Bill C-2 (39th Parliament, 1st Session) Committee on June 13th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like you to refer to amendments L-13.1 and NDP-8.1. Those new clauses are consequential to the negative vote on clause 99. Therefore, those two amendments cannot be put.

(Clause 108 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 109)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We now move to clause 109, the appointments process.

The first one is a Bloc amendment on page 90.

BQ-116, L-13.2, and NDP-8.2 are all the same.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

To avoid redundancy, Mr. Chairman, I would tell you that it's the same thing for the other clauses concerning the secret ballot. So we propose to delete lines 26 to 30 on page 89 in order to delete every reference to the secret ballot. In a bill on transparency, a secret ballot is a paradox.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I call the question.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The amendment is agreed to, so we don't need to deal with amendments L-13.2.2 and NDP-8.2.

(Clause 109 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 110)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Clause 110 is also on the appointment process. The next two amendments are the same. The first one is amendment BQ-17. The second one is amendment NDP-8.3, and they are the same, so we will start with the Bloc amendment, which is on page 91.

Monsieur Sauvageau, on amendment BQ-17.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

The principle is the same. I'm introducing amendment BQ-17 for the same reasons, and I cite the same arguments.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I call the question.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 110 as amended agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Proposed new clause 110.1 on page 92 is a Bloc amendment.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, if I'm not mistaken, the purpose is to make the library officer autonomous and independent. The purpose of this amendment is to create a budget director linked to the Office of the Auditor General rather than to the Library of Parliament.

If you consult the election platform of the Conservative Party of Canada, you'll see, on page 11:

Ensuring truth in budgeting with a Parliamentary Budget Authority.

I'll read the first paragraph very quickly:

In the spring of 2004, the Liberal government told Canadians that the 2003-04 surplus would be only $1.9 billion. In fact it was $9.1 billion. In 2004-05, the Liberals spent about $9 billion at the end of the year to reduce their surplus to only $1.6 billion.

With a great deal of rigour, they explained the necessity—and I remind you that this is on page 11 of the Conservative Party's election platform, Stand Up for Canada—for an independent budgeting authority. The Conservatives were probably so busy that they forgot to include it. That's why, so that they can keep one of their promises, we're proposing that this independent budget auditor position be created, and, among other things, for the budget surpluses.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have Mr. Martin and then Mr. Poilievre.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

My first observation is that something I've been pushing for years in the corporate sector is the independence of auditors. In order to trust the financial statements of a company or a government, any level of government, the auditor must be independent and shouldn't be dealing with any services other than the audit itself.

Having this newly created budget officer within the auditor's office seems to me to be a contradiction. We've always been critical of businesses that sell financial services to companies also being their auditor. That's exactly what happened with Enron. That's what Arthur Andersen did with Enron. They would sell them the tax services, and then they would come along and audit those very same services. So it concerns me, just on the face of it, to even have the newly created budget officer in the Office of the Auditor General.

That said, I wouldn't mind the opinion of the technical officers on the effect of this amendment. I don't fully understand where in clause 110 that actually fits. Can they explain that to me, where it resides and the effect it would have?

[Joe Wild]

I'll take the first run at that, and then my colleagues Monsieur Lapointe from the Department of Finance or Mr. Heiss may have something to add.

As to where the member has chosen to actually seat the amendment, I don't really have any comment to make on that. I don't know what the member was thinking in terms of the particular drafting that's being used.

In terms of putting the position within the Office of the Auditor General, the issue, I guess, is one of choosing and being clear about the role and mandates of the Auditor General versus that of the Library of Parliament.

The Auditor General's role and mandate is to carry out the powers, duties, and functions she has under the Auditor General Act. Those functions are fairly clear. It's her discretion. She determines what to audit, goes out and conducts those audits, and then reports to Parliament on the results of those audits.

The Library of Parliament is, of course, the vast research resource that is available to members of Parliament. So from the government's perspective, it certainly made sense that you would lodge a parliamentary budget officer, whose primary mandate is to be, again, a research resource for members of Parliament, in that existing structure as opposed to putting it in with the Auditor General, where there's just no connection to that particular mandate of what the parliamentary budget officer does.

