Finance Committee on Feb. 13th, 2008

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Could you be so kind as to be more explicit about the challenges involved in integrating such a position into a British-style system?

[William R. Young]

I will give the floor to Mr. Darling, who has looked into this issue.

[Allan Darling]

If I may speak in English, it would be easier for me to explain the concepts.

Essentially, the role of the Library of Parliament is to provide as sound an analytical framework as possible, in response to the needs of parliamentarians to understand the proposals and representations brought before Parliament by the government.

In terms of the parliamentary budget officer, this position represents a capacity to improve the economic analysis or understanding of the forces in the economy that are shaking the outcomes, which in turn will determine the fiscal resources available to the government. I don't think this is a contradiction. It's really improving and providing a better analytical interpretation of what is happening in the economy, so that members have a better understanding of how to interpret the government's representations to them with respect to their economic position and the fiscal numbers.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I understand that, but I understood it from the beginning. I found what your colleague, Mr. Young, said to be interesting. He mentioned that integrating such a position into a British-style parliamentary system was a challenge because we would be unique in that regard. The example we are all familiar with is in the U.S., where they have a different governance model.

I am asking you what those challenges were. Are they part of the explanation of why no one has yet been appointed to the position?

[Jacques Sabourin]

Mr. Mulcair, if I may, I think that the answer to that is no. As Mr. Young said, the position description was ready some ten days after the legislation was passed. There was no discussion as to whether the role was a good fit or not in a British-style system. We did our homework and checked where there were budget officers. There were no differences of opinion on that.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

In closing, is there anyone at all at this table who can guide the members of this committee, since I assume that the position was created to help us, as Mr. Darling has said? We would really like to have the position filled. Do you have any information at all to share with the members of this committee that could explain why, as of February 13, 2008, there has still not been any result? Have you been given any explanation at all that you can share with us?

[William R. Young]

You have the chronology that we have prepared. I think that the representative from the Privy Council Office is scheduled to appear after me. I believe that there is a problem regarding the classification of the position. That was identified by Ray & Berndtson.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Do you mean that it was classified too low in relation to the candidates? Was it because the position did not pay enough for someone of that calibre?

[William R. Young]

It is not just a question of pay; it is also a question of status in the system.

[Jacques Sabourin]

It was probably expected that the position would be at the level of an assistant deputy minister, but the discussions did not end up there.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

The position is at a level lower than an assistant deputy minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I have to call it there, as our time has gone.

[Jacques Sabourin]

It is about equivalent to an EX-3 position, as Mr. Young said earlier in his presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. McKay.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I've been on both sides of the table with this budget. In the previous Parliament we sat on that side of the table, and in this Parliament we're sitting on this side of the table. All of the conversation by all of the parties has been on an independent budgetary office. The emphasis is on “independent” budgetary office.

It wasn't sort of a rehash of whatever Finance lets you see. It was an independent officer of Parliament who would interpret publicly available data, so that members of Parliament would have a compare and contrast exercise with what the Department of Finance said GDP and inflation would be, the nominal GDP, etc. For quite a number of years, both under our government and continuing under this government, the discrepancy between what the predictions were and what the reality turned out to be...it was two very separate things.

Your description of a year and a half of interpretations and consulting with Finance...I can see Finance's sticky little paws all over this. They do not want to have any entity--particularly not an entity from Parliament--disputing what their numbers might be for budgetary purposes.

It seems to me that the way you're interpreting the legislation itself is that you are already subservient to whatever Finance deigns to give you for the purposes of this exercise. Then it gets worse, because instead of being an independent officer of Parliament, you essentially get the government to hire the person and, I assume therefore, fire the person.

You know, this is partisan, but this government seems awfully enthusiastic about firing independent people, so I don't see how this is serving members of Parliament who will want independent advice free of influence from the government.

[William R. Young]

To begin with, my job is to implement the act. I did not write the act. As far as the library is concerned, it is an independent institution there to serve you as members. It is not subservient to the Department of Finance.

As far as the role of the parliamentary budget officer vis-à-vis the department, I'll ask Allan to respond.

[Allan Darling]

I think your characterization of the role of the parliamentary budget officer is exactly the way we have interpreted how that position should be implemented. I think what's missing is the individual, so that they can begin to get to work on providing the basis for developing independent analysis and advice to parliamentarians on what is happening on the state of the economy.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

With the greatest respect, Mr. Darling and Mr. Young, you say in your material here, “I do not think the PBO should provide an alternative fiscal forecast to the one produced by the Department of Finance.” And then you go on to say you want to provide a “more strategic approach that would enhance parliamentarians' understanding of the underlying factors....”

Well, with the greatest respect, I thought that was exactly the point of this office, to provide an alternative fiscal forecast.

[Allan Darling]

I'd like to comment on that very briefly.

If you were to ask the parliamentary budget officer to table a statement for you on the state of the economy--the GDP--and where it's going, you would add one more set of numbers to the sets of numbers you get from the Department of Finance, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, and from all the other independent forecasters. It's just one more voice.

What we're trying to conceive in interpreting the mandate of this officer is to provide you with underlying explanations of the factors that are influencing the variations, so that you can form your own conclusions about how valid the forecast is.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

But that is exactly the point. The Department of Finance gives fiscal forecasts. They are beholden to the Minister of Finance. The Bank of Canada gives monetary forecasts. It uses the same numbers, but it's for monetary purposes.

Parliamentarians were frustrated, both in the last parliament and in this parliament, that there was no independent entity that spoke, if you will, for parliamentarians. And now what we find out is that we're not going to get an alternative voice; we're simply going to get a rehash of the numbers that are already in the public domain--either from independent forecasters, from the Bank of Canada, or from the Department of Finance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I'll allow a very quick answer and then we'll move on.

[Allan Darling]

Very briefly, I think with the independence of the officer and the experience of the officer you will have very sound economic analysis and advice, as required under the statute, to provide you with understandings of the state of the economy, the national finances, and the government's expenditure plan. That's the statutory requirement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you.

Monsieur Laforest, the floor is yours for five minutes.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen.

I would like to come back to the hiring criteria we spoke of earlier. When you look for candidates, I would imagine you want those candidates to be able to speak both languages in addition to being good with figures. Have you asked whether the requirement is that they speak both languages very well, at the highest level?

Moreover, what were the security requirements? Will that have an impact on existing Library of Parliament employees?

[Jacques Sabourin]

The level of language is perfectly in line with what we find for assistant deputy minister positions in the public service.

In addition, our employees already have a high security rating because of the work they do. A few moments ago, I gave you examples of the documents they can generate for you. In fact, those documents are prepared under strictly confidential conditions, and we will apply the same principles and policies to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.