Evidence of meeting #87 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was office.
A video is available from Parliament.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy
I agree.
As I said in my opening remarks, it would be an enormous restriction on the mandate. I look back at the five years that I was the parliamentary budget officer and the work the office did, and some of our biggest files, on fighter planes, costing ships, crime bills, and costing the Afghanistan war—these initiatives all came to us from individual MPs. I think breaking that connection would be a mistake.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Page, I would first of all like to thank you for testifying before our committee. I must admit to you, as well as to all of my colleagues, that for over 30 years I have been extremely interested in all matters that concern the Parliament.
I congratulate you on the work you have done, and I also commend the former government, which created the Parliamentary Budget Office. It was very important that that be done. It is an incredible tool.
As the first director of the office, you really created something with the tools you were given. I know that the government of the time was not always happy about it. However, as a Canadian citizen, I believe that the work you did was very important, and that this is being continued by your successor.
My question concerns the relationship between the parliamentary budget officer and parliamentarians. According to what I read in the papers, when a parliamentarian asks the office to focus on a given topic, you feel it important that the results of that work be made public 24 hours, or one business day, after the information was given to the member.
What recourse do I have as a member if I want to control that information? It could be because I do not want it to be published because it is not timely, and I might prefer that the results be released later. In such a case, rather than submitting my request to the PBO, should I submit it instead to the Parliamentary Library?
You have the floor.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy
That's another great question.
It's very important that the parliamentary budget officer and office have a strong relationship with individual MPs, and should spend as much time as possible understanding their needs and the kinds of questions they have.
The practice we put in play early in my first mandate was that when we sat down with an individual MP, there would be a discussion on the nature of the work. We found that often in this work, we couldn't answer all the questions that individual MPs had. Our tool box is limited to a finite set of tools: economic, fiscal, and costing tools.
We would make it pretty clear that in some cases when we take on a project, potentially costing a war, which was the very first project that Mr. Dewar asked us to do, we would spend two to three months costing that war. For example, what is the cost of having the soldiers in Afghanistan, the cost of capital, the depreciation of capital, the disability and death costs, and developmental costs? We would work with peer reviewers in different parts of the world, Canada included.
Again, if it came to the point where we came out with a report and the individual MP said thank you very much, but don't release it, I think it would undermine the independence of the office. It would be very disruptive to the kind of work we do. I think you want the parliamentary budget officer and office to be as independent as possible. Transparency is one of those fundamental principles that the OECD highlights in the release of its documents.
It's very important that we also have a strong research service in the Library of Parliament that provides the day-to-day briefings and confidential services. I think you need both.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
With that, we will have to suspend.
Can you stay, Mr. Page, for probably 10 to 15 more minutes? We'll try to go with 45 minutes with yourself and 45 minutes with the current parliamentary budget officer.
We'll suspend until after the vote.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Ron Liepert
Folks, please grab your seats, and we'll try to resume because we may have another break here very shortly.
I'd just like to draw to your attention that Mr. Khan has now arrived. Is there anything you would like to say, or are you just here to supplement Mr. Page?
Sahir Khan Executive Vice-President, Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy
Thank you. Yes, I am here to support Mr. Page, and I apologize—I was at the Senate national finance committee at the same time.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Ron Liepert
No, we certainly understand that, but you have nothing that you want to raise at the outset?
Executive Vice-President, Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy
No, thank you.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Ron Liepert
Then we're going to continue the line of questioning.
Mr. Fergus, the chair said you were done.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I recall him saying three minutes, and there were two minutes left, but I could be wrong.
Conservative
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm always in your good, capable hands. Thank you.
Mr. Page, thank you once again.
The other question that I have is in terms of the work plans. I clearly understand the criticism as to why you would not want the work plans to have to be submitted to the Speakers. I could see how that could leave the position open to any type of unfortunate political control.
Is there a way we can ensure that, not you, not the current PBO but perhaps some future PBO does not end up just ragging the puck and doing things that are not relevant to Canadians? How do we ensure that the work plans are going to be working towards questions that are relevant and of importance to Canadians, and can help parliamentarians in doing their work in evaluating what the real costs of our doing business are?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy
Again, that's another excellent question. It's very important that the legislation be as clear as possible on what you want the parliamentary budget officer to do, so if you want to see economic and fiscal projections two times a year, and if you want to see fiscal sustainability analysis—
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
While you're answering that question, does the legislation do that now?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy
Unfortunately, to get right to your answer, no, it does not spell it out that clearly right now. In other legislations that have survived, for example, the Congressional Budget Office in the United States, there is that level of specificity.
Having a really clear mandate is very important. There is absolutely a good practice. With respect to the work plan, it should be submitted to the Speakers, to various committees, but again, there's the question of approval. Do you want the control of the work plan to rest with the Speakers? I don't think you do. You're saying no. I would agree.
Executive Vice-President, Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy
Mr. Fergus, I also want to add that the OECD lays out a number of principles Mr. Page may have brought up about how independent fiscal institutions should operate. They put a premium on the value of leadership.
You asked about the risks. I think parliamentarians lower the risk when they pick a qualified person with the expertise and a reputation that is at stake. If the right choice is made in the leadership of the parliamentary budget office, parliamentarians then assume less risk of someone doing work that isn't responsive and relevant to the work of parliamentarians and Canadians.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank Mr. Khan and Mr. Page for their presence here today, for stimulating minds on both sides of the Rideau Canal. That's very important with the Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy.
Mr. Page, in your remarks to my colleague Mr. Liepert earlier, you said there are different people we could bring in. We are talking about the parliamentary budget office, not the government budget office. This is an omnibus bill, so there are lots of measures in it. With very little consultation—I would say no consultation that I'm aware of—the government has suddenly added a sprinkling of different measures.
There has been very little explanation. Now that there is some resistance, even from the parliamentary budget office itself, saying that the proposed amendments may not be in the office's best interests nor in those of Parliament, would an alternative process be better? Would it be better for us to actually cut this out of the bill and perhaps have a joint session of the committees of both Houses, or have a special committee of both Houses?
This involves Parliament. This is an institution that would become an office of Parliament, sir. Do you think that the two hours of examination here and the debate you've heard thus far on this bill are really going to do this institution and this future officer of Parliament position justice?
President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy
No, sir, I'll be direct. I don't think a couple of hours would do the legislation justice. I think, as we discussed here today, there's a need for amendments. There's stuff that we haven't even talked about yet, like the process for costing opposition party manifestos or party platforms. But to get back to your point, a full discussion that brought in colleagues from the Netherlands or Australia where they actually do this could bring about refinements perhaps to the legislation. It could confirm to your minds what the operating model would be. I think you need more than a few hours. If the committee thought that this was a good idea to pull it apart so that all MPs could benefit better from the parliamentary budget officer, I'd be very supportive of that.
But again, that's your decision, not mine.
