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.
5:40 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I think it's up to you if you can ask a question, and I think it's up to you if I can answer it.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Well, I'm going to ask one anyway. Do consultations not occur by the debate in the House on a budget bill?
5:40 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Not in the sense that the report of the minister would be on consultations held about the adequacy, about how the mechanism is working. With debates in the House, for one thing you don't always know that every leader in the House is going to have an opportunity to debate. When we have time allocation, as the leader of the Green Party I'm sometimes not able to get a speaking slot. I have to say debates in the House are not as useful a consultation mechanism as talking to each other outside of debate—how is this working; how could it be improved—and reporting on that to Parliament.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
I'd like a recorded vote.
(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)
(Clause 103 agreed to on division)
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I don't see anything before me before part 4, division 4. Could we have consent to deal with clauses 104 to 112?
5:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We're on division 4, Shared Services Canada Act, clause 113.
Mr. Deltell.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This section concerns the Shared Services Canada Act. We understand that changes will be made regarding Shared Services Canada. This is perfectly legitimate in an omnibus bill. However, we're concerned about security issues. We don't have a problem with the government occasionally dealing with private businesses. We're either conservative or not conservative. However, there comes a time when the government must take precedence over everything, especially in terms of security. We think clauses 113 and 114—we'll likely have the chance to look at them later, but since they're before us, we can talk about them now—generate significant concerns about security.
We understand that, in today's world, we can't play around with this. We realize that people's concerns about security measures directly affect public services. Our war against terrorism is now multi-faceted. We're not immune to the potential consequences of dark forces that could undermine our public service. That's why we have concerns about clauses 113 and 114, which affect the Shared Services Canada Act.
5:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
I would like a recorded vote.
(Clause 113 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
(On clause 114)
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Is there any discussion on it? Will we have a recorded vote on it as well?
Mr. Ouellette.
5:40 p.m.
Liberal
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
I'd like to say one final thing. We did have the opportunity to attend other committees. I went to the government operations committee and heard some of the testimony on Shared Services Canada and about many of the issues they've been facing. I think it's going to offer a greater level of flexibility to various departments to really ensure that this is a successful new ministry.
Shared Services Canada has had an awful lot of problems for five years and is an example of many of the problems that we are dealing with now and trying to clean up.
(Clause 114 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Could we deal with clauses 115 through to 127? Does anybody have any problems with that?
(Clauses 115 to 127 inclusive agreed to on division)
(On clause 128)
Thank you to the witnesses for coming forward.
We have an amendment, LIB-1. I would say first that if LIB-1 is adopted, the question cannot be put on NDP-1 due to line conflicts in the budget bill.
Who is moving this? Mr. Fergus.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Chair, the goal of my amendment is simply to ensure that the French version matches the English version. I move that clause 128 of Bill C-44 be amended by replacing lines 8 and 9 on page 78 of the French version with the following:
tant sur les politiques macroéconomiques et budgétaires — dans le but d'améliorer la qualité des débats parle-
That's what I want changed.
5:45 p.m.
Conservative
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's worrying how we end up losing our French. For the record, as we say in English, we'll support the amendment proposed by our colleague.
As you know, we don't agree with the entire bill. I don't think I'll surprise anyone by saying that we'll vote in favour of the amendment, but against clause 128.
Thank you.
5:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We're just such a place of compromise, Gérard.
Shall LIB-1 carry?
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Due to the line conflict, NDP-1 is not going to be dealt with.
NDP-2 is an amendment to clause 128.
Mr. Dusseault, there's no need to read the amendment. Everybody has it. Do you want to go to the explanation?
5:45 p.m.
NDP
Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC
Mr. Chair, I think the amendment is very important. I believe it reflects the spirit of other amendments. It would involve establishing an inclusive process for selecting the parliamentary budget officer. The process would require the participation of MPs from parties recognized in the House, to make sure the person has everyone's support, which obviously means multi-partisan support.
This amendment also specifies the qualities and skills required to hold the position, including the appropriate educational background and the expertise in federal budgeting and financial analysis. It would be a matter of simply inserting, directly into the legislation, certain eligibility conditions for holding this extremely important position.
The main goal is to make sure that the person will be selected following a consultation and that the person will have received the support of MPs in the House, unlike other recent appointments that have been somewhat called into question. We want to avoid similar situations when appointing a person to hold such an important position. It's a non-partisan position that should be considered as such at all times. We want to avoid dangerous situations, such as the case of a recent appointment to a commissioner position.
The goal is simply to provide a clear description, in the legislation, of the selection process and the qualifications needed to hold the position.
5:50 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Like all my colleagues here, in my own way, I'm very seriously considering the amendments proposed in the bill. The amendment I'll propose shortly has the same goal as the amendment proposed by my NDP colleague. However, it's simpler. That's why I'll vote against the amendment he proposes, for the benefit of the amendment I'll submit shortly.