Linda Duncan

[Employment Insurance, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, a skilled tradesman and temporary foreign worker working in Alberta for five years is in the process of seeking permanent residency. As required, he paid into employment insurance for all those years. However, he has been told he does not qualify to claim EI benefits because he is not available to work. He is keen to work but he cannot seek employment until he gets a new work permit, which could take three months.

Why is the government shunting yet another willing, skilled, experienced worker to the provincial welfare roles?

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I want to reserve my judgment on whether we need to strengthen the legislation. That is exactly the issue the Parliamentary Budget Officer has referred to the courts.

His reading of the legislation, and frankly, my reading of the legislation, is that he has the full power to command that the information he has requested be provided.

What needs to be strengthened is the PBO budget and having the PBO made an independent, full officer of Parliament so that there would be less interference.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, part of the way to ensure the integrity and respect of the Parliamentary Budget Officer who is being made a full officer of Parliament would be to have representation from all parties in the House for the selection and review process. That would be my recommendation.

However, the first step is to get the government to agree that the Parliamentary Budget Officer should become a full officer of Parliament. Then it should reach out to the other parties and discuss how that process may proceed.

I suggest that we take advantage of the meeting this month with the OECD network and seek its advice on how we might move forward.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to suggest that everybody copy what is done by the Government of Canada at this moment in time.

I can only attest to the expert testimony before our committee when we undertook a review of how we could strengthen the role of the PBO and support the role of MPs in reviewing estimates and supply. Resoundingly, all the experts made exactly the same recommendation, which was to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer a full officer of Parliament to ensure his independence, and furthermore, to expand his resources so we could fully build our capacity to review the estimates in supply.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Pontiac for sharing his time with me. It was my great privilege to welcome him to our committee. He will do a fantastic job in deliberations on such matters as strengthening the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I was honoured today to second this important motion tabled by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Parkdale—High Park, to reaffirm, strengthen and extend the critical mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or the PBO.

One of our primary obligations as parliamentarians is to scrutinize the government's spending plans as outlined in budgets, estimates and the reports on plans and priorities. This duty applies to all members of Parliament regardless of political affiliation, opposition and backbenchers alike.

Two successive studies by parliamentary committees have identified a significant failure by MPs in delivering this duty. A unanimous report that I had the privilege of contributing to, tabled last fall and entitled “Strengthening Parliamentary Scrutiny of Estimates and Supply”, calls on the government to take action to improve the capacity of MPs to enable more meaningful scrutiny of estimates and supply. This report recognized the important role played by the Parliamentary Budget Officer in this process. The report noted an OECD finding that best practices for budget transparency require that “Parliament should have the opportunity and resources to effectively examine any fiscal report that it deems necessary”.

The committee heard testimony from an array of Canadian and international experts, who concurred that the PBO is a key player in improving and supplementing the capacity of MPs.

Dr. Joachim Wehner, associate professor of public policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science, testified that in order to improve scrutiny of the estimates and supply, “The first [requirement]...is to protect and enhance the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.... Internationally, the Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada is very highly regarded, and it's certainly a major change...in the degree the parliament in Canada has access to an independent, highly professional research capacity”. He added that the role of the PBO could be further strengthened if made a full officer of Parliament with total access to all relevant information. Dr. Wehner shared that his views were premised on international experience with such officers in other jurisdictions.

What is the PBO and where does his mandate arise? The PBO was created in 2006 with the enactment of the Financial Accountability Act. His mandate is clearly prescribed in law to “provide independent analysis to the Senate and to the House of Commons about the state of the nation’s finances, the estimates of the government and trends in the national economy”. He is also mandated to undertake research and assist committees in the review and analysis of estimates. Clearly, the PBO must have ready and open access to financial and economic data to deliver on these duties. MPs and committees have found this information and advice indispensable to their scrutiny of government spending and estimates. Accessibility to all information has regrettably been a matter of ongoing contention for the current PBO. He was ultimately forced to seek a court ruling due to access denials.

While the official opposition was pleased that the government operations and estimates committee report recognized the valuable role of the PBO, in a supplementary report the New Democrats also called on the government to take immediate action to make the Parliamentary Budget Officer an officer of Parliament. Valuing his role, we also recommended that the PBO be legally mandated to report not just to the finance committee, but also to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates with respect to its estimates work.

This call is reflected in proposed legislation tabled by my colleague the MP for Parkdale—High Park. Our call is endorsed by Canadian expert Dr. David Good, professor at the School of Public Administration at the University of Victoria, who testified: “First, I would make the Parliamentary Budget Officer a full agent of Parliament to assist parliamentarians and committees. I think the role and mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer needs to be clarified and strengthened by making the office legislatively separate and independent of the Library of Parliament, thereby operating as a full agent of Parliament”.

The important work of the PBO is highly regarded in Canada and abroad. In fact, next week the Parliamentary Budget Officer will welcome the OECD network of parliamentary budget officers to Ottawa for their fifth annual meeting.

PBOs exist in Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, Australia and even Korea. As I said, the OECD network of PBOs is scheduled to meet in Ottawa to continue deliberations on improved parliamentary oversight of fiscal stimulus, deficits and risk management. It is most regrettable that they are arriving in this country at the very moment in time when there is a dispute over providing important information to the PBO and when we are facing a vacuum in accessibility to his important expertise.

Other countries provide analogous examples of providing support to elected officials. For example, the Congressional Budget Office in the United States of America, created in 1975, provides budget committees and Congress with objective information about budgetary and economic issues.

