Finance Committee on May 29th, 2017

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

I would hope that, whatever the PBO would do, it would be within the mandate of the PBO.

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

Yes.

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

Why would you want to take out the mandate of the PBO, then, if that's the point of the exercise in the first place?

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

If I may respond, it's not taking out the mandate. The mandate is the mandate and no officer of Parliament or any other government agency can go outside its mandate, but proposed subsection 79.4(1) is saying that the information to which it has access is only that information that is required for the performance of his or her mandate—information that is required.

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

Yes.

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

That is not a limitation placed on the Auditor General. That's not a limitation that makes sense. It's a limitation on the parliamentary budget officer that is not found in other agencies of government. There's no reason to say that it's required. You could say, “you can exercise your mandate, but you don't have to have all the information. You can use some of the information, but not all the information.” I think it's unnecessarily restrictive for the parliamentary budget officer.

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

First of all, I would just point out that the Auditor General is not the PBO and the PBO is not the Auditor General. They have two totally separate functions. From my time on public accounts, the Auditor General is there to make sure there are no issues of public waste or bad administration. That's totally different. In this case, I would hope the PBO would only be seeking information in order to achieve his or her mandate.

To me, this amendment is superfluous and I just don't see the point of it. That being said, I always appreciate the member's interactions because she always brings a different perspective.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We're on amendment PV-15.

Ms. May.

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

Mr. Chair, PV-15 also amends page 87. It looks at how much information we are requiring the parliamentary budget officer to have that is otherwise excluded under section 2 of the Access to Information Act. I take the point by my friend Dan Albas that the Auditor General is not the same as the parliamentary budget officer, but the parliamentary budget office has pointed out to this committee that if the Auditor General has access to this kind of information, the PBO would better be able to evaluate Department of Finance tax changes as well. That it is a core part of the parliamentary budget office's mandate.

The amendment proposes deleting lines 10 to 12 on page 87, namely the text relating to restrictions on access to information based on provisions of any other act of Parliament.

In anticipation of some of the comments in response to this, it's important to point out that even with the current Liberal government and its commitment to more openness, we've already had an example where Finance Canada refused to give information to the Auditor General. That was shocking. This is at the level of the civil service. I don't think it was Bill Morneau's decision, but Finance Canada officials refused to give information to the Auditor General which, on the face of it, the Auditor General had a right to have.

Here the parliamentary budget office is saying, “Don't tie my hands even more. Give us the right to the information.” I think we have confidence in the parliamentary budget officer as an officer of Parliament to exercise his responsibilities in a way that is essentially ethical. I think the PBO has demonstrated its ethics. It doesn't go after information it has no right to have, but it shouldn't have its hands or access to information tied in the way that proposed paragraph 79.4(1)(c) does.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It's open for further debate. Is there any further discussion?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We are on PV-16.

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

We're rolling right along here, Mr. Chair, and I thank the committee for considering my amendments.

This amendment comes from the parliamentary budget office's own suggestion as to how they think the legislation should be changed. The PBO's own draft legislation wanted to expand the statutory access to information to include cabinet confidences. Again, this is information that Ontario's financial accountability officer has at the provincial level. Certainly the Auditor General has it at the federal level. Access to certain cabinet confidences makes sense when you want to ensure that you have an officer of Parliament who has access to all the key information.

This much longer amendment would ensure that the Governor in Council would provide to the parliamentary budget officer a wider range of information. Some information would still remain confidential. As my proposed subclause (3) states, “For greater certainty, information referred to” in the above “remains a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada for the purposes of any other Act of Parliament.” It would give the parliamentary budget officer the same kind of access to information that the Auditor General has, or that similar officials, including Ontario's financial accountability officer, have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Are there any questions or further debate on PV-16?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That's what you call a hat trick.

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

Yes, but we're going on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We are on amendment PV-17.

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

Mr. Chair, on this amendment, I've had a history as a member of Parliament through the 41st Parliament of turning to the parliamentary budget officer quite a lot. I've worked closely with the PBO, and I don't mean to say by any means that any of the members at this table who weren't in the 41st Parliament are in any way less equipped to deal with this legislation, but I would want you to know that's why I'm fighting the fight for the PBO as hard as I am. We need a PBO. We need the independence of the PBO. We need the PBO to have the tools he or she needs.

