Debates of Feb. 7th, 2013

Opposition Motion—Parliamentary Budget Officer

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Palliser.

I would like to take this opportunity to restate the government's view of the parliamentary budget office. As members know, it was the Conservative government that created the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to provide independent analysis to the House of Commons and Senate about the state of the nation's finances and the economy.

This office was a key element in the Federal Accountability Act that demonstrated our commitment to accountable government following 13 years of Liberal mismanagement. In fact, strengthening accountability and increasing the transparency of our public institutions has been one of the hallmarks of this government.

On coming into office, our first order of business was to introduce and implement the Federal Accountability Act. This act provided Canadians with the assurance that the powers entrusted in the government were being exercised in the public interest.

Some of those items from the Federal Accountability Act included reforming the financing of political parties, banning secret donations to political candidates, strengthening the role of the Ethics Commissioner, toughening the Lobbyists Registration Act, making qualified government appointments, cleaning up the procurement of government contracts, cleaning up government polling and advertising, providing real protection for whistleblowers, and strengthening access to information legislation.

The act was wholeheartedly embraced by Canadians. That was just under seven years ago. The Federal Accountability Act and its supporting action plan contain dozens of measures and hundreds of amendments to some 45 federal statutes, touching virtually every part of government and beyond.

We did not stop there. We recognized that parliamentarians and parliamentary committees needed access to independent, objective analysis and advice on economic and fiscal issues to better hold the government to account for its decisions.

That is why we established the Office of Parliamentary Budget Officer within the Library of Parliament. The mandate of that office is to provide independent analysis to the Senate and House of Commons about the state of the nation's finances, the estimates of the government and trends in the national economy. It is to undertake research on the nation's finances and economy and the estimates of the government when requested to do so by certain parliamentary committees. When requested to do so by a member or a committee, it is to estimate the financial cost of any proposal relating to a matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction.

Essentially, the job of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to give parliamentarians information and independent analysis they can use, along with information provided by the government, to hold the government to account with respect to the nation's finances and the economy.

This is exactly what has happened since the office was formed in March 2008. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has published many reports since his appointment. In his role within the Library of Parliament, the PBO has studied many things, including our government's economic action plan, which has created more than 900,000 net new jobs since July 2009.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer's position within the Library of Parliament provides an excellent platform for the officer to perform credible, non-partisan research and analysis on fiscal matters within his mandate.

Our Conservative government has continued to provide Canadians, parliamentarians and the Parliamentary Budget Officer with record amounts of information on government spending.

Another hallmark of this government has been the strong management of the nation's finances and the economy since 2006. In fact, I am happy to say that the main message of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's most recent report, the “Expenditure Monitor: 2012-13 Q2,” is that the government is on track with its spending reductions. In other words, our reductions in direct program spending are in line with the restraint efforts we announced in budget 2012.

The “Expenditure Monitor“ is a periodic report that examines recent changes in the government's expenditures and compares them to our stated expenditure plans. As the report makes clear, we are making good headway toward our goals of contributing to balanced budgets and reducing growth in government. I would add that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is not the only who thinks so. Our strong management of the national economy is recognized around the world.

For a few years now, Forbes magazine has ranked Canada among the best countries in the world to operate, thanks to our sound banking system, declining tax rates and, yes, our relative lack of red tape. Also, in December, Canada cracked the global top 10 when it comes to corporate tax competitiveness, according to a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers. It looked at our tax rates, now the lowest among the G7, as well as the number of hours it takes a business to fill out all the forms and actually pay those taxes. Guess what? Under our Conservative government, Canada went from 28th in the world in 2010 to 8th place.

However, taxation is not the only area where Canada is outperforming. Canadian economic growth has also been more resilient than growth in other G7 economies, both during the recession as well as throughout the recovery. Most striking, Canada has outperformed all other G7 economies in job creation during the recovery. Our government remains on track to balance the budget in the medium term and to maintain its position of having the best fiscal record in the G7 with the lowest debt to GDP ratio.

