible government. It is key to assuring Parliament and Canadians that public resources are used efficiently and effectively.

That is why we introduced the Federal Accountability Act as our first piece of legislation, the most sweeping anti-corruption legislation following 13 years of Liberal scandals and mismanagement. The act provides Canadians with the assurance that the powers entrusted in the government are being exercised in the public interest. That act included a very important innovation: the creation of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Parliamentarians and parliamentary committees need access to independent analysis and advice on economic and fiscal issues in order to better hold government to account on its decisions. The Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer was created to improve economic and fiscal information to parliamentarians and inform discussions of economic and fiscal matters in Parliament. It was this government's Federal Accountability Act that gave the Parliamentary Budget Officer clear mandates.

First, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to provide independent analysis to the Senate and the House of Commons concerning the state of the nation's finances, the estimates of the government and trends in the national economy. Second, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to undertake research into the nation's finances and the economy at the request of the following committees: the Standing Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance. Third, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to undertake research into the estimates of government at the request of a committee that is mandated to consider them. Finally, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is mandated to estimate the financial cost of any proposal that relates to a matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction.

A member, a committee of the Senate or the House of Commons, or a committee of both Houses may ask the Parliamentary Budget Officer to provide these estimates. The position of the non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer was designed in the context of Canada's parliamentary system. In our system it is the responsibility of the government to prepare its budget and policy agenda, and the responsibility of Parliament to hold the government to account for its actions and resulting outcomes. The Office of Parliamentary Budget Officer was established to support parliamentarians in carrying out this responsibility after the previous Liberal government's disregard for transparency.

As currently constituted, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is part of the Library of Parliament. Both the parliamentary budget office and the Library of Parliament as a whole are fully independent from the government in their operation and funding. It is Parliament, not the government, that sets the Parliamentary Budget Officer's funding level. As such, the officer is accountable to Parliament. Accountable government is important to Canadians. That is why our Conservative government created this office and will ensure that a credible, non-partisan replacement is found for Parliament to consider.

However, our commitment to accountability does not stop there. An accountable government also makes sure that Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars are not wasted. It makes sure tax dollars are invested responsibly in effective programs that meet the needs of Canadians. In fact, the sound stewardship of Canadians' tax dollars, ensuring value for money, is one of our Conservative government's top priorities. That is why, for example, our government took historic action to reform the pensions of members of Parliament and public servants. We are the first government to tackle the difficult task of aligning both public sector and MP pension contributions with what Canadian citizens expect in the private sector.

Thanks to our action, contribution rates for public service employees and MPs will be moving to a 50-50 cost-sharing model by the year 2017. Once fully implemented, MPs' contributions would nearly quadruple, from $11,000 to over $38,000 a year. Moreover, the age at which MPs can retire with an unreduced pension would also rise, from 55 to 65, by January 1, 2016. Newly hired public servants would begin collecting their pensions at age 65 instead of 60. As a result, over the next five years these measures would save taxpayers over $2.6 billion.

This is the right thing to do and the fair thing to do. I am proud to be part of a government that took the bull by the horns and made this landmark decision.

Let there be no doubt. This government is committed to improving accountability and the stewardship of Canadian tax dollars. We have proven that, not with words, but with actions. Our record is clear. The measures we have taken help provide Canadians with the open and honest government they deserve, one that acts transparently and ensures values for money and demonstrates accountability.

Our government believes that the mandated role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is capable of achieving these goals without alteration.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member opposite describe the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and how important it is. We have found his role very valuable, for example, in exposing the true cost of the F-35 procurement, which we would not have learned about if it had not been for the PBO.

We are about to head into a budget cycle now, just as the PBO's term is ending.

Now the Conservatives are claiming that the PBO is being “partisan”, to use their word. We do not believe that. If they believe the position is partisan, why have they fought against creating a fully independent PBO, a position of a fully independent officer of Parliament like the Auditor General? Would he answer that for the House?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would point out that it was our government that created the parliamentary budget office. We are committed to maintaining that office. We are also committed to ensuring that Parliament has the opportunity to look at a credible and non-partisan replacement.

I should point out that the Library of Parliament has had a research wing for over 48 years. That research wing has helped Parliament, providing members of Parliament and parliamentarians with information necessary for them to do their job. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that the parliamentary budget office and officer would also fall under the Library of Parliament.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up the parliamentary secretary's point that it was the Conservative Party of Canada that committed to having a Parliamentary Budget Officer and our government that created the position.

