Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 132
View Jonathan Tremblay Profile
NDP (QC)
Okay. I'll try to ask my question quickly.
In 2002, the Auditor General said that the employment insurance fund was consolidated with the government's financial statements. It was then separated, but the decision has now been abolished.
I would like to know whether there is something planned to avoid the problem that arose at the time and that will resurface if we don't separate these budgets. In fact, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board was abolished. Is something planned to compensate for that?
Frank Vermaeten
View Frank Vermaeten Profile
Frank Vermaeten
2013-11-28 17:20
Thank you.
If I understand your question correctly, there was a body put in place to set the rates for the employment insurance account, and the government has announced that this body will no longer be setting the rates. It will be done now by the commission.
View Jonathan Tremblay Profile
NDP (QC)
The fact that the employment insurance fund and the government financial statements were consolidated, which will still be the case, had a significant impact on the government's overall financial outcomes. The government often ended up with a surplus that seemed to be much larger than it was in reality.
Is there anything planned to compensate for the loss of the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board?
Frank Vermaeten
View Frank Vermaeten Profile
Frank Vermaeten
2013-11-28 17:26
Perhaps I'll just finish what I was saying to make sure I'm answering the question properly and giving you a better understanding. As I was saying, we had the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board when there was a different rate-setting mechanism.
The government came along and first limited the rate increase, because the premium rate was set to go up. The government said, “We're going to cap that rate at $1.88 for a number of years.” The concern was that if rates were to go up with the economy still not fully recovered.... They didn't want those rates to go up so they capped those rates.
The other important thing that they did in the last budget was to set in place a new rate-setting mechanism based on a seven-year outlook of the economy. The idea was to provide counter-cyclical support. You set a rate that's very stable. Even if the economy were to go down, the rate wouldn't automatically go up. Instead, it would remain stable and provide support to the economy.
In short, the Canada Employment Insurance Commission is being used to set the rate now because of the new rate-setting mechanism.
Jean-Denis Fréchette
View Jean-Denis Fréchette Profile
Jean-Denis Fréchette
2013-10-29 13:04
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You can call me J.D., like it has been for most of my years on Parliament Hill. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chair, vice-chairs, members of the committee, thank you for your invitation and for maintaining the tradition of inviting the Parliamentary Budget Officer to appear before you at least twice a year. Speaking of tradition, as you know, I sat to the right of many committee chairs for a number of years and enjoyed a unique view of the proceedings. My view may have changed, but my goal of serving parliamentarians remains the same.
My colleagues and I are pleased to be here to present the Parliamentary Budget Officer's Economic and Fiscal Outlook Update, which we released yesterday. While here, I would also like to briefly discuss the results of the PBO's report, which examines Canada's fiscal structure from a longer-term perspective.
I am joined by Mostafa Askari, Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, and Peter Weltman, Acting Director General. I would also like to highlight the great work done by Helen Lao, Randall Bartlett and Scott Cameron, who helped draft the report.
The first part of my presentation will be in French, and then I will continue in English.
The global economic outlook has deteriorated somewhat since the April 2013 Economic and Fiscal Outlook. According to the most recent International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook, weaker global growth prospects are driven to a large extent by appreciably weaker domestic demand and slower growth in several key emerging market economies. Modestly stronger growth than anticipated in some advanced economies is insufficient to mitigate those factors.
In the United States, despite improving fundamentals, the PBO has marked down its U.S. economic outlook in the near term. This reflects continued fiscal drag, as well as historical revisions to the U.S. System of National Accounts. Further, the commodity price outlook has been revised down over the projection, reflecting downward revisions to crude oil future prices, resulting, in part, from the continued strength of U.S. production.
These developments have led PBO to revise down the outlook for the Canadian economy relative to its April 2013 EFO. Currently PBO projects Canadian real GDP to grow by 1.6% this year, 2% next year, and 2.6% in 2015.
