Guy Caron

[Incorporation by Reference in Regulations Act, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Gatineau for her excellent speech on a very technical—yet very important—topic.

She spoke about the definitions included in the bill, which are often vague. For example, in the case of ambulatory incorporation by reference, the existing authorities must make a reasonable attempt to make the information accessible.

I will use employment insurance as an example. Statistics Canada often provides the unemployment rates. However, not too long ago, we had to pay to access statistics from Statistics Canada. It is now free, but it was not before. There is no guarantee that in five, six or seven years, this service will not have a fee again. If that were to happen, this data would be less accessible and the purpose of this bill would be compromised.

Does the member for Gatineau agree with my interpretation? Does she think this is a potential obstacle to passing a bill that is meant to make it easier for all Canadians to access the regulations and laws?

[Parliamentary Budget Officer, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we learned today that we lost 22,000 net jobs in January, and this is much worse than the experts predicted. It flies in the face of the Conservatives' job creation claims. The reality simply does not match their talking points.

Without the PBO, it will be that much harder to learn the truth. Instead of hiding from accountability, why will the government not extend the Parliamentary Budget Officer's mandate until a replacement is found?

[Parliamentary Budget Officer, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today we learned that there was a net loss of 22,000 jobs in January.

That is the kind of news the Conservatives do not really want us to find out while they insist on allowing the Parliamentary Budget Officer's mandate to lapse and drag their feet finding a replacement.

Why does this government not want to extend the mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer? When will they stop keeping Canadians in the dark? Why are they so scared of financial accountability?

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this is a crucial matter that strikes at the core of the independence issue.

Frankly, I am even wondering if the Library of Parliament should conduct this review, because the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer should not answer to the Library of Parliament. It should not answer to an institution that itself answers to the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, which is a committee made up of members of Parliament, the majority of whom come from the government.

When talking independence, these are all relevant issues that should be clearly defined. For instance, the previous member asked a question about independence in terms of the appointment, but what kind of independence, what kind of autonomy does the Parliamentary Budget Officer really have when he is threatened with cuts to his funding—almost half of his budget—immediately after publishing a damning report about the total cost of our intervention in Afghanistan? How can the Parliamentary Budget Officer operate effectively and independently when he does not know what kind of reprisals his office will suffer if the government is unhappy with a study?

In my opinion, these are key elements and they should be compelling arguments for ensuring that the Parliamentary Budget Officer becomes an officer of Parliament reporting not only to the Prime Minister, not only to the Library of Parliament, not only to the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament, but to Parliament as a whole, because he is working for all of us and for all Canadians.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his very relevant question. It gets to the heart of the definition of independence.

In 2008, when the Parliamentary Budget Officer tried to table his office's reports—independently prepared reports on important issues involving government operations—they tried to muzzle him and keep him from presenting his research to Parliament and to Canadians.

The issue of independence is not about knowing who will be chosen, it is knowing what flexibility and autonomy the PBO will be granted so that he can do research to table reports in Parliament and make analyses that will be taken seriously so that the government can be forced to be accountable and transparent. Independence is an important issue, and it extends beyond the selection process. The PBO must also be given the authority to act.

As an officer of Parliament, the PBO would have full independence and could not, as is the case now, be fired by the Prime Minister—that could happen because he is currently at the Prime Minister's beck and call.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure, on behalf of the official opposition, of concluding the debate on this very important motion.

I would like the backbench members of the Conservative government to pay particular attention because this affects them as much as it affects opposition members.

The office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is non-partisan and so does research for all parties, particularly in an extremely complex area in which we, as parliamentarians and members of Parliament, have very few resources.

We are well aware that backbench members on the government side are about as much in the dark as we are when it comes time to examine budgets, because all powers in relation to budgets are in the hands of the Department of Finance, which answers to the Minister of Finance. The Department of Finance does not answer to Parliament, it answers to the Minister of Finance, and so to cabinet.