Taken together, it is not surprising then that Canada is internationally recognized as one of the best places in the world to do business. Our fiscal situation is the envy of other nations. Our taxes are low. We continue to create jobs and we are cutting red tape. This is what we were mandated to do and it is exactly what we are doing.

I would add to that list our strong commitment to accountability and transparency, as demonstrated by our government's sweeping anti-corruption measures under the Federal Accountability Act. It was our government that created the parliamentary budget office. We believe it is capable, in its current form, of conducting credible, non-partisan support for parliamentarians.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if there were ever an issue that we could agree on in the House, it would be the importance of having objective information that circulates freely.

Unfortunately, an increasing number of people in Quebec and Canada are feeling that this information is becoming more propaganda-like, and the uncertainty surrounding the appointment of Mr. Page's replacement is no exception.

My question for the member is simple. Does he not feel that making this position an officer of the House would help eliminate ambiguity?

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess it really boils to what is need for making this position an officer of Parliament?

Under the position's current mandate, the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to provide independent analysis to Parliament on the state of the nation's finances, government estimates and trends in the Canadian economy. The role is not designed to be an independent watchdog. It is not designed to be an auditor general, chief electoral officer, privacy commissioner or access to information commissioner. All of those are independent officers, but that is not what this role was designed to be. The PBO is functioning perfectly well within the Library of Parliament, and that is where it belongs.

As for replacing the PBO, who has a five-year appointment, it is up to the Library of Parliament to go through the short list, which it is doing right now in looking for new candidates. The Library of Parliament will make the selection on behalf of the House of Commons, the Senate and the Government of Canada.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I require a simple yes or no for an answer. My question is surrounding the ongoing saga of the F-35s. As the situation unfolded we saw how several people had made guesstimates about how much this would cost at the end of the life cycle of the next generation jet fighter. The government departments, Public Works and National Defence, basically had a certain number in mind but the Parliamentary Budget Officer had a different number, a much higher number, in mind.

The hon. member says that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to keep the government to account. Obviously the PBO has to challenge the government to be at its best. Is that an example of what the member is talking about? How the PBO was so right and Conservatives were so wrong? Yes or no.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we need to look at is what is factored into the costs of the F-35 and what we refer to as life cycle costing. As a government we have always used a 20-year life cycle costing. The Parliamentary Budget Officer chose to use a different methodology. Ultimately what has come out of this is that we will have some clear definition of life cycle costing. We have come to our seven-point plan with the secretariat for procurement. Ultimately all the costs will be clear. KPMG just did a study, which reaffirmed the acquisition costs as being $9 billion. It reaffirmed the ongoing operating costs.

Quite frankly, the reports were very accurate and the government was very accurate.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recall being on the Library of Parliament committee as my first committee when I was elected in 2008. We studied the issue of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. All the witnesses who were part of that process said that the Parliamentary Budget Officer clearly overstepped the responsibility of the role in the way they had envisioned it.

I recall a point when the Parliamentary Budget Officer spoke out on a very specific issue during an election. I would like the member's impression of it and whether he thinks it was unprecedented and, for that matter, appropriate.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to speak to the Library of Parliament specifically, which is where the parliamentary budget office belongs, we all believe that the researchers within the Library of Parliament do excellent work on our behalf. In terms of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, maybe his mandate needs to be clarified. I suggest moving forward we might look at where he did overstep his mandate, if in fact he did, for the future Parliamentary Budget Officer who takes office.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, today, I will be speaking on the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the estimates process.

I am pleased to add to the debate on the current role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to provide independent analysis to parliamentarians in the context of the estimates process. This government understands that parliamentarians must have the information they need to consider estimates and public supply bills. We understand, as well, that the Parliamentary Budget Officer must have the information he needs to provide parliamentarians with independent analysis of government spending.

This is a fundamental part of Canada's system of government and it is one of the keys to assuring Parliament and Canadians that public resources are being used efficiently and effectively. In our system of government, it is the responsibility of the government to prepare its budgets and policy agenda and the responsibility of Parliament to hold government to account for its actions and resulting outcomes.

That is why, upon coming to power in 2006, our Conservative government passed the Federal Accountability Act, the most sweeping anti-corruption legislation, after 13 years of Liberal mismanagement. The act continues to ensure that Parliament has the information it needs to hold the government to account.

