Debates of Feb. 7th, 2013

Opposition Motion—Parliamentary Budget Officer

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, he simply checked the numbers and provided us with a non-partisan answer. He was not the only one who gave us that answer. A lot of other information came from the same government source.

Problems arise when the government refuses to accept the truth. That is the problem. If the government agreed to rectify the situation every time it made a mistake, there would not be a problem. We would not be having this discussion now. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is not the problem. The problem is the government, which systematically ignores any information that is not in line with its messages and its obsession with telling everyone that it is perfect just because it is doing something.

Perfection does not exist, and the Conservatives are far from perfect when they make mistakes on the order of 300%, as they did with respect to the F-35s.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who was member of our public accounts committee, where her skills as a former accountant and auditor certainly served the committee well.

I am pleased to take this opportunity to discuss the parliamentary budget office and our government's strong commitment to sound fiscal management and reporting.

Managing the nation's finances has become increasingly challenging in today's global economy, and we have proven that we are up to that challenge with each phase of our Conservative government's economic action plan. In particular, there have been a number of economic factors that required us to act. They include the global economic downturn and, more recently, the problems in the eurozone. At home, our economy faces demographic pressures, such as our aging population.

In this changing economy, the organizations that succeed are those that adapt and listen. The same is true in government. That is why members on this side of the House consult with Canadians each year and report to the Minister of Finance by helping him prepare the budget. In short, we are listening to Canadians.

I am pleased to say that our government has taken strong action to meet the evolving expectations of Canadians, whom we have consulted. We have taken a number of actions to be more responsive, transparent and accountable to Parliament and to Canadians since 2006. Canadians were tired of the old way of doing things and the old political model. That is why we promised the Federal Accountability Act as our first piece of legislation, and we delivered on our promise to Canadians. The act was the most sweeping anti-corruption legislation, following 13 years of Liberal corruption and mismanagement.

We are entrusted to operate and manage government for Canadians. We take that trust and responsibility seriously by respecting, in a wise and transparent manner, the hard-earned money that Canadian taxpayers have entrusted us with. One of the ways that our Conservative government took action to improve financial transparency was through a revamped reporting regime, including the creation of a non-partisan parliamentary budget office.

The range of services the government is responsible for is incredibly vast. We support our economic prosperity and competitiveness as a nation and we ensure public safety and security, as well as the well-being of our environment. However, those are just a couple of examples. There are many others. In each case, we make sure that Canadians are getting value for money and the accountability they expect and deserve from us.

One can imagine that the incredible scope of what we do brings some pretty unique reporting challenges. For one, the decision-making process can take time. The budget process, for example, starts months in advance and we hold extensive consultations with Canadians.

Earlier in the debate, a member of the NDP suggested that we were just starting the new budget cycle. That is not particularly accurate. As MPs, we have been consulting with constituents since December. We held budget round tables in January. Right now, we are just submitting to the finance minister some of the information that we gathered from these meetings.

What happens after the budget? First, we have to make sure that we read the budget. After we have done that, the next step is a budget implementation bill. That it is the part that takes all of the little components that have been described throughout the budget and includes them in legislation. We then see how the two tie together. For those people who took the time--and there were a few from the opposition who did, although not very many--to go to the technical briefings on budget implementation, they found out exactly why each of those things in the larger implementation bills fitted with the budget that had been presented. The first meeting lasted four hours and the second for six and a half hours. I am proud to say that I attended those. They gave me confidence to talk about our budget and to recognize that the items in it have been fully explained, and of which we should be proud.

All of this to say that our government operates within a very complex environment. However, this is still not an excuse to remain static. It just means that we must be that much more committed to taking the bold steps needed to transform how we serve Canadians and remain accountable to them.

That is exactly what our government has been doing. For example, we have strengthened the way we manage our financial resources and shown more accountability and transparency in reports, such as our quarterly financial reports.

