Finance Committee on May 10th, 2017

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

Okay.

You were here when I asked Mr. Page this. I'd just like to know who you feel you work for, parliamentarians or Canadian taxpayers?

[Mostafa Askari]

Again, I think my response would not be that different from what Mr. Page said. I think certainly, under the legislation, we are here to serve parliamentarians. But again, parliamentarians also serve people, so indirectly, we are serving the public. When we release a report, the report goes to everybody. That's for the benefit of the parliamentarians certainly, as well as of others who are interested in that kind of analysis and work, and that would serve the whole public.

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

But it seems to me that if we move to a system in which you have to have your work plans approved and you are able to follow up on requests from members of Parliament—things that don't happen today—you are then much more working at the will of the parliamentarians. I see that many of the reports you put out today are reports that you initiate, and you don't have to ask us before doing them. I think you're doing them on behalf of Canadians. It would seem to me that many of these proposals would move the PBO from its independent role working on behalf of Canadians to being almost the servants of parliamentarians.

[Mostafa Askari]

You are absolutely right. I think there are two issues with that proposal. One is that the legislation says, even before we put together a work plan, that we have to consult the Speakers. So just imagine that we have to consult the Speakers about what kind of work plan we want to have and then draft that and put it in front of them for them to approve it. You're absolutely right—it would be up to them to decide what kind of work we can do, and that certainly affects the independence of the office.

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

Can I ask you one quick question? I don't believe it's part of the proposal, but the external review process was mentioned here. What are your thoughts on that?

[Mostafa Askari]

I think it would be a great idea to have an external review. I think it should have been part of the original legislation that the PBO would be subject to review after three years or five years, or whatever the decision is. It's quite normal now for other budget officers around the world to have that kind of review process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

For our last question, Mr. Ouellette, you have four minutes.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you very much.

I'd just like to go over the part about things during an election as well. In the technical briefing that I attended, it was discussed that in fact you can request help from departments in order to do the costing. They can provide assistance. There's also confidentiality. You “shall not disclose to a minister any information related to a request for an estimate under subsection (3).” So in fact, there's protection to ensure that the opposition or government side can protect the information that it's requesting.

One of the questions I had related to that, just to get clarification, was about the idea of a proposal versus a platform. For instance, sometimes someone makes a proposal and we want to find out how much it is actually going to cost. This is great. We all have ideas, but if we discover all of a sudden that the idea is not cost-effective or it's very expensive, perhaps we're going to decide at that point not to move forward with it, perhaps we don't want to be debating a policy proposal during an election. I think there's a certain distinction to be made between a platform and having that flexibility regarding what people are asking for.

I also think though—and this is just my opinion—that in the long term, there's going to be an increase or a desire for.... For instance, journalists are going to ask the parties whether they had things costed out by the PBO. Over time, there's going to be almost a requirement that every time a political party shows up with a proposal during an election, it's going to need to have that cost analysis. I'm also certain that the ministers.... Because civil servants won't be serving the government at that time since there's an election on, they will hopefully be serving you and making sure you can get the information you need.

That's just my comment after reading the legislation.

I'd just like to go back to Mr. Liepert's commentary. It's not just parliamentarians; I think there's actually the cabinet. There are parliamentarians, which cabinet is also a part of, and then the people. I think it's incumbent upon parliamentarians to hold cabinet and government to account. I was just wondering how we all also hold the PBO to account for decisions that are made. How in the legislation or in the proposed legislation would you propose that we could hold you to account to ensure that you're doing the work of individual parliamentarians—not government but parliamentarians themselves?

[Jean-Denis Fréchette]

It's through the Speakers. That's why the Speakers now have this control and direction over the PBO. They will hold the PBO to account. They will become—

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

They're selected by the majority, but how do you ensure that you actually represent everyone?

[Jean-Denis Fréchette]

There is also the not yet existing joint committee. Keep in mind that the legislation refers continually to that joint committee.

Finally, the other accounting is that we have to provide an annual report, as other agents of Parliament do, to the two Speakers at the end of the fiscal year. This is the other accountability that will be in place, too, so all parliamentarians can look at the PBO's work and see how it operated last year, and so on.

One thing that is really interesting is Mr. Liepert's question on whether this officer of Parliament, the PBO, will become—will, maybe, would—an independent agent of Parliament under the Parliament of Canada Act. The PBO would not have its own legislation like the OAG, the Information Commissioner, and so on. It would be similar to what you have on the House of Commons side, which is the Ethics Commissioner, who is also under the Parliament of Canada Act. The relationship is always with Parliament. It's under the Parliament of Canada Act, and then, on behalf of parliamentarians, through the reports. We do serve other stakeholders—the public and so on—but this is a distinction that is very important to make compared with other officers of Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you. We'll have to stop the questioning there.

I thank you for your presentations and for your open and fairly direct answers.

We will reconvene tomorrow. The meeting is adjourned.