Parliamentary Budget Officer

Honourable senators, the Senate is resolved into a Committee of the Whole in order to receive Annette Ryan respecting her nomination to the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Honourable senators, in a Committee of the Whole, senators shall address the chair but need not stand. Under the Rules, the speaking time is 10 minutes, including questions and answers, but, as ordered, if a senator does not use all of their time, the balance can be yielded to another senator. I would now invite Annette Ryan to join us.

(Pursuant to the order of the Senate, Annette Ryan was escorted to a seat in the Senate Chamber.)

Ms. Ryan, welcome to the Senate.

As I have informed my colleagues, the question-and-answer period will be divided into 10-minute blocks.

These blocks will be shared between two or three senators and will include time for your responses.

I would ask you to make your opening remarks of at most five minutes.

Thank you very much, Your Honour.

And thank you, honourable senators.

I am honoured to be here with you today to present my candidacy for the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer of Canada.

As I did yesterday at the Standing Committee on Finance in the House, I will open by honouring the leadership of senator Hugh Segal, who advocated for many years to create the independent Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO.

The core goal for the office is to inform parliamentary scrutiny and vibrant debate with common facts and analysis that are independent from government.

I would also like to reiterate my deep respect for all my predecessors who have shaped the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. As has already been noted, the OECD recently recognized that the PBO is a highly effective source of non‑partisan and credible advice. In the same report, the OECD set out balanced recommendations to guide its next steps.

I want you to know that I agree with the OECD recommendations, and I commit to deepening and strengthening the office’s attention to the sustainability of the government’s overall fiscal track. I will also focus the attention of the PBO to how government budget proposals are executed as they flow through to main and supplementary estimates and then to public accounts. This is core to House and Senate business and to the practical question of what return Canadians get on the investment of taxes raised from them and in their name.

As I introduce my vision, let me introduce myself. My name is Annette Ryan, and I am a proud Atlantic Canadian. I was raised on a family farm in Newfoundland and then in Prince Edward Island. I earned a mathematics degree from Acadia University in Nova Scotia and a master’s degree in economics from Oxford University, which I attended as a Rhodes Scholar. I started my professional career at the Institute for Fiscal Studies in London, U.K., where I analyzed complex data sets to inform pressing public policy questions related to productivity, innovation, wages and employment.

I returned to Canada in 1996 to work at the Prince Edward Island Provincial Treasury, where I managed all aspects of transfer payments and income taxes. These were years of intense debate on Canada’s fiscal imbalance, following the debt crisis of the early 1990s.

I then moved to the federal civil service, where I have held senior executive positions for most of my career, with experience briefing prime ministers, ministers and parliamentary committees, as well as opposition MPs from all other parties, on complex issues in respect of the budget and estimates process, taxation measures, fiscal federalism, innovation and productivity, social policy, financial sector policy and national security.

I feel strongly that all parliamentarians should benefit from the same quality of advice and analysis as do government members, which is my core motivation to seek the role of Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I humbly seek your approval for this appointment so that I can put my expertise to work for you.

Before concluding, allow me to reiterate the commitment I made to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance yesterday.

While the Parliament of Canada Act currently allows a second term for the Parliamentary Budget Officer, I commit to serving one term only. I believe there are certain accountability roles in the senior public service that should not be eligible for reappointment in the interests of maintaining their integrity 100% beyond reproach. I believe that the Parliamentary Budget Officer is such a role.

Thank you, Ms. Ryan.

We shall now proceed with questions.

Ms. Ryan, thank you and welcome to the Senate.

Since 2010, one of the hallmarks of the PBO’s work has been the Fiscal Sustainability Report. Last year, instead of the usual full report, we only received a very small publication entitled Budget 2025: Long-term Fiscal Sustainability. Can you tell us if you plan to maintain the previous practice of releasing full fiscal sustainability reports if you are appointed as Parliamentary Budget Officer?

Thank you, senator. Yes, absolutely, senator. One of the two priorities that I am setting for myself and the office, above others, is to deepen and broaden the work of the PBO in respect of fiscal sustainability. I think that there is a lot of scope to examine different types of fiscal metrics and fiscal anchors, if you will, that can inform parliamentarians about the track of government finances, and I think there is also scope to do different scenario analysis to test some of the assumptions about what a downside risk and an upside risk can mean for those long‑term financial forecasts.