Would he care to explain why the Liberal Party of Canada or the New Democratic Party of Canada never brought forward the concept of implementing a budgetary officer to review the finances of the Government of Canada when the former was in power?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak on behalf of the opposition parties. I do not know why they failed to create this position.

However, I can tell members why we created the position. We created the position because during 13 years of Liberal governments, we saw unprecedented scandals. We saw the sponsorship scandal where hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars went into the pockets of the Liberals' friends. That corruption we simply cannot tolerate. That is why our Conservative government is determined to bring in accountability.

We brought in the Federal Accountability Act, the most sweeping anti-corruption legislation in Canadian history. The position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer was part of the Federal Accountability Act. That is why, after having seen these scandals and mismanagement by previous governments, we think it is so important to have someone there to ensure that this does not happen again.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing a lot of back-patting from the member on the other side, that “We did this, we did that”. If the Conservatives are so keen on the Parliamentary Budget Officer position, why have they spent so much energy fighting the Parliamentary Budget Officer on virtually every file he has tried to work on, such as the F-35 and our getting information on that? Why have they fought so hard to keep that information away from parliamentarians and Canadians?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member believes that telling the facts is back-patting, then we are happy to be patting ourselves on the back because we did bring in the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Federal Accountability Act. As I mentioned, it is the most sweeping anti-corruption legislation in Canadian history.

As I also mentioned, for 48 years the Library of Parliament has served members of Parliament. Its employees did not grandstand or hold regular press conferences; they simply did their job and served Parliament. That is what the Library of Parliament has done in the past and that is what we expect the Library of Parliament and the Parliamentary Budget Officer to do in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, not only for his great presentation and understanding but also, quite honestly, for the leadership he shows on behalf of the government at the public accounts committee, which I am pleased to be part of.

It is indeed an honour today to rise and speak regarding budgetary and expenditure reporting as they relate to the role of the parliamentary budget office in promoting accountability in government.

It has been mentioned, and I am sure that we will hear this more than once today, that it was our Conservative government that introduced the Federal Accountability Act. Through that act we created the non-partisan parliamentary budget office, after more than a decade of concerns across the country about the former Liberal government and how it was operating and looking after expenditures, and the boondoggles that followed that.

Canadians want to be confident that the Government of Canada is actually working in their best interest. They expect those in elected office and public servants to manage their existing tax dollars wisely, rather than taxing and spending even more, as some of the parties across the way would do. It is like one's family or one's business, because the Canadian people want us to uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct, not unlike any good company or small business in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

Why do we do that? It is because we want to instill confidence in Canadians, which means that government must be open about what it has achieved. It must assure Canadians and parliamentarians that the right controls are in place and must provide them with the information they need to judge its performance. That is exactly what we have done.

Confidence is about trust. It is about the trust we place in our elected officials and public service employees to act in the best interests of Canadians. It is a trust that must be earned every day. Earning that trust starts with making government more accountable. Being more accountable means that governments must be honest, open and fair.

The result has been our Conservative government's Federal Accountability Act. It signalled dramatic changes in how federal politics and government works in the country.

When it comes to reporting to Parliament, we have followed up with a number of measures to improve accountability and to increase transparency. We have developed a comprehensive regime to report and review both planned and actual expenditures at the whole of government level and departmental level.

At the whole of government review, this regime includes planning information released through the budget, the estimates and financial results released in the monthly “Fiscal Monitor” and the Public Accounts of Canada.

At the departmental level, there are reports on plans and priorities, the actual expenditure information that is contained in the departmental performance reports and the quarterly financial reports.

We are continuing to provide Canadians and Parliament with the information they need to hold government to account. For example, we have made improvements to the estimates document to provide more meaningful information to parliamentarians, trying to make these complex documents more user friendly.

The Treasury Board Secretariat has worked with the departments and agencies to try to improve and make changes in that system. This has resulted in more accessible information describing the nature of transactions, including the offset of new spending requirements through the use of existing spending authorities.

We have made other changes, including the provision of clearer summary tables and a presentation of gross funding requirements for each organization and an explanation of the funds available to offset new spending requirements.

We talked about this at the public accounts committee and how we might make the reporting and the resulting volumes of material more understandable to the average Canadian.

Members understand the task in front of us. It is a very difficult one, even for those folks who are very much involved in the business of auditing and accounting. We are working with them. We want to make these as user-friendly as possible. We want to do this by using a standardized approach to results-based reporting. We have worked closely with the departments in order to present an annual performance summary, balancing successes and challenges.

