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

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're back to the appointment process. We're still there.

Shall clause 114 carry?

(Clause 114 agreed to)

(On clause 115)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're still on the appointment process at clause 115, and there's a Bloc amendment. It's on page 100, amendment BQ-22.

Mr. Sauvageau, could you move that, please?

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'm going to withdraw my amendment for reasons of concordance. I move that we vote against clause 115, as we did in the case of clause 113 and for the previous clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right.

(Clause 115 negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Clause 116 is still on the appointment process. There are no amendments. Is there debate on clause 116?

Let's count the votes here. People are not putting their hands up. All in favour? Opposed?

(Clause 116 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin, do you have a point of order?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, it might be helpful if we adopted a practice I've seen in other committees, that when the chair calls, “Shall clause 116 carry”, people can voice-vote at that stage, and if the chair is satisfied from a voice vote, he will simply say, “Carried”. If there's any disagreement, then we'd have a counted vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I would love that to happen but--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Would that be helpful? I don't mind the practice you're using; I'm only wondering if it might be simpler.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We'll try anything.

We'll move to clause 117. It's the parliamentary budget officer, and there's a series of other clauses that are related to this particular clause. As we've done before, I suggest we deal with all the amendments that pertain to the subject matter of clause 117 before we put the question.

So we will deal with the amendments to clauses 119 and 119.1. Once that's completed, we will put the question to clause 117. Its results will be applied to all the consequential clauses, that is to say, clauses 118, 119 and 119.1. We'll l stand clause 117 and call for the first amendment, which is a Bloc amendment.

(Clause 117 allowed to stand)

(On clause 119--Parliamentary Budget Officer)

This is a Bloc amendment and is on page 101 of your book, BQ-23.

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I want to introduce this amendment, which is not designed to eliminate the secret ballot. So I'm showing some originality.

I'll ask the experts to tell us what they think of the following.

In clause 119 of the bill, that is in proposed subsection 79.1(2), it is provided that the person who is appointed Parliamentary Budget Officer will hold office during pleasure for a renewable term of not more than three years.

We think three years is too short a period to take over the file, move it forward and so on. I get the impression that's why the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Official Languages and the senior officers of the House are appointed for seven years. As we believe that three years is too short a term, we are proposing that the term be comparable to those of other officers of the House. I don't know what the experts think of that.

[Paul-Henri Lapointe]

We have no objection to this amendment. I can simply say that the reason we put three years was originally to facilitate the recruitment of the parliamentary budget officer. Our thinking at the time was that perhaps if your're looking for someone in the academic community to come and occupy that position, it would be easier to recruit that person if he or she were to commit to a shorter period than seven years. But we have no objection at all to extending this period.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have people who want to speak.

Ms. Jennings and then Mr. Martin.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I appreciate the explanation that Monsieur Lapointe gave, but I believe the amendment the Bloc is suggesting does not preclude the scenario that has been suggested by Monsieur Lapointe. Ergo, if individuals who are at a point in their career--they're academics who can only take a leave of absence for a certain period of time--are approached and are interested, they would simply say they do not wish an appointment that is longer than three years, two years, or whatever. The Bloc amendment simply allows that the maximum allowable time would be seven years, in accordance with the appointments of other parliamentary officers, but does not preclude the appointment for a lesser period.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm wondering what is the status of the parliamentary budget officer. I often get confused between agents of Parliament, officers of Parliament, etc. How are we viewing this appointment?

[Susan Cartwright, Assistant Secretary, Accountability in Government, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat]

This individual would not be an agent of Parliament, he would be an officer of an institution of Parliament. So although there would be nothing to prevent an appointment for longer than three years, to do it on the basis that it's consistent with the other agents of Parliament is flawed, if you like, because he or she would not be an agent of Parliament.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

So we're not trying to remain constant with some....

My feeling is that you want one of these appointments to bridge a parliamentary cycle. I think that's advantageous, so I see where Mr. Sauvageau is coming from.

It currently reads “not greater than three years”. Is that what I am to understand? I'm wondering if we should have a subamendment to have “not greater than five years”, that would satisfy the idea the appointment could be as long as five years to bridge at least one parliamentary cycle, but not to be held in the same status as an officer of Parliament, at seven years.

So I'd like to move that as a subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On the subamendment, any discussion?

Ms. Jennings, I have your name. No?

Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I find Mr. Martin's remarks constructive, and I'm inclined to support the enlightening subamendment he has introduced.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The vote is on the subamendment.

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We now move to G-36 on page 102. That's a government amendment.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

Yes, it is moved.

I turn your attention to clause 119, line 36:

79.2 The mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to (a) provide objective analysis to the Senate and to the House of Commons about the state of the nation's finances

In line 36, we're adding “the estimates of the government”. So it expands ever so slightly the mandate of the parliamentary budget office in line 36 on page 93, in clause 119 of the bill.

So I would encourage all members to support this, because it gives members of Parliament an extra tool in getting informational support on estimates from the parliamentary budget office.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Page 103 is the French version, so we're on to a further government amendment, G-37, on page 104.

Mr. Poilievre.

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

Further to that, if you go down to line 40, I believe this amendment merely creates concurrence with the previous one: “The Parliamentary Budget Officer shall”--and you go down to paragraph 79.2(b)--“when requested to do so by any of the following committees, undertake research for that committee into the nation's finances”, and we're adding “into the estimates”. So the committees may ask the parliamentary budget officer to do research into the estimates as well as the nation's finances and the economy.

So moved.