Thank you, Ms. Ryan. The Parliamentary Budget Officer’s “Long-term Fiscal Sustainability” note published with Budget 2025 found that the federal government’s fiscal room had narrowed dramatically, from much more room under earlier projections to only a very small margin under Budget 2025. As you know, this means that the government has far less room to absorb future shocks or new spending pressure than there once appeared to be. Does this concern you, and should this concern us?

Thank you for the question, senator. If I may, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I think it is very concerning whenever there are reductions in the government’s and the country’s fiscal room.

That said, I think it is the prerogative of the government to take decisions about how they will spend those finances, and, in the case of the current government, I think they have put forward a statement to say that the spending that they want to do out of borrowing is to go towards capital projects predominantly. That is an area that can be informed by analysis and numbers and figures.

If I may, sir, I would just conclude by saying that, as Parliamentary Budget Officer, PBO, I will pay close attention to the questions that can be informed by analysis and facts versus the normative questions about the right levels at which governments should spend and take risks.

My deep concern, Ms. Ryan, is that these are the kinds of observations on which this government has pushed back. My good friend here in the Senate, the government leader, pushes back on these observations all the time. I would like to know, if you are confirmed as the new PBO, what practical guardrails give you confidence that the PBO can and will remain neutral and independent in the face of the political pushback that PBOs face in Parliament from time to time?

Thank you. The guardrails come from a couple of different directions, and I would be happy to have conversations about how they can be further strengthened. The act itself protects the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s independent voice that can support that analysis to help you challenge decisions as they continue.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, report that I spoke of also made suggestions and recommendations about bringing in the voices of other Canadians to test the strength of the analysis of the PBO. That’s another means to strengthen the possibility of responding in a balanced way to a government response that might say that the analysis of the PBO is incorrect or off base and so on. Transparency runs both ways and can both protect and strengthen the office.

Hello, Ms. Ryan. When Mr. Jacques was the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, he used terms such as “unsustainable,” “shocking” and “stupefying” to describe the state of the federal finances, remarks which he later qualified.

In light of the PBO’s Budget 2025: Long-Term Fiscal Sustainability analysis, which shows that the government’s fiscal room has been reduced to virtually nothing, and given the absence of a plan to return to any balance, I can understand why such strong concerns were raised by Mr. Jacques. I know you are not yet confirmed as PBO, but you are familiar with the numbers. I’m wondering what your assessment of our current fiscal outlook is.

Thank you very much. My assessment is that the current fiscal track is sustainable. I think that aligns with the view of Mr. Jacques himself, as well as other voices, such as the International Monetary Fund. A lot of attention has been brought to the fact that the fiscal tracks of successive governments recently have increased in step. It has been somewhat of a mix of analyses that people bring to the question of whether a given fiscal track is sustainable versus the tendency of fiscal tracks to surpass each other.

The current fiscal track is sustainable. The aspect of having fiscal tracks step up markedly with subsequent budgets is something that will have limits and will need close attention.

On another note of concern, the government frequently relies on net debt to GDP to suggest that Canada’s fiscal position remains sound, but that measure is reduced by the inclusion of Canada Pension Plan, CPP, and Quebec Pension Plan, QPP, assets, even though these pension assets are not available to the federal government to fund its operations or pay down its liabilities. This makes it a bit misleading as an indicator of our fiscal health.

If you are appointed, do you think the PBO should give Parliament a fuller picture by placing greater emphasis on measures that more clearly reflect the government’s own underlying fiscal position?

Thank you, senator. A range of indicators sheds light on different aspects of the government’s fiscal track. The government puts forward both sets of metrics right now for perhaps different purposes. I would offer that, in the annual budget documents, the primary fiscal track that is presented is essentially the gross debt as a share of GDP, which you favour for the reasons that you described.

If I may, the government has used the net debt figure for international comparisons that are pertinent in comparison with countries, like the United States, where the forward pension liabilities for government are less well covered than they are in Canada.

I understand why we have international comparisons, but, for us in Canada, in your view, would it be useful for the PBO to present fiscal sustainability using both net debt and measures that exclude pension assets so that parliamentarians can better understand that difference?

