Finance Committee on May 29th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is that it, Dan?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Dusseault.

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

To address the issues raised, I want to say that it is a matter of allowing him to carry out economic analyses that are broader than an analysis that is limited to assessing the financial cost pure and simple. For example, if a member planned to propose a measure—be it a tax credit or a tax measure—although the parliamentary budget officer could measure its financial cost and determine that it will cost $200 million a year, he can conduct a more thorough analysis to find out who will benefit from the measure and whether it will have the desired effects.

Through this amendment, a portion of his work could consist in conducting economic analyses that are less limited than simple analyses of financial costs, which only determine how much a measure will cost. It will enable him to carry out broader analyses.

I want to reiterate that I am using the parliamentary budget officer's own words. He certainly doesn't want to end up in a situation where his mandate would be too restrictive and where he could not do what he wants to do—for example, carry out a more thorough analysis.

So that is the objective of my subamendment. I think that it is completely in line with what the parliamentary budget officer himself said.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, we're dealing with a subamendment to amendment LIB-6.

(Subamendment negatived)

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We will turn now to NDP-11.

Mr. Dusseault.

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

Mr. Chair, this goes back to what I was saying earlier to my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. The parliamentary budget officer can, under some circumstances, refuse certain requests.

First of all, I would like to once again make a small change to my amendment, NDP-11. If you like, I can read it. It's in the first paragraph.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I think we're on NDP-11. Maybe the translation came through wrong.

On NDP-11.

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

My only change is to delete the words “on any ground” and the word “including”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

[Inaudible—Editor] translation side.

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

Yes, I can read it.

The added paragraph would read as follows:

(1.1) The Parliamentary Budget Officer may refuse a request made under subsection (1), including the ground that: [...]

The rest of the paragraph would stay the same.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That's fine, and it's in order, Pierre. Do you want to explain the amendment?

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

Yes.

As I was saying in the beginning when I was talking to my friend from the Bloc Québécois, my amendment specifies that, under some circumstances, the parliamentary budget officer may refuse to accept a request from a member, a committee or anyone with the ability to submit requests to him. He can do so in four cases where: the request does not fall within his or her mandate; the request does not in substance relate to the nation's finances or economy; the request is one that could be more appropriately dealt with by another institution, such as the Library of Parliament; or he or she does not have the resources necessary to fulfill the request.

So this is about clarifying the reasons as to why he could refuse a request. Those are very specific reasons, and he can only refuse in those cases. The idea is to clarify the authority of the parliamentary budget officer and the situations in which he could refuse a member's or a committee's request.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Albas.

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

Obviously, this is a mechanism for when a committee that has been specified here has requested it or.... There's a whole criteria here.

My question is for the member who's proposing this.

You've laid out a process for the reasons that the PBO can turn down a request. There's nothing that says the PBO has any accountability, though, to either the committee that made the request or whatnot, so I would ask if there is a mechanism. Do you have a further amendment down the road that would add to that? Right now they can turn you down, but there's no responsibility on the PBO whatsoever to even reply and give the dignity of a reply. To me if there is a proper reason, a rationale, such as it's not part of his mandate, or it's not in relation to the nation's finances or the economy, or it could be dealt with by someone else, it would be nice to have it in writing.

I think a committee such as our own would expect that. Will there be an amendment later on that would add that? If we're going to be giving independence to the office, which I'm not necessarily opposed to, we also have to make sure it's accountable to either House or its committees.

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

Mr. Chair, I felt that it was implied that the reason for refusing a request would be provided, be in writing or verbally.

That said, it would be possible to add a line to the amendment to specify that the parliamentary budget officer must tell the requester why he refused their request.

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

Yes, I think that would certainly make a lot more sense, because if you've made a request, you should receive a response.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That line would be added to the amendment, probably as a paragraph (e).

Okay, it's up for discussion. Is there no further debate?

I'll wait until the legislative clerk comes back, but I think you're adding it under paragraph (e). I think that's allowable.

Okay, we'll vote on amendment NDP-11 as slightly added to.

(Amendment as amended negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We'll move to amendment PV-11.

Ms. May, the floor is yours.

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

Mr. Chair, this is very straightforward. The current draft requires that the parliamentary budget officer provide the report to any committee that has requested it following the work done by the parliamentary budget office and then to make it public one business day following preparing and delivering the report to the chair of a committee.

The potential for leaks was raised by the parliamentary budget officer. There's no particular reason to have a delay of one business day, so my amendment would allow the parliamentary budget officer to simultaneously provide the report to the committee and to the public. It's only for the purpose of reducing unintentional leaks. Clearly, there's no attempt to hide the parliamentary budget officer's report. It's one business day later.

I think this is almost housekeeping to make sure they're tabled at the same time with the public and the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I should just point out that technically, if PV-11 is adopted, the question cannot be put on amendment LIB-7.

I should have done that before you spoke, but I didn't.

Is there any further discussion on PV-11?

Mr. Albas.

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

I have a quick question for the officials.

Is there anything in the Liberals' amendments that is somewhat similar to this amendment, or is this a nuance that is specific to this amendment?

[Allen Sutherland]

The difference is the simultaneous nature, if I understand it correctly, whereas the next amendment is one day later.

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

What you're suggesting, Member May, is that the moment the report goes to the Speaker, it's made public. Is that correct?

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

That's what I'm proposing.

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

That's interesting.

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

It might not be the moment it goes to the Speaker, but it would be on the same day.