One of the key election promises from the Liberals that I liked was that the PBO would be an officer of Parliament. It's one of the reasons I voted. I was the only opposition member of Parliament to vote for the Speech from the Throne from the Liberal government. One of the things I liked in there was the commitment that the parliamentary budget officer would be an officer of Parliament, an independent, so I've been disappointed that so much of this act restricts that independence and access to information for the PBO.

Amendment PV-17 is for the purpose of ensuring that the parliamentary budget officer has access to seek redress in the courts through the Federal Court system to pursue information that he or she has not been granted by any branch of government. It inserts after line 15 on page 87 three additional subclauses that allow the PBO to make a demand of a department or a crown corporation and if there is a refusal to provide the information, that the reasons for the refusal be given, and if the reasons for the refusal are not given and access to information is refused, the PBO would have access to the courts. I think it would be used rarely, but it's one of those backstops for access to information for full information that the PBO requires.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Are there any questions or discussion on PV-17?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I'll turn to a different party, amendment LIB-9. If LIB-9 is adopted, NDP-15 cannot be moved technically.

Who's moving LIB-9?

Mr. Ouellette, go ahead.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, this amendment would remove the requirements that the PBO not release the information unless it is already made publicly available, and the head of the department of parent crown corporation has consented to disclosure. The proposed amendment would remove two clauses that were included in the originally proposed legislation to help ensure that a confidential matter is not inadvertently or inappropriately released by the parliamentary budget office. This removal gives the PBO considerable latitude to decide what documents should and should not be disclosed outside of an election period, including potential secret documents. Concerns have been raised by current and former PBOs and by members of the House and the Senate that these proposed clauses in the legislation could give deputy heads a virtual veto on the content of the PBO's report.

The intention of the proposed clauses was to provide a balance to ensure that as the PBO received access to a wider amount of information, safeguards were in place to ensure that secret and other sensitive information used in the PBO's reports were appropriately protected from disclosure. It is expected that the PBO and departments and crown corporations will work closely together to develop appropriate protocols and arrangements for the sharing and potential disclosure of secret or other sensitive information as required.

I think many of us have been very sensitive to this idea to ensure the PBO has access to a wider amount of information so they can do their job effectively. This amendment is intended to provide a balance between the wider access to information while protecting sensitive information, and it's not intended to unduly curtail the PBO's activities.

We're hoping that, being reasonable people, the PBO, departments and crown corporations will have the opportunity of actually working together to come up with the protocols necessary to ensure the information is released in a good way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Dusseault, the floor is yours.

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

Mr. Chair, I would just like to have a clarification from our officials here because I think the government side is trying to do something good, but rather it makes it even worse. I would like to have the interpretation from the officials of the actual clause 79.5 and the interpretation of the new 79.5 of the proposal where you would strike paragraphs (a) and (c) essentially. Could you give us some interpretation around this clause and the amendment?

[Don Booth]

It will strike (a) and (c). It will keep (b) for during the election costing and continue to require the deputy approval before things are disclosed, but for (a) and (c) those would be removed. Once the PBO is provided with the information, it will be at the PBO's discretion in terms of what he or she releases in the report, the idea being that there will be non-legislated information protocol between departments and the PBO to ensure that documents are treated appropriately.

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

Would this section 79.5 only apply during elections? Is that what you mean? Paragraph (b) says it's in reference to 79.21.

[Don Booth]

The minister's deputy has consent, yes. Paragraph (b) that is currently in the legislation will be the only provision there, and that will only be for the election costing part.

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

Would the PBO be restricted from disclosing some information if the minister's deputy says it should not be disclosed?

[Allen Sutherland]

Just during the election period, of course it's a very sensitive time, and what the PBO is doing is actually a narrower set of things. It's providing costing for parties that would like their proposals costed, so it's a much narrower set of information. In light of the sensitivity of an election time period, under the proposed legislation that section would remain.