That is why I would like to have the Conservative backbench members’ attention during my speech. These decisions affect them as much as they affect us. We want to have an office, like the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that can shed light and force the Department of Finance, the Minister of Finance and cabinet to be a little more accountable and transparent.

I would like to recall what the legislation says:

79.2 The mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to:

(a) provide independent analysis to the Senate and the House of Commons about the state of the nation’s finances, the estimates of the government and trends in the national economy.

This is a very important element, since we have recently witnessed several attempts by members of the Conservative government cabinet in particular to create confusion regarding the role and mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

His role is not, as some, including the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance, have claimed, simply to examine the money spent by the federal government and by cabinet. His role is to examine the state of the national economy and provide independent analyses about matters relating to the economy and the budget that he considers to be of significant interest both to parliamentarians and to the Canadian public.

Another part of its mandate is, at the request of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, standing committees of the House of Commons, or the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts, to provide analyses and reports on matters that come to their attention. At the request of any parliamentary committee, it must conduct studies that review government estimates. Lastly, at the request of any parliamentary committee or any member of the House, it must assess the financial cost of any proposed measure within the government's areas of jurisdiction.

Once again, an important role played by the Parliamentary Budget Officer or the PBO's office is analyzing the financial and budget implications of private members’ bills. Unfortunately, the PBO has been unable to achieve this objective because of the lack of resources allocated from the very outset; but I will return to this point later.

After having listened to many speeches in the House from the opposition and the government, what strikes me is the offhanded attitude of government MPs towards this issue.

It needs to be taken seriously. Canada is a G8 economy, but at the moment, I get the impression that we are operating like a banana republic. The hope has been that the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer can counterbalance analyses by the Department of Finance, but at the end of the day, it cannot because it has neither the resources, nor the independence or autonomy required to do so.

I would like to compare the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to a successful example of how a budgetary and financial analysis tool ought to function; I am referring to the United States Congressional Budget Office. For the benefit of the House, I would like to review the details of how it came about.

The CBO was established in 1974, mainly to counter the growing powers being appropriated by Richard Nixon, the president at the time, who was able to seize powers by hiding information from members of Congress. A mechanism was needed to enable members of Congress, whether in the Senate or the House of Representatives, to obtain the information they needed before it could be concealed by the Office of the President.

The Congressional Budget Office was established at the time for a very specific purpose, one that very closely parallels what we are experiencing at the moment: the need to check the growing powers being assumed by the Office of the Prime Minister and cabinet at the expense of parliamentarians responsible for guaranteeing transparency and accountability.

I would like to compare the establishment of the CBO and of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer because there are many similarities between the two processes, and between the objectives that those establishing them had in mind.

I would like to quote from Robert Reischauer, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, who was there when it was established—not as the director, but he was there. He described how Congress attempted to weaken the powers of the CBO when it was being established:

What the House wanted [when the CBO was created] was basically a manhole in which Congress would have a bill or something and it would lift up the manhole cover and put the bill down it, and 20 minutes later a piece of paper would be handed up, with the cost estimate, the answer, on it. No visibility, [just] some kind of mechanism down below the ground level doing this...non controversial [work], the way the sewer system [does].

So that really gives you an idea of the state of mind of the U.S. Congress, which did not want the Republican party, the party in power at the time, to declaw the office, which was responsible for providing independent, non-partisan financial analysis to which members of Congress did not have access.

However, Mr. Reischauer, like many of his colleagues, opposed the will of the CBO, somewhat as Kevin Page did, to defend the independence, autonomy and non-partisan nature of his office. A few days ago, however, the Minister of Finance said this on Global TV:

—the idea...was that the parliamentary budget officer would kind of work like the congressional budget officer in the United States to report to the elected people in the House of Commons about how the government was doing in its budgeting. Sort of being a sounding board, a testing board.

This clearly shows that the Minister of Finance has no knowledge about the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, nor has he given it careful thought. Either that or he really wants to try, five years after it was created, to make it as harmless as the members of the U.S. Congress wanted to make their office when it was established. However, the Conservatives, the Minister of Finance and the members of the former Reform Party have not always thought that way.