As the economy reaches its potential level of economic activity, PBO projects real GDP annual growth to average 2% per year over the period 2016-2018. PBO's current outlook for the Canadian economy reflects the effects of the government's economic action plan 2013, which resulted in projected savings of $10.8 billion as well as the freezing of the EI premium rate that was announced in September 2013.
Continued downward revisions to the private sector average forecast of real GDP growth have brought it broadly in line with the PBO projection through 2016. However the PBO's outlook for nominal GDP—the broadest measure of the government's tax base—is, on average, $25 billion lower than the projection based on average private sector forecasts, in part due to the downward revision to the GDP inflation projection.
PBO judges that the balance of risk to the private sector outlook for nominal GDP is tilted to the downside, likely reflecting larger impacts from government spending reductions as well as differences in views on commodity prices and their impacts on real GDP growth and GDP inflation.
On the basis of the revised economic outlook, PBO projects that a budgetary balance will improve from a deficit of $18.9 billion in 2012-13 to a surplus of $5.1 billion in 2018-19 due to cyclical recovery of tax revenues and restrained operating expenses of the government.
The improvement in the budgetary balance is less pronounced in the PBO's April projection due mainly to the lower level of nominal GDP. Assuming that the government does not increase its spending above planned levels, PBO estimates that, given the economic uncertainty, the likelihood of realizing a budgetary balance or better is approximately 50% in 2015-16, 55% in 2016-17, and 60% in 2018-19.
The weaker improvement in the budgetary balance relative to PBO's April projection is reflected in PBO's projection of the government's structural budget balance. PBO estimates that the structural balance will improve from a deficit of $6 billion in 2013-14 to a surplus of $4.2 billion in 2015-16 and will remain in surplus on average thereafter.
Finally, assessing whether a government fiscal structure is sustainable requires looking over a longer horizon to take into account the economic and fiscal implications of population aging in the context of the existing policy environment.
The PBO provided such an assessment for the federal government and provincial-territorial-local-aboriginal governments, as well as the Canada and Quebec pension plans, in Fiscal Sustainability Report 2013. The PBO's analysis shows that the federal government's fiscal structure is sustainable with fiscal room of 1.3% of GDP, while the Canada and Quebec pension plans are also sustainable. In contrast, the consolidated provincial-territorial-local-aboriginal government sector is not sustainable, with a fiscal gap of 1.9% of GDP.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My colleagues and I will be happy to respond to questions you may have regarding our reports or any other relevant matters.
View Mathieu Ravignat Profile
NDP (QC)
View Mathieu Ravignat Profile
2012-05-14 17:03
One of the departmental representatives that the committee has heard from said this: “the future-oriented financial statements…exist for a specific reason, since they include projections for the future, but they are based on accrued items. I have not yet made any decisions based on the information in those statements, which came into force recently. But that does not mean that I won't do so down the road.”
Does it often happen that financial statements are not seen or considered? Could you give us any general information as to why the minister was asked to produce future-oriented financial statements?
Bill Matthews
View Bill Matthews Profile
Bill Matthews
2012-05-14 17:04
Those are indeed the pro forma or future-oriented financial statements I spoke to. Departments are preparing those now, and have been for a couple of years. They're not finding them useful for their own purposes. They were already producing forecasts in terms of what they were going to spend.
The accrual-based statement for revenues and expenses is of some utility. The balance sheet, forecasting what your assets are going to be at the end of the year, is of no use to them. That reporting mechanism was put in place in response to a recommendation from the Office of the Auditor General that we move to accrual appropriations. What the government responded with was that we would start providing additional accrual-based information to parliamentarians, and we would assess, after a number of years, what the experience had been with parliamentarians and if they found the information useful.
Departments have told us loud and clear that future pro forma balance sheets are of absolutely no use, with some mixed response on the statement of revenues and expenses in terms of forecasting that.
View James Rajotte Profile
CPC (AB)
I call this meeting to order.
This is the 25th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the study of economic and fiscal outlook.
We're very pleased to have the Parliamentary Budget Officer with us here today, Mr. Kevin Page, and officials from his office.
Mr. Page, welcome back for your at least biannual report to this committee. We look forward to your comments, and I know members are anxious to ask you questions.
