Finance Committee on May 29th, 2017

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

I will ask for a recorded vote.

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We move to NDP-10. Technically, if NDP-10 is adopted, the questions on PV-8, BQ-2, which was removed, PV-9, PV-10, and LIB-6 cannot be put.

Mr. Dusseault.

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

I would however, as did my colleague Ms. O'Connell, slightly amend amendment NDP-10.

On the second page of the amendment, that is to say on page 24 of the document containing all of the amendments, reference is made to the “financial cost of any proposal that relates to a matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction.” We would replace the words “financial cost” with the words “economic or distributive impacts.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Pierre, do you have that in writing or could you repeat it?

Do you want to explain that, Mr. Dusseault?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

The amendment is to page 81 of Bill C-44.

First of all, the amendment defines the mandate of the parliamentary budget officer, who will be able to provide, on his or her own initiative, independent analyses of the topics mentioned previously.

In addition, the amendment states that the reports are not an exhaustive list and that the PBO may prepare other types of reports.

The amendment also removes a provision which alluded to the approval of the Speakers of the two Houses, a change that is extremely important to us.

The amendment also specifies that members may directly submit to the PBO requests on the financial cost of any proposal that relates to any matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction, rather than strictly requests concerning measures the member is considering submitting to the House or the Senate.

It was made clear in discussions with witnesses that appeared before this committee that because of the wording of Bill C-44 with regard to the changes concerning the position of parliamentary budget officer, it would be more difficult for members and senators to submit requests to him regarding studies or cost assessments. Amendment NDP-10 resolves this problem. Indeed, the wording of the bill is an issue, since it limits the power of MPs and senators—senators must be included in the conversation—to submit requests to the PBO. The problem has been pointed out. This amendment aims to ensure that parliamentarians may make requests on any topic they have in mind without this being necessarily directly related to a measure they intend to propose.

With regard to my friendly amendment, I repeated the statements the PBO himself made in his draft bill.

I hope to obtain the support of my colleagues so that the mandate of the PBO can be broadened as much as possible, and so that members and senators may submit requests to him on a range of topics. The idea here is to not limit the requests members and senators could submit to him.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, you've heard the proposal. The wording change that Mr. Dusseault stated is in order.

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will turn to amendment PV-8, Ms. May.

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

Mr. Chair, this amendment deals with the question of how much this piece of legislation wants to tie the hands of the parliamentary budget officer in terms of looking at things that parliamentarians have a right to know. The way the mandate is currently structured, it says that the parliamentary budget officer may prepare reports—that sounds discretionary—but then the list of the kinds of topics on which the parliamentary budget officer may comment is quite limited: the budget, an economic or fiscal update, a fiscal sustainability report, or estimates.

Mr. Chair, you will recall how important it was in the 41st Parliament when the parliamentary budget officer wrote up a report on what the F-35s were really going to cost. That doesn't fall under any of those categories of a budget, an economic or fiscal update, a sustainability report, or the estimates.

Diving into an area that parliamentarians need to know about is something we want the parliamentary budget officer to be able to do, so my amendment changes it from being an exclusive list, “(i) to (iv)”, and expands it by taking out the words “any of the following”, allowing items (i) to (iv) to be for the purpose of examples—these are the kinds of things the parliamentary budget officer can examine. It would change that last bit to the “Parliamentary Budget Officer's analysis of federal government documents, including:” Then we list them as examples, but it's no longer an exclusive list to tie the PBO's hands.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion on amendment PV-8?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

On amendment PV-9, Ms. May.

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

Mr. Chair, again, this goes to the question of the work plan. These amendments affect the language on page 81, and delete lines 38 and 39 so that the work plan would not have to be listed in an annual work plan. It could be prepared at different times. Some of that may have been picked up in the Liberal amendment; I'm just double-checking. At least the mandate and the work plan would not have to guide the work of the PBO and could respond to unexpected events.

