Finance Committee on May 29th, 2017

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

Wow. I've really done a good thing here. That's the biggest.... Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is this taped? My God, the clip will be coming off the TV.

Mr. Dusseault, and then Mr. Fergus.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to clarify something.

In Bill C-44, it's already saying “shall”. I don't know if you noticed it, but the amendment of my colleague doesn't change the word “shall”. It's already in Bill C-44, on page 81, proposed section 79.2(1)(c). That's what the amendment is proposing to change, but he's not proposing to change the word “shall”, as it's already in the bill. I don't know why we're debating the word “shall” here.

I just wanted to say a few words to support my Bloc Québécois colleague on this, because this is in keeping with what I was saying earlier. We want to broaden the powers of MPs regarding requests they may make to the PBO concerning any topic of public interest under federal jurisdiction. I just wanted to mention that I support his amendment.

As for the restrictions imposed on the parliamentary budget officer, earlier I proposed an amendment that would list the reasons why the PBO could refuse a request. These are very specific reasons that concern very particular circumstances. This also answers my Conservative colleague's question on this.

I support the amendment and I hope that my colleagues here today will support it as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Dusseault.

We'll go to Mr. Fergus and then back to Mr. Ste-Marie.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would just like to put a question to Mr. Sutherland or Mr. Booth concerning Mr. Ste-Marie's objective, which is to see to it that members and senators have the right to suggest studies to the PBO. I thought there were other provisions in the bill that would give members this latitude to suggest topics to be added to the PBO's work plan. It would then be left to his discretion to take the suggestions into consideration and follow up on them or not.

[Allen Sutherland]

You are correct. A member of Parliament can speak with the PBO and have something included in the annual work plan, so in making the case to the PBO with the changes, I believe you could do it both at the beginning of the year in the establishment of the work plan, but also throughout the year so he could adjust his work plan throughout the year.

Another approach is in committee, so convincing the committee that this is an area of priority.

The third way is the amendment you're looking at now.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I understand my colleague's concern very well, and I also know that one day we will be on the opposition benches. I also know that if we decide to refer this matter to committees, it could happen that the members of committees might not listen to the reason set out by a specific member. However, as Mr. Sutherland has just confirmed, there are other provisions in the bill that will deal with the issue you have raised.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Ste-Marie.

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

To reply to my colleagues, I would say first that we, the members of unrecognized parties, cannot table motions in committee.

However, we can make direct requests to the PBO and I would like to verify with Mr. Sutherland the circumstances that will allow us to continue to do so. We can ask him for help when we table private members' bills, but this won't be possible otherwise, according to the other provisions of the bill. That is not what we want.

To answer my Conservative colleague on the fact that the PBO is free to chart his course, I will give you an example. We asked for an analysis of Muskrat Falls regarding the word “doit”, or “shall”. He told us that he could do that, but that it was not among his priorities and that it would not happen for a year and a half, but that he acknowledged the request. As things stand, the PBO is free to set his own program; we want him to remain free. According to the wording in Bill C-44, he will remain free, because he must manage his priorities; however, second-class members will become pariahs, and we don't want that to happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Do the witnesses have anything to add on the point that was just raised?

[Allen Sutherland]

Certainly. If the honourable member were to propose a private member's bill on Muskrat Falls, he would be within his rights under the proposed legislation to request a costing of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Dusseault.

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

That is exactly the problem we are highlighting. The request must be related to a measure whose proposal is planned—so a bill, a motion or something of that nature. That is what is limited in the proposed paragraph 79.2(1)(f), where the following is stated:

(f) shall, if requested to do so by a member of the Senate or the House of Commons, estimate the financial cost of any proposal that the member is considering making...

It's too limited. I raised this issue during our meetings on the topic. The big issue is that this limits the power of MPs and senators.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Albas.

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

I totally understand where you're coming from in the desire to have that kind of analysis. Right now we can ask the Library of Parliament to do a broad overview. That's a great resource. I've never heard a complaint from them.

I will say, though, that I am worried by making it a parliamentary legal requirement where, by law, the parliamentary budget officer has to acquiesce to a request. To me, the word “shall” is very strong language, and the problem is you have limited resources and infinite desires. I'm afraid there could be vexatious demands on the office. Again, we would all hope that people would use their reasonableness when carrying out their parliamentary duties.

To me, a better amendment would be perhaps if a group of members of Parliament—maybe that could be quorum, 12 in the House of Commons—agreed that they'd like something done. It would be like a committee. That would be a reasonable request. Then you would at least have a group of MPs and a public interest.

In this particular format, I just cannot support it on the principle of trying to keep those scarce resources focused on it.

I also have to be a better MP if I'm going to make a case to the parliamentary budget officer to investigate something. The onus is on me to actually argue there is a wider public interest than just my curiosity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I'd like to get further clarification from Mr. Sutherland.

I understand that if there's a PMB, a private member's bill or motion, that member or senator could ask the PBO to consider acting. Are there any other occasions in the legislation outside of those two requirements? That's outside of getting the approval of the committee. I'm talking about individual MPs or senators.

[Allen Sutherland]

We're midstream on a broad set of amendments, but the current bill does not allow that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The question is on amendment BQ-3.

We'll deal with amendment BQ-4 and you don't need to speak to it when we come to it in order.

The question is on amendment BQ-3.

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

I would like a recorded vote, please.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're on amendment PV-10. If PV-10 is adopted, the question on LIB-6 cannot be put.

Ms. May.

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

Mr. Chair, I would appeal to my friends on the Liberal side of the table to consider how good it will look on them to pass an opposition amendment. This one, PV-10, is very close to LIB-6. We're both attempting to accomplish something that's quite close, and that is to undo the damage—let's hope it was unintentional—that would be done if the bill were to be passed as it was prepared at first reading, which would remove powers and access, I should say access more than powers, that individual members of Parliament have had, to ask the parliamentary budget officer to study a matter for us.

In the language that we find unamended, it restricts what the member can ask the parliamentary budget officer to investigate to those matters that the member is considering making before the Senate or the House. My amendment would be to say that they can ask the parliamentary budget officer to look at any matter that is coming before the Senate or the House.

Looking ahead to LIB-6, it's very close, so should you feel inclined to be able to have a future talking point about how different the Liberal government is from the Conservatives in the 41st Parliament and how amendments are accepted on omnibus budget bills in the course of debate, this is your big chance.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Now, with words like that, is there any other discussion?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.