Murray Rankin

[Privacy, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, protecting the private information of Canadians should be a priority, but the Conservatives have repeatedly bungled these breaches. They have lost hard drives, lost USB keys and exposed the private information of thousands of people.

Now the federal agency charged with preventing the flow of money to organized crime might have actually allowed this information into the hands of the very criminals it is trying to stop.

Why did the government keep these serious privacy breaches secret? Where is the transparency?

[Privacy, February 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is not just about the personal information of Canadians. It is a much larger and more chronic problem that the Conservatives are unable to fix.

Last October, a computer and USB key were stolen from a car. They contained information about more than 700 people under surveillance by an officer responsible for stemming the flow of money to criminal and terrorist organizations.

Can the Conservatives explain the loss of these sensitive documents?

[Shark Finning, February 14th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, an estimated 73 million sharks are killed each year for their fins, often by a brutal practice called shark finning. Fins are removed and the bodies dumped into the ocean, causing a rapid decline in shark populations and serious impacts on our marine ecosystems.

My colleague, the NDP deputy fisheries and oceans critic, has provided remarkable leadership on this issue by introducing Bill C-380, a law that would stop the import of shark fins into Canada once and for all.

People across Canada have been working incredibly hard in support of this bill. Groups like Fin Free Victoria, a group that includes students from Glenlyon Northfolk School, and other schools in my riding, have been a real force for change, campaigning online and in the community. Let us listen to their voices. I am urging every member of the House to do the right thing and vote for the bill and stop the barbaric import of shark fins.

[Taxation, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are quick to brag, but they are letting billions more go uncollected while they stand and congratulate themselves.

As yesterday's report by the OECD makes clear, unethical tax avoidance by multinational businesses is a serious problem and it is getting worse. The U.K., the U.S. and Australia are all taking action. They have studied the issue. They have developed estimates of just how much money they are losing.

Why will the Conservatives not get serious and do the same?

[Taxation, February 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the OECD revealed that many multinationals were using dubious strategies to pay less than 5% in tax.

Small businesses, on the other hand, have to pay tax of up to 30%.

Several OECD countries are taking this situation seriously and have conducted studies to determine how much money is being lost through tax evasion.

Why has the Minister of National Revenue not conducted any such studies?

[The Senate, February 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister once promised, “I will not name appointed people to the Senate”. The Prime Minister has now broken that promise 58 times, and the Conservatives defend their negligence of their duties with make-believe ads on the NDP. As a new member, I find this all very sad.

Conservatives have had 789 sitting days in government, and they have called their Senate bills for debate only 18 times over seven years. Canadians know that maintaining the status quo in the Senate is in the vested interests of two parties, parties that use taxpayer-subsidized senators to do partisan work for them. However, thankfully Canadians have the NDP, the only party that opposes the entitlements of Conservative and Liberal senators, the only party that stands firm against patronage and the only party that stands shoulder to shoulder with Canadians on accountability.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians must stand up and be counted on this. Canadians stood up when there was a desire for an Access to Information Act. A Conservative member, Mr. Ged Baldwin, devoted his career to achieving that goal. An Information Commissioner was appointed and Canadians have benefited by that statute.

They should stand up and demand no less in respect of accountability for our money. That is what is at issue and that is exactly what needs to occur. Look at value for money. The congressional budget—

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I accept in principle that there is a progression exactly as has occurred, as I pointed out, with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. She was initially housed within an agency of the government. This is a similar situation vis-à-vis the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Eventually a statute was passed, called the Privacy Act, requiring her to have the independence of which I spoke, which is a seven-year term by joint address of both Houses.

Why should members deprive ourselves of that with respect to this Parliamentary Budget Officer? I accept entirely that this would be a natural progression, as we have had in the past.

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I think there were two points that were made. If I understood the question, the first was about moving away from the independence of Parliament and somehow giving the opposition the opportunity to influence that officer.

With respect, that betrays a misunderstanding of the role of officers of Parliament in our system. If I may repeat, the Auditor General, Information Commissioner and Privacy Commissioner are all examples of officers created by statute precisely so the government of the day cannot influence them. They have a seven-year term and an appointment by the Governor in Council, only after a joint resolution of both Houses of Parliament. That is the way in which Parliament guarantees independence. The NDP is asking for the same level of independence for the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I appreciate—

[Business of Supply, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

I am honoured to speak today on this important motion by my colleague, the member for Parkdale—High Park, our opposition finance critic.

This motion calls on the government to do two distinct things: first, to extend the mandate of the current Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr. Page, until his replacement is named; and second, to make the PBO a full, independent officer of Parliament. I am going to speak to both of those issues.

I think we would all acknowledge that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has played, and continues to play, a critical role, one that is necessary for this Parliament to do its work and is ultimately making it easier for us to fulfill our responsibilities as parliamentarians in a functioning democracy.

However, if a replacement for the current Parliamentary Budget Officer is not named prior to the completion of Mr. Page's term on March 25, it is possible that the PBO may cease to function, with the staff effectively being returned to the Library of Parliament, we understand. That would be absolutely unacceptable.

