Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 121 - 135 of 459
View Sean Fraser Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Sean Fraser Profile
2021-03-18 11:16
I would appreciate it if you could get back to the committee on that, if you don't mind.
One of the things that I find to be very important here is that we've seen, frankly, with our neighbour to the south certain political brinkmanship coming up whenever the federal government in the United States approaches its debt ceiling. On a certain number of occasions, there have been government shutdowns as a result of the fact that they've come up to that debt limit.
I'm curious to know whether you think it's a good idea to signal a few years into the future where the debt limit may be, and to provide a bit of a buffer so that we don't find ourselves in that circumstance where political brinkmanship could lead to a government shutdown.
Yves Giroux
View Yves Giroux Profile
Yves Giroux
2021-03-18 11:17
Having a debt ceiling, so to speak, under the Borrowing Authority Act is certainly a good idea in the sense that it increases transparency. The borrowing is not just a mere by-product of all of their government expenditure decisions. In that sense, it's a very good improvement in terms of transparency.
Having a buffer also ensures that we don't hit a wall where if, for whatever reason, such as an election where Parliament is dissolved, there is no consensus or possibility to increase that limit, and we hit that hard limit, we have to stop government operations. That's an unfortunate situation that we have seen happen a couple of times in the U.S. Having a buffer is certainly desirable. The size of that buffer is up for debate, but both the Borrowing Authority Act, having a maximum amount, and a buffer are good ideas in terms of transparency, first, and then for the continuity of government operations.
View Sean Fraser Profile
Lib. (NS)
View Sean Fraser Profile
2021-03-18 11:18
You mentioned that you have conducted an assessment on the cost of some of the programs outlined in the fall economic statement. I know that you have done it previously on other measures as well.
Throughout the course of this pandemic, we've heard testimony from Mr. Macdonald from the Centre for Policy Alternatives that in fact had the government not borne the expenses of some of these programs—let's use the rent subsidy as an example—that cost would have fallen somewhere else.
Could you confirm whether there's a counterfactual or give us your assessment as to whether the cost actually would have been greater across the economy had the federal government not introduced some of these programs and instead had let the cost of the pandemic response fall to the private sector, to the household or even to provincial levels of government?
Yves Giroux
View Yves Giroux Profile
Yves Giroux
2021-03-18 11:19
We didn't do a counterfactual because for the counterfactual the shock would have been so immense that I'm not sure our models would have been able to absorb all of that. The best alternative to a counterfactual would probably be trying to look at other similar countries that didn't provide the same level of support, if there are any, and I doubt that there are any that ran that very rough experiment. It's certain that there would have been very difficult situations for millions of Canadians, businesses and households had the government not provided support.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, Mr. Giroux and Ms. Yan. Thank you for joining us. Thank you also for the important work you are doing. You must have some impossible weeks, with all the work you have to accomplish and all the analyses you have to do. You are doing particularly essential work during this pandemic, when it is difficult to obtain reliable data and to track the historic expenditures that are being made. My hat is off to you; on behalf of all my colleagues, you have my thanks.
I would like to begin by asking you once again about the topic that two of my colleagues have addressed, the spectacular increase in the debt ceiling. I'd like to make a clear distinction between borrowing authority and spending authority.
You told Mr. Fraser about it, but I would like to be assured that this borrowing authority is not automatically the approval for the government to spend that money as it wishes.
More specifically, I would like the assurance that each of the government's additional expenditures will have to be voted on by parliamentarians. Is that in fact the case?
Yves Giroux
View Yves Giroux Profile
Yves Giroux
2021-03-18 11:21
Thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie.
Yes, the debt limit is one thing. It allows the government to incur debts up to a maximum amount. The amount proposed is $1,800 billion. That does not mean that the government can keep spending until that amount is reached. It's not a credit limit, as on a credit card, for example. Another process has to be followed in order to do that. So this is a constraint that combines with others that already exist in the process of approving appropriations.
In order to fund its annual operations or programs, the government has two methods it can use. One method applies to existing programs that are established in legislation, like old age security. In that program, the expenditures depend entirely on the number of recipients. The amount of the expenditures for old age security is therefore not limited by a budget envelope.
The government can also spend using budget appropriations, which must be approved each year by an act voted on in Parliament. That is the case for the operating expenses of the departments and of Parliament, as well as for grants and contributions. So that is a constraint also.
In addition, the government cannot borrow more than the current limit, which is $1,168 billion. The government is proposing to increase that to $1,800 billion. Those two constraints combine to limit expenditures or at least control them.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you.
I would like to be sure that it would not be possible for the government, using the signature of the person representing the Governor General, to use that increased ceiling on borrowing to spend as they like, even during an election.