Parliament actually has a number of tools at its disposal to obtain information to access the government's actions. Treasury Board Secretariat is committed to continuing to ensure transparency and diligence in providing what it can. As members know, the secretariat supports and shares the Parliamentary Budget Officer's interest in providing parliamentarians and the public with more timely and easy to use data on departmental spending.

That is why the government has taken many actions on this front. These improvements allow all hon. members to get a better understanding of the government's spending plans in order to hold government to account. However, we are not only providing information to parliamentarians. We are also providing that information to Canadians.

Members have all heard the saying that information is power. By making information accessible, the government is also empowering Canadians to hold the government to account. In fact, Canada is a leader in providing accessible information to citizens. We are one of the first countries around the world to enact access to information legislation, which goes back almost three decades. That is why, since coming to office in 2006, our government has been working hard to throw open the doors of government and make information available not only to parliamentarians but also to Canadians.

For example, in 2006, as I mentioned before, this government significantly expanded the coverage through the Federal Accountability Act, which contained the most extensive amendments to the Access to Information Act since the act came into force in 1983. Most importantly, it broadened the reach of access to information to more public institutions. In April 2007, for example, five foundations and five agents of Parliament came under the act's provisions. All told, the Federal Accountability Act added 69 additional public institutions to the list of those covered by legislation. In fact, as a result, there are now 250 public organizations subject to the access to information law. One might be surprised by that large amount. The services these institutions provide are wide-ranging, far-reaching and involve many activities and services that are important not only to parliamentarians but also to all Canadians.

Ensuring greater transparency and accountability goes beyond expanding just the coverage of the act to more institutions. The government recently made it a requirement for all departments and agencies that are subject to the Access to Information Act to post summaries of their complete access to information requests online. Each summary includes the requested number, a summary of the completed requests and the number of pages disclosed. I am pleased to say that the departments, agencies and crown corporations are complying with this new requirement.

The government's commitment to Canadians is clear. It is to increase the accountability of government. I am proud to say we have committed and every day we continue to follow through. Our government is confident that the current structure of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is capable of providing quality non-partisan analysis.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his speech on today's opposition motion.

My question is quite straightforward. We all know that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has an extremely important role. Will my Conservative colleagues support our motion?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague across the way for her question. It was fairly straightforward and I would suspect that at the end of the day she knows the answer is that we would not be.

The position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is one of the Library of Parliament. It is totally independent of government. I think that the last thing we would want to see happen is to make that office come under the jurisdiction of government. It is under the jurisdiction of the Library of Parliament, which is independent. That sets aside and takes away any influence from the governing party.

Quite honestly, it is there through the Accountability Act of 2006 because government had to be cleaned. Corruption was happening under the previous government and that is why we do not want the office accountable to the government.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important. The Prime Minister talked about having this independent body, the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We have the expectation in the Liberal Party that the office would be treated with respect. We have not seen that.

Just last year the Prime Minister, when he was overseas, said that there was this crisis with seniors' pensions. We all remember that. Then the government increases the age limit from 65 to 67, in terms of Canadians being able to retire. The Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues were saying that there was a crisis with our seniors. The Parliamentary Budget Officer made it very clear that the crisis really was not there. The government was exaggerating. The government was not necessarily implying it but maybe the government was not being straightforward and honest. There was no need for us to increase the age from 65 to 67.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer does provide a great service to the House of Commons, and—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I would remind hon. members that many hon. members wish to participate in the question and comment period. We normally have five minutes for that. I would ask members to try to keep their questions and comments concise, and similarly on the response side, so that more hon. members will have the opportunity to ask questions.

The hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what is the best way to answer that.

I find that quite a question coming from the Liberal Party, which was actually the reason why we had to bring in the Accountability Act. We needed to have some oversight on spending, because the Liberal Party had ripped the Canadian people off for hundreds of millions of dollars to feed their friends.

The Accountability Act and the Office of the Parliamentary Budgetary Officer make sure that we spend our money properly, and that will continue under this office.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech on today's opposition motion.

Just a reminder, we both got elected in 2006. The Accountability Act was one of our first pieces of legislation, and rightfully so, as illustrated by the member. It was in reaction to 13 years of Liberal mismanagement of the public finances at the government level. We did that under a minority government.

Why was it important for us to follow through on the promise we made to the people in the 2006 election?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Burlington who is an important cog in the wheel of the finance committee.

