Finance Committee on Feb. 13th, 2008

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

A point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. Del Mastro, I think the question was asked.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I'm not going to listen to the point of order. He asked the question and I've ruled on the question. That's enough of that kind of line....

I think you have an answer to that question. If you have any further questions, go ahead.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I'll pass on my time to Mr. Wallace.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On the topic of the length of time it took for the classification of this particular position, is that the norm? Would you say you could have done better, or was it difficult because it was brand new? Could you give me some sense of that?

The previous speaker told us it took seven months. I don't know, but that might be what it takes when a new position is created.

[Marc O'Sullivan]

No, that's not the norm. That's longer than it normally takes.

This case is particularly challenging because of two main issues. On the one hand there was a desire to have this position classified at the most senior level possible. It's an important position and function and you would want it to be as senior as possible.

On the other hand it fits within an existing structure. Under the legislation the parliamentary budget officer is an officer of the Library of Parliament, so this person answers to the parliamentary librarian. That tells you something about where it's placed in terms of classification. With classification you don't look at one position independently; you look at it in relation to other positions within that organization. There was a bit of a ceiling that we were dealing with in terms of classification of the parliamentary librarian position.

We considered the possibility of completely disregarding the relativity with other positions and just classifying it at the level we thought was right. But there are nine other Governor in Council positions within Parliament, and if we did away with relativity for the purposes of this position, then we could imagine that the nine other positions would ask to be reclassified as well. People expect to be reclassified upwards, not downwards. We would have had an impact on nine positions, which may not be a good idea from the perspective of taxpayers.

In light of those two competing pressures, we came up with a classification of one level below the level of the parliamentary librarian. Because of the function of the budget officer, we thought it was important to give it an additional level of independence that is not subject to performance pay; that is, the Governor in Council won't be determining performance pay for that position. It was put in a range called the GCQ range--“Q”, as in quasi-judicial function--in order to afford it that level of independence.

It ended up being classified at the level of GCQ-5, which is just below the equivalent for the parliamentary librarian, who is a GC-6.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Do you get to see the short list of candidates? Were you satisfied that regardless of this classification there were good quality candidates who applied for this position?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

The selection process was run by the Library of Parliament. We were not directly involved. We were aware of how it was progressing through informal discussions with the people involved. We were told there was a difficulty in terms of concern about the salary level. We were aware of that concern.

But in the end we were told that the selection committee, in its communications with the responsible minister, was quite satisfied with the candidate they proposed as being eminently qualified for the position.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

We'll move on to Monsieur Mulcair, for five minutes.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for being here today.

I have a question for Mr. O'Sullivan. After you realized how difficult it was to attract candidates, given the level you had established, did you consider changing the level of your assessment? Did you have no doubts about the process as it was implemented the first time around? That was implemented in 2006. We are now in 2008, and no candidate has been hired yet. Perhaps the established level should be reviewed.

[Marc O'Sullivan]

We have asked ourselves that question more than once, and have discussed it at length. We have rethought the approach, but at the end of the day, the relative level with other senior parliamentary positions cannot be discounted.

The easy answer would be to raise the position by one or two grades even if that costs more, because the cost would not be huge. However, we have to consider future repercussions on other positions. If doing that results in raising the classification of nine other positions, we have caused a problem.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I have 30 years' experience in public administration. I listened to Mr. Wild carefully earlier, and I liked what I heard. Mr. Wild said he couldn't speak to the motivation of the government in creating the position, but that there was now a Federal Accountability Act in force, establishing the will of Parliament. That is very respectful. In my career, I have been president of an organization, elected official and minister. I have experienced both sides of the coin. Frankly, I find that your answer actually dispenses with—in the most literal sense of the word—the will of Parliament. You say that it would be an easy answer, because in your opinion the relativity among those positions cannot be discounted. I believe that the will of Parliament was very clear—Parliament wanted a Parliamentary Budget Officer. Parliament wanted someone at the highest level. It doesn't matter whether the Gentlemen Usher of the Black Rod would like his position to be reclassified thereafter.

