Question of privilege concerning the Parliamentary Budget Officer

[ Table of Contents ] The Speaker : I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 17 by the member for Edmonton West regarding information the Parliamentary Budget Officer requested from the government. The member alleged that a contempt of the House was committed when the government refused to provide in a timely manner information about measures in the 2025 budget, particularly the comprehensive expenditure review. He stated that this refusal was contrary to subsection 79.4(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act and that it compromised the House's ability to hold an informed debate on the budget speech. The member pointed out that the Parliamentary Budget Officer had informed the House of this refusal by notifying the Speaker, as provided by section 79.42 of the act. In the member's view, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has a legislative mandate from Parliament to play an essential role in providing objective, non-partisan analysis on behalf of the House. He argued that refusing to provide the information the Parliamentary Budget Officer requested is analogous to ignoring a committee's request for documents. The member asked the Chair to find a prima facie question of privilege so the House can discuss the means by which it might defend its authority and the rights of its officers. (1515) [ Translation ] In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons stated that the government is working in good faith to provide the information requested. He explained that the government had requested a delay so that it could meet its obligations to the employees affected by the coming reductions. In his opinion, this slight delay did not interfere with members’ rights, as the budget debate concerned a general approval of the budgetary policy, not detailed measures requiring analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The member for Saint-Jean echoed the statements of the member for Edmonton West. In her view, the Parliamentary Budget Officer was impeded in his work. Violating a legal obligation to provide a document is an important reason for raising a question of privilege, since such a breach undermines the authority and dignity of the House. [ English ] Let us take a few moments to consider the wording of section 79.42 of the Parliament of Canada Act, because it is central to the matter before us. It provides that: If the Parliamentary Budget Officer is of the opinion that he or she has not been provided with free or timely access to information requested under subsection 79.4(1), he or she may so notify the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons or any appropriate committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament. Pursuant to this section, the Parliamentary Budget Officer sent a letter to the Speaker, dated November 13, stating that the government would not meet a deadline of November 19, 2025, for providing information about the 2025 budget. A copy of a letter of the comptroller general of Canada confirming that the government would endeavour to provide the information in early December was also obtained. These documents were tabled in the House on Monday, November 17, 2025. [ Translation ] By advising the Speaker of the government's refusal, the Parliamentary Budget Officer made use of the appropriate recourse under the act. Moreover, it appears that one of the purposes of section 79.42, which was put forward during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-44 , Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, was to give the Parliamentary Budget Officer a parliamentary recourse mechanism in order to eliminate the need for court action. The committee evidence of May 29, 2017, also reveals that this section was designed to enable the House to subsequently demand the information itself, if it considered that appropriate. It is true that the Parliamentary Budget Officer helps members better understand and debate financial matters. In the Parliament of Canada Act, Parliament gave the Parliamentary Budget Officer the ability to gain access to any government information that falls within their mandate. However, Parliament did not delegate its constitutional powers relating to the production of papers, under which the question of privilege could be brought forward. When the House is seized of a matter such as the one raised by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, it is up to the House, not the Chair, to decide what response is required and whether to use its powers, which the House has not yet done. [ English ] At this time, the House has not adopted any order for the production of documents. Members have multiple ways of bringing matters such as the one raised by the member for Edmonton West before the House and having them debated. The dispute between the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the government is unfortunate. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's legislative mandate is to support parliamentarians in order to raise the quality of debate and promote greater budget transparency and accountability. The act is clear: The Parliamentary Budget Officer has the right of access to any information that is required for the performance of their mandate. However, it is up to the House to decide how it wishes to respond to this situation. It would therefore be premature for the Chair to make a finding of privilege. I thank all members for their attention.