Yes, senator, I absolutely agree with that. If I may, I would further extend those metrics by other measures, such as the share of every revenue dollar collected that goes to debt service charges. That is a critical measure that will also inform the sense of what we can afford and what we can permit ourselves in any given context.

Thank you. We will now proceed to the second block of questions.

Ms. Ryan, thank you for being here today. My question for you is the following. In its first external review of Canada’s Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the OECD highlighted that while independent fiscal institutions “help hold governments accountable, they have a special duty to be accountable as well.” The report made several recommendations that seek to safeguard the independence and sustained performance of Canada’s PBO.

Could you comment on how you plan to implement and prioritize these recommendations? Would you commit to having periodic external reviews conducted on the Office of the PBO?

Thank you, senator. I appreciate the question very much. It is well aligned to the question of how to get maximum value for the dollars spent at the Office of the PBO and by the PBO.

Right now, there are some 40 employees at the PBO; there are some 369,000 federal civil servants. It is crucial for both the integrity of the office as well as its ability to speak to a range of questions that the Office of the PBO taps into the wider network of thought leaders, academics and community and business leaders in Canada. That aligns well with the recommendations in the OECD report to build different governance bodies that can amplify the work of the office. Those types of structures are also very well suited to challenging the analysis of the office, both to make it better and also to give confidence to parliamentarians that the work has been well done and appropriately put forward.

With regard to committing to having a periodic external review done on the office, is that something that you can speak to?

I would absolutely support that, yes.

Ms. Ryan, welcome, and thank you for being here. My question is along the same lines. The PBO has a history of serving the independence of parliamentarians in both houses over time. You will be new, obviously, to this role if you are appointed. From your perspective, how will you manage this office to continue that independence and to assure parliamentarians that the advice you’re providing to them will meet the integrity needed in their jobs and ensure they can hold the government to account?

Thank you for the question. It’s something that I have been puzzling, both as I applied through the process to become the Parliamentary Budget Officer as well as in these recent weeks when I had been honoured to be nominated.

On balance, it lines up well with my experience in the past. I have spent decades running policy groups and research groups inside government. Typically, how I approach the problem that you describe is with a portfolio approach. A certain number of the projects have to be very responsive to members of the House of Commons and the Senate as well as there being some room within the work plan and staff availability to tackle new issues that are on the horizon or aren’t quite as responsive to members.

I think that type of portfolio approach also allows for a certain adjustment between longer-term research and shorter-term work that can inform pressing questions of the day as they evolve.

I hope that answers your question.

The government has embarked on an expenditure reduction right across government in all departments. In the context of that challenge, how is this office going to continue to serve parliamentarians, given that your office is obviously going to face some challenges in expenditure reduction going forward?

How do you see yourself meeting that responsibility while at the same time serving parliamentarians?

Thank you very much. I think that regular review of how organizations spend funds is ultimately good for an organization to ensure that priorities are the highest and everybody is, essentially, working well together to produce at their best.

The question of how the office will respond to cuts is one that I feel comfortable addressing with the teams, should I be confirmed.

You started with a different question, which is how Parliament can engage in the conduct of overseeing the comprehensive expenditure reductions. For me, that relates to the question of how to support parliamentarians through the Main Estimates and supplementary estimates process and through the Public Accounts of Canada to ensure that you are supported with analysis and even issue sheets and open questions rather than necessarily having all answers be mathematical so that you can, in fact, use that time to best pull forward the accountability of ministers and senior officials.

If I could give a quick example, a lot of the departments and agencies have said that they will address reductions with the use of artificial intelligence, or AI. That brings its own risks in a governmental setting, and I think that supporting parliamentarians with an analysis of some of those risks can help you hold the feet to the fire of those government officials and ministers.

Earlier, you referred to the recent OECD report lamenting the fact that the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer doesn’t have access to all the documents it needs to do its work effectively.

For example, the PBO’s long-running effort to produce an estimate of the tax gap in Canada has been hampered by the absence of personal tax data.

The problem is that many laws impose restrictions that make it difficult to access information.

As a result, the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer can only obtain aggregated or anonymized data, which limits its ability to produce comprehensive and timely analyses.

