Mr. Speaker, I want to read the motion we are debating today. While listening to the debate in the last little while, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what the opposition is moving.
The opposition has moved:
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.
Taking all three components of the motion together, we are asking for support of the motion from a party that purports accountability but demonstrates very little of it in the House.
One of things the motion calls for is an extension of the mandate of the current Parliamentary Budget Officer until his replacement is named, and that seems to make common sense. It seems to make economic sense too. When we are dealing with billions of dollars, we would not want the position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to be left vacant.
Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence. I am sharing my time with the member for Louis-Hébert.
However, the important part of the motion is that the Parliamentary Budget Officer be a full independent officer of Parliament, which is a critical component.
Members know that if a replacement for the 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 and the staff effectively returned to the Library of Parliament. After all, what would the staff have to do if the Parliamentary Budget Officer were no longer in place?
I am sure my friends across the way understand the business analogy that nobody would leave a key position that was in charge of accountability vacant. I am sure Conservative members would not argue that and I hope they will pay close attention to it.
On February 5, only days ago, the Conservatives used procedural tactics at the finance committee to block the extension of the PBO's term. We have to remember that the Parliamentary Budget Officer was appointed by the government. He has done a good job as Parliamentary Budget Officer, but the Conservatives do not want him around because he actually asks questions. He questions their figures. He questions their predictions. At times, the Conservatives have felt embarrassed by that.
However, that is not the fault of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. If the government is embarrassed, it is because of its own shortcomings. It is because the Conservatives gave the wrong information and guesstimated or underestimated costs they knew were much higher. At times, as we know, they had one set of books for the cabinet and other for the rest of Canadians, including members of Parliament.
What we are talking about is nothing that is unique to Canada. Members know that in the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, South Korea, the Netherlands, Sweden and many other nations have, or plan to have, budget research officers to serve their national legislatures. The budget officer's job is not to rubber-stamp what the government does, but has a specific mandate, which I believe the budget officer has carried out with integrity.
The congressional budget office in the United States is the best known legislative budget office, with a staff of 235 professionals and a budget of $46.8 million. That was in 2011.
On the other hand, we know that our budget officer has 12 full-time staff with two interns and a budget of $2.8 million. Despite those challenges, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has published 150 analytic reports. The office has been extremely busy. However, it has had very little choice. It has had to be busy because the government has been on a legislative rampage, rushing things through without thinking them through, without actually even costing them out and making up numbers. When it makes up numbers, the Parliamentary Budget Officer catches that. That is when the Conservatives start criticizing the budget officer.
In our motion, we have also asked that the new officer be an officer of Parliament rather than an officer of the Library of Parliament.
As we know, the PBO is an officer of the Library of Parliament and as such reports to the Speakers of both chambers. Officers of the Library of Parliament lack the independence held by officers of Parliament. The PBO is appointed by cabinet based upon a list of three names provided by the Library of Parliament.
However, officers of Parliament operate very differently. They carry out duties assigned to them by statutes and report to one or both the Senate or House of Commons. In most cases, officers of Parliament are appointed after consultation with the leader of every recognized party in the Senate and the House of Commons and after approval of the appointment by a resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons. How much more independence could one get than that?
Officers of Parliament currently include the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Privacy Commissioner, the Access to Information Commissioner and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. That is what our party wants because we do not just say the words. This party actually believes in real accountability.
Since I have been in the House, I have seen attacks on the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I have also seen attacks on members of Parliament who want to carry out their parliamentary duties by giving due diligence to the budget as it goes through the House.
All we want to do is strengthen the outstanding work of the PBO across the board by making it more independent.
When I look at the fiasco around the F-35s and at ministers who have refused to hand over information, it is ridiculous. I cannot think of any other way to describe it.
This is a comment President of the Treasury Board made. On October 3, 2012, he stated this in the House of Commons when talking about the budget officer's mandate:
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.
I have been a teacher for decades and that sentence on its own tells me how little regard my colleagues across the way have for accountability when they use mumbo-jumbo language like that to question the Parliamentary Budget Officer they have appointed to hold them accountable.