Indeed, over the past few years the government has taken a number of steps to ensure that Parliament and Canadians are better informed about public spending. These include steps to improve financial reporting, which has vastly improved under our Conservative government. Specifically, for example, as I mentioned before, the government now prepares quarterly financial reporting on spending for departments, agencies and crown corporations. This requirement has been in place since April 2011. In doing so, we have taken a page from the private sector, where publicly traded companies have been required to publish quarterly financial reports for years. That is accountability. That is but one example of the government's leadership in supporting the work of parliamentarians as well as the work of independent bodies of Parliament such as the parliamentary budget office.

I would add that all public and some non-public reporting mechanisms are provided to the parliamentary budget office to support its efforts.

There are many other examples of our government's positive actions, which this motion gives us a chance to discuss and debate. Our Conservative government's leadership is clearly evident in the fact that the Public Accounts of Canada, which is one of the most important accountability documents prepared by the government, has consistently received a clean opinion by the Auditor General of Canada. The bottom line is that our government is as committed as ever to providing more timely and relevant information on many and varied activities to parliamentarians and Canadians.

The government is also committed to responding to all requests for information with the appropriate publicly available information. Our record on transparency and accountability speaks for itself. We have followed up on our commitments with concrete action to provide an open and honest government that hard-working Canadians expect and deserve.

It was this government that created the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We still believe in its mandate, as created in the Federal Accountability Act.

While the tax-and-spend NDP might like to see a needlessly overgrown bureaucracy, our Conservative government believes that the current structure of the parliamentary budget office can provide quality non-partisan analysis while respecting taxpayers' dollars.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a little context to this debate.

First of all, there is a very difficult global economic situation. Canada has just lost its governor of the Bank of Canada. The finance minister was out today saying that he was going to bring in another austerity budget. Now the government is refusing to extend the mandate of the PBO.

Why are the Conservatives sending yet another negative signal to markets? Are they not concerned about the impacts this will have on our economy? Do they hate the PBO so much that they would risk market retaliation just to make a political point?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, some of the words of the hon. member from the opposition are, I believe, somewhat beneath the debate we are having today.

I am a former mathematics teacher and have looked at things like ring permutations. As I mentioned to my students, if one looks at something and moves it around in a clockwise direction and then moves it farther up, one will see that it is going in an anti-clockwise direction. Unfortunately, that is the way politics is.

The government has to look at what is on the piece of paper. Wherever the opposition members are looking at it from, I have no idea.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, given the context in which the hon. member just stood and spoke on the issue, I am sure he can understand and appreciate the fact that we will soon have billions of tax dollars proposed as expenditures in the upcoming federal budget.

There would be a significant advantage to giving Mr. Page an extension as Parliamentary Budget Officer, because of his understanding of the process and numbers. In short, there is an argument to be made that extending Mr. Page's tenure to carry us over would make sense and give a great deal of value to all Canadians.

As for what the hon. member just finished saying, if the government were genuine why would it not then allow an extension for Mr. Page? At the end of the day, all Canadians would benefit by seeing just that.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the specific terms people have, we know that there is an end date, just as we knew there was an end date when the Auditor General Sheila Fraser left us.

When we look at the great work they have done, we appreciate it and we respect the situation that has taken place. We respect the role they have taken. The suggestion that has come forth is that there has been no preparation and that there is no opportunity for us to have a qualified replacement to continue the work, which is important work, of the Library of Parliament. I think that is perhaps the point that is missing in this debate.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the independence of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a person who is chosen from a list put up by the Library of Parliament, a person who is clearly free to criticize or make comment. Nobody is restricting that ability to criticize.

Does the member find it a bit curious that according to the folks across the way, they and the media are the only people who seem to be allowed to comment on what the PBO puts out? In their view, we do not have the right, freedom or independence to question the PBO ourselves. Is that not a bit of a double standard?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our role as parliamentarians is to try to work our way through and take some responsibility ourselves for the types of things that are required. It seems that it is a little bit easier for the opposition to simply say, “We do not really want to do any work, but we will say that whatever has happened in this report or some other report is where we are going to hang our hats”.

It is exactly as I mentioned earlier. We can all look at the same type of thing, but it depends on the political spin we are putting on it. It can have a clockwise spin or an anti-clockwise spin, but it the same thing we are talking about.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to contribute to the debate on the Parliamentary Budget Officer position.

