Finance Committee on March 23rd, 2026

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Ryan, I like one of the comments that you made at the beginning, in which you said that it is your intention to make an analysis that is well understood by the public. I particularly paid attention to that because, of course, we are in a scenario where you have two different accounting practices being used by the government.

We have budget 2025, which was presented using a completely new set of definitions for operating expenses, definitions that have not been used anywhere else. The previous parliamentary budget officer, as I'm sure you know, called them “overly expansive” and called for an “independent expert body” to police the numbers because of the magnitude of operating expenses that were being shifted from operating to capital—about $94 billion.

Now we have the main estimates submitted to Parliament, and those use a different set of definitions. Nobody has the time to reconcile. The only way to do reconciliation is manually, and it's complicated.

Do you, then, believe that it is acceptable for a country to use two different sets of books, the one that Canadians pay attention to for the headlines and one for Parliament?

[Annette Ryan]

The way I view the government's statement about its plans for an operating budget balance—whereas running a capital budget deficit is something that it would be more comfortable with for a period of time—is as more of a political statement by the government. In my view, it's a statement about the direction of how it plans to manage the overall fiscal framework going forward.

In my reading of the budget and everything that you just described, I don't see that changing the accounting of the federal government in any way. In particular, it doesn't change the fact that a dollar borrowed has to be paid back and has to be paid back with interest. To the extent that the generally accepted accounting principles are going to continue to apply, the PBO is absolutely within its mandate to support parliamentarians with the elaboration of a number of different parliamentary fiscal anchors, if you will.

Yes, let's continue to look at debt to GDP. Let's look at deficits as a share of GDP. Let's look at the measure of how much in revenue is going to debt charges in any given year.

That aspect of having a number of different measures and looking at a number of different scenarios, I think, will give a lot more clarity to Parliament as the government steers through its plans to rebuild infrastructure, defence and so on. Does it remain affordable under different scenarios, as we've heard earlier: war, interest rates, inflation, oil prices? Let's work it through and see where it takes us. If it's going in the wrong direction, then let me help you put those constraints around the government.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

In your words, the budget is more of a political statement or a political paper. You have a government that ran on a slogan of “spend less and invest more”, but then, when Canadians were not looking, it changed definitions to reallocate $94 billion from expenses to investments.

Would you agree that it was just for political reasons, then? There's no real benefit to the country in doing that, especially when you end up with two different accounting principles being used.

[Annette Ryan]

To be clear, I don't think political statements are necessarily bad things. I don't think the statement that the government is going to, from an accounting, algebraic or mathematical sense, follow how it's going to pull back in operating spending to make space for greater capital spending is consistent with spending less to invest more. It's simply bringing greater clarity to what they mean by that, so I—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

That's time for this round.

Thank you, Ms. Ryan.

Thank you, Ms. Cobena.

We will continue now with Mr. Sawatzky for five minutes.

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Ryan, for coming here today.

I'd also like to take a moment to thank interim PBO Mr. Jacques for his work.

Maybe you could elaborate a bit on your experience in public service. How do you think your government-wide experience will contribute to fulfilling your role as PBO?

[Annette Ryan]

I would very much like to help Parliament hold the government's feet to the fire to make sure that the announcements it makes in its budgets are affordable and will be executed.

I would offer that my three decades of public service have prepared me very well for this. I've worked in all three central agencies, I've done economic policy at Industry Canada, social policy at ESDC, national security policy and banking policy. I have written many of the binders that ministers and deputies show up with at committees. I know the questions that they prefer you ask them, and I know the questions that they prefer you not ask them.

I would like to build out the role of PBO to make sure that you have before you the options to ask a wider set of questions of the government, to make sure that things are moving on the right track. That's how I think my experience can be put to the use of Parliament.

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

Thank you very much.

I'm looking through some of your past experience. I see here you were a founding board member of the P.E.I. Alliance for Mental Well-Being. This is an area that I think is quite important. Could you speak a bit to your work as a founding board member?

[Annette Ryan]

For sure. This one's personal.

During the pandemic, my nephew was killed by an impaired driver. As part of honouring his legacy, I was in touch with different folks in the province, and I also knew the premier at the time, and looking at the strains that are on communities right now—urban, rural, what have you—in terms of mental health and addictions and so on, they show the strains in communities right now.

The raison d'etre for this group was to try to get supports to individuals, families and communities before their mental health or addictions pressures got them into the red zone. That was my reason for joining that group.

I cleared it with all of our relevant values and ethics people to make sure there was no conflict of interest before doing that on a volunteer basis.

We organized an inaugural national summit on alcohol use that I think was fundamental in tabling some new issues and helping to think about whether we are on the right track with that.

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

Thank you very much for sharing. That's a very impactful story, and I'm very happy to hear that it made an impact.

Coming to another one of your experiences here, as associate assistant deputy minister for financial policy at Finance Canada, could you speak to what some of your day-to-day work in that role was, as well as how that might give you some experience as the PBO?

[Annette Ryan]

Certainly.

In that role, which I held for about two and a half years, I supported the government with advice on different matters relevant to financial sector policy. During those times, I led in terms of cybersecurity issues for the financial sector, including some of the earliest serious cyber-incidents at BMO, Simplii and Desjardins. I also led on anti-money laundering policy, which I then followed into FINTRAC on an operational basis with my current role. I worked on the negotiation of the CUSMA chapter related to financial sector policy.