If you would introduce your officials to the committee and then make your opening statement, we'd appreciate that very much.
Kevin Page
View Kevin Page Profile
Kevin Page
2011-11-02 15:32
Thank you, Chair.
By way of introduction, with me is Chris Matier, our senior economist, who provides us with our economic and fiscal analysis; Dr. Mostafa Askari, our assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer for economic and fiscal analysis; and Sahir Khan, our assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer for revenue and expenditure analysis.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, vice-chairs, and members of the committee.
Thank you for inviting me and my colleagues to speak to you about Canada's economic and fiscal outlook in the context of your consultation leading up to the 2012 budget.
Yesterday, as you know, PBO released a report examining the short- and medium-term outlook. On September 29, 2011, PBO released its 2011 Fiscal Sustainability Report, which examines Canada's fiscal structure from a longer-term perspective. The Parliament of Canada Act instructs the Parliamentary Budget Officer to provide independent analysis to the Senate and the House of Commons about the state of the nation's finances and trends in the national economy.
The PBO's objective is to provide you with analysis of the planning environment to support your debate about policy priorities and directions, and as members of the House of Commons, your power of the purse role in holding the government to account with respect to the prudent management of public finances.
In an effort to provide you with a rich planning environment, PBO provides you with an independent view on the economic and fiscal outlook in a fully transparent manner. In addition we provide you with analysis to support your work.
We provide you with analysis of how the economy is projected to perform relative to potential output—the size of the so-called output gap.
We provide you with analysis on the nature of our fiscal balances—what proportion of our federal deficit is cyclical and will go away when our economy returns to its potential level, and what proportion is structural.
We provide analysis on uncertainty—what does the history of private sector economic projections relative to outcomes mean for confidence intervals around projections for nominal GDP and budgetary balances.
Finally, we do not lose sight of the long term. We provide you with estimates of the fiscal gap to inform you on the sustainability of current fiscal structures and the size of actions required to stabilize debt relative to the size of the economy in light of aging demographics and other underlying long-term cost pressures.
In the budget plan tabled in June 2011, the government committed to balancing the budget by 2014-2015 through reductions in expenses that will be determined and implemented in Budget 2012. This budget must also set up the framework for negotiations with the provinces and territories to be held in 2014 on federal transfers, which represent 30% of federal program spending.
I wish to highlight three challenges in the context of your deliberations on priorities and policy directions leading up to the 2012 budget.
One, relative to the 2011 budget planning framework, the outlook is weaker. Two, the fiscal outlook over the medium term is highly uncertain. Three, the challenges of long-term fiscal sustainability stemming from aging demographics and other cost pressures are real and need to be recognized and addressed.
The outlook for the Canadian economy has weakened in the eyes of virtually all forecasters, reflecting a less optimistic external environment. The negative impacts of de-leveraging, fiscal austerity, and declining confidence underscored by financial market turbulence are largely behind the softening of growth projections.
PBO projects Canadian real GDP to grow by 2.2% and 1.5% in 2011 and 2012 respectively. The weakness in near-term growth pushes the economy further below its productive capacity--a widening of the output gap--resulting in an increase in the unemployment rate. As a result, PBO expects the Bank of Canada to maintain the overnight rate target at 1% through the third quarter of 2013 before gradually raising rates over the remainder of the projection period.
Underlying the outlook is the assumption that the European sovereign debt crisis will be contained and the U.S. fiscal restructuring will take place in an orderly fashion. PBO is projecting a weaker short-term outlook than the average private sector outlook. PBO judges that the balance of risks to the private sector outlook for nominal GDP is tilted to the downside, reflecting a more sluggish near-term U.S. recovery, with real GDP growth of 1.6% versus 2% in 2012 for the average private sector forecast; a larger impact from the recent decline in commodity prices--we have GDP inflation in our forecast of 1.1% versus 2% in 2012 in the average private sector forecast; and the high level of Canadian household indebtedness that will likely restrain growth by a larger amount in the near term than appears to be factored into the average private sector forecast.
