Government Operations Committee on Dec. 1st, 2016

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

No. He's not speaking to the motion. I think we should call the question. He's not speaking to the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

We are not allowed to call the question procedurally.

There are requirements for speakers to be both relevant and non-repetitive. I have heard relevance to date, but, Mr. Clarke, I would concur with Mr. Drouin that you must make sure that all of your comments, and any comments from anyone who wishes to speak to this, are about the motion itself, which is calling upon this committee to invite three particular witnesses to hear evidence on the minister's proposal.

With that in mind, I will ask you to continue. Please observe the rule of relevance.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

On the contrary, what I'm referring to absolutely is what we're discussing today.

I'm getting to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report of November 22, 2016. I'm sorry if I sometimes go off on philosophical tangents; it's the academic in me.

I will start by quoting what I think confirms the fact that accountability must not be focused on numbers, but on the the fact that the government is shunned for three months every year.

In his report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated, “The [current] Government asserts that Parliament does not play a meaningful role in financial scrutiny”. He adds, “PBO disagrees with this view”. Isn't that interesting?

I'll continue.

We note that notwithstanding the Government's performance information of admittedly poor quality, and their inability to reconcile the Government's spending proposals, parliamentarians have performed a commendable job of asking pertinent questions in standing committee hearings, Question Period and Committee of the Whole.

That's fundamental because it's what we're talking about right now. The performance information would be of poor quality and would not be aligned with the budget.

I'll continue with the quote.

Based on our day-to-day work with parliamentarians, PBO believes that through this challenge function, the Government's financial plans have been rendered more transparent (and perhaps even coherent).

This passage, which is in the conclusion of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, touches on the essential point I was talking about. We are trying to confront two premises: responsibility for numbers and responsibility for the departmental banishment. According to him, whether the numbers are accurate or not or whether they are of poor quality is not what matters and isn't what should be a priority. What should be a priority is the three-month process in which parliamentarians can make the government accountable by ostracizing ministers in committees of the whole, for example.

I will quote the passages in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report that I think are the most important. These passages should no doubt be heard by the Canadians listening to us right now, who probably haven't printed the report and haven't received it at their homes, either.

My employees always say that I am a bit lost in philosophical history, and that I always come back to the founding of Canada and parliamentary democracy.

The start of point 2 in the report, which is titled, “Context”, reads as follows: “The cornerstone of our parliamentary democracy is that no laws can be imposed on the public without the consent of their elected representatives”.

That said, I know very well that the objective of this reform is not to ensure that legislation can be adopted without the elected officials—

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

We have a point of order from Mr. Whalen.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Clarke has again stopped speaking to the motion before us about calling the witnesses and is now speaking again to the proposal being put forward. He's not speaking to the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

I believe, Mr. Whalen, that the proposal asking this committee to bring forward witnesses is about the proposal that the minister has made. They are interconnected in my view.

While, yes, you can argue that speakers should deal directly with the motion calling for these three witnesses to come forward, I believe that Mr. Clarke is talking about the reasons why witnesses should be appearing before this committee based on the proposal that the minister has given us.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

With respect, Mr. Chair, I challenge you on that. He was speaking to that at some point, but then he shifted back and he began to speak at length about the proposal coming from the Treasury Board Secretariat. I just want to challenge you on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

That's fine. As I have already mentioned to Mr. Clarke, and I will mention again the rules of relevance, I have not found him straying too far, but certainly if he does, I will interject.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I challenge you, so can we put this to a vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Certainly.

You can challenge my ruling of relevance, but that does not prevent Mr. Clarke from continuing his dissertation.

The challenge is to my ruling that Mr. Clarke was speaking irrelevantly to the motion. Do you want to phrase it in any other manner, other than that you disagree with my ruling?

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

I won't waste the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Okay.

Mr. Clarke, we've had two interventions now about relevance. Again, you were straying a little bit, but you need to make sure that whatever your comments are, they are to the motion before us.

Please continue.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I am quite sure, Mr. Whalen, that I'm addressing this motion.

Our motion invites the Parliamentary Budget Officer to appear before this committee. But since we don't form the majority on this committee, I want to ensure that the Canadians listening to us right now can see, through the record of our discussion, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's concerns, should you vote against this motion and should he not appear before us.

On page 4, the Parliamentary Budget Officer writes:

Parliament has established the Business of Supply to administratively manage the consideration of the new revenue-raising measures (such as taxes and tariffs), as well as disbursements of the money it collects...

This passage is very interesting and very important. According to a Rousseauist vision of life, we want to argue that many democratic actions can help to change society, but in reality, in our democracy, two fundamental actions are making progress, namely, the election held every four years, and finances, including the budget choices made by Canadians and MPs.