I think that the aspect of understanding the financial sector well in terms of how regulation affects its ability to lend to businesses and consumers in a much more up-close way is also something I would take into the role of Parliamentary Budget Officer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Ms. Ryan and Mr. Sawatzky.

We will continue now with Mr. Kelly for five minutes.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

You were questioned earlier about the role of the PBO in communicating budget items. Your predecessor used some very strong, forceful language—not profane, in that sense—to discuss and to communicate the state of Canada's public finances.

It appears to many that this was a contributing factor to his not being here at the table and your being here as an alternative nominee. How do you feel about the need to be clear? Sometimes clarity and honesty require strong, forceful language.

I would like you to maybe expand on that, if you can, about the way your office communicates the challenges that Canada faces with its finances.

[Annette Ryan]

I think there is a way to communicate the gravity of a circumstance with the analysis. In the 1990s, when Canada was coming up toward that fiscal cliff, there were escalating dynamics that saw those debt charges ramping up. One can do the math, put the numbers before parliamentarians and paint the picture of a worsening fiscal situation, particularly if it differs from the way the government is presenting a fiscal situation, that will absolutely be clear and the implications of that situation will be clear.

As I said earlier, I think it's up to parliamentarians to apply the stark language. I would also say that Jason Jacques led the adoption of a communications policy within the PBO, as was recommended by the OECD report that people like to reference, to say that neutrality of language is important for the role.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

You've mentioned the fiscal situation in the 1990s a couple of times now. Mr. Jacques talked about that, too. In September, at the beginning of his appointment as interim PBO, he said, “Now, with the federal debt-to-GDP ratio forecast to increase, if we don't change things, we're going to end up there again.” In talking about the 1990s, he said we were “going to end up there again” if things don't change.

Do you agree with Mr. Jacques that the current finances of the country are unsustainable and are leading us to the same situation as in the 1990s if things don't change?

[Annette Ryan]

I think Jason himself provided a different view of his remarks in December 2025, when he said that the language was not appropriate and that in fact the fiscal track was sustainable. There are different ways he could have looked at what track he was looking at and—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

I have only a minute left. I really wanted your view.

His point was that the debt-to-GDP ratio is rising. Do you think that a rising debt-to-GDP ratio is sustainable?

[Annette Ryan]

A rising debt-to-GDP ratio is of concern.

The level of that debt-to-GDP ratio also has to be considered to decide whether it's sustainable or not. Not just Jason himself, but other voices like the IMF and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, have said that the current debt tracks are sustainable. I look forward to seeing the models of the PBO that would contribute to a view that they are unsustainable, but I don't think even the PBO is there at this point in time.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

In his testimony, Mr. Jacques was pretty clear.

If we have time, let's talk about lapsed funding. You talked about executable policy. When funds lapse, that's non-execution. Do you have any views on that?

[Annette Ryan]

Absolutely, I do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

You don't have time to share them at the moment. Maybe someone else will ask you about it, and you'll have an opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

We go now to Mr. Turnbull for five minutes, please.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thanks, Ms. Ryan, for being here today.

I note that the process that brought you to us today was quite broad and competitive, so congratulations on being here and making it this far. It's great to have you before committee to talk about your experience.

Before I turn it over, I want to say that I will share my time with my colleague, Steeve Lavoie.

I wanted to correct the record on something that I've heard from opposition members numerous times. There is precedent for an interim PBO. We thank Jason Jacques for serving in that capacity. I know that he's spent 16 years in the PBO, done remarkable work and continued to do that in the role of interim PBO.

In 2013, from March to September, there was an interim PBO when Kevin Page stepped down under Prime Minister Harper, which was roughly a six-month time period. Interim PBOs are not unheard of. There is a limit to the time period. We thank Jason Jacques for having done the role in the interim while the process was under way to search out and find the next permanent PBO.

I'll hand it over to Mr. Lavoie to ask some questions.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, my esteemed colleague.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Ryan, for joining us today.

I would like to follow up on a question asked earlier by my colleague, Mr. Leitão, regarding uncertainty.

I worked in the banking industry for 20 years. I've spoken with former colleagues. They're currently tearing their hair out. As you know, predictability for banks stems from the sustainability of businesses over the long term. I'm also a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. All the witnesses say that they have never seen so much unpredictability on a global scale.

You have over 30 years of experience. We have a special situation, given the unpredictability and uncertainty of the markets. How will you incorporate this into your analyses? We know that, in the past 30 years, it may not have been as necessary to include as many variables. Of course, there are always variables and we need to anticipate them. However, we can agree that there will be many more.

How will you incorporate all this uncertainty into your analyses and recommendations?

[Annette Ryan]

I'll start with a brief anecdote from the start of my career. I was working on forecasts for equalization payments. I worked quite hard on my forecasts and I gave them to the provincial minister. In the legislature, he said that he knew only that these figures would prove inaccurate. I think that we need to keep in mind that this type of uncertainty is part of the nature of forecasting.

I think that the analysis of budget scenarios has a great deal of merit. It helps us determine the path to follow and to see the possible impact of this type of fiscal framework over a given period. This approach helps us to see whether our decisions will remain viable.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Can you briefly outline your five priorities upon arrival?

We often talk about the first 90 days of a new job, but I won't ask for all the details. However, for the benefit of the average person, can you quickly identify your five priorities upon arrival?