The estimates process is a good example. Each year the government prepares main estimates and supplementary estimates, as required, in support of its request to Parliament for authority to spend public funds. This request is formalized through the tabling of appropriate bills in Parliament.

Supplementary estimates seek the funding required by departments and agencies to implement government-approved programs throughout the year. They are also required to transfer funds approved in the main estimates from one organization to another or within organizations, and from one appropriation to another. In addition, the supplementary estimates are used to inform Parliament of changes in the estimated costs of programs that are authorized by legislation other than the appropriation acts. Tabling the main estimates and supplementary estimates to seek Parliament's authority for spending is indeed a critical part of Parliament's oversight of the government's spending plans.

However, we are not only providing information to parliamentarians. We are providing information to Canadians. By making information accessible, we are also empowering Canadians to hold government to account. In fact, Canada is a leader in providing accessible information to citizens. Among other things, our progressive government's Federal Accountability Act signified the expansion of the scope of the Access to Information Act, created the whistleblower protection act and enforced the Conflict of Interest Act.

The Federal Accountability Act provides Canadians with the assurance that the power entrusted to the government is being well used and exercised in the public interest. The act, and its supplementary action plan, contains dozens of other measures and hundreds of amendments of some 45 federal statutes that touch virtually every part of government and beyond. My colleague made mention about that in his speech earlier this afternoon.

We also recognized that parliamentarians and parliamentary committees need to access independent objective analysis and advice on economic and fiscal issues to better hold the government to account for its decisions. That is why we established the position of the Parliamentary Budget Officer within the Library of Parliament.

The mandate of this officer is, first, to provide independent analysis to the Senate and House of Commons about the state of the nation's finances, the estimates of the government and trends in the national economy. Second, it is to undertake research into the nation's finances and economy and the estimates of the government, where requested to do so by certain parliamentary committees. Third, when requested to do so by a member or a committee, it is the office's mandate to estimate the financial cost of any proposal that relates to a matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction. The job of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, then, is to give parliamentarians non-partisan information and independent analysis surrounding the nation's finances and the economy.

Our government's commitment to make our public institutions more accountable and more transparent is clear. We have taken strong action to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with significant amounts of public and non-publicly available information to conduct analysis and render decisions. For our part, we support a non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer's interest in providing parliamentarians and the public with more timely and easy to use data on departmental spending. For example, we regularly share publicly available information with that office, such as the supplementary estimates, and we respond to requests for information from the PBO with the appropriate publicly available information.

Specifically, departments assess the nature of the information that the Parliamentary Budget Officer requests and what documents can or cannot be shared. That does not include information that falls within the scope of cabinet confidences. This information is protected in accordance with section 79.3 of the Parliament of Canada Act. Nevertheless, we are committed to continue to ensure transparency and diligence in providing an unprecedented amount of information.

Without a doubt, this government is committed to improving accountability and increasing transparency. We have proven that, not only with words but with actions: first, through the estimates process; second, through the implementation of the Federal Accountability Act; and third, by establishing and supporting the work of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

The measures I have talked about today help provide Canadians with the honest and open government that they deserve, one that acts transparently, ensures value for money and demonstrates accountability for the people of this country. Unlike the members of the NDP, we believe that the current structure of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer can provide insightful, non-partisan analysis of fiscal matters within its current mandate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to my distinguished colleague. He spoke of an independent, non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer with a decent budget and so on.

I listened closely, but the big issue I have is that he did not say if he agrees that the PBO should become an officer of Parliament and should no longer be an employee of the Library of Parliament. I would like some clarification on that point.