The PBO has produced an outstanding body of top-quality work with very limited resources. We understand there is a skeleton staff of some 14 people. They have already exposed gross mismanagement of our economy to parliamentarians such as the true cost of the F-35s, the sustainability of the old age security and guaranteed income supplement program, and more.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer was a position created by the Conservatives and received, in principle, support across party lines. It is an independent officer, as I said, but as I will describe later, it is a very different kind of officer than the classic independent officers, such as the Auditor General, the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner. I will try to delineate those distinctions in a moment.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer's responsibilities include providing an independent analysis of the state of our economy, the nation's finances and the government's expenditure plan, and an analysis of the estimates of expenditures of any government department or agency when requested to do so by a parliamentary committee that is reviewing the estimates.

The officer is also mandated to provide an estimate of costs for any proposal that falls within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada.

Now, I am urging members across the floor to support this motion. Many of them, if not all of them, supported the creation of the office in the first place. Therefore, surely they would share the same concern and understand why it is so vitally important to make sure there is no vacancy in that office.

The New Democratic Party is committed to sound public administration and as such believes that Canada requires a strong and independent Parliamentary Budget Officer. That is why my colleague from Parkdale—High Park moved this important motion, and that is why I felt so strongly that I would speak to this matter today.

On March 14, 2008, the government House leader first announced the appointment of Kevin Page as Canada's first Parliamentary Budget Officer. The government announced:

The appointment fulfills another commitment made to Canadians during the last election. “As promised in the federal Accountability Act, the Parliamentary Budget Officer will provide independent analysis to Canadians on the state of Canada's finances,”

said the hon. House leader:

“With his expertise in economics, Mr. Page is a fine choice to fill that position.”

We agree. We therefore say that he should remain until his successor is named. He has proven over time that he has the confidence of Canadians in exercising his duties and informing the public on the state of the economy and how our tax dollars are spent.

For the sake of accountability, it is our position that it is crucial that parliamentarians, who are ultimately responsible in the coming months for providing input and oversight on the government's budget, continue to benefit from his invaluable advice.

Conservatives have attacked Mr. Page because he has continuously highlighted financial and fiscal mismanagement on many files.

These constant political attacks only serve to underscore the need for a strong and independent Parliamentary Budget Officer.

On November 21 of last year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer felt compelled to refer questions to the Federal Court to seek the court's guidance as to whether work requested by the leader of the official opposition was within his jurisdiction. The work requested that the PBO analyze the government's estimates to determine if the savings contemplated were achievable and/or had long-term fiscal implications, critical for him to do his very vital work.

The creation of the PBO was supported, I reiterate, by all parties in Parliament. However, it appears the current government has decided that it no longer considers fiscal accountability as a priority.

At the finance committee on February 5 this year, a committee of which I am a member, the Conservatives used procedural tactics to block the extension of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's current term. This action was disappointing, to say the least, particularly when they know as well as we do how important and cost effective this officer has been.

Let me give examples. The PBO has a grand total of 12 full-time staff, I am advised, with two interns. Contrast that with the Congressional Budget Office, which has 200-plus staff. The budget of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is $2.8 million. The budget of the Congressional Budget Office: $46.8 million. Yet, in its very short existence, the PBO has published over 150 analytical reports. That's not bad for such a small operation.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, in our view, provides tremendous value to all Canadians, by ensuring the government meets the basic tenets of financial and fiscal accountability. He has played an essential role in protecting our seniors, for example, who are critical in my riding of Victoria, by reporting that the OAS and GIS programs were sustainable prior to the Prime Minister's cuts to the program.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer regularly updates Parliament on the long-run fiscal sustainability of our country, an important type of study to ensure that young Canadians will not inherit a fiscal economic mess. In fact, the PBO has also pointed to Finance Canada's failure to provide intergenerational impacts on budget cuts.

Yet, the Conservatives have attacked anyone who has dared to disagree with them: Statistics Canada, our scientists, labour organizations, charities, and now, sadly, the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

In conclusion, New Democrats want to strengthen the already outstanding work of the PBO. We want to ensure there is no disruption to the continuous operation of this officer. To this end, we want his term to be extended until a replacement is made.

I want to now turn to the second of the issues I want to address, which is the need for the independent officer of Parliament status for this important office. We want this process to be open and transparent. There are widespread fears among Canadians that the government will either fail to fill the position or appoint someone unable or unwilling to act as effectively as Mr. Page has done. We want to further expand the outstanding work of this office in order for him to do his work without political attack.

This office is not the Auditor General; it is not like the Information Commissioner or the Privacy Commissioner. Each of them are officers of Parliament. What is the difference? They have a seven-year term. They are appointed upon joint address: a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. Canadians have seen the value of an independent Privacy Commissioner working on behalf of all of us to look after that important issue.

There is a precedent. Like this, the office was initially situated in a government agency. Canada's first Privacy Commissioner, Inger Hansen, was within the Canadian Human Rights Commission at first, and then, under the Privacy Act, became an independent officer of Parliament.

Legally, Canadians need exactly that level of independence and integrity, and that is where putting it in a separate officer of Parliament statute would provide that guarantee. If we have an effective Information Commissioner, Auditor General, Privacy Commissioner, we say the Parliamentary Budget Officer should have no less of a degree of independence to serve all Canadians.