I know that some of what was just passed in amendment LIB-4 changed it, but it's not enough.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

If I could interrupt you, the Liberal amendment that has already passed committee nullifies this amendment, so we really can't deal with it.

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

Mr. Chair, I had suspected that this was the case, but when you gave me the floor I thought that perhaps there was some shadow area, but thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You at least got your say.

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

Yes, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We move to amendment BQ-3.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I said earlier, I'm going to discuss amendments BQ-3 and BQ-4 together since they are in the same spirit, although the amendments are made to different provisions of the bill.

This concerns the PBO. We are concerned by the curtailment of the independence of his research. This is also mentioned in other amendments. In this regard, I wish to congratulate my colleague Greg Fergus of the Liberal Party for the excellent interview he gave to the newspaper Le Devoir last weekend. Consequently, I believe I will have the support of Liberal members for this amendment, which concerns the possibility members have of submitting study requests to the PBO.

As you know, until now members could submit any request or ask any question of the parliamentary budget officer. Bill C-44 eliminates this possibility. The purpose of amendments BQ-3 and BQ-4 is to restore it.

There are two categories of members in the House of Commons: those who are members of a recognized party and those who are members of an unrecognized or independent party. There really are two categories of members. As members of an unrecognized party, we do not have research budgets. The Liberal Party, which forms the government, has access to all public servants. The members of a recognized party have access to millions of dollars to do research. We have nothing, and we have to make do on our own. When we have to study an omnibus bill like this one, it's very cumbersome. We also don't have access to analysis reports that are presented to the committee. We asked to have access to the point-by-point analysis of Bill C-44 prepared by the analyst, but this request was denied since we are not a part of the committee. We have to do all this work on our own. We can only count on our own means. At least we still could rely on the parliamentary budget officer, but now Bill C-44 removes that possibility. I implore you to restore this.

I deplore the fact that there are two categories of members in Ottawa. Being placed in a second category of members is one thing, but I would like to avoid being made a pariah.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Albas.

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

Mr. Chair, I just want to ask officials a question.

Obviously, we've established that there's a mandate and there should be a work plan, and there are obviously issues where people say that they think the mandate should be x versus y. It's the same with the work plan. The word “shall”, to me, “shall, if requested to do so by any member of the Senate or the House of Commons or by any of the following”, sounds as if I asked for a report to be done on something, then “shall” would mean that the PBO would have to do it. Again, I'm just thinking that if I would do that responsibly, I'm sure that might be okay, but if you have 338 members, and some members are much more ambitious than others, that might start to tap out the resources. I think that's one of the reasons you have it written right now that it's done by the request of committees.

If a request from the good members from la belle province is made, what ramifications would that have from your perspective on the PBO's ability to carry out his work from a more macro level? How would that be compromised or changed?

[Allen Sutherland]

In the work plan, the PBO can set out his priorities, but the requirement of “shall”, as you've interpreted it, is correct. He's required to do it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Ste-Marie, and then Mr. Dusseault.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I would like to answer my colleague, briefly.

As you know, the parliamentary budget officer is independent and may determine his own program. All we are asking is that, we the members, may be allowed to submit requests to him. After that, he is free to manage his priorities, as Mr. Sutherland said, and that suits us entirely.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Albas, and then Mr. Dusseault.

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

I'd make a quick call to officials. To me it sounds that...and I respect the member's work on this and that from his party's perspective there are two classes of members. I understand the argument for that. What I'm trying to figure out, though, is when you use the word “shall”, that means by law the PBO has to respond. It's not “may”, “may respond” or “may, if requested to do so by a member”. To me, I think that's something that is already within...probably the work plan is to pick up things. Am I wrong in that? “Shall” and “may” are two different things, and the member seems to make it sound as if it's more of a “could you, if you have time”.

[Allen Sutherland]

“Shall” is stronger than that. It's a requirement for the PBO to respond. Now, of course, there would be a discussion and it sounds like the honourable member would be very reasonable about it, but, yes, “shall” means—

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

So people like me.

[Allen Sutherland]

You seem very reasonable to me.