What was the original idea in creating the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, according to the Reform Party at the time and the Federal Accountability Act, which we supported in 2006? That idea was clearly stated.

I would like to thank Paul Wells, who managed to find this quotation from Monte Solberg, a prominent former Reform Party MP. In 2004, he expressed the party's desire for such an office as follows:

It would be an independent body that would answer to Parliament and would not be part of the government. It would not be a situation where the government could manipulate the figures to its own ends.

That is not what the government did. By placing the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer under the authority of the Library of Parliament from 2006 to 2008—which meant that the Parliamentary Budget Officer served at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, who could dismiss him if he wished—the Conservative government wilfully restricted the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s independence and autonomy.

The Conservatives thought that, by appointing Kevin Page to the position in 2008, with the constraints that were placed on him, they could guarantee themselves a good little lap dog, a poodle. However, instead of that—and to Mr. Page's credit—they got themselves a pit bull who chose to champion government accountability and transparency.

The office exists today. It is our parliamentary duty, on both the opposition and government sides, to provide it with all the tools, autonomy and independence it needs, along with more resources so that it can do its work properly for the benefit and efficiency of our work as parliamentarians.

There are currently nine to twelve employees who work in the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, and some positions have yet to be filled. The office has a budget of less than $3 million. By comparison, the American CBO has about 250 employees and has a budget of nearly $50 million. The CPB in the Netherlands, which has a similar role, has 170 employees. The National Assembly Budget Office in South Korea has 135 employees. The office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer has nine to twelve employees to do the work.

Organizations such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, have spoken about and continue to speak about the need for an independent analysis office that answers to Parliament. In a recent OECD document published in 2007 and subsequently updated, the OECD identifies three principles for independent budgetary institutions, such as the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It is worth going over these details, because they are at the heart of the difference in interpretation of the role of the PBO that the NDP and the government members have been expressing today.

The first principle for this office is the guarantee of independence and long-term sustainability. The OECD stresses the importance of the office being non-partisan, something that is constantly being challenged by the Conservatives. In their minds, being non-partisan means agreeing with them. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has a very high level of technical expertise. This office performs miracles with what little means it has, but it lacks the resources to do its job properly. The appointment process for an officer is very important. There must be a process, and that is why we are calling for the creation of the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer. The Parliamentary Budget Officer would thereby be an officer of Parliament and not an employee appointed by the Prime Minister who could be fired at the Prime Minister's will. Sure, we could talk about the Library of Parliament committee, but this committee is not non-partisan. The government always has the majority on that committee.

There also needs to be long-term stable funding. I remind government members who oppose enhancing the means and the independence of the office that when the report on the costs generated by our involvement in Afghanistan was released by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the government immediately threatened to reduce his budget from $2.8 million, down to $1.8 million. In fact, at the time, he was only able to preserve his budget and resources by making compromises on his degree of independence and autonomy. These conditions had been imposed on him by the Library of Parliament.

The second principle presented by the OECD, which is also a condition for having a functional office, is the ability to lead truly independent analyses. This includes having access to the information needed to conduct the studies. Let us not forget, and government members are well aware of that, that the Parliamentary Budget Officer must now turn to the courts to obtain the information that he needs to conduct the studies that could shed light on government spending, including the positions that are targeted and eliminated through government cutbacks.

As parliamentarians, we do not get that information from the government. It refuses to give us that information, and it refuses to give it to the Parliamentary Budget Officer who, if he were an officer of Parliament, would have the necessary authority to obtain it, without having to go to court.

Another aspect related to the ability to conduct truly independent analyses is the maintaining of cordial relations without compromising the independence of his office. We all know that, following all the analyses and reports released by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, several Conservative members have been openly hostile and certain cabinet members have shown a great deal of contempt toward him, which is totally unacceptable.

The third element, which is also a sensitive issue among our Conservative friends, is the fact that this issue has an impact on the public. To a large degree, it means there is a need to have an independent and open relationship with the media, in order to be able to get the information out.