This gives me an opportunity to speak about our Conservative government's deep commitment to transparency and accountability to Parliament and the Canadian people.

I am particularly pleased to be speaking about the steps that we have taken so that Parliament and Canadians are better informed about how the government is spending taxpayers' hard-earned money.

This includes improving financial reports, a goal to which our government has contributed enormously.

I just have to mention that, as a chartered accountant myself, I am very grateful and very impressed with the incredible additions that have been made and the improvements that have been made in financial reporting under this Conservative government. I am very proud to be a part of it.

For instance, every department and agency now publishes its own annual financial statements about the nature and scope of its activities.

After 13 years of Liberal mismanagement,this innovation, which was introduced in 2006, is one of the principal means the government can use to report on the use of public funds.

Canada’s leadership in terms of financial reporting is due to our government’s management. Very few governments publish annual financial statements at the departmental level.

In addition, departments must attach to their annual financial reports a statement of management responsibility for internal monitoring of financial reports.

These statements have existed since 2010 and are part of a more rigorous approach to maintaining effective internal monitoring systems for financial reports.

Furthermore, our government introduced quarterly financial reports to increase transparency. This requirement has been in force since April 2011. It is based on the private sector’s best practices, because for years now publicly traded companies have had to release quarterly financial reports.

These reports are indispensable for informed and timely decision-making. They show where the money has been spent over the past quarter and how this spending differs from spending in previous periods.

I would like to add that these quarterly reports are one of the many information sources that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has available to him for preparing his analyses.

I would like to point out that before our government came to power, parliamentarians received information about departmental spending only once a year. Their sources of information were the Public Accounts of Canada, which include the government’s consolidated financial statements and are tabled several months after the end of the fiscal year.

All that changed when the quarterly financial reports were introduced. This increases not only the frequency of the financial reports presented to Parliament and to Canadians, but also their quality.

In addition to these changes, we implemented the proactive disclosure of financial information, such as travel expenses, hospitality expenses, contracts and grants and contributions.

These proactive disclosures by the Conservative government are at the forefront of the growing open data movement in our government and in many others around the world. The movement unlocks the power of the vast quantities of data that we produce in order to report to citizens and taxpayers.

It is amazing to think of all the financial information available today on departmental websites for all Canadians to see.

I just want to repeat in English that we are truly part of this world movement to unleash data. The volume of information is incredible. It has helped to demonstrate Canada's leadership and our government's leadership in financial reporting, a leadership that is reflected in the annual publication of the “Public Accounts of Canada”.

In fact, the Auditor General has given the financial statements of the Government of Canada, contained in the public accounts, which are among the most important accountability documents prepared by the government, a clean opinion for the past 14 years running. This attests to the high standards of the government's financial statements and reporting.

In the past few years, the Conservative government of Canada has also taken important steps to ensure that we have the financial expertise and frameworks in place to allow our organizations to fulfill their specific responsibilities for financial management as part of management. For example, we have elevated the role of the chief financial officer to reflect the vital function of managing today's complex environment.

Chief financial officers are part of a department's senior management team. They support and advise deputy heads on departmental financial management. Thanks to recent policy changes, they now report directly to their deputy heads and provide them with objective advice and department-wide perspectives on all business matters. This represents a significant change in the role, one that reflects, I might add, the evolution of the CFO's role in the private sector.

Allow me to mention one more notable development, the introduction of the departmental audit committees. Again, as a chartered accountant, I see the value and I see the proactive management because of their creation. These audit committees, made up of leading experts from both inside and outside government, have brought strategic guidance to the work of internal audits, along with advice on a range of management functions. It is a twofold benefit for the government and for every taxpayer. They ensure good governance, risk management, and financial control.

All of the changes I have been discussing are part of the new suite of financial management policies and an enhanced internal audit regime that we have introduced. They have greatly contributed to strengthening the way we manage public expenditures, and they represent just some of the ways we are providing more timely and relevant financial information to parliamentarians and to all Canadians.

Our government is as committed as ever to supporting parliamentarians in exercising their constitutional duty of holding the government to account for how it spends taxpayers' money. We acknowledge the important mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in supporting parliamentarians through the non-partisan analyses of economic data.