I think the Parliamentary Budget Officer is trying to clarify or strongly support that, under the pretext of a call for clarifying accountability for numbers, we should never set aside and forget the importance of the process of making ministers accountable for their budget decisions.

[Nick Whalen, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Again, I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Again, Mr. Clarke has strayed from speaking about whom he wants to call, the motion before the committee, and is again speaking to the issue of whether or not the motion and proposal from Treasury Board Secretariat is a good idea. This is the third time now that Mr. Clarke has strayed back into the debate of the previous issue and not the motion before the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you, Mr. Whalen. Again, I'm listening intently. I understand your frustration.

Let's be quite clear about this. We all know what's happening here. The opposition is using the procedural tactics that are at their availability. They are certainly within their right to do so. As one who has engaged in filibusters before, at one time going on for over eight and a half hours in committee, I'm intimately aware of how these things work and what the rules are from the chair.

There is, certainly you must admit, a connection between the proposal the minister has put forward and the motion put forward by the opposition, because they are interconnected. Because this motion is speaking to the fact of hearing witnesses dissect, if you will, the proposal by the minister and provide evidence to this committee whether or not the proposal is reasonable and should be acted upon, Mr. Clarke is referencing that.

To be able to say that you want him to be specific to just the motion is perhaps a little extreme, because if he strays beyond what the minister has said, or if he strays beyond commentary made by the parliamentary budget officer, or reference to any of the witnesses' observations, then I would agree with you that it's not relevant, but I haven't heard anything that strays too far yet.

Mr. Clarke.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will reassure you by reading two more passages that I think are the most important in the report. We're still talking about major democratic reform, Mr. Ayoub. I'm not sure if you know, but that's what's going on right now.

[Ramez Ayoub, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

We've been listening to you religiously for too long, Mr. Clarke.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you.

I will read you the most important passages, and then I will give Mr. McColeman the floor because he is next on the list of members who need to speak.

What is the principle of requesting departmental accountability in committees of the whole or committees like the ones reviewing the supplementary estimates?

The Parliamentary Budget Officer asserts that, and I quote, “When considering the Government's proposals—

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

He wants you to keep on talking.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you very much, my esteemed colleague. I appreciate it very much.

I'll start again. The passage reads as follows:

When considering the Government's proposals, it is essential to compare them against core principles of parliamentary review of spending, which enhance Parliament's ability to hold the government to account.

According to Her Majesty's official opposition, any reform that would impair the allotted time, which has been a three-month period for almost 150 years, would hamper this basic principle of accountability on the part of the government.

I will read you the last quote and stop there, which will please my government colleagues. So here is another quote from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that I think is fundamental:

That said, Parliamentarians will need to determine whether the cumbersome workaround of creating a new interim estimates, appropriating money based on the previous year's financial estimates, releasing a new main estimates in May and eliminating the spring supplementary estimates, is the best approach to meet their needs.

You have to understand that we're talking about 13 pages here. If the Parliamentary Budget Officer has managed to use 13 pages to outline the problem of two fundamental premises that are at odds with each other, it is imperative that he appear before our committee and explain to us in more detail what exactly he means and what his most obvious conclusions are, notwithstanding what is written here.

Thank you for giving me this time, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Thank you, Mr. Clarke. I'm sure the members of the committee appreciate your comments as well.

Next on my speaker's list I have Mr. McColeman.

Mr. McColeman, I note that we're about five minutes away from the time at which we're scheduled to adjourn. In your comments, please, sir, I suppose if I call for brevity it might be lost on you. Nonetheless, the floor is yours.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

To speak directly to this motion, getting more explanation from the current parliamentary budget officer, the former parliamentary budget officer, and Michael Wernick is really the logical way to go once you read the current report by the PBO.

I'm going to highlight some sections of the report. I'm certainly not in agreement with comments that have been made earlier today that this report is complimentary. It's far from complimentary of this process. When I read it and reread it, I highlighted and underlined the key areas where I will make the case as to why we need the parliamentary budget officer to come here as a witness on this, which are as follows.

I'll read from section 1, which is the executive summary. It's on page 3, the first section of the report. The report says:

In the case of purpose-based appropriations, PBO notes that the last time this issue was studied, parliamentarians recommended approving money for each program within a department and agency. The Government now proposes high-level appropriations that would provide discretion for departments and agencies—

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

Excuse me, Mr. McColeman.

Do you have a point of order, Madam Ratansi?

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, we would like to support this motion with an amendment that PBO Jean-Denis Fréchette, former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, and the Clerk of the Privy Council come before us at the next meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Lukiwski]

First, are you proposing it as a friendly amendment?