How do you intend to work with parliamentarians to resolve this impasse and make it easier to access the data you need to do your work?

Thank you for the question. I think that’s an important question for the office.

I have spent most of my career working with large and complex databases. Typically, the owners of these databases are not part of my team.

I think there’s a way to deal with issues around access to data. For example, we can suggest that the analysis be done on site instead of bringing the data to us. We can reach reasonable agreements to solve these problems.

However, if the organization that has the data absolutely doesn’t want our office to have access, I think there are other ways to solve the problem that focus on the organization’s obligation to defend its position and put forward its own estimates so we can examine them.

Thank you. You haven’t started your new position yet, but surely you’ve already familiarized yourself with the resources available at the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

In your opinion, does the organization have adequate human and financial resources, given the scope of its mandate and the expectations of all parliamentarians?

Thanks again for the question, senator.

I have always been impressed — and still am — by the quality, the volume of work, and the analyses produced by the office.

I look forward to starting my new role, meeting the team, and seeing what they do. Before I answer your question, I think I need to get started first. I’ll probably have a more specific answer for you later when I ask you for money.

Thank you, Ms. Ryan, for being here with us today. I believe we will be seeing each other quite a bit. I am a member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, and I’m very happy to see a fellow East Coaster hopefully take on the role of Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO.

My question has to do with how you view the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Yesterday, when you were asked what your five priorities are, in your answer, you said your second priority is holding the government’s feet to the fire when it comes to commitments to programs and projects they have announced in the last budget.

In media reporting, the PBO is often referred to as the “budget watchdog.” Do you consider this characterization accurate? Do you believe it is the PBO’s main job to hold the government’s feet to the fire and be a budget watchdog, or do you believe — as I do — that it is primarily to provide quality analysis for parliamentarians to conduct their jobs?

In the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s communication strategy, it says:

It must also be able to anticipate how the message could be misinterpreted so that potential distortions can be prevented. . . .

I’m interested in your view because although the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is an independent office, it doesn’t exist in a political desert, and your comments can impact the interpretation of reports and the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Thank you, senator. I think the legislation that created and mandates the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is clear that the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is there to support the quality of debate in Parliament, not to engage in the debate of Parliament.

I think that you have expressed very well the nuance of the role of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which is to support senators and members of Parliament in terms of having a base of facts and analyses that is independent of the government of the day so that those facts and analyses can speak to matters of “What is?” and to matters such as, “If we were to change factor A or factor B, what would be the result in factor X or factor Y?” I think that’s safe ground for the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I think the question of “What should be?” gets a clear delineation of being Parliament’s role, and that’s the line that I see and I intend to follow.

It’s nice to see you again, Ms. Ryan. Congratulations on your nomination, and welcome to the Senate.

Knowing Ottawa’s strong resistance to change and the need for the office that you hope to hold to promote informed dialogue that promotes sound economic and fiscal policies, how will your past experience help you in that role?

I’m really thinking about some of the places where we have interacted over the years and where there has been excellent advice, evidence and policy options in place around open banking, anti-money laundering and fraud — where there hasn’t been the political will.

If you will be promoting that sound economic and fiscal policy, how will that help you in this new leadership role?

Thank you, senator. It’s always a pleasure, and it’s an extra honour to be here today.

The question you pose is core to why I stepped forward and am honoured to be here today as the nominee.

I think that the civil service actively needs the oversight of parliamentarians to step further into that space of creative policy and exacting implementation of government budget measures. Informed parliamentarians push the civil service to provide that advice and have those debates more forcefully inside government.

As I look around the chamber, I see people like Senator Cuzner who, as I said to him previously, always made me work extra hard when I went to committee. I knew I would have to answer his questions and yours, senator. That is important given the challenges that the country currently faces in the geopolitical and fiscal realms and the struggles that Canadians face day-to-day in their families and communities.

So your frustration of the past might become your fuel for the future? We can hope.

I like that word, senator: “fuel.”

I have a second question. Your roles in the past have, in many ways, been behind the scenes. You have been coaching teams and working on policy initiatives that haven’t yet been implemented.

