Thank you, Mr. Chair, vice-chairs, and members of the standing committee, for this invitation to discuss your work plan on the national pharmacare program and the support that the office of the PBO could offer.
Every time that a standing committee or a parliamentarian seeks our expertise, we really appreciate the opportunity and always collaborate to the extent allowed by our limited resources and our legislative mandate.
Thank you also for your motion. In 30 years on Parliament Hill, I have seen hundreds and hundreds of motions, and I can tell you that this one is particularly very detailed, well written, exhaustive, crisp, and clear. It is unfortunate that I cannot tap into the expertise of your members, Mr. Chair, who collaborated to put this motion together. They would be an asset for the PBO, which, by the way, has very limited expertise on this issue.
I understand that we will have the opportunity this morning to discuss your motion. There are indeed elements in the motion pertaining to the PBO's mandate that will need further clarification—for instance, the aspect of policy development.
I have to admit that I was little bit apprehensive when I read your notice of meeting entitled “Development of a National Pharmacare Program” and “Briefing Session with the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer”, mainly because we are not in the business of policy development. We normally cost private member's bills, legislation, and existing programs, but when there is no program per se, we don't develop a program and cost it, which I am sure you understand.
Also, the last paragraph of your motion relates to the independence of our analysis, which is specifically mentioned in the PBO's legislation.
It may be because I'm francophone, but when I see in the English version the words “will work” as in “the Parliamentary Budget Officer will work with”, the statement seems a bit normative or “prescriptive”, as you say in English. When my spouse tells me “you will do this”, it's in my interest to do it.
In short, this restrictive aspect of the motion may call into question the independence of our analyses in the future. We certainly want to clarify this point with the committee during our discussions.
In that context, we have a short PowerPoint presentation aimed at helping you to better understand our mandate and operating model. Our presentation was sent to your committee before we received the motion, but as you will see, it's a good link and they are quite well related to each other.
With your authorization, Mr. Chair, I would like to ask my colleague Carleigh Malanik to walk you through the presentation, after which we will be happy to answer your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.