Does he agree that the office should be completely independent and totally free of all political interference? Does he agree that the PBO should become an officer of Parliament instead of remaining part of the Library of Parliament's staff?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are all responsible to someone for something. None of us live in a vacuum where we do not have a degree of accountability for our actions and what we propose to do. The PBO has to be accountable. He or she has to maintain an arm's-length distance from the government and from the opposition. It is a fairly tricky move. The PBO is and he is not, and it takes a special person to be able to handle that. That is why the library is currently looking at bringing in someone who can fill the role of the leaving PBO.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I would like the member to comment on while we are talking about accountability. During the 2006 election the Conservative Party under the leadership of the current Prime Minister committed to bringing in an accountability act, to bringing in the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Why is it important that a party, which says it will do something during an election, actually puts that in place after it gets elected?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, let me just say that the Conservative Party is one that states what it is it is about to do and why it is going in that direction, and then it does it. The reference the hon. member made earlier about the election process of 2006 is a fine example of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Palliser and the Conservative Party are so concerned about increasing accountability, they would provide the PBO with all the information he needs, instead of forcing the PBO to go to court to get what he needs.

In terms of the F-35, the PBO and the Auditor General spent $1.8 million doing reports and audits on the F-35 file. What was the government's response to these transparent reports? It spent $800,000 more of taxpayers' money to get a private firm to do a report that would give it an answer it wanted.

Canadians expect more of their government. They expect increased accountability. It is hard to swallow the member talking about accountability when the government is wasting taxpayers' money on private reports and court challenges to a position that is supposed to increase accountability.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think it goes without saying that if we have an expenditure of billions of dollars, it makes pretty good sense, to my way of thinking, if it costs $800,000 to determine if we are spending the money in the right direction for the right product. We should be able to figure that out through consultation with people whose business it is to deal with those kinds of questions.

We as parliamentarians do not make decisions that drive the world. Sometimes we think we do, but we really do not. If we need good knowledge, we need to go to those who have the knowledge. I would respectfully suggest that people in the air industry find out whether we are going to be spending the right amount of money in the right direction.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

As this is the first time in 2013 that I have risen to speak in this House, I would like to take the opportunity to wish all Canadians, and especially the residents of Pierrefonds—Dollard, of course, a very happy new year.

I would also like to express the hope that my Conservative colleagues have made very good and wise resolutions and that they will be keeping them. If they need any inspiration, I would encourage them to come and see me. I would be very pleased to help, because I have many suggestions that I could make to them.

That being said, let us come back to the main issue, today’s NDP motion. I am grateful that I have been allowed to express my views on this matter. I have been a member of Parliament on Parliament Hill for a little more than a year and a half now, and my responsibilities as an MP have sometimes led me to depend on reports by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I will explain on which occasions later. This issue is therefore very relevant to my day-to-day reality as a member of Parliament.

Before informing the House of all these very interesting arguments, I would first like to put all this into context. Barely two years ago, I was not very familiar with the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It is likely that the same could be said of many other MPs as well.

In 2006, following the sponsorship scandal, the government introduced the Federal Accountability Act. All parties worked on the bill, which received support from all the parties in the House of Commons. This is actually quite remarkable. On March 14, 2008, the current government House leader announced the appointment of Kevin Page as the very first Parliamentary Budget Officer in Canada, for a five-year period.

What was his mandate exactly? The Federal Accountability Act states explicitly that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is responsible for providing independent analysis to the Senate and the House of Commons. The act states that the Parliamentary Budget Officer conducts research into the state of the nation’s finances, the economy and the government’s estimates—including planned spending—and that he estimates the financial cost of any proposal for matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction.

To give more tangible examples, a review of the federal budget is prepared every year, and a report on the economic and fiscal outlook is produced a few times a year. Other reports are prepared at the request of parliamentarians. I am thinking in particular of the report on the financial impact of the Safe Streets and Communities Act, a subject that we discussed here and that gave rise to a great deal of interest, and the report entitled “The Funding Requirement for First Nations Schools in Canada”.

I have just given two examples of matters that gave rise to a great deal of controversy and interest among Canadians. Reports from an independent expert on these issues furthered discussion and provided parliamentarians and Canadians with tools so that they could understand the issues better and be more critical of the measures taken by the government, which is very worthwhile and extremely important.

However, even though I have just spoken about the context and the importance of the work of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the opposition is now concerned about the future of the role and the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This is why the NDP has moved this motion, which calls on the government to extend the mandate of current Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page until his replacement is named.