The PBO’s reports and role are heavily scrutinized by Parliament, journalists and the public. This is a very different role for you. I can identify with that. My role as an entrepreneur was very different from my role as a senator. It took a long time to adjust to that change.

How do you see that history being a strength in this change? What do you see as the challenges there?

As you were speaking, my mind went to my time as Director General of the Employment Insurance program. We would — and I led this work — produce an annual report for Parliament of 200 or 300 pages outlining every aspect of the program, breaking down different criteria on who benefited. It was, essentially, a similar type of work.

Much of that work has parallels to this type of work, from the civil service to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Parliamentary Budget Office.

I see myself as supporting Parliament, senators and members of the House.

Welcome, Ms. Ryan. As you know, the National Finance Committee relies a great deal on the guidance of parliamentary budget officers. I’d like to know your opinion of the current government, which divides expenditures into two categories: operating expenditures and capital expenditures. In fact, it seems like the only remaining fiscal anchor involves balancing operating expenditures. In your opinion, is balancing operating expenditures a fiscal anchor or rather an objective?

Thank you for the question, senator. As I said yesterday before the House of Commons Finance Committee, I see the government’s statement about operational spending compared to capital spending as a kind of political statement, a matter of transparency. I see it as a statement that the government is going to spend and incur debt, that there will be a deficit, but that it represents an investment in the future, to improve the economy.

I think it’s a statement with implications and that it suggests that the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer can use analysis and other methods to scrutinize spending. So I don’t see it as a new kind of accounting, but as statement of political direction.

If that is a statement, am I to understand that, for the first time in 30 years, since Paul Martin, there are no fiscal anchors left in the federal government, given that there’s really no objective to really scrutinize apart from balancing operating expenditures?

The budget was clear. The government intends to follow two fiscal anchors. The first is the one you mentioned and described. The second relates to the fact that the government intends to follow an anchor where the debt-to-GDP ratio declines over the medium term.

Welcome, Ms. Ryan. First, how would you handle disagreements with departments and agencies over data access? It’s an ongoing problem.

Second, in terms of public accounts, how do you see the roles of the Senate and the House of Commons as being different?

Thank you. I think your question about data access is similar to one that was posed earlier.

There are ways to meet people where they are and listen to what their constraints are regarding data access, for example, if it’s a privacy issue, a cybersecurity issue and so on. What are the options to work through that to allow the analysis to happen and so on? You can meet the departments in good faith and try to work through these issues.

There will inevitably be areas where they will not be forthcoming with data, information and so on. I think that, in those situations, what is called for is to first name it: that they do or do not respond to requests from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which has a standing in law. There is always a way to inform the question in a way where perhaps the department or agency would see merit to bringing forward the numbers. I think there are different ways to get at the question.

If I may, sir, could I ask you to repeat the second question?

It regarded the different roles we have in the House of Commons and the Senate vis-à-vis public accounts.

I will respectfully say that I will inform myself about those different roles and look forward to building some means to support both.

Thank you, senator. To the first part of your question, as a Newfoundlander, I enjoy a good scrap; it’s a plus for the job, senator.

In terms of your second question, which is more substantive, for all these questions, I would start by trying to outline, for a given policy proposal, project or program, what the government has said it wishes to achieve, and how it has said it plans to go about it. In working with the staff of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, or PBO, as well as consulting widely with departments, thought leaders, and so on, I think the PBO can break that issue down into the risks of that plan. What are the possible unintended consequences of the way the government plans to go about it? What are the key milestones the government sees for itself in obtaining a given outcome?

By helping to frame the issues in respect to each of those types of plans and circumstances that you ran through, the PBO can set forward mini agendas of challenge function for the government, which, in some cases, will involve numerical calculations, analysis, and so on; but perhaps, for smaller, shorter issues, sheets about budgetary issues might help.

Welcome, Ms. Ryan. As a former ombudsman for Radio-Canada, I am particularly interested in your commitment to not accept a second term as Parliamentary Budget Officer. Could you tell us a bit more about the risks of a second term? I haven’t seen a commitment like yours very often. First of all, let me congratulate you on that. Second, what are the risks for a Parliamentary Budget Officer or any independent officer to accept or seek a second term?

