Evidence of meeting #4 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was plans.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Obviously, we support the motion given that the Minister of Finance, in response to a question, said that the Parliamentary Budget Officer was wrong, as usual. I would like to check that.
Furthermore, we cannot not support it because, as the old saying goes, statistics are to an economist what a street light is to a wino: they are more to support something than to shed light on it. So we agree with the motion.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
There's an expression that economists have predicted 12 of the last 5 recessions.
Monsieur Généreux, s'il vous plaît.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We cannot not support this motion either. But we would like a slight amendment to the effect that economists be invited to appear as well. I move that the following text be added to the motion:
That the committee also invite the private sector economists who the Minister of Finance spoke with and whose opinions form the basis for the fiscal projections of the department.
Basically, it is important to understand that there is a direct relationship between the economists' projections and those of the government.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
So you're recommending an amendment to also invite private sector economists?
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC
I request that economists from the private sector be invited.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
From my perspective and that of my colleagues across the way, Mr. Chair, Mr. McCallum talked about the transition from the economists to the...he called it the black box, and changing that into budget predictions. He might be right. I appreciate his expertise in formerly being one of those people at the bank that our government at one time would likely have called on for advice. I would like to understand if there is a difference or if there is a transition from the private sector economists' predictions to the Finance... I think it's right on to invite the Finance people and then let the parliamentary budget... I think to invite two of the three pillars would give us less information.
I think to be fair, we should hear the modelling, the system that the third-party economists, the private sector economists, use to develop their predictions and their view and how that gets transferred. But I need to understand the first part and how it's used if I'm going to understand the difference between the budget officer... All it would mean, I think, Mr. Chair, is that it would be a full meeting instead of half a meeting, and we can invite some of the third-party economists to join us at the table to get their perspective.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
I'm an economist. I don't think they add anything because the two parties use exactly the same forecast. But if you want to hear the economists, I have nothing against that, except I would insist they be at separate meetings.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
You have the economists first, if you want the economists. They won't add anything on this narrow issue. They might add something on other issues, and then at a separate meeting you have these two parties. I don't think you need to amend the motion. You just accept the motion and add something saying that we'll invite economists.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
That's what the amendment does, and I was supporting the amendment.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Does the amendment make it clear that these are two separate meetings? You don't want to commingle the economists with Finance and Parliamentary Budget Officer.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
In terms of process, I think a point of order is a process question. Could you define what two separate meetings are? Could it be one hour of one and then a second hour of another all included in one meeting?
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
It's something Mr. McCallum can clarify with his motion, but my understanding is he wants at least an hour with both the Parliamentary Budget Officer and with officials from the Department of Finance at the same meeting, if I'm clear.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
For at least an hour. He would be willing to accept a second meeting with the economists, perhaps of an hour.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
Do it all in one meeting, as long as they are separate.