As mentioned, strong support for an independent Parliamentary Budget Officer has been voiced by experts who lauded Canada for the initial establishment of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Dr. Wehner spoke of the need, and I quote:

...to protect and enhance the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. A number of countries are creating similar institutions, and the Parliament in Canada has really been at the cusp of this development. Internationally, the Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada is very highly regarded, and it's certainly a major change, in my view, at least, in the degree the parliament in Canada has access to an independent, highly professional research capacity.

He then added:

I believe that some adjustments are possible to the legal framework for the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In particular, this role could be strengthened, or the status be strengthened, if he were a full officer of Parliament. Moreover, steps could be taken so that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has total access to all relevant information. In the past I believe there have been incidents where departments have not been quite as forthcoming with providing information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer as perhaps they should have been. But overall, I see this as a very positive development, and I see some scope for strengthening it also on the basis of international experience.

There we have it. Even international experts are watching what is happening in Canada and what will happen with our PBO.

New Democrats have long supported the establishment of an independent PBO. New Democrats stood in the House and voiced their support for the creation of a Parliamentary Budget Officer in 2006. We remain in support of the PBO, regrettably now under attack by members opposite.

It would serve members opposite well to be reminded of their own previous support of an independent PBO and the value of objective analysis. The Prime Minister in 2006 said:

Such a body would ensure that the government is genuinely accountable for taxpayers' dollars and that we maintain fiscal discipline

The finance minister in 2006 said:

Governments cannot be held to account if Parliament and Canadians do not know the real state of public finances.

In fact, the Conservative 2006 electoral platform endorsed the creation of an independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. How attitudes have changed. Time after time the PBO has faced delays or denials to his requests for financial information. As I mentioned, he was forced to take the matter to the Federal Court.

Now in the face of his imminent termination, the government has dragged its feet in ensuring his timely replacement. The process for filling the PBO office took 18 months last time. MPs now will face review of the coming budget and estimates absent the PBO's analytical support. The simple answer is presented in this motion: extend the term of the current PBO.

What happened to the government members who once proposed support for the PBO?

I can personally attest to the value of his reporting and the assistance of his office in my participation in a parliamentary committee and my review of estimates.

We are meant to be stewards of the public purse. We can choose to support institutions that ensure informed decisions. An independent PBO reporting to Parliament offers that window. I call on all members to support this motion to make the PBO a true officer of Parliament.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park for tabling this very important motion.

As she has pointed out to the House, one of the most significant roles and responsibilities for elected members of Parliament, whether they are on the government side or in opposition, is to scrutinize spending. We have a responsibility to make sure that taxpayers' dollars are spent appropriately.

As she is aware, both the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance have objected to the PBO delivering in his role in an effective manner. The statement made by one of the Conservative members, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert, is rather shocking. While he has commended the PBO for his valuable role in scrutinizing spending, he has stated that the fact that the data and the information could be released publicly would deter government members from seeking his services.

I wonder if the hon. member could speak to the issue of the role of the PBO and the fact that he has had to resort to the courts to get that information to make it available to all members of Parliament.

[Petitions, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to table petitions from Ontario residents calling for action by the federal Minister of the Environment, Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Minister of Natural Resources and Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to take expedited action to protect the Great Lakes. In the case of Lake Huron, that lake has dropped more than five feet. I have personally witnessed this drop over time while visiting friends in Georgian Bay. It has a major impact on navigation and ecology. We implore the government to take action.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the same question to the hon. member and thank him for his speech on this important matter.

Two of the members on the opposite side, including the Minister of State for Western Economic Diversification have raised this bugbear of whether it is an essential service.

I wonder if the member would like to speak to the fact that if, on the one side the government does not believe that the transport of our goods across the country is important enough to protect those people who are producing bitumen, growing grain and shipping equipment east and west, why does the government feel it cannot intervene on that side to properly regulate, provide fair rates and equal access to fair service? However, on the other side it throws in the bugbear that if the rail workers should think maybe they are not being paid fairly or have proper pension plans and so forth, that is the time for the heavy hammer of government.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the Western Arctic for his comments, particularly toward the end of his speech, where I think he made one of the most important points in this debate.

There has been great frustration among the Canadian public on their lack of voice in the enactment of legislation by the government. Certainly, we have heard it in the Idle No More movement.

As the hon. member said, what could be a more important service than transportation for all Canadians?

Of course, our critic for transportation has done a great job in trying to push through a national transportation strategy.

I wonder if the member would speak about who he thinks should be able to come forward to the committee to express what additional needs they have, what changes should be made in the legislation and what kind of process should occur to ensure that the legislation does reflect the needs and interests of all users of the rail lines.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I find it stunning that there is much to-do about these improvements to the transportation system and that the government, through the bill, is going to introduce an arbitration system between rail companies and those who wish to ship their goods. When we actually look at the provisions, they are limited to new contracts. I do not want to put my hon. colleague on the spot; she may not be able to answer a specific question, but it raises the issue of goods that are shipped—mining, equipment, wheat. Surely in most cases there are long-term contracts that have been negotiated. I find the limited nature of this arbitration process rather stunning. Equally stunning is that it is not going to include shipping across the border into the United States and that there are not going to be any penalty provisions.

I wonder if the member could elaborate and speak about the limitations of these improvements that are being made to the rights of those who wish to ship goods by rail.