Over the past few years, our government has taken a number of actions to be more responsive, more transparent and more accountable to Parliament and to all Canadians. These actions complement the many steps parliamentarians have taken themselves to improve the oversight of government spending. I can assure this House that our government will continue to respond to requests for information with the appropriate publicly available information.

Our government has made managing the economy our top priority for the past seven years. Part of that commitment was the creation of the non-partisan parliamentary budget office within the Library of Parliament to conduct independent analyses of the Canadian economy. Quite frankly, the Library of Parliament is a wonderful resource for us all, and not only in this regard.

Our Conservative government has consistently demonstrated our commitment to economic stability and accountability. We will continue that commitment by maintaining the current structure of a credible, non-partisan parliamentary budget office.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part question.

First, I would like to know if the hon. member believes that there should be a crossover between this Parliamentary Budget Officer and the new one. Should there be a period when they work together? I want to know if that would be a good idea.

Also, I want to know if she, as a former accountant, would recommend to her former customers going without accountability for months at a time. Is that something that is advisable? I would like to know the answer from the accountant.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I want to clarify something, Mr. Speaker. I am not a former accountant. I am still a chartered accountant in Canada.

We value this position. We are the government that created this position so we have no intention of getting rid of it.

With respect to the other question of the hon. member, he has asked a parliamentarian to interfere in the hiring process. That is not what I want to do. As parliamentarians, it is important that we understand the difference between governance and management. We respect the leadership in the Public Service of Canada for its management decisions. It takes those decisions with our direction and our governance.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in reference to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, there is a need to ensure that there is a sense of independence, and I think all parliamentarians would acknowledge that. I have talked a great deal about the value that the Parliamentary Budget Officer brings to the House of Commons and through the House of Commons to all Canadians in terms of looking at the hard numbers and presenting those numbers in an independent fashion.

Does the member believe the Prime Minister should have the power to ultimately terminate the Parliamentary Budget Officer? What in her opinion should be the proper procedure if the government wanted to see the Parliamentary Budget Officer terminated? Who should have that power?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a misunderstanding on the part of the member for Winnipeg North because there is no termination in question at all here. The gentleman's term is up and we are replacing the gentleman, as we would in normal management throughout the Government of Canada.

With respect to his question about hypothesis, the reality is we are replacing this important role, which I might add the Prime Minister created. We are very proud to have created an environment of greater accountability for Canadians.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the answer to my colleague's question about the difference between governance and management. Clearly, it goes without saying that we do not want the government to take care of the management side of things. However, we know that the new Parliamentary Budget Officer will not be hired right away and so there will be a period of time in which we do not have a Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Would it not be acceptable to simply extend the mandate of the current Parliamentary Budget Officer by a few months, knowing that he is willing to stay in the position? Such a transition would allow the selection committee to do its job of managing.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. In my opinion, there is a very significant difference between management and governance, and we need to understand the needs associated with each of them. We want to respect the decisions of the head of the Library of Parliament. It is our decision.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on another example where the Parliamentary Budget Officer demonstrated great value. The Government of Canada, through the Prime Minister when he was overseas, made the announcement that our seniors' pensions were in a huge crisis and as a result it would have to increase the retirement age from 65 to 67. Virtually instantaneously the leader of the Liberal Party came out in opposition saying that there was no crisis, that this was completely fictitious, that the government did not have to make the change and that there was nothing wrong with leaving the retirement age at 65. We have been advocating since then that it should remain at age 65.

A short while after, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reaffirmed through actual numbers that our pension program going forward was actually quite solid and we did not have to push any panic buttons. Would the member concur with my comments?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no crisis except that we have a Prime Minister who had to travel to foreign territory to make announcements about how we are going to continue to support our seniors, who built this amazing country. When the finance minister read the PBO's report he said, “unbelievable, unreliable, incredible”. Those were his words.

When the PBO's report was matched with those of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions on old age security, which were tabled as the ninth and tenth actuarial reports in the fall of 2011, guess what? There was more coherence between those than the comments being made by my colleagues sitting across the aisle.