His mandate expires on March 25, not in 2015, but this year. In a little over a month, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's mandate will expire. Up to this point, we have absolutely no reason to believe that any effort has been made to find Kevin Page's successor. All we are asking for in that part of the motion is that his mandate be extended, if necessary, until his replacement is named and is ready to take his place. Everyone agrees that there is nothing unreasonable about that.

Furthermore, today's NDP motion calls on the government to support legislation to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer a full, independent officer of Parliament.

Now, I would like to elaborate on this a little. Why would we want the Parliamentary Budget Officer to be an independent officer of Parliament? It is really self-explanatory: to give that individual greater independence. I will explain why we are asking for this.

As my colleague said earlier, it is true that the Conservatives were elected on a promise to clean up Parliament and introduce sound management and transparency. That is easy to say in an election campaign, and it appealed to Canadians.

Over the past few years, however, the Conservatives have not kept their promises. Instead we have been treated to scandals, overspending, fraud, misleading phone calls from Pierre Poutine, and so on. Canadians know what I am talking about. Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been under pressure, not from the opposition, but from the government.

For instance, I could quote the current President of the Treasury Board, who said:

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

An independent officer of Parliament is not told what he should or should not study. The officer is given a mandate, which he carries out independently. Pressure from the government validates the NDP's concerns and its interest in making this important parliamentary officer more independent.

[Some hon. members]

Bravo.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I see that I have some support, so I must not be completely out in left field.

I will also talk briefly about partisan appointments. That is another reason why we need someone who is independent. The Conservatives are past masters of partisan appointments. We want to ensure that this does not happen.

I do not want to be taken the wrong way. I am not saying that Mr. Page, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, is partisan. On the contrary, he has done an excellent job to date. We want to ensure that he has all the tools he needs to continue doing a good job and that he is given some more latitude in order to do an even better job.

So far, we have heard a number of Conservatives say that they do not agree with this proposal. However, it seems to me that it should not be up to the government to say yes or no to more independence for the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Please excuse me for talking about this subject in such simple terms. I was an elementary school teacher and I am going to indulge myself. I would like everyone to imagine for a moment that a tiger has escaped from the zoo. No one knows where it has gone and the zoo's director is wondering whether to perhaps increase security measures around the tiger cage. If the tigers tell the director that such action is not necessary, that the enclosures should be left as they are, that they will not try to escape, that they will not make a mess and that there is no need to worry, will that reassure the tourists and visitors? I am not sure that it is up to the tigers to decide whether or not security measures should be enhanced. They are not in the best position to make that decision.

This is perhaps a somewhat simplistic example, but it is just to show that the Conservatives may not be in the best position to decide not to grant officers more power and independence.

I would like to quote a few experts. A professor from the School of Public Administration at the University of Victoria said:

...I would make the Parliamentary Budget Officer a full agent of Parliament to assist parliamentarians and committees.

Another expert had this to say:

I think the PBO, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, can assist committees...immensely. I agree...that he should be an officer of Parliament. I also think that making him an officer of Parliament means that he does not get stuck in limbo, wondering what he can or cannot do...

The NDP is not the only one who believes that everyone will benefit if the Parliamentary Budget Officer is given more authority and independence. I do not understand why the government is opposed to this suggestion. I hope that all parliamentarians will support this motion since it is an opportunity to work together on being more transparent and accountable.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had the chance to listen to a number of speeches today. What I am struggling with is the idea of greater independence. How does one measure independence? For example, we measure the freedom and independence of a free press by its ability to criticize a government and not be closed down. That is freedom and independence.

I am not sure how we would provide greater independence for the Parliamentary Budget Officer. At times, he has not only been very critical of the government, its initiatives, numbers and things like that, but his appointment is non-partisan. The list of candidates is not chosen by the government in council. The appointment is made by government in council but is chosen from a list of the Library of Parliament, which is non-partisan and unbiased.

Could the member explain how we would measure greater independence other than by the silence of the government? I think that is what her party really wants, that the government should have no opinion on the quality of the report, the information or the data. However, that does not mean greater independence for the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Could she explain how we would get greater independence than a non-partisan appointment and the ability to criticize the government at will?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The NDP is not making this stuff up. There are differences between officers of Parliament and Library of Parliament staff members. Officers of Parliament have more independence than people who work for the Library of Parliament.

