Finance Committee on May 10th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thanks to both of you.

I'll turn to Mr. Deltell next.

What I'm hearing is that a work plan should be provided for information, but that it should not be subject to approval by the Speakers. That's what you're saying, correct?

[Jean-Denis Fréchette]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

In case we do have to run, I want to note that in the copies of the PBO's remarks that members have, you will find a sheet in the centre of them that shouldn't be there. It happened to be picked up on a photocopier. Just to explain it, it says, “Extraction of all the tweets from the Tweet Manual - Chamber account”. That did not come from the PBO.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It relates to a matter that is being discussed on new communications for committees, within, I guess, the House offices.

Anyway, just so you know, that's not from the PBO. It's just about trial tweets on another operation that's going on.

Mr. Deltell.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fréchette, Mr. Mahabir and Mr. Askari, I'm very happy to see you again, and you are always welcome at this committee.

What the government is proposing is completely unacceptable, to put it mildly.

We cannot attack a neutral and objective institution like the Parliamentary Budget Office by slipping a few clauses into an omnibus bill that will fundamentally change the way that institution works.

If the government is serious in wanting to refresh the mandate and the functioning of the Parliamentary Budget Office, it must set this bill aside and present a separate bill; we could see where that takes us. But on the face of it, this does not make sense.

I am basing my remarks on the qualifiers and verbs used a few minutes ago by the current parliamentary budget officer in reply to the questions put to him by my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

He said that it was tortuous, convoluted and risky, that it put him in the position of a political agent, and that it is not clear.

I have never heard such comments from a neutral and objective officer with regard to a bill, or rather with regard to clauses that have been surreptitiously slipped into a bill of over 308 pages. As we said, this is an omnibus bill.

And yet during the electoral campaign, the author of this document was pleased to assert that there would be no more omnibus bills. It is unfortunate to see as prestigious and honourable a man as the member for Toronto-Centre stoop to such tactics.

That said, Mr. Fréchette, in various interviews you mentioned that having to submit your work plan to a person appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada, that is to say the Speaker of the Senate, and to the Speaker of the House of Commons, was an issue.

In your opinion, how does this jeopardize your freedom of action, since a person appointed by the Prime Minister will have the right to veto your work?

[Jean-Denis Fréchette]

First of all, it is important to remember that both Speakers are technically neutral, as you know. The difference is that one of them is elected by his peers, by you, the members, whereas the other is appointed by the Prime Minister's Office.

That said, when I made my remarks, I said that giving them this type of mission to accomplish represented a challenge to their neutrality.

Please understand that I am not blaming them; it is not a criticism.

Fundamentally, I think that in the bill the two Speakers seem to be treated as though they were ministers. As you know, a minister's job is to judge, filter and establish the work plan of a department.

I find it unfortunate that the bill targets the two Speakers as though they were ministers who could fulfil this task, when that is not their role. Their role is to be neutral and to manage the House, the Senate and the House of Commons. Here they are being asked to meet an enormous challenge, and that challenge is also one for their administration. That was the gist of my comments.

Is the risk greater for one Speaker than for the other? I won't hazard an opinion on that. What I am saying is that their administrative structures are not identical.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I will admit that personally, I was not closed to the idea that you examine the promises or the financial framework of the political parties. We would all be able to refer to the same person for all of the financial platforms.

To help my thinking along, I talked things over with colleagues. The exchange you had with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie shows me to what extent this proposal is grotesque and dangerous, even for your own independence, since you must be shielded from any political intervention.

Since I have been a professional politician for close to nine years now, I can tell you one thing: during an election we are anything but objective. I often remember with pleasure — and I even congratulate myself — some of the formidable, if not epic, debates I had with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

Once we are elected, our tone gets quieter, which is not a bad thing. I'm sure that the volume will be turned up again in two and a half years, and that is part of our DNA in this profession.

My question is the following: what do you think of the fact that a political party can ask for such a thing?

[Jean-Denis Fréchette]

I will answer you in another way. Mr. Page spoke about this a little earlier.

Throughout the world, there are only two other Parliamentary Budget Offices that do this type of thing. Only one such director, in Australia, has a true legislative mandate. The one in the Netherlands has been doing this work for several years, but does not have a legislative mandate. That is a very poor example. There are approximately 12 political parties in the Netherlands. You will understand that it becomes a rather less than fluid melting pot.

