Evidence of meeting #29 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was parliamentarians.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Good morning, everyone.
Welcome to meeting number 29 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, of course, widely known as the mighty OGGO, the only committee that matters.
Welcome, Mr. Jacques, and welcome to your team.
We have you here today for the supplementary estimates (C) and other recent reports.
Do you have an opening statement for us, sir?
Jason Jacques Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
I do, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Colleagues, just briefly, after about an hour and a half, we'll suspend for a few minutes to set up for the OECD, and then we'll have probably five or six interventions for about 35 minutes with them.
I'm sorry, Mr. Jacques. The floor is yours. Go ahead, please.
Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Mr. Chair and distinguished members, thank you for the invitation to appear today.
Earlier this week, we published a report on the supplementary estimates (C). These supplementary estimates outline $4 billion in new budgetary spending. Voted authorities, which require approval by Parliament, total $5.4 billion. Statutory authorities, which the government already has Parliament's approval to spend, are forecast to decrease by a total of $1.4 billion, mostly driven by a decrease in planned spending on elderly benefits.
Including these supplementary estimates, the total proposed year-to-date budgetary authorities are $510 billion, which represents a $24-billion increase compared to the estimates to date last year. Major areas of planned spending include defence and the Canada Post Corporation. Roughly 12%, or close to $500 million, relates to 13 budget 2025 measures.
Of note, as well as our report on supplementary estimates (C), was the first ever OECD review of Canada's parliamentary budget office, which was also published earlier this week. As noted in previous committee testimony, I commissioned the OECD to undertake this review on my very first day of appointment as interim PBO, in September of last year. It seems like so long ago. After almost 20 years, I thought that an external evaluation of the office was long overdue.
In November, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, review team met with parliamentarians, government officials, former parliamentary budget officers and other stakeholders as part of their study.
As I have mentioned to some of you, when I asked the OECD to review the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, I specifically requested that they provide a road map to sustain our institution as one of the best among OECD countries. I am pleased to say that they have done all that and more. Their recommendations lay out a clear path to safeguard the office's independence and sustain its top performance. We have already started to implement many of the OECD's recommendations. I look forward to continuing this work with whomever the Prime Minister nominates to be Canada's next Parliamentary Budget Officer.
In closing, I would like to say that our office remains determined to provide Parliament with credible, timely and non-partisan analysis to support your work.
We would be pleased to answer your questions.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thank you, Mr. Jacques.
Before we start, I want to congratulate you and your predecessor, Mr. Giroux, as well as the rest of your team, for being identified by the OECD as the top in class among PBO-like peers for the entire OECD. Congratulations again to you and Mr. Giroux.
Madame Block, you're up first, for six minutes, please.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Thank you, Chair. While you stole my thunder, I will also go ahead and congratulate the PBO on being ranked number one in the world by the OECD. We recognize that this is the result of the PBO doing many things right.
Having said that, there are recommendations in their report. We would expect this, because there is always room for improvement. They suggest that these would further cement your position as an international leader in fiscal oversight.
One of the recommendations the OECD included was that there be a way to have parliamentary involvement in interim appointments. This could be “requiring secondary approval by a committee”.
What a novel idea. In November, I put forward a motion, which was passed by this committee, that sought to do this very thing: have possible candidates for the PBO position interviewed by the OGGO subcommittee. In response to that motion, a spokesperson from the PMO said that they didn't feel bound by the direction from the committee. They offered, in their refusal to include us, that the Privy Council protects the confidentiality of applicants. We know parliamentarians often deal with very confidential information. We hold in camera meetings to do just that.
I guess what I'm wondering is whether you would be willing to speak to this recommendation and any others that require action from parliamentarians.
Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Certainly. Thank you for the question.
Broadly speaking, of the five key recommendations identified by the OECD, I would say that two squarely fall in the lap of parliamentarians. Those relate to legislative amendments that the OECD recommends based upon their consultations with virtually all stakeholders, including the government. It represents a plurality of views. This is not exclusively an OECD perspective. It's important to understand that they heard this from many stakeholders.
Also, as part of the review process around this report, it was circulated among many external reviewers and other jurisdictions, including the Committee of Senior Budget Officials, of which Canada's Department of Finance is a part. It's a recommendation that was not uniquely sent to us by the good folks in Paris.
Regarding legislative amendments, again, the legislation is what the legislation is. Parliament has decided to provide the Prime Minister and the government with discretion around the interim appointment—more discretion than currently exists for the nominated permanent PBO. Should Parliament decide to change that, it would certainly be beneficial on the appointment side. That is something I believe I mentioned on September 15 as part of my first committee testimony here at the government operations committee.
First and foremost, it would be beneficial with respect to the operating stability of the institution. When Mr. Giroux's term came to an end, he received a phone call on his final day indicating that he was not being renewed. About 24 hours before that, I received a request to step in. It's not a good way to manage the office, as a whole.
More importantly, any shortcomings or additional challenges on our end result in lower-quality services for parliamentarians. As the Prime Minister and the government have pointed out on numerous occasions, budget 2025 is potentially the most important budget in a generation. Over the coming weeks, we're looking at, potentially, the most important aspect of the parliamentary financial cycle. The main estimates came down this morning, with departmental plans in the next two weeks. Shortly after that, we're looking at a spring update. All of this involves cuts of $60 billion, layoffs in 40,000 FTEs and substantial investments on the defence side.
