Evidence of meeting #95 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was pbo.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there any discussion on NDP-8?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're turning to PV-7.
A technical point on this is that if PV-7 is adopted, questions on BQ-1, NDP-9, LIB-5, and LIB-4 cannot be put due to line conflicts.
Ms. May, the floor is yours.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, certainly, we are coming to a clustering of amendments because this has been such a high-profile issue of deficiencies in the bill as it came at first reading.
I reiterate—although I haven't had a chance to say it around this table—that it would have been preferable if the changes with respect to the parliamentary budget officer had not been part of an omnibus bill so they could be studied more carefully.
In any case, this Green Party amendment, PV-7, is trying to deal again with this problem of the work plan and confining the PBO's independence in this way. Amendment PV-7 deletes the lines that require that the work plan be approved by the Speakers of the House and the Senate. By removing that approval, which is found in proposed section 79.12, and specifically by replacing line 40—it continues, by the way, from page 80 to page 81—it ensures the independence of the parliamentary budget officer, at least in determining their own work plan, without approval from the Speakers' offices.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
People have heard the point. Is there any further discussion?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're turning to BQ-1.
I have a technical point. If BQ-1 is adopted, the questions on NDP-9, LIB-5, and LIB-4 cannot be put.
The floor is yours, Mr. Ste-Marie.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will be brief. I want to announce that I'm going to withdraw BQ-1. I am also going to withdraw amendments BQ-2 and BQ-5, since as you just pointed out regarding amendment BQ-1, there are other amendments that contain redundancies. And so I am withdrawing amendments BQ-1, BQ-2 and BQ-5.
I will explain amendments BQ-3 and BQ-4 jointly when the time comes, since they are about the same subject.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
That is fine. Thank you for that, Mr. Ste-Marie.
On NDP-9, Mr. Dusseault.
I have a technical point here. If NDP-9 is adopted, questions on LIB-5 and LIB-4 cannot be put.
Mr. Dusseault, the floor is yours.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We are now at the paragraph entitled “Approval” on page 81. This is one of the most debated provisions; it refers to the approval of the work plan by the Speakers of the two Houses of Parliament. As the members of the committee can see in their packages, our objective is to replace this provision with three distinct paragraphs stating that the PBO establishes a work plan which is updated to take into account any changes that might occur in the finances or economy of the country.
And so, we are not talking here about approval by the Speakers of the two Houses. We say, rather, that the parliamentary budget officer will transmit his work plan to the Speakers of the two Houses in order that it may be tabled before each House. Afterwards, the process is similar to what other officers of Parliament do when they table annual reports in Parliament. We are talking here about a work plan, but the process would be similar to what is already being done.
Once the work plan has been tabled before the Houses, it would be made public, probably on the Internet. In this way, Canadians, parliamentarians and everyone could see the work plan of the parliamentary budget officer for the year to come. It is not a major change. Or rather, yes, in fact it is: we are still talking about a work plan, but we are completely removing the obligation that it be approved by the Speakers of the two Houses. As we saw in debates here at the committee and in debates at the House of Commons, it is a factor that seriously limits his independence.
The NDP thus proposes to solve this problem by giving the PBO the opportunity to prepare a work plan, to table it before the two Houses, and to publish it without the requirement of having it approved by anyone. He is independent, he does what he likes and all he has to do is table his work plan every year before Parliament.
I hope my colleagues will support this sensible amendment which responds to some serious criticism made by the opposition as well as by the experts, the parliamentary budget officer himself, and the former parliamentary budget officer. Anyone who has looked at this file closely has said the same thing, and our amendment is a response to that criticism.
And so I hope that I will have the support of all my colleagues around this table.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
On amendment LIB-4, I would mention that if LIB-4 is adopted, the question on LIB-5 cannot be put unless there is a change. I understand that a change is being made.
Do you want to explain it, Ms. O'Connell?
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I'm going to start with LIB-4, and then I can make the change when I introduce LIB-5, if that's okay.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Amendment LIB-4 deals with exactly what Ms. May's amendment, as well as Mr. Dusseault's amendment, proposed doing. It would ensure that the work plan is flexible to allow for unforeseen circumstances to be addressed. It also addresses the concerns around the approval of the said work plans by the Speakers, by simply saying that the work plans will be submitted for the Speakers to table in both Houses, which has been the case. I think it's important to ensure that the work plan is meeting the needs of both Houses. That's what these previous amendments really spoke to, and I think this amendment addresses some of the concerns we've heard on the previous amendments.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I used to be on the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, and one of the things Mr. Peter Bernhardt used to say all the time—I'm sure some justice drafters may not want to hear this—even the term “as required”.... Obviously you wouldn't be tabling a work plan or changing a work plan if it wasn't required. It's just nothing. I don't think that kind of stuff is well-drafted legislation.
I'll just leave it there, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I would like a recorded vote, please.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, I know I don't need to read the amendment because it's in front of us, but I'll be moving this without the part (a).
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
You need to read it in its final form. Part (a) will be deleted, and read what will be left.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
It would read, that Bill C-44 in clause 128 be amended by replacing lines 38 and 39 on page 81 with the following:
that are listed in an annual work plan;
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
This is with respect to the issues we heard in regard to removing the requirement for the work plan to be approved by the Speakers rather than simply submitted.
The reason I'm not moving item (a) is to make it consistent with amendment LIB-4.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
We have an amendment to the amendment so we won't be voting in favour of that. We don't think this process is the right way, and this is a hasty backtracking by the government. We certainly wish they had presented it through a proper process, Mr. Chair.