Among his responsibilities, the Australian parliamentary budget officer calculates the financial frameworks of the electoral platforms. He presents his report 30 days after the election. Everything he does before the election and during the electoral period is kept confidential. Thirty days after the election, he submits his report on all of the financial frameworks of all of the political parties represented in the House who asked him to do so.

In 2016, he responded to some 2,000 requests for evaluations of political party proposals. In order to do this he recruited 50 permanent employees from the Treasury and Finance Department of Australia.

If the public service wants to give me 50 additional employees, it will be my pleasure to perform this type of calculation on a permanent basis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both.

We can take three more questioners at about four minutes each and then we'll call it a day.

Mr. Fergus, Mr. Liepert, and Mr. Ouellette.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Fréchette. It is a pleasure to have you here. I have admired your work for a long time.

If I understand your point of view correctly, you are not in favour of evaluating the proposals made by political parties during electoral campaigns. Are you in favour, like another witness who appeared today, of evaluating the electoral platforms of political parties and their related costs?

[Jean-Denis Fréchette]

If the process were less closely related to the development and choice of policies, I might be more open to the idea. However, as you know—the last election ended not that long ago—ideas are raised on a regular basis, daily, which explains why it would be difficult to calculate the cost of these electoral platforms. Doing it at the very end, as per the Australian model, is something else altogether, although in that case confidentiality must also be taken into account.

You have in hand a survey we published. We asked the Nanos firm to hold discussion groups. The invitations were anonymous. I was not present. Nanos handled that responsibility. No political group, neither public servants, members of Parliament, senators or their representatives thought it advisable that we take part in the development of policy. I am basing my opinion largely on that, given that this survey group provided results.

That being said, I am at the mercy of a legislative provision. I would be happy to become an independent officer of Parliament; that would be desirable. The report has to be drawn up in the beginning, as I said. If we have to do that, we will do it. We'll see. In his wisdom, my colleague Mr. Askari suggested that we see what happens during one electoral cycle, and if everything goes wrong, we could do something more specific.

Be that as it may, the risk will be there from the outset.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I see.

Let's imagine, according to another scenario, that during an election year, the government of the day presents its budget and immediately calls an election. I suppose the evaluation of the financial framework of the federal budget would be a part of your normal responsibilities.

When would it be appropriate to publish the results of that evaluation?

[Jean-Denis Fréchette]

At the last election, we were asked to provide a report containing our projections on economic growth, unemployment and interests rates, for instance, so that all of the political parties could use it. We published that document and provided it two months before the elections.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

You are talking about the beginning of the last election?

[Jean-Denis Fréchette]

Yes, it was just at the beginning of the electoral campaign. Several political parties used that document. In some cases people who worked for them used it to do their own calculations. It was rather good, since everyone was working on the same basis and the same calculations. It wasn't necessarily possible to cheat. If the figures deviated somewhat afterwards, it was not our fault. We provided a baseline that everyone could use. I think that is not a bad idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, both.

Mr. Liepert, go ahead.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

I have a couple of questions for clarification.

I want to get back to the costing of elections. We all agree that costing of election proposals is impossible. If the government were to amend it and go back to what it said in the election campaign—to cost platform announcements, or platforms, I believe—is that even something your office can do? I just want to get clarity on this.

[Mostafa Askari]

I believe that would be more feasible for the PBO, if it were platforms and not proposals.

I can tell you with a lot of certainty, based on working with the PBO for nine years, that if the legislation stays the way it is drafted right now for platform costing, it would be operationally impossible for the PBO to do a good job, with the quality that would be expected of the PBO. It just opens the door to all kinds of requests, and that would be impossible.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

There is no question about the proposals.

[Mostafa Askari]

Yes.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

But it seems to me that even platforms.... The time you're working within is just.... I don't understand how it could even be done.

[Mostafa Askari]

Again, under certain conditions, it would be possible. If we receive the platforms, let's say, two months before the election—

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Look, that is—

[Mostafa Askari]

That might be an issue, a challenge for the parties that are involved, but if we had access to information, then it would be feasible to consider that it would be possible to do. But in the current form, it is absolutely not.