If you recall, when the position was first created, the Parliamentary Librarian tried to muzzle Mr. Page by preventing him from giving the media the information that he had prepared for the benefit of the Canadian people and for use by parliamentarians.

A number of the reports prepared by the Parliamentary Budget Officer or his office spurred healthy debate in the House of Commons. These include the sustainability of pensions, the cost of fighting crime with more jail sentences, freezing or cutting expenditures, security costs at the G8 and G20 summits, forecasts on the eve of the 2008 financial and economic crisis and, finally, the cost of the F-35 fighter jets.

We should remember that many of these reports contradicted what the government said about many issues, including the F-35s. This has been mentioned a number of times today.

It just amazes me to hear them say that we do not need to give the Parliamentary Budget Officer more power because the departments and the ministers provide the information. We have proven over and over again that a number of the debates triggered by the PBO's reports and analyses have brought to light many issues, many weaknesses in the Conservative administration that eventually led to debate in the House. It would not have happened had the departments, ministers and cabinet members been allowed to decide whether to provided the information or not.

I will talk about another curious aspect of the debate on sustainability of pensions. The Parliamentary Budget Officer studied the impact of the aging population, a study that the Minister of Finance had promised with the 2007 budget and that was needed for long-term planning. The study was probably done, but the minister refuses to submit it to Parliament. The Parliamentary Budget Officer carried out his own study—which the minister rejected—but was unable to submit it to Parliament for a debate on this important issue. This report was prepared using public money and it is probably sitting on a shelf at the Department of Finance or in the minister's office.

It is important to note that Canada is lagging behind other OECD countries. As I said, Canada is a G8 country. We should act like a G8 country by ensuring a maximum level of democracy, transparency and accountability when it comes to assessing our public finances.

Earlier I mentioned the conditions imposed by the OECD to ensure a functional PBO office or other similar functions. I can substantiate that with comments made by Dr. Alice Rivlin who was the first CBO in the United States. She faced a similar struggle against the government powers of the day, who were also trying to limit the CBO's authority. In the 1970s, she established the three main principles underlying the work of a good watchdog, from an economic and budgetary perspective.

Here are the three elements. The first is independence, pure and simple. At present, no matter what our Conservative friends may say, our Parliamentary Budget Officer is not independent. He works for the Library of Parliament and reports to a committee—the Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament—on which the Conservatives have a majority.

Secondly, the non-partisan nature of the position is important. The PBO can examine bills put forward by the NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives, for he is non-partisan.

The third principle is empirical objectivity, which ensures the benefit of technical and financial resources to conduct proper economic studies based on empirical evidence and theories.

At present, the PBO cannot do this. That is why we are asking that this individual be made an officer of Parliament. This position will not be filled in time for his departure, so we are asking that Mr. Page be reappointed to the position. We are not the only ones asking for this.

In all the media, whether left, right or centre, I have heard pundits talking about the importance of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. There is a general consensus on this within Canadian society and among those who care about these things. The Conservatives do not share this consensus, but they are the only ones who do not want to give the Parliamentary Budget Officer greater powers, more independence and more resources.

In passing, I would like to quote Ian Lee, whom the government often calls on for committee studies. He said that it is very important that the PBO be transformed into an officer of Parliament.

To conclude, I would like to say that the issue is important to backbenchers. Should the NDP replace them in 2015, I can guarantee that if the Parliamentary Budget Officer is not an officer of Parliament, it will be the first request they make as the opposition.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, what my friend just mentioned raises another major problem with the employment insurance reform.

This reform is so complex and contains so many conditions that could be considered technical that it will take a long time for us to understand all the ramifications and consequences it will have for the lives of the communities, as I mentioned in my speech, but also for the lives and situations of certain groups that were characterized, based on their status, as special groups. This is just one example of this type of discrimination, of these consequences and the impact that we see on a regular basis. The reform was implemented on January 6 and we will be seeing these kinds of consequences for a very long time.

