Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe

[Petitions, February 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to present a petition signed by many people who are calling on the government to maintain the age of eligibility for old age security at 65 because raising it will hurt seniors, particularly the most disadvantaged. This is unacceptable in a country like Canada.

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his passionate speech. I can tell he is committed to rising in the House to defend the interests of the people in his region, in his riding. We can see it in his everyday work.

Unfortunately, my colleague did not have enough time to say everything he wanted to say about this bill. I would like to give him the chance to continue and perhaps to conclude with a thought of his own. Unfortunately, in the House we do not always have enough time to share our ideas, our opinions and those our of constituents.

[The Conservative Government, February 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we keep seeing more and more instances of misuse of public funds by this Conservative government.

It is throwing millions out the window to buy dubious advertising, and Conservative senators like Harb, Duffy and Brazeau—the same ones that the Prime Minister swore he would never appoint but is now responsible for—are stuffing their pockets with allowances they are not entitled to. That is theft.

Unfortunately, in the House of Commons things are no better. The Minister of Human Resources calls job seekers bad guys, a minister uses a search and rescue helicopter as his personal taxi, and millions of dollars are being spent on rewriting Canada's history with a Conservative twist and misinforming Canadians.

Instead of being willing yes-men for the PMO, my Conservative colleagues should use their speaking time to demand accountability from their colleagues who misuse taxpayer money. That is what an MP is supposed to do.

The NDP believes in properly managing public funds, and we will be there for Canadians in 2015.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

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.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

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.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

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.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

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.

[Consumer Protection, January 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, while the minister is going on about this tangible code of conduct, additional charges are popping up on seniors' phone bills. That is the reality.

If businesses are continuing to add surcharges for paper bills, then the code of conduct is not working. About half of seniors use the Internet, and even fewer of them are able to receive and pay their bills electronically.

Will the minister take effective action or will he continue to ignore these extra fees that are costing our seniors a lot of money?

[New Democratic Party of Canada, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, a new year is a time for making resolutions. And the Conservatives had plenty of options.

They could have finally decided to be transparent, to stop selling off our natural resources to foreign countries at bargain basement prices, to manage public funds prudently instead of getting involved in the F-35 fiasco, to put an end to the series of ethical scandals or to respect seniors instead of slashing their old age security pensions.

Unfortunately, yesterday I saw that not much has changed.

In contrast, the NDP will use 2013 as an opportunity to continue our relentless efforts. In 2013, with a staunch defender of Canadian interests at the helm, with a united, solid, competent team and with an unyielding commitment to hold this irresponsible government to account—the NDP will prove yet again that it is ready to build a greener, more prosperous and fairer Canada.

[PETITIONS, December 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I am presenting a petition today calling on the government to introduce legislation on road safety and motorized vehicles to protect cyclists, motorcyclists and pedestrians in the case of accidents.