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

Mr. Speaker, budget documents are complex things. One of the members mentioned a technical briefing where he did not see many NDP members. I would like to correct the record and say that we were probably in the majority in that room.

From the comments of backbench Conservative MPs, who do not understand the budget document, we need someone like the PBO. Could the member address the issue of not having a PBO for a period of maybe seven, eight or nine months? What are members going to do to inform themselves properly on the budget, especially Conservative backbenchers?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise to Canadians or anyone in the House that the current government is very secretive. Either Conservatives announce so much at one time they bury really important things in thick documents or they just do not tell us the truth. We do not get the actual figures. We get a lot of things that are made up responses or non-answers as people read out prewritten answers to questions we ask about the budget.

I have been at committee where it has become very obvious that we absolutely need an independent Parliamentary Budget Officer and that budget officer needs to be an officer of Parliament with a statutory mandate so that Canadians can have confidence in their government.

[Denis Blanchette, NDP, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for once I gave a title to my speech, because I think it truly represents the state of mind in this House. The title is “Do they walk the talk?”

Normally, we would not have had to hold this opposition day. We would not have had to move this motion if the government had acted responsibly. If the government is late in appointing a senior public servant, it should have allowed for a transition period.

One wonders why, in recent years, since I have been here, important appointments have always been made late. The Conservatives know the calendar and they can follow it. Unfortunately, nothing is happening.

Therefore, I find it hard to understand why the Conservatives are first unable to follow a calendar and then unable to take responsibility for their mistake and do something really easy such as simply extending the mandate.

I now come to the crux of the issue. We live in a complex world. One of our main responsibilities here is to pass a complex budget. We have an institution that helps all parliamentarians do a good job and better understand what they vote on. It is Parliament's responsibility to pass the budget, but we must first understand that budget and know where it is going to take us.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is an essential tool in a modern government. Let us not forget—as pointed out by many members—that this institution was created by the Conservative government. However, we get the feeling that they are not comfortable with what they created. Yet, and I rarely say this, that was a damn good idea.

If we look at the mandate as such, which is defined in section 79.2 of the Parliament of Canada Act, the Parliamentary Budget Officer can do things that are done in every modern government.

Incidentally, the budget of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and his staff is ridiculously low, compared to what we see elsewhere. For example, in the United States, the Congressional Budget Office operates with a staff of 250 and a budget of $45 million. That is 16 times more than the resources available to our Parliamentary Budget Officer. Considering that the U.S. population is 10 times larger than ours, we can see that much more resources are provided to help members of Congress follow what could be called budget tentacles.

That is a strong trend among OECD members. A task force made up of senior OECD budget officials established a group that allows them to follow the parliamentary process, which is the equivalent of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Contrary to what the Conservatives say, we should not necessarily be following the best practices of the private sector, but rather the best practices of governments around the world. That is what the OECD is advocating and that is what we should be doing.

Last year, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, of which I am a member, released a report entitled “Strengthening Parliamentary Scrutiny of Estimates and Supply”. Recommendation 15 states:

That the House of Commons give its Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates the mandate to undertake a study of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer;...that...the Committee should consider all structural models for the Office including, but not limited to, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reporting directly to Parliament.

Having the Parliamentary Budget Officer report to Parliament rather than the Library of Parliament has been discussed before. This would give him the powers he needs to do his job. Despite the roadblocks put in his way, he has done an outstanding job.

Consider the evaluation of the F-35 costs. It was not the Parliamentary Budget Officer but someone else who was out in left field. Despite the obstacles he faced, he managed to keep us and Canadians well informed. Obviously, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's role is to restore parliamentarians' ability to have some say in the budget process in order to provide more rigorous and exact oversight.

What I find ironic about this is that it was the Conservatives who suggested creating the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer. However, when the President of the Treasury Board was answering questions about why he was not providing information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, he said that they are reporting to the House in the usual way. Thus, he is saying that what we had before worked better than what they created, which is nonsense.

That is a real-life example of not walking the talk, of someone who talks about open, transparent government and then hides behind the old approach to accountability. We want openness and transparency for parliamentarians, but also for Canadians who are interested in public affairs, and we want to move forward. We need to remember that we do not work in a vacuum; we work for the people of Canada. We tend to forget that we are accountable to Canadians and that we work for them. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to limit the public's access to information.