I believe that the will of Parliament is clearly not what we have now—we want someone to help elected members. We asked for it, and Parliament voted for it. The NDP has been asking for it for years. I feel very frustrated, and I feel the will of Parliament is being frustrated as well, because you have decided—your word, not mine—that the relativity cannot be discounted. Your bureaucratic administrative ruling cannot be circumvented. In 2006, we passed legislation that would help us, but we don't have what we wanted yet because your regulations cannot be circumvented.

Isn't that paradoxical? With those rules, are you not in fact setting yourself above the elected members here?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

With due respect, Mr. Chairman, our position is perfectly in compliance with the provisions of the act. The act provides that the Parliamentary Budget Officer must be an employee of the Library of Parliament. If Parliament wished to establish a position similar to those of other parliamentary officers, that is to say, a completely independent position with an independent office outside existing structures, we would have had our orders and the position would have been clear. However, since the act provides that the Parliamentary Budget Officer must be an employee of the Library of Parliament, that means the Parliamentary Budget Officer would be part of the framework governing parliamentary employees. This is not a decision made by the government, but an inherent aspect of the parliamentary structure.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to come back to what Mr. Young said earlier. Mr. Young is also an employee of the Library of Parliament. An act must be interpreted within a given context. Senior government officials are telling us that their interpretation of the act as passed by Parliament has frustrated the clear will of Parliament to have a Parliamentary Budget Officer. After seven months, there has been no success in finding someone who meets the requirements established. At that point, those engaged in the process might, with a measure of modesty, come to the conclusion that the requirements are perhaps too high and should perhaps be reviewed. There is no legal impediment to putting the parliamentary budget officer's position at the same level as that of Mr. Young. They are both, strictly speaking, employees of the Library of Parliament, are they not?

[Marc O'Sullivan]

With regard to the hierarchical aspect of the position, in other words, whether it is a position that comes under the parliamentary librarian or not, the level in our view is based on the wording of the act, in that the Parliamentary Budget Officer must be a member of the Library of Parliament and the Parliament of Canada Act provides for the position of parliamentary librarian. In our view, there is a hierarchy provided for in the Parliament of Canada Act. This is not simply a factor of the Federal Accountability Act provisions, but a factor of the existing framework provided for in the Parliament of Canada Act.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I have always found that the role of the senior government official was to find solutions. It seems to me that each time we found a solution, different problems arose.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you.

Monsieur Pacetti.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wild, I may not have thanked you. Thank you, not just Mr. Wild but also Mr. O'Sullivan, and also the Department of Finance officials, for appearing. I know it was last-second, so I appreciate it.

Just quickly, in terms of the budget to be allocated for this, is it going to come out of the Treasury Board budget, Mr. Wild?

[Joe Wild]

No, the budget for the parliamentary budget officer would be housed within the budget of the Library of Parliament, which I understand is determined by the Board of Internal Economy.

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

Correct.

[Joe Wild]

Ultimately, after the board determines what it thinks is appropriate, it provides that to the Speaker. The Speaker then provides that to the President of the Treasury Board, who then tables it as part of the estimates before Parliament, for Parliament to vote on.

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

It'll be in the envelope for Parliament. So the follow-up will be there.

Once the appointment is made, will Treasury Board's involvement be over?

[Joe Wild]

Other than responding to requests from the parliamentary budget officer for information, as set out in the act, there will be no involvement of Treasury Board. The only involvement, really, of Treasury Board at that point would be what it does for all of Parliament, that is, simply being the conduit for tabling the budgetary requests through the estimates process—and that's it.

The only ongoing role beyond what is envisioned by this is the same as that set out for all departments, which is to respond in a timely manner to any requests from the parliamentary budget officer for information relating to the economy or finances of the country.