The PBO outlook for the budgetary balance on a status quo basis has the deficit declining from $37.3 billion in 2011-12, which is roughly 2.2% of GDP, to $30.5 billion in 2012-13, or 1.7% of GDP, and eventually to $7.3 billion in 2016-17, or 0.3% of GDP. These magnitudes remain significantly better than the projected outlooks of other G-7 countries and are consistent with targets set out by the G-20 in Toronto in 2010 for deficit reduction. The progress reflects reduction in both cyclical and structural balances over the medium term. The significant reduction in the structural deficit partly reflects the planned restraint in direct program spending.
Over the 2011-12 to 2016-17 period, PBO is assuming that direct program expenditure will grow modestly at 1.6% annually on average, which is significantly slower than observed over the five years preceding the downturn of 6.1%. Over the long term, PBO is projecting the structural deficit to rise on a status quo basis due to the impact of aging demographics and other underlying cost pressures.
PBO's 2011 fiscal sustainability report concluded that Canada does not have a fiscal structure at the federal and/or provincial-territorial government levels that will stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio over the long term. We are undergoing a major demographic transition that will slow economic and government revenue growth and put upward pressure on spending. PBO estimates that restoring sustainability would require permanent policy actions to improve the operating balance amounting to 2.7% of GDP. That is 1.5% at the provincial-territorial level and 1.2% at the federal level.
While the amount of policy action is significantly less than the restraint measures implemented in the 1990s, it will need to be sustained over the longer term. These actions do not need to be taken immediately while the economy is operating below its full capacity; however, long delays in taking action would increase the amount of corrective measures significantly.
The challenges of the planning environment raise important considerations for parliamentarians regarding Canada's fiscal policy directions, targets, credibility, and sustainability.
Parliamentarians may wish to debate the policy merits of a staying the course fiscal policy reflecting the weaker outlook. Projected output losses in Canada relative to potential associated with the ongoing world financial crisis are more severe relative to the economic downturns in the mid-1990s and early 1980s. The output gap is now projected to close in 2017.
Given economic uncertainty based on accuracy of the average private sector forecast over the past 16 years, PBO analysis on balanced budget outcomes indicates the probability of fiscal balance under status quo policies is approximately 10% in 2014-15 and 25% in 2015-16.
In the context of a relatively large and persistent output gap over the medium term, uncertainty about the fiscal outlook over the medium term, and emerging fiscal pressures over the longer term, parliamentarians may wish to debate the pros and cons of further stimulus or restraint measures as well as the achievability, relative merits, and priority trade-offs associated with a fiscal target of budgetary balance in 2014-15.
While many other countries are experiencing market pressure to strengthen their medium-term fiscal plans, parliamentarians may wish to use Canada's better fiscal standing to reinforce the credibility of its medium- and longer-term fiscal plan.
A former Deputy Minister of Finance, Scott Clark, has recently written a paper highlighting four criteria for credible fiscal policy. Credible fiscal policy, he says, must be realistic, responsible, prudent, and transparent. According to Mr. Clark, credible fiscal policy should be based on a balanced view of challenges, prospects, and risks, and not be based on a rosy or unrealistic view. For example, a recent international paper by economist Jeffrey Frankel, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, has highlighted the tendency across countries to use overly optimistic forecasts. This has facilitated complacency and contributed to tax cuts and increases in government spending.
From this perspective, the projections underlying Budget 2011 are no longer realistic. Parliamentarians may wish to consider whether the recently updated average private sector forecast represents a realistic view or they may recommend that the Department of Finance provide an independent economic outlook.
Responsible fiscal policy means the government will establish a medium- and long-term fiscal plan that is sustainable, whereby debt will not grow faster than the economy. Parliamentarians may wish to request that the government provide longer-term fiscal sustainability analysis, as promised in 2007.
Prudent fiscal policy means the government may wish to provision against forecast error and missed fiscal targets due to unforeseen events. Given high levels of uncertainty, parliamentarians may wish to debate the merits of contingency reserves and prudence allowances around the establishment of medium- and long-term fiscal targets.