I would like to add that the Conservatives attacked Mr. Page because he repeatedly pointed out their poor financial management. These constant political attacks revealed the need for a strong and independent Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Could my colleague tell me what the government would lose if the Parliamentary Budget Officer had more independence? Why not give it a try? What is there to lose? Nothing, except the fear of having a bit more transparency.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if all political parties support the need for a parliamentary budget officer and recognize the valuable work that Mr. Kevin Page does, then we should draw the conclusion that in the interim, between now and the next number of months, it would be appropriate to extend the contract of Mr. Page in the capacity of Parliamentary Budget Officer for the House and all Canadians, given the fact that we have an upcoming budget. He is in a much better position to provide an assessment of the billions of dollars proposed to be spent in the upcoming budget.

Does the member not agree how important it is that we give him that extension?

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The NDP certainly agrees with extending the Parliamentary Budget Officer's mandate if necessary. If we have not found a successor or if the successor is not appointed and ready to take over, it is important for the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to continue operating.

This office has produced about 150 reports in five years. As a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, I can say that these reports help us get to the truth and have a critical eye when examining the figures presented by the government.

The office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer must absolutely continue its important work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to present an approach that is different from the one taken by my colleagues: an overall vision of a government that must act and must have a watchdog. In this case, the watchdogs are the officers of Parliament.

Need we recall the circumstances in which the position held by Mr. Page, the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer, was created?

At the time, following a series of financial scandals, all political parties agreed to seven recommendations made by Mr. Broadbent, the former leader of the New Democratic Party. One of them was that there be someone who could provide information to parliamentarians faster and more easily.

It is essential that parliamentarians be well informed so they have a more accurate idea of what they need to investigate and so they can be sure they clearly understand the consequences of their votes on financial legislation. To a large extent, that is what it was.

Mismanagement by the government may be an isolated incident, but it can also be a pattern. No one is immune to mistakes. The only people who never make mistakes are people who do nothing. Since parliamentarians do a lot, it is entirely probable that they will make mistakes.

In the past, a Parliamentary Budget Officer was quite useful on the question of the firearms registry. That registry was supposed to cost $20 million, but it cost $2 billion. That is a little discrepancy that it would have been nice to have brought to our attention faster. As well, sponsorships would have been cut much sooner.

On the question of using $58 billion from the employment insurance fund, if someone had said at the time that the money should not be taken or it would cause major problems for unemployed people, we would not be where we are right now. The unemployed are in trouble now. If the $58 billion had stayed in the employment insurance fund, we would not be having to make reforms now to save a few crusts. People who are starving find crusts very useful.

The NDP hopes to form the government in 2015. If that happens, it will not be immune to mistakes. It may be that an environment bill introduced by the NDP someday will cost too much. It would be practical for someone to tell us we are making a mistake and we have to make adjustments. Since we are responsible, we would make those adjustments. There is no shame in making a mistake. What is idiotic, however, is to keep repeating the same mistake and hoping to get a different result. That is the height of idiocy. Unfortunately, the same mistake keeps getting made at present.

With respect to the F-35s, the Conservatives should be thanking the officers of Parliament and the Parliamentary Budget Officer for saving them and the taxpayers money, a bill of $30 billion in additional costs. That is no small thing. It is a major mistake, but they persisted. That problem should have been solved when the report was first submitted. Instead, they persisted in repeating the same lies, over and over, hoping that someday they would become the truth. Regarding the F-35s, they were told that the cost would be $45 billion. Then the Auditor General told them that the cost would be $45 billion. And finally National Defence admitted that it would cost $45 billion. That is a long way from the $15 billion initially predicted. And yet it took three answers before they saw sense. That is the problem. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

In this case, all of the parties who are here now created the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer. It is not just yours. It is also ours.

The position was established unanimously and it has proved its worth.

Governments around the world are grappling with the question of who supervises those in power. Here, we have the officers of Parliament. Mr. Page is not an officer of Parliament. He is an employee of the Library of Parliament—an employee. He does not possess the powers of an officer of Parliament. It is not part of his role to require a department to undergo an audit; he needs to ask permission. This is a major difference.

