Finance Committee on May 29th, 2017

[Allen Sutherland]

I'm not sure.

[Don Booth]

Do you mean for the other agents...other officers of the Library of Parliament and the COI Act?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Could you give us other examples? Is this a similar mechanism or is there another way to do it?

[Don Booth]

It's my understanding that the officers would provide it to the Speakers for their consideration and approval, and then it would be submitted. It would be submitted to Treasury Board, which would not approve it but would act as a sort of conduit with the estimates, as opposed to the agents of Parliament, who are schedule I.1 entities in the FAA, which involves more of an actual approval process.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Clearly in this case, this is being used for other similar offices. Is that correct?

[Don Booth]

Certainly I think the expectation now is that, say, the Library of Parliament, would submit its estimates to the Speakers to be approved and then sent off. This would remove that approval function and basically it would be sent to them either as a mailbox or for a discussion, but to be passed.

It's more independent than is currently the case with the Library of Parliament.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Okay. I'm open to hearing more from the member proposing this, because I'm just trying to think about whether or not this would actually be an improvement.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Mr. Dusseault.

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

I can confirm to my colleague that this is indeed a step in the right direction to ensure independence.

It is a rather limited change which involves the wording; rather than “considered”, we speak of “submitting”. The objective is to ensure independence in the law and specify that the parliamentary budget officer is not subject to the influence or discretion of the Speakers of the House and Senate with regard to this budget and the way in which he presents his expenses to the Treasury Board of Canada for the next fiscal year.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Chair, I just want it put on the record that I certainly understand where the member is coming from. The challenge you run into, though, is what the mechanism is to ensure that it's not just a blank cheque.

I certainly do understand the point that, for example, the Chief Electoral Officer can draw on the general revenue fund; however, that is a very extreme situation.

[Allen Sutherland]

Yes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Good governance usually means that you have someone who is acting as a quasi-challenger. In this case, would Treasury Board view this as Treasury Board pushing back and saying that they think your back office expenses are higher or whatnot? Do you feel that this would impede the independence of the officer? The office itself does exist within an institution, and the institution, like all institutions, has budgetary constraints.

There is a good governance rationale for saying that we should have someone that challenges or checks your work to ensure money is being spent in an accountable way. I'm open to hearing some sort of idea of how it can be done otherwise under the system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Sutherland, did you want in?

[Allen Sutherland]

Yes. First of all, “submitted” is no bar at all, right? You submit. It just simply gets transferred. As Mr. Booth explained, that's literally a mailbox. “Considered” is a slightly higher standard, which I think is what Mr. Albas was getting towards.

Typically in this situation, the Treasury Board would not review the content of it, so you have to examine whether or not financial due diligence would be placed at any point in the system. “Considered” is a lighter bar. I just want to assure Mr. Dusseault that “considered” is not “approved”. But it is considered. It is examined. There's a slight nuance between the two, but I would argue that what you're aiming for is that you want reasonableness, and “considered” helps you get to that stage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will go to the question on NDP-6.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Amendment NDP-7 is consequential to NDP-4. NDP-4 is lost, so we'll not consider NDP-7.

On amendment PV-5, we have Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, this amendment goes to the issue that I think has been raised quite a lot. Members are familiar with the concerns of the parliamentary budget office and officer that the sections of this act that relate to the parliamentary budget office have put the independence of the office much more in doubt than we had expected of this new government.

My amendment deals with the administrative control of the PBO and seeks to reduce the administrative control of the PBO by the Speakers of the Houses of Parliament. I propose deleting lines 12 to 25, as they're found at page 80 under proposed subsections 79.12(1) and 79.12(2), to increase the independence of the PBO. The PBO itself in their brief described what would happen if you were looking at a specific project and there was a spending threshold you really needed to access in terms of the ability to buy data and models. Even having administrative control of spending powers over the PBO by the Speakers is an intrusion into the independence of the parliamentary budget office as an independent officer of Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Dusseault.

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

I want to make sure of one thing. Have we not already voted on this? Point (b) of amendment LIB-3 was similar to this. Am I mistaken?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

This is similar, Mr. Dusseault, but it's not identical, so it can be considered.

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

Fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion on PV-5?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On amendment PV-6, there's just a technical point, Ms. May. If PV-6 is adopted, the questions on NDP-8, PV-7, BQ-1, NDP-9, LIB-5, and LIB-4 cannot be put due to line conflicts.

On amendment PV-6, the floor is yours.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, this is again dealing with the issue of intrusions on the independence of the parliamentary budget office. I know and really welcome that there are government amendments that will deal with some of this, but the issue is on work plans confining what the PBO can do based on the approval of a work plan.

Amendment PV-6 proposes to eliminate the idea of a work plan.

This is consistent with what we've seen in countries around the world. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office doesn't have a work plan. We don't need to confine the parliamentary budget officer to a work plan. Events can emerge in a fluid fashion over the course of a fiscal year where you would want the parliamentary budget officer to have the capacity to respond to exigencies, such as a natural disaster. The parliamentary budget office brief itself refers to the risk of something unanticipated occurring. You can't anticipate everything in a work plan. You want your PBO to be able to respond and prepare for the House and the Senate the economic consequences of various things. They might be foreseeable, but they might not be the kinds of things you put in a work plan.

My amendment, if it passes, would eliminate the work plan altogether.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll move on to NDP-8. Technically, Pierre, if NDP-8 is adopted, the question on PV-7 cannot be put due to line conflicts in the bill.

Go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The amendment would replace line 39 on page 80 in order to emphasize the discretion of the parliamentary budget officer and his independence. It is a recurrent topic but once again this amendment aims to remove the consultation role of the Speakers of the Houses regarding the PBO. This can be found at the end of page 80 under the heading “Annual workplan”. If the amendment were adopted, the clause would read as follows:

[...] finances or economy or to the estimates or priorities of the government that, in the parliamentary budget officer's opinion, should be brought to the attention [...]

The objective is to broaden his mandate and clarify it with regard to the annual work plan.