Finance Committee on March 31st, 2009

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

As high as you can get, I bet.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Monsieur Laforest, you can move your motion.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Chair, I thank the members who voted in favour of overturning your ruling. I firmly believe that it is incumbent upon the finance committee to make a decision and formulate a recommendation accordingly. As I was saying previously, to date, it is the finance committee and all Canadians and Quebeckers who are benefiting the most from the services provided by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

In addition to the amendment motion tabled by the Liberal Party and subject to adoption of the budget, the committee asked that the Parliamentary Budget Officer report on the analysis of the reports that the government is obliged to table. These are absolutely essential matters. To date, the work of the Parliamentary Budget Officer has been excellent, and has allowed us to carry out an objective and complete analysis of this country's finances.

I also believe that we absolutely must maintain the budget of the office, as initially promised. By adopting this resolution, the House of Commons will receive a clearly favourable opinion, that will serve the interests of all citizens.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Laforest.

We'll go to Mr. Menzies, please, and then Mr. Pacetti.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

When we received notice of this, I did some research into it. I tend to agree completely with our chair. It has been explained on many occasions, but since we've had several motions and indications of motions being proposed at this committee to look into the mandate of the budget officer, I would like to set the record straight on these motions: they are entirely outside the mandate of this committee.

The Standing Joint Committee on the Library of Parliament is currently studying these matters. I would like to inform you of what has been testimony at this library committee.

On March 12, Mr. William Young, the Parliamentary Librarian, stated this before committee:

A plain reading of the relevant statutory provisions within the Parliament of Canada Act shows that the PBO is an officer of the library and is subject to the control and management of the librarian and not a stand-alone office.

In response to a question from Monsieur Laforest, which was premised on a 30% cut in the PBO budget, Mr. Young went on to say:

There was no budget cut for the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He received the same increase as the rest of the library received. It was not reduced by 30%. There was what I'd call a notional allocation. There was no authorization for any amount of money.... Quite frankly, the Parliamentary Budget Officer was not treated any differently from any other service head in the Library of Parliament.

At the meeting of the library committee on Thursday, March 26, Mr. Joe Wild from Treasury Board further informed the committee of the following:

As I just noted, the legislation expressly states that the research and analysis provided to parliamentarians by the PBO is to be independent. The Library of Parliament reports through the Parliamentary Librarian to the speakers of the House and Senate, and its direction and management are completely independent from the executive, meaning the government. This means that the Treasury Board Secretariat and other central agencies play no role in determining how the library and its offices, including the PBO, operate or perform their mandates. The estimates for the library are prepared by the Parliamentary Librarian, approved by the speakers of the House and Senate. They are then transmitted to the president of the Treasury Board, who tables them in Parliament, and nothing more.

Mr. Chair, the motion before us asks the government to do what it expressly is not allowed to do--namely, set the budget of a division of the Library of Parliament. This would be an intrusion of the executive into the business of Parliament and would call into question the independence of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and, by extension, the Library of Parliament.

I respectfully submit to all honourable members that this matter be taken up with the librarian, and the librarian only.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Menzies.

I have Mr. Pacetti.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In principle, I'm in favour of the motion, but I'm torn. The Parliamentary Budget Officer should report to the Committee on Finance. Since we do have a financial responsibility, I do not agree with approving an amount of $2.7 million when we have never received an analysis of how this money would be spent. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has never appeared before us to talk about how he intends to use this money.

Why should we approve the amount of $2.7 million? Perhaps we should be asking for a much higher amount, or a much lower amount. During this time of economic crisis, we should be more responsible, rather than simply adopting a motion that would approve the earmarking of $2.7 million.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Monsieur Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chair, I wish to let Mr. Menzies know that I do not see how this committee, which Mr. Kevin Page must indeed report to, is in any way whatsoever taking anything away from anyone by expressing its concern over imminent budget cutbacks and stating that it wishes to see the budget restored to promised levels. I do not wish to ascribe unworthy motives to my colleague from the Conservative Party. However, I have a hard time understanding his interest in voting against something so straightforward. It is the expression of this committee's wishes.

I intend to vote in favour of the motion. I do not have the same feelings as those expressed by my other Liberal colleague. I only hope that Liberal solidarity will last for at least the next three minutes. That is why I will conclude my remarks now, before they have an opportunity to concoct a third position.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Wallace would like to address your motion.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

The point that the parliamentary secretary was making was having a respect for this place that we've heard from opposition members over and over again from the other side. You did what was required of you as chair, to follow up on whether this was actually a legal motion here, whether we have the legal responsibility of the budget of the budget officer. And it was clear that there is another committee they are assigned to.

We have heard nothing, as Mr. Pacetti has said, in terms of determining whether it's the right amount or not. It's done in another committee that has members from the Bloc, the NDP, the Liberals, and the Conservatives. They have an opportunity to ask questions. In fact, Monsieur Laforest was at that committee meeting, asking questions. If you can't get it there, you come here. Is that how it works?

Our friends across the way have talked about respect, working together, and all these things. Voting for this motion today flies completely in the face of those comments. The respect, the ethics of dealing with this--

[An hon. member]

Whoa, whoa.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

What, you don't know how to spell it?

Now, if it passes or not, I'm comfortable that it'll go to the House and it'll probably get thrown out. But what makes me a bit angry today is that we talk about trying to get things done here. We heard earlier today about delay and so on and so forth. Well, this is exactly what we're doing here.

And we're not doing it, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Menzies isn't right when he talks about the government not being able to or having the right to influence spending within the library budget, because here's the government's own estimates--this is the 2008-09 plan--and it says: “Spending in the Library of Parliament is increasing by $3.0 million or 8.2%, of which $1.9 million is for the new office of Parliamentary Budget Officer.” So there we have it. We disagree with that because they've arbitrarily reduced that number from the amount that was previously agreed upon, and that is what the subject of this vote is.

Mr. Chair, is it appropriate for me to move that we proceed to the vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I have Mr. Laforest on the list to address the motion.

I'm happy to go to a vote if members are. We'll have a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 6; nays 1)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The motion is in favour, so we will present this to the House tomorrow.

Members, we will adjourn the meeting to go in camera. We do have a subcommittee meeting. It's been suggested by one of the vice-chairs that if other members want to stay and participate they're welcome to do so, but we will adjourn and go into subcommittee.

This meeting is adjourned.