Do my colleagues have anything to add?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Wild, we have two new players here at the table. Would you introduce your colleagues, please?

[Joe Wild]

Sure. Mr. Heiss is assistant deputy minister with the Department of Finance, as well as an assistant deputy minister with the Department of Justice, responsible for the provision of legal advice and legal services to the Department of Finance.

Monsieur Lapointe is also with the Department of Finance. He can explain his title better than I can.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lapointe, welcome to you, sir.

[Paul-Henri Lapointe, Assistant Deputy Minister, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Thank you.

I'm the assistant deputy minister of fiscal and economic policy in the Department of Finance.

I just want to confirm what my colleague just said about the mandate of the parliamentary budget office and the mandate of the Auditor General. I understand that the Auditor General, in her appearance here, made the statement that her mandate and the mandate of the parliamentary budget officer are quite different. That is why we propose that the best place to locate the parliamentary budget office would be in the Library of Parliament, which already provides that kind of analytical support to parliamentarians.

The group in the Library of Parliament would be specifically dedicated to providing the economic analysis and fiscal analysis that is required here, so we thought it should be located in the Library of Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin, are you finished?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

No. I just want to say that's very helpful, very useful. It's along the lines of what my apprehensions were. It actually confirms my concerns about this. We all welcome the creation of the budget officer.

Monsieur Sauvageau's points are very well taken. It's been atrocious. No one can be that far out, unless you're trying to be that far out. You feel like the Minister of Finance should take off his shoes--if he can't count that high on his fingers, perhaps he needs to use his toes as well. It's been appalling.

But I'm comfortable with where it is in the bill, and I'll be voting against Mr. Sauvageau's amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have Mr. Poilievre, and then Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

I'm going to pass. All my questions have been answered.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I partly agree with you, but there's a minor problem. In 1994, in the Standing Committee on the Environment, we had a lengthy debate as to whether we should create an independent environment commissioner position or a commissioner position that would report to the Office of the Auditor General. We weren't rushed, as we are today, so we heard a number of witnesses. We came to the conclusion that, even if the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, whose position was created in 1994 or 1995, if my memory serves me, worked in close cooperation with the Auditor General, fears about his independence could be allayed in view of the rigour of her work. So we wound up with a common office and common expertise, rather than create another authority.

That was 12 years ago. Since then, I believe the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has demonstrated his independence, even though his office is located in that of the Auditor General. Until quite recently, that is until January 23, that's also what was believed by the Conservatives, who included transparent budgeting in the same paragraph, on page 11 of their election platform, as strengthening the powers of the Auditor General.

If the Minister of Finance tells me he would prefer that someone from the Library of Parliament supervise him, that's fine. The Minister of Finance has been making completely wrong budgetary estimates for 50 years. So I'm not sure we'll achieve the desired objective if we allow that position to be where it is. We'll see what happens over time. In any case, the Act will be reviewed every five years.

Our objective is to ensure that budgetary estimates are as accurate as possible. I hope they will be. I think they will be more so if this position reports to the Auditor General, who has demonstrated her credibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Tonks.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I think the irony or paradox with respect to the BQ motion is that it argues about putting the budget officer in the Office of the Auditor General, but then it follows up by stressing how important it is to have accessibility and proactive input through the committees of the budget officer. I believe that practice, both past and future, will verify that the role of oversight of committees will be enhanced more by placing the budget officer and the function with the Library of Parliament and the ancillary resources that exist there than if it were in a reactive mode in the Auditor General's office.

I do appreciate the points that have been raised by Mr. Sauvageau with respect to the Commissioner of the Environment, but the Commissioner of the Environment and the Auditor General, to some extent, are reactive. In this case, we're talking about a proactive, ongoing role. For example, in the committee's oversight with respect to the estimates, the ability to draw upon the resources of the budget officer through the Library of Parliament is far superior to entrenching the role of the budget officer in the Auditor General's office.

So I would suggest that if this committee is intent on completing the accountability loop with respect to the role of committees in their oversight function, this committee should support entrenching the budget officer in the Library of Parliament.