I am happy to hear about open data, but we need to know what data will be open. If we are just talking about weather data, that will not make a big difference in our lives. That is why it is important to have an institution that allows us to analyze the implications of each of our decisions. That is always an issue—evaluating the consequences of various actions.

How will this affect our bottom line? How will it affect government operations? Before the institution of Parliamentary Budget Officer was created—and I can now say that it is an institution that we need—we were lost in a fog. And look at what happened when the Titanic got lost in the fog. We cannot have that happen.

At a time when we have a tight budget, we have a lot of debt and we are looking to maximize the effects of our budgetary measures, I feel it is important to have an institution that allows us to keep track of what is happening. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is a crucial tool. And I would like to take a moment to acknowledge his work and his courage. Given his mandate and the situation he was facing, it could not have been easy.

Canadians need an independent office, in the name of transparency and accountability.

Sex Selection

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last year, Reggie Littlejohn successfully led international efforts to free blind Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng, who has fled four years of house arrest in China. Today, here in Ottawa, she asks parliamentarians to stand together against discrimination against girls occurring through sex selection.

Over decades, sex selection has caused a critical gender imbalance leading to human trafficking, kidnapping and sex slavery. Two hundred million girls are missing. As CBC reported, this is happening in Canada. The United Nations reports, “Renewed and concerted efforts are needed by governments and civil society to address the deeply rooted gender discrimination which lies at the heart of sex selection”.

We thank Reggie Littlejohn for her courage and determination to end discrimination against women and girls. We also thank her for calling on this Parliament to unite in its condemnation of discrimination against girls occurring through sex selection.

Heart Month

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, February is here, and I suggest we spend some time during the month of love talking about our hearts, because February is heart month in Canada.

It is important to know that 90% of Canadian adults have at least one risk factor for heart disease and stroke, which are among the leading causes of death in Canada. It is high time we reduced our risk by reducing tobacco consumption, being physically active, eating healthy food and reducing obesity rates in Canada, particularly among children, so that they can live longer, healthier lives.

This month, the Heart and Stroke Foundation launched its “Make Health Last” campaign. Soon, the message will be all over television, the Internet, newspapers and radio.

The foundation's annual report says that if baby boomers do not change their ways, many of them could spend their last years in sickness, disability and immobility. On average, Canadians will spend their final 10 years living with sickness.

We must act now.

Black History in Canada

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Ms. Rella Braithwaite. Recently, I was honoured to attend Rella's 90th birthday party.

Born in Listowel, Ontario, Rella is a direct descendant of African Americans who travelled the route of the underground railway into Canada. In 1943, Rella moved to Scarborough with her husband, Bob, becoming one of the first black families to live in Scarborough. She became a self-educated writer and researcher of black history so that others would be able to learn and appreciate their rich heritage. Her career has impacted thousands of students and educators across Canada in the African Canadian community.

Rella Braithwaite has been recognized for her efforts with numerous awards and writing credits, and is considered a national role model and a rich source of information within the African Canadian community. Her daughter, Diana, an acclaimed blues singer and songwriter, has also followed in her footsteps.

I thank Ms. Braithwaite for her contributions to her community in Scarborough and to our great country.

Food Bank Fundraising

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, every year more Canadian families are forced to rely on food banks. Year after year, Cape Breton's generosity always shines through when farmers, organizations, individuals and companies, such as the CBC, step up to the plate and undertake an event that helps those in need.

I rise today to recognize CBC Cape Breton's 6th annual Light Up a Life fundraiser, which raised over $65,000.

Light up Life proceeds went toward Feed Nova Scotia, an organization that helps collect and distribute food to over 150 food banks, shelters, soup kitchens, breakfast programs, prepared meal services and emergency food assistance programs. Feed Nova Scotia looks after 25,000 hungry Nova Scotians, which would not be possible without fundraisers such as Light up a Life.

Therefore, I congratulate all volunteers and organizations from this year's Light up a Life event for their dedication, generosity and participation in making this campaign an immense success.