Thank you, senator. I see two risks. First, I see the risk that the PBO might tone down or alter the nature of their analysis in order to seek the favour of the government in power so as to obtain a second term or other benefits. Second, the mere perception of such a dynamic is inherently harmful.

Should the rule be changed so that another officer cannot be offered a second term?

That’s up to you, but I can tell you that I will not accept a second term.

Thank you.

What steps would you take to ensure equal service to all parliamentarians regardless of party? For example, here in the Senate, we have non-affiliated senators who are not part of any group.

Thank you, senator. I will pull my punches a little bit in terms of what steps I would take because I want to understand how work plans are set inside the PBO right now to make sure the balance is set between the House and the Senate, between committee work and work that is favoured by the opposition parties.

I appreciate the question about how to respond to blocks rather than parties. With respect, I’ll leave that as read today, rather than propose a specific method, if that’s okay.

Thank you. My next question involves the following scenario: If your analysis contradicted a major government claim shortly before an election period, how would you handle timing and communication?

I would handle it with transparency to the utmost degree and with timing that would prove useful for the election and the ability of Canadians to make that decision.

There are precedents. For example, the Congressional Budget Office is very good at sharing all its assumptions on how it comes to its conclusions. Canada is blessed with many interested and talented analysts outside of the PBO, who could then formulate their own opinion about whether the government’s or the PBO’s analysis is more accurate.

Great. Thank you.

Welcome, Ms. Ryan.

For years, the government has touted the debt-to-GDP ratio as a positive measure of the health of federal finances. In its most recent budget, it abandoned this fiscal anchor and introduced two new ones, including the declining-debt-deficit-to-GDP ratio. Both the old and new fiscal anchors apparently have the same weaknesses. They measure the government’s obligations against the entire economy. These ratios can artificially look appealing, simply through an increase in the size of the economy.

Could you speak to how, if your appointment is confirmed, you and your office will challenge the government on the robustness of its fiscal anchors and whether they reflect the reality of the finances? Moreover, should the government pursue potentially alternative fiscal anchors that you think are more relevant?

Thank you, senator. On balance, my view is that more fiscal anchors are better than fewer, so let’s have a range of lenses to watch how things are evolving.

With respect, sir, I think the growth of the economy is something that should be a goal, not a condition that is seen as in any way problematic. That said, there are a number of scenarios that could test the fiscal track that we’re on outside of the government’s control, like interest rates, the price of oil, the potential path of war and conflict, and trade deals. These are all types of scenarios about which one can be categorical and explicit, and one can run them through what it means for the economy, government revenues, government spending, and so on. There are absolutely models to build from on that.

In doing that, you learn whether a government’s given plans hold up well under different circumstances. That’s at the heart of what you’re asking. I’m happy to learn more if I have misread it.

Thank you.

Welcome to the Senate, Ms. Ryan. In your testimony at committee in the House of Commons, you mentioned that you had previously developed a database system which tracks spending from the budget through the estimates process and the public accounts. I’m sure we all agree that that is something that would be very useful to parliamentarians who are struggling to track this government’s spending.

If you’re appointed, would you be willing to build a comprehensive and transparent tracking system that could be made available to all parliamentarians and the public in order to increase oversight of government expenditures?

I would be happy to talk about that at great length, but today, I will just say that that is a system that exists. I believe it is still in use. I believe it is used internally by the government to create essentially something called an expenditure monitor, which parallels The Fiscal Monitor, which is available publicly.

I would certainly want to check on its ongoing use and status. I don’t believe it uses confidential data, so I hope it is something that could be available to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and parliamentarians.

Thank you. You have pledged in your testimony to both chambers that you would serve only one term. I applaud you for that commitment.

Would you support and actively promote formal legislative changes to entrench a single, non-renewable term? Are there any other reforms you would recommend to strengthen the role of the Parliamentary Budget Officer?

Thank you, senator. I would be happy to engage in these types of conversations. They are in that space of “should,” which belongs more to the space of parliamentarians, so I would respectfully defer to the Senate and the House on what the future path of the legislation should be.

Are we going to get any recommendations?

For example, the recommendations in the OECD report spoke to transparency, priority setting, independence and a number of issues that could certainly lend themselves to legislative amendments. I don’t have strong personal views about how the legislation should change, so I will limit my comments there.