I discussed general consequences during my speech. I avoided talking about all the technical issues. There is the obligation for claimants to accept a job as far as one hour's drive away. That means that someone in my constituency who lives in Squatec must accept a job in Rivière-du-Loup or even Rimouski, which are less than an hour’s drive away. He may not decline that job or else his benefits may be reduced or cancelled. This is a reality for people in rural areas.

If we are talking about the negative consequences of these major problems for our regions, for their vitality and economies, then we need not go any further than the example I just cited and the one my colleague mentioned.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it will be a pleasure.

The movement is indeed highly diversified. People know what it means when we talk about reform. Yes, claimants and even workers who are currently employed are involved. Employers are too because they risk losing their workforce, which in many cases has been trained at high cost. However, as a result of the economic insecurity and obligations that the government has imposed under the employment insurance reform and that have nothing to do with the actual situation in the region, those employees will definitely consider leaving the region.

There is also the issue of productivity losses that I mentioned in relation to all the unsolicited job applications that will be received.

However, employers are not the only ones; municipal and regional elected representatives are involved as well. And why have they joined the movement? Because they understand the impact this has on the regional economy and even on the way their municipalities operate. Many employees, particularly in the smallest municipalities, work on contract or on a part-time basis, and they need to use employment insurance.

There is also a potential rural exodus when you ask someone from a more remote municipality to move to a larger centre, such as Rimouski, Rivière-du-Loup or Matane, in our region. There is a risk that these people will move away to go and work in those places. This causes our rural communities to further decline.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, do the words ”Notre région au pouvoir” ring a bell with you? That was the Conservative Party's slogan in Quebec during the 2011 election. When we look at the employment insurance reform that is being imposed on the regions of Quebec, we see that they—particularly the one that I have the honour and privilege of representing—are being directly attacked and are going to pay a high price.

In my region, a major movement is currently underway. People are aware of the consequences of employment insurance reform and they can see its negative effects. We have seen demonstrations on the Magdalen Islands, in the Gaspé, in the Lower St. Lawrence, along the upper north shore and the lower north shore, in Charlevoix and in the Maritimes. People are rising up because they know what this reform will mean for their communities, for their economy and for the future of their regions.

Despite all the noise that the government is trying to make and all the confusion it is trying to spread about the reform, there are two main reasons why the Conservatives have imposed this employment insurance reform.

First, it is true that there is a labour shortage in some regions of the country, in some communities and in some sectors, especially in Alberta. We recognize that. But reforming employment insurance in an attempt to better connect those looking for jobs and employers through policies will apply from coast to coast to coast is about the worst way imaginable of attaining that goal. In my opinion, it is the least effective, the least efficient way of going about it.

The second goal that the Conservatives had in mind—and it is clearly spelled out in the article I mentioned just now—is to shorten the list of those who can claim employment insurance benefits. People may have paid into the program for years, but the government is trying to make them ineligible for employment insurance. The government even came right out and said that it was hoping to save $35 million per year. Would it actually be saving money? No, that is money contributed by employers and employees, money that will be taken away from the claimants who need it when they are unemployed.

This idea of restricting EI eligibility is the crux of the issue, and it was once again exposed last Friday in Le Devoir. The article referred to the quotas imposed on Service Canada employees. They are being asked to find annual “savings” of $40,000. Of course, the main purpose was to eliminate fraudsters in our society. That is absolutely right.

However, when the government imposes quotas, when it asks every employee to find savings of $40,000, and when it imposes new EI eligibility rules, it is no longer fighting fraudsters who should not be collecting EI benefits. Rather, it is trying to find a way to exclude perfectly eligible and legitimate claimants, based on purely technical criteria or even mistakes.

The government might argue that these people have access to an appeal process if they are erroneously denied EI benefits. Let us talk about this appeal process. Until now, we had boards of referees made up of some 800 employees, many working part-time. Each board was familiar with the realities of its regional economy. However, as of next April, these boards of referees will no longer exist. The government is replacing them with a social security tribunal that will deal not only with employment insurance, but also with pensions and other federal benefits.

