Finance committee  That's speculation, but given a fixed budget, yes, you're correct.

Finance committee  Just taking the words that were provided, rather than the strict cost of a proposal, you would also consider the distributional impact, perhaps some beneficiaries, if it's a tax measure, distributional impact on people paying the tax. You're basically looking at it from different

Finance committee  Yes, it possibly could be. The economic distributional impact by gender would be conceivable, at least as I interpret the subamendment.

Finance committee  I don't think it would be far beyond what the PBO does on some of his broader economic analyses, but the further you go from a pure costing mandate, the more likely you are to bring in judgment factors. You can also do a neutral declaration of the distributional impacts of a pa

Finance committee  The current language is “cost”, which is pretty narrow. I think what you're proposing is a broader range of economic factors. It could be regional, demographic, and distributional.

Finance committee  The difference is the simultaneous nature, if I understand it correctly, whereas the next amendment is one day later.

Finance committee  As you suggest, the current legislation is intended to be consistent under an election scenario. When Parliament is dissolved, there are no committees for the PBO to report to. The expectation, as the legislation is currently drafted, is that should a party wish to have an electi

Finance committee  Correct.

Finance committee  Just during the election period, of course it's a very sensitive time, and what the PBO is doing is actually a narrower set of things. It's providing costing for parties that would like their proposals costed, so it's a much narrower set of information. In light of the sensitivit

Finance committee  If you were to keep things as they were, the three elements are as follows: the information the PBO could reveal, if it's already made public; if the DM has consented in the context of an election, as we've just discussed; and, the PBO is now getting a larger array of information

Finance committee  Referring to 79.5(b) as it currently is, this is only referring to when there's an election costing mandate request, which is at the request of a party. That's all I'm saying.

Finance committee  It's a consequential amendment. It's the result of a numbering change.

Finance committee  No, it's not expanding the nature of the bill.

Finance committee  It's clarifying.

Finance committee  The reference is incorrect.