However, as I said earlier, I see it as important for my tenure to not accept a second term. I defer to you as to whether that should be the case for all future Parliamentary Budget Officers.

Thank you.

Welcome, Ms. Ryan.

In the recent report from the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer entitled Demographic Implications of the 2026-2028 Immigration Levels Plan, we see that Canada’s population growth is now almost entirely dependent on net immigration. In a country that is officially bilingual, these demographic trends have a significant impact on minority francophone communities outside of Quebec.

As the nominee for the position of Parliamentary Budget Officer, how would you consider integrating the issue of minority francophone communities into the future budgetary analyses of your office, particularly in terms of the impact on the need for public services in French, and related expenses?

Thank you for your question, senator.

I would like to emphasize that Canada’s bilingualism is of fundamental importance to me.

In response to your question, I believe there are factors that can be analyzed using quantitative and economic methods. I believe it depends on the nature of the services provided under any given program; we will need to determine whether the cost of those services needs to be adjusted.

I look forward to continuing the discussion so that I can better understand your specific concerns regarding these studies and issues.

Thank you.

In your view, what types of costs and financial impacts could be documented more systematically, and how might this information help Parliament better assess budgetary decisions?

Thank you, senator.

I think that the estimates system differs from the budget in that a budget sets out projects, programs and objectives, along with the rationale behind them.

However, in the estimates system, votes and authorities do not inform questions of implementation, commitments made by the government. This is not necessarily a gap, it is simply a different way of looking at the budgetary and estimates documents. Parliamentarians should look at that shift, and that is what I had in mind when I raised the issue.

Welcome, Ms. Ryan.

As part of your duties — and I believe several of my colleagues have pointed this out — you have, in a sense, a mandate to protect the integrity and independence of your analyses. You also undeniably work in an environment where your work can have significant political impact or repercussions.

I’m trying to get a better sense of how you plan to reconcile these two things. I will ask my question using a hypothetical scenario. Suppose you publish a major budget analysis and, during a press conference, the minister responsible for that budget policy presents figures that differ from your conclusions. If the media were to point this out, what would you do in such a situation, and how would you respond?

Thank you for the question, senator.

I think it is inevitable that there will be discrepancies between the government’s estimates and those of the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In fact, I believe it is the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s job to look for instances where there are discrepancies in the estimates in order to attract media attention and spark criticism, so as to determine whether or not we are wrong.

As I said earlier, I believe transparency works both ways. I am perfectly comfortable with my figures being criticized in the same way the government is criticized.

Good afternoon, Ms. Ryan.

As we have heard, many government fiscal reports emphasize Canada’s net debt-to-GDP ratio as an anchor of fiscal sustainability. In particular, we use it to compare with our peers, notably those in the G7. However, we know this metric doesn’t fully capture the long-term fiscal risk.

So, if you’re appointed PBO, how will you broaden the analytical framework to systematically incorporate other indicators, such as debt, affordability, the structural deficit, the public net worth and the long-term fiscal gaps?

Thank you, senator.

I agree with you. I think we need many metrics to make sure that we’re staying on the road. All of these metrics bring something different to the discussion, so re-basing the regular analysis of government finances through the lens of a number of different parliamentary fiscal anchors, if you will, will hopefully help to bring that light and greater understanding to these questions rather than conflict and either/or; let’s have “both/and.”

How would you assess whether the current deficit levels remain sustainable in light of demographic pressures or climate-related liabilities and the need for transformative economic investments?

Thank you again, senator. Those are really good questions.

They speak to that aspect of stress testing these fiscal tracks. Let’s do the analysis of what scenarios we’re missing. If there are different climate scenarios that will affect the government’s medium-term, long-term fiscal track in ways that are important, let’s tackle them, give them structure and put them on the table.

Honourable senators, the committee has been sitting for 65 minutes. In conformity with the order of the Senate, I am obliged to interrupt proceedings so that the committee can report to the Senate.

Ms. Ryan, on behalf of all senators, thank you for joining us today.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Honourable senators, is it agreed that the committee rise and I report to the Senate that the witness has been heard?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Honourable senators, the sitting of the Senate is resumed.