When it comes to establishing his budget, he has to discuss it with a hierarchy of bureaucrats that depend on political powers. An officer of Parliament discusses his budget before Parliament, in full view of the political class. There is a difference in terms of independence.

We would like the PBO to have greater independence. That is why we would like the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is preparing to leave, to retain his authority and for Mr. page to remain in the position until his replacement has been appointed. We would like to avoid having to do without a Parliamentary Budget Officer for any period of time. It is hard to believe that those who claim to have created the position and want to keep it should so readily agree that the position should go unfilled for a while. There are times when criticism requires circumspection.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s budget also contributes to his independence, which is what keeps him from getting bogged down in frivolous requests, and prevents him being overwhelmed by directives. This is extremely important. Within an officer of Parliament’s general mandate he or she establishes his or her own objectives and immediate missions. The Parliamentary Budget Officer cannot because he is an employee of the Library of Parliament. If he is given an order to conduct an investigation, and even if the investigation will not amount to much, he is required to conduct it. When the Standing Committee on Finance ordered him henceforth to conduct audits on all written requests, he was obliged to comply. He is not an officer of Parliament, but rather a public servant, and that is a major difference.

If we compare this situation to what happens in the United States, Japan and other countries, we see that the people in these countries have genuine checks and balances, and the authority to inform parliamentarians about any excesses. Here, this power has been worn down, largely diminished and restricted.

We can say that the work has been done well. It is sometimes politically unpleasant, particularly when people insist on denying the truth. As soon as Mr. Page's report on the F-35s was presented, the government should have admitted that something was wrong, apologized, re-done its homework and done some checking. This did not happen.

Churchill used to say that the most important of all parliamentary committees is the public accounts committee. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and I can attest to the critical importance of having a source of information other than the government, a source that can disagree and has greater freedom of action.

I would like to conclude with a wonderful quote from Galileo:

The authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason in an individual man.

When I refer to thousands of opinions, I am talking about the entire government.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was an interesting speech but I am still trying to figure out how we would measure greater independence than having someone appointed from a list presented by a non-partisan organization like the Library of Parliament, someone with complete freedom to be publicly critical and not lose their position. I am trying to figure out what the NDP is actually asking for in calling for more independence. The Parliamentary Budget Officer determines his own priorities. Indeed, a request of mine in the past to examine something was turned down by him, even though the PBO serves members of Parliament.

The role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is simple. It is to provide non-partisan information so that MPs can be watchdogs. It is not that the PBO is to be a watchdog of the government. That is what the opposition members want to transform the PBO into, and that is a dangerous road to go down because it could lead the PBO to being subject to legitimate criticisms of partisanship. It is to equip members of Parliament, unless the opposition members believe they are no longer effective watchdogs of the government. Maybe that is why they want to change this role.

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

Mr. Speaker, public servants are not officers of Parliament. Their career progression is tied to a bureaucratic hierarchy. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has no authority over other public servants and cannot obtain certain required documents. Currently, he must go to court to get the documents he needs.

That makes no sense. This is proof positive that we need an officer of Parliament to carry out this duty. The Parliamentary Budget Officer cannot set his own budget. He is not accountable to us. He is accountable to a hierarchy of public servants who are accountable to politicians.

Our answer to everything the member said is yes. Yes, we have to give this officer greater independence.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just because the government says something does not necessarily mean it is true. The Parliamentary Budget Officer will reinforce that. I will give two or three very short examples.

One could talk about the firearms registry. The government said how much money it cost, but how much did the Parliamentary Budget Officer say it cost? We could talk about seniors' pension crisis. Government said how much it costs and the Parliamentary Budget Officer said something different. For the F-35s, the government said an amount and the Parliamentary Budget Officer said something entirely different.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer does profile important issues, not necessarily taking sides on a political issue but raising issues to the degree of making the discussion more credible, thus adding to the debate and the value for all Canadians.

Would the member agree that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has done fabulous work in raising the credibility of the numbers related to issues?