I haven't seen the amendment yet.
Evidence of meeting #11 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was poverty.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #11 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was poverty.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Mr. Brison, do you want me to go to you, and then I'll come back to Mr. Mai?
Conservative
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
The amendment doesn't talk about the contempt of Parliament that the government found itself in last spring. The amendment simply provides the same treatment of government legislation, on a go-forward basis, that is being proposed for private members' legislation. That is absolutely sensible, given the fact that the government...in fact, last time, when the finance committee requested information and when the Parliamentary Budget Officer requested information, it took four months for the government to provide a response. When it ultimately provided a response, the response answered only 30% of the data points requested.
Clearly, if it's important for the Parliamentary Budget Officer to scrutinize the cost of private members' legislation, it is equally important that the Parliamentary Budget Officer scrutinize government legislation and that the government provide that information.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, thank you.
We'll go to Monsieur Mai, and then I'm going to call for a vote on the amendment, and then we'll go back to the motion.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
I'll just say quickly that I agree with the fact that the government has to come up with the cost, so I'll agree with the amendment.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay. So the vote is on the amendment as proposed by Mr. Brison.
(Amendment negatived)
We'll now go back to debate on the motion.
I have Mr. Jean.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Very quickly, Mr. Chair, I really don't understand this. As a backbench MP, I think this is an opportunity for opposition parties and non-government ministers and non-government parliamentary secretaries to have a real say and to have something happen.
I moved a private member's bill in my first year here, Mr. Chair, you might remember. It was agreed to by all parties except the Liberals, who were in government then, and I had no ability to cost it because I do not have the resources. It certainly would have been helpful for a backbench MP moving a private member's bill to have that, because that would have given me the ability to go to end users. In that particular case, it was a guarantee for cattle producers on the NAFTA agreement. It would have been very helpful for opposition parties in that case.
So I don't understand why there's this negativity toward this, which I actually think is a real plus for private members' business--I really do--and especially for opposition parties.
NDP
Jamie Nicholls NDP Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC
Thank you.
I'm a new member, but I've been told that private members' bills, even though they're not whipped, tend to fail when they require royal assent. Frankly, costing them, in my view, will not help to influence government members to vote for a private member's bill that comes from the opposition. So when the private member's legislation fails in the House, what value will the costing information be? What's the value of this info in the long term to members of this House?
I agree with the points that have been brought up by other members. Does the PBO really have the capacity to deal with an onslaught of private members' bills and costing them? There are 12 to 14 people working in PBO, I think. Is that correct? If members of all parties flood the PBO with private members' bills, and they have to do this costing information, maybe they won't be able to do more important work.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
I have Monsieur Mai.
Monsieur Mai, did you want to speak to this?
NDP
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
I'd like to amend the motion, yes. So I'll speak to the amendment?
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
The amendment would be that “Consistent with the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) mandate to provide estimates of the financial cost of proposals before Parliament...provided the PBO has the necessary resources, that the PBO provide as soon as possible the Committee...of a Private Members' Business item's appearance on the Private Members' Business Order....”
And then the rest.
Do you want me to show it to them?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
You're basically adding, “provided that the PBO have the necessary resources”?
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Yes. Basically, we agree with the fact that it is a good resource to have the costing of private members' bills, but our concern, as we mentioned, is that we don't have assurance or a guarantee that the PBO will be able to come up with the necessary information in time without affecting the PBO's work.
Also, instead of putting in the 45 calendar days, we're saying as soon as possible, again to make sure that we have the best results and work from the PBO. If we really want to have the numbers and if it's really important regarding a private member's bill, a strict 45 days might not guarantee those results.
Again, we agree with the idea that we need to be more informed, we need to understand the cost of private members' bills, but we just want to make sure that the information we actually get is the right information.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
So the debate is now on the amendment. I have Mr. Albas and Mr. Marston on the motion.
On the amendment?
Mr. Albas, do you want to speak to the amendment or the motion?
Conservative
Conservative
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Actually, both.
At this point, on the amendment, I think it's more than reasonable.
I do have a question, and perhaps the chair can answer this. When we pass something like this in our committee, how can we address what happens in the House? It strikes me as strange. Committees, you would believe, pass recommendations to the government to implement, as opposed to us passing something that would say to the Parliamentary Budget Officer that they must do this. Is that because they report to us? Is that where we get that?