Parliamentarians need that support. We're certainly well placed to provide it. Providing additional stability to the parliamentary budget office, which serves parliamentarians, puts parliamentarians further ahead, overall.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK
Thank you very much.
With my one minute left, I would simply state that it's one thing to provide further discretion when it comes to appointing a budget officer on an interim basis, but even appointing someone on an interim basis is not a best practice, as noted in the OECD report. Would you agree?
Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Yes, I would agree.
Something I mentioned to the committee and many members in this room was that I was very surprised and somewhat taken aback, following my appointment, by the questions that were raised by parliamentarians and put to me directly with respect to my partisanship. The method of the appointment created a perception of partisanship very quickly out of the gate. I was asked by many parliamentarians and staffers how well I knew the Prime Minister, how many times I met the Prime Minister, if I was a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, if I had donated to the Liberal Party of Canada. No one should have to deal with that.
More importantly, as the OECD points out, for an institution that is widely respected as being impartial and independent, having a nomination process for an interim appointment that leads to that specific outcome just makes no sense. It undermines the entire raison d'etre of having an independent parliamentary budget office.
Liberal
Pauline Rochefort Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
I'll expand a bit further on that particular issue. It is important to note that the OECD review concludes that Canada's Parliamentary Budget Officer is one of the strongest independent fiscal institutions internationally. Do you agree with that statement?
Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
I agree with the statement. I would say it's less about the officer, and it's more about the institution. I would also say, more broadly—and this is something that really stands out to me in comparison to other jurisdictions—that it is also about parliamentarians. In comparison to other jurisdictions, parliamentarians use our work to a much greater extent. This will be my 24th appearance at committee since September. I'm now at hour 39 of public testimony, going into hour 40 in a couple of minutes. That doesn't happen in other jurisdictions. We have close to six or seven committee requests with respect to analytical work.
I do think that, on our end, the team certainly does a very good job. It really comes from the use of the work by parliamentarians, people such as yourself, and the fact that parliamentarians are interested in numbers. They're interested in facts. They're interested, as part of their policy debates, to have good numbers that they trust supporting those debates. It is very much a team effort. From my perspective, the institution wouldn't be recognized by the OECD as being one of the best in the world if we didn't have some of the best parliamentarians in the world.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Pauline Rochefort Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Exactly. We should applaud that as well actually.
On that point, for many years your office and this committee have raised concerns about the disconnect between federal budgets and the estimates, as well as limited visibility, as you've pointed out, into frozen allotments that only become fully clear in the public accounts.
We're acting on some of these comments and concerns that have been raised, so as we shift to a fall budget cycle and improved alignment in supplementary estimates, are you satisfied? Do you view this as progress? How would you comment on that?
Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
It certainly, to your point, responds to some of the observations that we've made in the past with respect to the lack of alignment between the budget and the estimates. Again, those observations that we made very much came from parliamentarians.
I've been on the Hill for the past 20 years. There were observations made by parliamentarians with respect to the lack of coherence between the budget and the estimates. It's something that parliamentarians raised with the government—all flavours of government—and they raised it with us. The government has responded, and it's definitely a good step forward.
Liberal
Pauline Rochefort Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
I was just reading somewhere that parliamentarians are given five weeks to examine the supplementary estimates. Do you feel that this is now a sufficient amount of time?
Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
It's really not up to us to opine on how much time should be provided to parliamentarians. Again, when we reach conclusions with respect to the process, it's very much based upon the feedback from parliamentarians. If parliamentarians identify that they feel they're being rushed or they require additional time, that is something that we will then flag more broadly within a report.
I'd say, for my part, that I respect the fact that parliamentarians are very busy people. In addition, I think the parliamentary financial cycle is the most important thing that parliamentarians work on, but I am horribly biased. I do recognize that parliamentarians work on a lot of other really important things and they have to make tough trade-offs or tough decisions regarding how they actually spend their time.
Liberal
Pauline Rochefort Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
I'm not sure if I have much time. Do I have a minute left?
Liberal
Pauline Rochefort Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
I want to zero in on vote 50.
Certainly, as Canada accelerates our defence investments and works toward meeting its international security commitments, mechanisms like Treasury Board vote 50 are intended to provide flexibility within the supply process. I was wondering how you view this tool from a transparency perspective. Do you view it as a transparent contingency tool that can benefit Canada?
Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Similar to the other central votes that the Treasury Board Secretariat has created—both those that are currently in place and those back over the past two decades—it certainly can be transparent, as long as the government is being clear with respect to how the money is being transferred and how it's being allocated.
I would say that supplementing what's in the supplementary estimates (C) with additional reporting outside of them, potentially on a website, indicating how the money is being transferred to government departments without having to wait until the public accounts are tabled, is something that could definitely be a benefit.
Again, on our end, we're unlike the Auditor General. The Auditor General has the privilege and challenge of working within a really clear framework of accounting standards. Things can be black and white. There's some grey, but things are a lot clearer. In our situation, in terms of things like Treasury Board vote 50, by which additional discretion would be provided by Parliament to the government around managing this $1-billion fund, it's really up to parliamentarians to decide if the operational benefits for government outweigh ceding additional control to the government and the Treasury Board Secretariat.
Again, that's very much a question for parliamentarians.
Liberal
Pauline Rochefort Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
I appreciate that answer.
That is actually it for me for now. Thank you.
