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.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Right now in the legislation, Mr. Booth, is it one day?
8 p.m.
Director, Strategic Policy, Privy Council Office
The next business day the PBO may make it public, but there has to be a grace period of one business day.
8 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Yes, and my amendment doesn't require it to be simultaneous. They could give it to the clerk of the committee at 10 a.m. and then give it to the public at 3 p.m. My amendment would make the report public on the same day.
8 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
I think it was you. I didn't see your hand go up.
8 p.m.
Liberal
8 p.m.
Liberal
8 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I will vote against the amendment. Amendment PV-11 is lost.
I need to get a vote in once in a while.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Next is amendment LIB-7.
Robert.
8 p.m.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Introducing these amendments will require the PBO to make his or her reports available to the public one business day after it's proposed. I think this is actually a compromise. I was more in favour of having a longer time for parliamentarians to be able to manage their affairs, to analyze the information, before they prepared their response to the government with that information or used the information to hold the government to account. I guess a lot of my colleagues felt that at least one business day is a more appropriate time. I'm very supportive of this. It gives the parliamentarian the opportunity to really analyze that information.
The amendment is that Bill C-44, in clause 128, be amended by
(a) replacing line 38 on page 82 with the following: Officer shall make the report available to the public one (b) replacing line 46 on page 82 with the following: liamentary Budget Officer shall make the report available (c) replacing line 8 on page 83 with the following: Officer shall make the report available to the public one
8:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there any discussion on LIB-7?
(Amendment agreed to)
Amendment BQ-4 was spoken to earlier. We didn't vote on it.
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We're on amendment PV-12.
Ms. May.
8:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, this relates to what you will find on page 83. We are leaping a whole page ahead. It deals with the question of the parliamentary budget officer's ability to continue work during a period of time, as you see at line 14 on page 83, when Parliament is dissolved. The parliamentary budget officer shall discontinue work.
What I'm proposing is that the parliamentary budget officer may continue work but isn't forced to. At the discretion of the PBO, they would be able to continue work on a request even after Parliament is dissolved.
I'm proposing that Bill C-44, in clause 128, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 83 the following:
(6) If Parliament is dissolved, the Parliamentary Budget Officer may continue any work undertaken under paragraph 79.2(1)(a) or (b).
8:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Mr. Chair, given that the Liberal government has asked the PBO to start commenting on election platform costing and related matters, I have a whole whack of issues that I will not raise out of respect for the current topic.
I want to ask a specific question. What ramification would this have? If Parliament is dissolved, and there are certain caretaker provisions for government, would this simply mean the PBO continues to work on previously issued work? I have a real problem with their doing parliamentary work when Parliament itself is dissolved.
As for prorogation, I have no issue with. That's the expectation we're going to be sitting again, but once Parliament is dissolved and we're into an election, I'm worried about certain activities being viewed as electoral and how that could be taken.
What activities could the PBO carry out if Ms. May's amendment passed?
8:05 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
As you suggest, the current legislation is intended to be consistent under an election scenario. When Parliament is dissolved, there are no committees for the PBO to report to. The expectation, as the legislation is currently drafted, is that should a party wish to have an election platform costing done, the PBO would have resources freed up in order to do that. I think it's consistent with your commentary around the caretaker convention.
8:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
But if the office doesn't stop working and making its work available publicly....
First of all, there's the question as to whom it would report during an election.
8:05 p.m.
Assistant Secretary, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office
Correct.
8:05 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
The other side I'm really worried about is that, first of all, the smaller political parties may not have formed their policy to give to the parliamentary budget office earlier. You also may have issues show up during an election campaign. Are parties then expected to ask the PBO to come out with costing?
I have a lot of questions here. I know that you can only speak in regard to the amendment, but these are some of the concerns I have around this.
This is why, Mr. Chair, I think the process has not been done properly. Two hours of committee study coupled with clause-by-clause consideration I don't think is adequate. I have a lot of questions here.
8:05 p.m.
Liberal
8:05 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Chair, perhaps I can try to answer Dan's question.
This would not enable the parliamentary budget officer to begin any new work. Imagine that we're in a recession and the parliamentary budget office wants to continue with collecting information, number crunching, and paying attention to trends. Why should we say “down tools” just because Parliament is dissolved? We do know the caretaker convention, and I don't think the caretaker convention should be violated.
Although you probably disagree, I think it was a mistake to have Ed Fast, our trade minister—a good friend and a lovely guy—negotiating during a writ period to get to a TPP. With the parliamentary budget office it's a very different situation. It's a non-partisan office with an independent officer of Parliament. It's collecting data and number crunching, essentially. My amendment would allow them to continue with work they had already begun, nothing new.