Under the board of referees system—which worked relatively well—one could file an appeal and a decision would be issued within a month. Therefore, a legitimate claimant could receive his benefits one month after appealing.

In the case of the social security tribunal, which will employ only 70 people across the country, a legitimate claimant may have to wait up to eight months before getting his due. Can an EI claimant afford to wait eight months before receiving his benefits? This shows how the Conservative approach to the EI issue is totally out of touch with reality, particularly the reality of our regions, because this is very much about them.

Despite the efforts that have been made, some of them in eastern Quebec, which I am honoured to represent and where the economy has been greatly diversified compared to conditions there 10 or 15 years ago, a large part of the economy still relies on seasonal work. I am choosing my words carefully. We are not talking about seasonal workers, but seasonal work. Since we are in a resource-based region, this work is mostly in the tourism, agriculture, fishery and forestry sectors. That is the reality in our regions.

At the moment, the Conservative government—for its own purposes—is completely disrupting and overturning the way our economy operates. It is doing that through its EI reforms. If the government wants to debate diversification of regional economies, we are ready. We should hold that debate here in the House, and the Quebec National Assembly could hold one, too. Still, the government never mentions regional economic diversification; it prefers to operate within the employment insurance system, which should be providing insurance benefits to claimants and taking our regional reality into account.

It is not just rural regions that are affected. Urban areas also should be alert to the effects of this reform. While the resource-based regions may depend on tourism, agriculture, fisheries and forestry, other sectors are also deeply affected by this reform. For example, construction workers often work on three- to eight-month contracts. At the end of a contract, because of a weak real estate market or slow housing starts, they may find themselves without work for several months as they wait for their next contract.

During the two to four months they are unemployed, they must search for work, perhaps outside the construction sector, depending on their qualifications, even though they are looking for jobs in construction. If they live in an urban area, they will have to do five job searches per week to qualify for benefits. Even though they are actively searching for employment in construction, no such jobs exist.

We can think of other fields, such as teaching, where substitute teachers may have contracts for three to five months, then have to wait a month or two before getting their next contract. They are asked to apply for three to five jobs a week in fields that may not be their own. They may be offered a job for which they may be qualified but that offers 70% of the salary of their previous job, and that may well be a job in sales, fast food or retail. They may be offered a job that does not interest them, and for which they have no particular training, but that they would be suited for because it is a job requiring lesser skills than a bachelor's or master's degree in education. These people are still looking for a job in education, but there are none. They may have to accept a job in a completely different field or risk losing their benefits.

I can name some other fields that affect urban areas, such as the arts and film sectors, where people often work on contract and can wind up unemployed for weeks or months, and not for lack of looking for a new contract. They may be forced to take a job outside their field, but one that they may be qualified for and will have to accept.

This reform makes no sense. What I have also seen, and what people realize when I say this reform makes no sense, is the make-up of the demonstrations and movements we are seeing in eastern Quebec. Claimants, the workers, are not the only ones rising up; there are also employers, whose workforce, often trained at high cost, may leave the region because of economic insecurity.

Employers also suffer productivity losses. If claimants are required to conduct three to five job searches a week, imagine the number of unsolicited employment applications employers receive and nevertheless have to go through. Those resources would be put to much better use helping expand those businesses.

In my view, the minister clearly has no idea of the actual situation in our regions. She has no idea of the disruptions this reform will cause in regions such eastern Quebec, and she has no idea of the negative impact this will have on regional economies.

With that, I will be pleased to answer any questions.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, before the holidays, Le Devoir published an article—with evidence to support it—that exposed the government's plan to use this reform to cut funding for 8,000 claimants who are currently receiving employment insurance. The government was also anticipating savings of $30 million to $35 million a year.

The government's objectives with this reform are clear, even though the Conservatives claim that they are trying to help employers find workers and vice versa.

At the end of the day, one of the primary goals of the reform is to deny benefits to claimants who have made their contributions and who, under the old system, would have been entitled to benefits.

I would like to hear what my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle has to say about this article that revealed the Conservative government's plan.