Yves Giroux
View Yves Giroux Profile
Yves Giroux
2021-03-18 11:23
No, you are right.
When Parliament is dissolved, a special procedure called the Governor General's Special Warrants is used. The goal is to fund government operations only so that the operations can continue or emergency situations can be dealt with.
It's a convention; the idea is not to fund new initiatives. If ever that were the case, the Governor General could refuse to sign the warrants, which, in practical terms, basically never happens. In an election campaign, the public service and the government apparatus make sure that operations continue.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
That is how I read it, but now that you are confirming it, I am greatly reassured.
It will be two years ago tomorrow that the Government of Canada last brought down a budget. As you said earlier, Mr. Morneau presented an economic and fiscal snapshot last summer, and the Minister of Financepresented the Fall Economic Statement 2020.
Is it acceptable that parliamentarians have not had a budget for two years, at a time when expenditures are reaching exceptional levels?
Yves Giroux
View Yves Giroux Profile
Yves Giroux
2021-03-18 11:24
I will leave you to decide whether it is acceptable or not. It certainly makes your work more difficult, because you are being asked to approve expenditures and initiatives, at a time when no one has the full picture of the impact on public finances and the economic situation.
In addition, we do not know the government's short-and medium-term plan for the direction of public finances and the economy. That makes your work and mine a little more difficult, because we have to gather information based on announcements made over weeks and months to try and understand the situation and guess the government's future direction.
Without a budget having been tabled, we are missing a complete picture and the direction that the government will be taking in the coming years.
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Giroux, does the government provide you with the data you need in order to properly analyze the programs?
Yves Giroux
View Yves Giroux Profile
Yves Giroux
2021-03-18 11:26
In general, yes. We have had some problems or concerns with some departments from which information seems to be more difficult to obtain, such as Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and the regional development agencies.
However, overall, things are quite good.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for joining us today, Mr. Giroux and Ms. Yan.
We are grateful to you for the huge amount of work you have done for Canadians during the pandemic. We hope that your loved ones and yourselves are healthy and safe as we go through an extremely difficult time.
When my constituents ask me for explanations about the way certain things work or about the way in which they could be improved, I tell them about your studies.
My question is along the same lines as Mr. Ste-Marie's. No budget has been brought down for two years. I know that you are in contact with your international counterparts. In your opinion, are there any other major industrialized countries that have had no budget for two years?
What price do Canadians have to pay if no budget has been tabled for so long? Having no budget for two years is unprecedented in Canada's history.
Yves Giroux
View Yves Giroux Profile
Yves Giroux
2021-03-18 11:28
Thank you, Mr. Julian.
We actually do have regular meetings and discussions between parliamentary budget officers or the equivalent positions in the industrialized countries, and even in countries that are a little less so.
To my knowledge, no country, at least in the G-7, has not yet brought down a budget. Most countries are facing the same pandemic and the same level of uncertainty but, to my knowledge, most, if not all, of the G-7 countries have tabled at least one budget since the pandemic began.
The lack of a budget therefore sets Canada apart. It deprives Canadians of a good look at what will happen in the coming weeks, months and years, once we have come out of the pandemic. The government has not yet indicated what its plans will be for the economic recovery or for the time after the pandemic. That would probably be included in a budget.
Everyone understands that there is a lot of uncertainty. All the provinces have to deal with that uncertainty, of course, but all provinces and territories, I believe, have been able to table a budget, despite the high degree of uncertainty.
It is therefore a little surprising that the federal government has not yet done so. I don't believe that it is because it can't do so, because the officials in the Department of Finance are top-notch when it comes to crafting budgets. They are certainly capable of doing so.
View Peter Julian Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you for that answer; it really puts Canada in the worst possible position compared to all other industrialized countries. It really is perplexing to so many Canadians that when other industrialized countries have been able to produce a budget, we have now been waiting for an unprecedented two years.
Another concern that has been raised around the fall economic statement is the issue of the revenue side of the equation. The government is not making any provision for wealth taxes or pandemic profit taxes; in fact it has rejected those scenarios, and yet we've seen Canada's billionaires increase their wealth by over $60 billion through this pandemic. I'm interested in asking about the revenue side. You did an excellent study on the wealth tax and evaluated the ability for a wealth tax to actually contribute to the overall fiscal framework of the government. I'm wondering—because the last study dates to before we saw an increase in assets among Canada's wealthiest citizens—whether the PBO is in the process of revising its overall figure in terms of how much a wealth tax would bring.
My other question is around the borrowing authority. There are concerns being raised about raising the borrowing authority. What are the alternatives, for example, on the revenue side, that would mean that raising the borrowing authority would not be necessary because the overall balance of federal finances was taken care of?
Results: 121 - 135 of 459 | Page: 9 of 31

|<
<
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data