Finance Committee on May 11th, 2017

[Allen Sutherland]

If I'm to understand, do you mean the approval of the work plan?

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

The work plan, sorry, yes.

[Allen Sutherland]

The role of the Speakers is also in the—

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

No, the work plan. My mistake.

[Allen Sutherland]

That's fine. Just looking at the work plan—if I can just talk it out, and I'll get to what you asked—the work plan itself is seen as a way of ensuring that the parliamentary budget officer is responsive to the needs of parliamentarians. There's been a lot of discussion about this, but it is not intended to restrict the parliamentary budget officer. Instead, it's seen as a way of making sure that he or she is able to respond to parliamentarians' needs.

Part of what you're trying to do is to make sure there's full agreement on the content of the work plan, that it's agreed by all parties. That is just as with any business. You agree on the work plan, and then if there's buy-in on the work plan, it also ensures that there's buy-in on the budgetary side.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

I don't think the requirement to submit a work plan or to have a work plan was the issue. The issue was why do the two Speakers need to approve? For starters, you have a Speaker of the Senate who is elected by no one. Then the other concern that was expressed by both former and current parliamentary budget officers was that, as you get close to an election, you've got a Speaker who, while he or she is deemed to be in an independent position, is also part of a political party. You could very well have situations in which that Speaker would not approve a work plan that in some ways might be detrimental to his or her party in the upcoming election campaign.

Is there not a better manner of approving the work plan than having the Speakers approve it, i.e. maybe a House committee, or something?

[Allen Sutherland]

There are certainly different ways you could think about it. I think the idea is that the work plan is meant to be a collective endeavour between the PBO and parliamentarians. The Speakers were chosen because the role of the Speakers is actually to facilitate the business of Parliament. Looking at their roles, their roles are to facilitate Parliament. It's not to somehow restrict the PBO. It's meant to facilitate the business of Parliament, and it's intended they do it in a non-partisan way. That's the thinking behind what's proposed in the legislation.

[Don Booth, Director, Strategic Policy, Privy Council Office]

I'd like to point out that the legislation does make a provision that, if the Speakers wish, they can engage parliamentary committees in the review of the work plan.

[Allen Sutherland]

Including this one, I believe.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

There's no requirement that they do that.

[Don Booth]

No. They do it at their discretion.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Have I still got time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Because we're dealing with departmental or PBO witnesses, we're not subject to our regular questioning time frames, so the floor is yours as long as you want it. We can come back to you.

Mr. Dusseault, and then Ms. Boucher.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today.

I would like to quickly go back to the matter of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's work plan, which should be submitted to the speakers of both chambers. I certainly heard your arguments that it's a matter of getting everyone's agreement on the work plan.

However, I have several questions. You say you want to make the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer an independent position. To make it independent, you want to turn it into an officer of Parliament. However, no other officer of Parliament is required to have his or her work plan approved.

If you are copying the operating model of the officers of Parliament, why did you decide that, for the first time, an officer of Parliament would have to submit the work plan to the speakers of both chambers, while the others aren't required to? Why this difference between the obligations imposed on officers of Parliament, who will not have to meet the same requirements under the act?

[Allen Sutherland]

Thank you for the question.

There are several aspects to the issue of independence and how in the proposed legislation the PBO is made more independent, and I will loop back to your issue around having this approval of the Speakers.

Independence occurs throughout the proposed legislation. The PBO is made more independent because it's a deputy head. The PBO is made more independent because the position will be made for a seven-year, one-time renewable term, and the PBO can only be removed with cause on address of both houses of Parliament. Administratively, the Office of the PBO is being moved from the chief librarian's office. It's being created as a separate entity so that it will be more independent.

Moreover, in the legislation, the PBO is given all the administrative and human resource responsibilities for the unit, to organize contracts, hire the people they want, bring outsiders in, organize the budget in the way they want, and then, within their mandate, they have full independence.

Within their mandate, they can serve their role, which is to serve Parliament and provide reports directly to parliamentary actors. It could be you in your capacity as an MP, it could be the committee, or it could be by tabling full reports in the House—and it's without the intervention of government. These are all enhancements to its independence.

With regard to the question on the service issue, the reason the legislation proposes having the Speakers approve the work plan, and how it's different maybe from other officers, is that the service role of the PBO is so exceptional. The role of the PBO is to provide you, as MPs, with objective economic and fiscal analysis and costing, so that you can hold the government of the day to account. That's a profound service role, and that's what the legislation is trying to capture.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you for the end of your answer. You explained the reason for this difference between the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the other officers of Parliament.

As a follow-up to that, I must say that it surprised a lot of people, including the Parliamentary Budget Officer and his predecessor, Mr. Page. Several people who have appeared before our committee didn't seem very happy with this amendment as proposed in the bill.

I'd also like to know if you consulted the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is directly concerned, before recommending this change?

[Allen Sutherland]

Certainly at the level of the officials, we did not consult the parliamentary budget officer, though we did have access to his documentation.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

We have asked the government a number of questions during question periods and, in response to questions about the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we were told that it was open to amendments and was always prepared to improve that provision.

Don't you think that if you had consulted the Parliamentary Budget Officer beforehand, you could have avoided such a situation where we might have to correct the bill, depending on what the committee is going to decide?

[Allen Sutherland]

Mr. Chair, I do note that the government House leader has said that they are open to amendments, so these are certainly being proposed.

With regard to consulting with current or past PBOs, that's just not something that was done at the official level.

[Don Booth]

We did have access. I mean, the PBO did put out a very detailed business case and proposed legislation in the summer, which we have studied very intently, and some of that is actually reflected in the current legislation.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

I find it a shame that the Parliamentary Budget Officer wasn't consulted. I think that would have prevented the situation we are in right now and prevent the Parliamentary Budget Officer from appearing before us to openly criticize the proposal.

Furthermore, the issue of the cost of certain proposals during an election campaign is one of the things that was raised by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. He sees it as a danger, since during the election campaign he would become a major political actor if he began to disclose information and publish reports on the costs of the programs contained in the various political platforms.

Have you taken that into consideration? Maybe if it had been consulted, this situation could have been avoided. Are you aware that, if we pass the bill as it is, the Parliamentary Budget Officer will become an important political actor in an election campaign? Do you think that's a role he should play?

[Allen Sutherland]

I think the introduction of the election-platform costing mandate is an exciting one because it offers the opportunity to put better information into the public discourse during elections to improve the quality of the debate. I think there's an important public good in that, and the proposed legislation would do that.

As for the PBO, in the legislation—and I would just note that the PBO's role is not to judge the merits of any policy proposal in a platform—the role of the PBO is simply to provide neutral and objective costing of the proposals, much as he does in-between elections. We don't see this as a politicization of the PBO's office.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

That's how he sees it himself.

Having said that, can you specify who during the election campaigns will be authorized to make such requests to the Parliamentary Budget Officer?

[Allen Sutherland]

As set out in the legislation, within 120 days of the fixed election date, members of parties that have an MP in the House would be able to request that the PBO make election-costing proposals on their behalf. That's set out in the legislation. There are rules around it to ensure that you can ask for a costing of something and it is not required that it be part of your platform. It's part of helping parties to develop an effective platform, because, of course, if you were to request the costing of something and you suddenly found that it was very expensive, you should be able to step away from it. You should be able to make the choice not to release that.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

What do you mean by “members of parties”?