I do not think it matters what party it is. We made commitments during the election. The election came about and Canadians spoke. We made a commitment to bring forward the Accountability Act, which would deal with the issues of reporting, being accountable and transparency. We said we would do it, and actually—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to speak to the motion and to support the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I must say I was surprised to hear the Conservative member speak of fiscal and financial mismanagement under the previous Liberal government. It was the previous Liberal government that inherited a $43 billion deficit, eliminated that deficit and then introduced consecutive surplus budgets that took $100 billion off the national debt.

It is this Conservative government that inherited the best fiscal situation of any incoming government in the history of Canada, a $13 billion surplus, spent at three times the rate of inflation and put us into a deficit, even before the effects of the downturn, and has now added well over $100 billion to the national debt.

We are here today to speak about the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the importance of that role. I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the exceptional member for Random—Burin—St. George's.

This morning I want to use my limited time to speak to the need of a strong and independent Parliamentary Budget Officer who has both the power and the resources required to shine some much needed light on the state of the government's finances. I will speak to some of the accomplishments of the current PBO, Kevin Page, and the very able team that he has brought together in his office. I want to speak about how these accomplishments have earned the praise of Canadians across the political spectrum and have made a difference in terms of strengthening the work we do in the House. Finally, I want to talk about some of the roadblocks that Mr. Page has faced from the Conservative government, and how he has joined a growing list of credible and selfless public servants who dared to speak truth to power and were attacked mercilessly by the Conservatives for doing so.

The single most important power that we have as parliamentarians is the power of the purse. The government cannot spend money on its own. It must receive permission from Parliament to do so. Our most important responsibility as parliamentarians is to control the purse strings of the government and to scrutinize the government's spending.

There is a growing imbalance between the responsibilities of parliamentarians and the resources we have to do our jobs. The government has hundreds of thousands of civil servants to do its work, but the average MP only has a handful of staff, perhaps four or five people, to serve their entire constituency as well as scrutinize government and government spending. That is what the PBO's role is, to help us fulfill the mandate we have as members of Parliament.

The PBO has a mandate to provide us with independent analysis of the state of the nation's finances, trends in the national economy, estimates of government spending and, on our request, estimates of any costs that fall under our jurisdiction. That office has become indispensable, both to us as parliamentarians and to Canadians, who want to know what their government is doing with their money.

Earlier this week the Globe and Mail summed up the need for a strong, independent PBO as follows:

With better information to scrutinize the financial decisions of the government the PBO enhances the ability of Parliamentarians to hold the government to account. Moreover, the PBO provides a source of credible cost estimates for new initiatives proposed by Parliamentarians, allowing them to contribute more to policy debates. The government has the vast and deep resources of the Ministry of Finance for these tasks; the PBO helps Parliament keep pace.

The PBO has done some extraordinary work in a fairly short period of time in helping us hold the government to account. In 2008, the PBO was the first to come out with the true costs of the Conservatives' mission in Afghanistan. In 2009, the Minister of Finance was trying to tell Canadians that there would be no deficit and the government would in fact post $100 million surplus. It was the PBO who first told us that not only would there be a deficit but that the Conservatives had created a structural deficit, and the deficit that year would be close to $50 billion. It ended up being $55.6 billion.

In 2010, it was the PBO who told Canadians the true cost of the Conservatives' prison agenda. When the Conservative government tried to hide the cost of its major initiatives from Canadians, it was the PBO who told Parliament what financial information should exist and where it should be able to find it. It was in 2011 when the PBO first told Canadians the true extent of how the cost of the F-35s had spiralled out of control.

Last year it was the PBO who confirmed that the OAS program was fully sustainable on its own, without any cuts to benefits. This fact was supported by economists at the OECD and by people in the minister's own department.

It was the PBO who told Canadians that the gap in health spending between the provinces and the federal government is growing and how federal cuts to health spending have led to structural deficits for the provinces. Earlier this year, it was the PBO who told Canadians how the Conservative government is cutting front-line programs while letting overhead back-office costs grow, exactly the opposite of what the Conservatives promised in the budget.

I should point out that Mr. Page does not do his work alone. He works with a strong team that includes two assistant PBOs, Mostafa Askari and Sahir Khan, as well as senior staff Chris Matier, Jason Jacques and Peter Weltman, and a small team of analysts and support staff. These members of his team are exceptional public servants.

Mr. Page and his team have earned considerable praise from Canadians from coast to coast to coast and across the political spectrum. Even right-of-centre Canadians have chimed in to credit the PBO and to chastise the Conservative government for mistreating Mr. Page. Conservative commentator Ian Lee recently wrote, “...Kevin Page must be celebrated for ensuring the independence of the PBO against a full-court press by the political and bureaucratic elites”.