Finally, transparent fiscal policy means full disclosure of analysis, information, and risks. Parliamentarians may wish to ensure full disclosure of the measures covered by the strategic and operating review to be implemented in Budget 2012, as well as in the annual reports on plans and priorities, with the same level of detail afforded in the 2009 fiscal stimulus plan.
Similarly, parliamentarians may wish to request that the government provide full disclosure of departmental plans associated with Budget 2010 operational restraint measures and the adjustments to the fiscal planning framework associated with the government's crime agenda.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
We look forward to your questions.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Page and your associates, for coming here today. You play a vital role in giving parliamentarians the straight goods on what's happening with the nation's economic outlook and finances. We appreciate your accurate and very timely projections.They are as disturbing, though, as the projections yesterday that we heard from the Governor of the Bank of Canada--that we are going into a slowdown.
I want to quote from your report yesterday:
The weakness in near-term growth pushes the economy further below its productive capacity resulting in an increase in the unemployment rate.
I see that you see a sharp spike in unemployment in 2012. I'd like to start by asking you how that translates into the number of families who will lose a breadwinner because of unemployment over the course of the next period, and whether you see measures the government could be taking, investments the government could be making, to ensure this slowdown is as least harsh as possible on Canadian families.
Kevin Page
View Kevin Page Profile
Kevin Page
2011-11-02 15:47
Thank you, sir.
I think it's fair to say, whether it's our forecast or the average private sector forecast or the International Monetary Fund or the OECD, which recently released some numbers, that most forecasters are saying sluggish growth in the short term.
By sluggish growth in our forecast for real GDP, we're talking about 2.2% this year and something as low as 1.5% next year. If we get that type of forecast largely driven from an external outlook, that will, as you said, push us significantly below our potential. That weakness in output will translate into higher unemployment. In terms of moving annual averages from about 7.4% to 8%, we're talking a little over 100,000 additional unemployed people on average through the year to 2012.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
So another 100,000 Canadian families will lose a breadwinner. That's an important fact to mention.
I'd like to move on to the issue of forecasting. You estimate that the likelihood of realizing budgetary balance or better is approximately 10% in 2014-15. That's a significant change from what the government has been projecting.
Earlier in your paper you mention policy action that may affect budgetary revenues. You then express concern that the general corporate income tax rate will fall to 15% on January 1, 2012. Have you done projections that indicate what might happen if that additional corporate tax cut takes place? If it's stopped, would there be an increased likelihood of a budgetary balance occurring sooner, particularly if that money is diverted to investments that lead to the creation of jobs and prevent another 100,000 Canadian families from losing a breadwinner over the next few months?
Kevin Page
View Kevin Page Profile
Kevin Page
2011-11-02 15:49
Sir, we have not done a specific scenario analysis that looks at the potential fiscal or economic impact of the corporate income tax change legislated for 2012. But roughly, a percentage point in fiscal terms for Canada at the federal level would be a 1% reduction, which would be about $1.5 billion in fiscal losses. So that would accumulate over a number of years. As to whether that would improve our chances of getting to a budgetary balance in 2014-15, we'd have to recalculate those estimates.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
The current account deficit for the balance of payments is estimated by the IMF for 2012 as being one of the worst among industrialized countries—worse than Spain and France and Italy. I didn't see reference to that here. Is that something you're concerned about as well, that Canada's stalled exports or failed export policy by this government is contributing to that deficit? Is that something that you follow and analyze?
Kevin Page
View Kevin Page Profile
Kevin Page
2011-11-02 15:50
We haven't provided you analyses on the trade balance. But the analysis we've provided to you today will imply that we will get weaker export growth. In this weaker external environment, I think this is implicit in all the downward revisions of forecasts. So we'll have less contribution growth over the short term from net exports. I think that's pretty much true. It's certainly true for Canada and it's going to be true for other countries as well. I think it's just the impact of the global slowdown.
Results: 1 - 15 of 132 | Page: 1 of 9

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data