To address the issues raised, I want to say that it is a matter of allowing him to carry out economic analyses that are broader than an analysis that is limited to assessing the financial cost pure and simple. For example, if a member planned to propose a measure—be it a tax credit or a tax measure—although the parliamentary budget officer could measure its financial cost and determine that it will cost $200 million a year, he can conduct a more thorough analysis to find out who will benefit from the measure and whether it will have the desired effects.
Through this amendment, a portion of his work could consist in conducting economic analyses that are less limited than simple analyses of financial costs, which only determine how much a measure will cost. It will enable him to carry out broader analyses.
I want to reiterate that I am using the parliamentary budget officer's own words. He certainly doesn't want to end up in a situation where his mandate would be too restrictive and where he could not do what he wants to do—for example, carry out a more thorough analysis.
So that is the objective of my subamendment. I think that it is completely in line with what the parliamentary budget officer himself said.