Even the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which does not like government spending of any kind it seems sometimes has said that the PBO provides great value for the taxpayer. The director of the federation recently said, “If government would be more forthcoming with public information, Kevin Page and his crew would not be necessary. But it's been proven they've turned out to be very necessary to our democracy, almost indispensable”.

When the Auditor General came out with his report on the F-35s, the Canadian Taxpayer Federation issued a press release entitled “AG Report on F-35 Underlines Need for Fully Independent Parliamentary Budget Officer”. This is what the director had to say in the press release: “Canadians need the straight facts on government expenses such as the F-35, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer provided straight facts when the generals, the ministers and the government were providing nothing but spin and bafflegab”.

The Conservative record on the PBO is shameless. When the position of the PBO was first created, it had the support of all parties in the House. It has proven effective and has provided Parliament and all Canadians with credible information to which Canadians have a right. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have shown that they can be incredibly thin-skinned and petty when their efforts to conceal and misinform are revealed.

The reality is that the Conservatives have a significant history of attacking public servants who do their jobs and speak truth to power. In recent weeks, we have heard statements by Conservative cabinet ministers, including the Minister of Finance, attacking the PBO and his work. They are almost quasi-personal attacks. The President of the Treasury Board has suggested that the PBO has no right to consider cuts to government spending. The President of the Treasury Board said, “When you look at the words in his mandate—the finances, the estimates and the trends in the national economy—it's not about money not spent, it's about money spent”. What a ludicrous statement.

The finance committee suggested that the PBO was only supposed to be a sounding board for the government. What the Minister of Finance is describing is not a watchdog; it is a lapdog.

The government has attacked a number of public servants, and it is a long list: Colonel Pat Stogran; Richard Colvin; Chief Superintendent Marty Cheliak, director general of the Canadian firearms program; Linda Keen; Peter Tinsley; Paul Kennedy; Adrian Measner; Munir Sheikh; Steve Sullivan and Rémy Beauregard. These are all public servants who have done their jobs, fulfilled their mandates and spoken truth to Canadians, spoken truth to Parliament and spoken truth to the Conservative government. Their job is to speak truth to power, and they have been vilified and attacked and demonized and marginalized by the Conservative government.

With budget 2013 expected in the coming months, perhaps on March 26, which would be just after Mr. Page's term expires, it is important that the position of the PBO not become vacant. The government should extend Mr. Page's term until the summer to provide enough time to secure a strong, competent successor. Mr. Page has publicly indicated that he would be willing to accept a short-term extension to his term.

In the meantime, let us make sure that we keep Mr. Page doing what he is doing well, which is providing Parliament and Canadians with the truth about government finances in Canada.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to reflect the fact that the member for Kings—Hants started with selective reflections on the legacy of the previous Liberal government. He reflected on how it inherited a $43-billion deficit and turned it into a surplus.

I would like to remind the member, who seems to be exercising selective memory, that under the Mulroney government, the interest rates were at double digits. I had a mortgage at 16% in that era. Paying the public debt at that time, under those interest rates, was an extraordinary burden. It was the Mulroney government that actually took action by bringing in what was admittedly an unpopular tax, the GST, which brought in $35 billion in revenues, and negotiated free trade, which brought in hundreds of thousands of jobs. The Liberal contribution was to slash transfers to the provinces, including health care, putting the provinces in an unstable position.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the question. I have said publicly that every government makes fundamental changes to the economy that make a difference. The Mulroney government, in bringing in the GST and free trade, certainly helped significantly to grow the Canadian economy and strengthen the treasury, which helped enable fiscal management under Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien. They really seized the issue of the deficit, worked on it with all parties, and effectively paid down and eliminated it. They made tough decisions and put the country back on track.

Recently I was trying to figure out what the current Conservative government had done to try to make a difference. I could only find one significant policy change it made, and that was in budget 2006, which brought in 40-year, no-down-payment, U.S.-style mortgages, which have led to unprecedented housing and personal debt bubbles. I guess every government can be credited with making structural policy changes.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was a voter during the time of the sponsorship scandal, and I know from lots of conversations I had with people that voters were disgusted. It raised the level of cynicism among the Canadian electorate very high. As a response, in the 38th Parliament, Ed Broadbent introduced a seven-point plan to clean up government, which eventually became the Federal Accountability Act in 2006. Unlike the other two parties, which tried to use the issue of government scandal to raise the cynicism of the Canadian electorate, we had practical solutions.

Despite not taking action for 13 years, does the Liberal Party now support making the PBO a full officer of Parliament?