Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 31 - 45 of 459
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for our witnesses. Do they have comparative figures for borrowing authorities—and I understand that the systems are different in different countries—as compared to the size of the economy in other major industrialized countries?
Nicolas Moreau
View Nicolas Moreau Profile
Nicolas Moreau
2021-03-23 16:39
As you've said, there's no comparable measure that exists elsewhere in the world. The closest that exists is in the United States. They have a debt ceiling. It's different from a limit, because in our case, if we were to reach the limit, we would still be able to reissue the debt that's already in circulation and also [Technical difficulty—Editor] the debt limit that exists in Canada compared to the ceiling in the U.S.
Of course, the ceiling in the U.S. is much higher, because they have a much higher debt-to-GDP ratio and a higher debt in circulation. I think the U.S. is close to twofold what we have in terms of debt as a share of GDP when we compare Canada to the U.S. The closest one will be the U.S., but in terms of the level, it will be much higher in the U.S. because they have a higher debt level right now.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I listened closely to what Mr. Ste-Marie, Mr. Fast and the government members had to say. After listening to the comments on all sides, I will be voting against the amendment.
View Tamara Jansen Profile
CPC (BC)
The numbers are massive, so massive that Ms. Dzerowicz has to actually practise how to say the number, which is quite shocking and should be shocking for Canadians.
Mr. Moreau, I thought maybe you might be able to help me better understand this. Are we asking for this enormous increase in credit limit because we have already spent it, or are we increasing our credit limit so dramatically although we absolutely have no need of it? Is it one or the other?
Nicolas Moreau
View Nicolas Moreau Profile
Nicolas Moreau
2021-03-23 16:41
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Basically, as you know, we already have a limit in place of $1.168 trillion. We have not reached that limit yet, but in terms of spending that already occurred, we need to look at the stock of debt, and we need to add to this what we've done under the extraordinary borrowing authority. That included $286 billion of spending that was put in place. We produced a report in October 2020 concerning that spending. When we add that to the current limit, yes, we're already above, but as you know, this is something we want to change, and that's in Bill C-14. We want to add the extraordinary borrowing authority to the overall limit.
Therefore, the answer is no. When you look at what we're requesting, we're looking at the expected spending for the next three years—not spending but financial requirements, as presented in the fall economic statement. To this, we're adding prudence by a factor of 5%. This is what we are asking for, and this is why the level is $1.831 trillion.
View Tamara Jansen Profile
CPC (BC)
Okay. If I can, I'll just make sure I totally understand this. You're saying we need this entire amount because we have already spent it and we plan to spend it over the next three years. We need the entire amount.
Nicolas Moreau
View Nicolas Moreau Profile
Nicolas Moreau
2021-03-23 16:43
Just to be clear, this amount includes a stock that already exists in the market, as well as expected financial requirements for the next three years.
View Tamara Jansen Profile
CPC (BC)
When you say “expected financial requirements for the next three years”, is that information we're going to be receiving on April 19, in the budget?
Nicolas Moreau
View Nicolas Moreau Profile
Nicolas Moreau
2021-03-23 16:43
The expectations are based on the forecast that was produced in the fall economic statement, and this is money that has not been spent yet. Basically, those are monies that are expected to be spent in the future.
View Tamara Jansen Profile
CPC (BC)
I apologize. You have mentioned that none of it can be spent without permission first, but we're making sure it's there because we know we're going to spend it anyway. Is that a correct way of explaining it?
Nicolas Moreau
View Nicolas Moreau Profile
Nicolas Moreau
2021-03-23 16:44
We're asking for the authority to borrow and to be able to increase the debt in the future. It's important that we have that clear territory to move forward in order to be able to put together a debt program moving ahead. We need to inform the market. We need to have the capacity to increase our debt in the future. That money will still need to be approved through the budget and through the other mechanisms that we talked about before. As we know, it's mostly through appropriation acts that the money will be approved.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Just so we're clear, and I guess to go back to Mr. Ste-Marie's point, any spending would have to be approved by a vote in Parliament. That's correct, right?
Okay, Tamara. Go ahead.
View Tamara Jansen Profile
CPC (BC)
We're asking for money that we know is planned to be spent over the next three years. We have no permission yet to spend that money, but we're going to make sure that the money is in place anyway. Is that correct?
Nicolas Moreau
View Nicolas Moreau Profile
Nicolas Moreau
2021-03-23 16:45
What we want to make sure is that we will have the authority to borrow that money if the decision is taken to spend that money.
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-03-23 16:45
Mr. Chair, my colleague, Ms. Jansen, has put her finger on the real problem here.
First you table a budget, and then you ask for the borrowing authorities that match what your budget calls for. I've met with numerous economists since I was appointed critic, and I can tell you that they all agree that it is much more preferable to table a budget first, then match your borrowing authority to that budget. That's a big problem here.
Also—and this is my final point—respectfully, to Mr. Fragiskatos's point, this is not about debt-to-GDP ratio, because we know the finance minister has not done what her mandate letter instructs her to do, which is to implement a fiscal anchor. I know economists are all calling for there to be a fiscal anchor. They might not agree on exactly what that anchor should be, but it is absolutely critical for the minister to have some guidance, some rules, by which her spending is governed.
Here we have a minister coming forward and asking for the authority to borrow money when we don't know what her plan is. That budget should have been delivered before this debt ceiling increase was requested. That's my big problem, which is why we have the amendment on the table. I believe it's the reasonable way of approaching it.
Results: 31 - 45 of 459 | Page: 3 of 31

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data