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 24
Stephen S. Poloz
View Stephen S. Poloz Profile
Stephen S. Poloz
2021-05-18 12:58
Thank you very much, Chair.
Good afternoon to you and to the committee. Thanks for asking me to participate in this study of Bill C-30.
I would offer three points by way of introduction. The first point concerns the context in which we find ourselves. The impact of COVID-19 on people and our economy has been massive. There will be some permanent damage. However, the damage has been mostly limited to sectors that have been shut down. In a typical recession, bad news in one sector usually infects the other sectors through lower confidence. This has not happened this time. I think this is the main reason that the economy has significantly outperformed most forecasts during the past year.
This economic strength has generated a debate around the appropriateness of fiscal stimulus. It has given the government far more fiscal room to manoeuvre than previously expected. However, any major economic trauma will scar the economy. These scars will run deeper the longer it takes for the economy to heal. Scarring manifests itself as a level of national income that would be lower than it otherwise could be—literally forever—and so I therefore subscribe to the view that it makes sense to push the economy harder during the early stages of recovery, because this will encourage business investment and create new economic growth.
My second point concerns fiscal sustainability. A credible fiscal plan in which the level of government debt relative to national income stops rising and debt service costs are manageable meets the minimum—or, we should say, perhaps technical—standard of sustainability. I draw your attention to the table on page 328 of the budget, which shows that these criteria are met. By the way, comparing this table with a similar one from the 2019 budget two years ago demonstrates that this budget does not represent a sharp turn toward big government, as many have said. The planned budgetary expenditure trend line returns to about 15% of national income, just as it was pre-COVID. The budgetary revenue trend line does exactly the same.
There is a legitimate concern that this minimum standard of fiscal sustainability would leave the economy vulnerable to future shocks. Well, that issue is for broader political debate, a debate that I think should acknowledge the challenging fiscal situation in our provinces. When we combine federal and provincial debt together, as we should when considering Canada's future resilience, our fiscal picture is not very different from that of other major economies.
My third point is that there are many ways to build future resilience without government austerity or higher taxes. If we put our minds to it, we can grow out from under our COVID debt burden, just like we grew out from under our World War II debt when I was young. There are many ways in which we could boost our long-term economic growth rate and grow our way out of our indebtedness.
First of all, immigration is Canada's most important economic growth engine, just as it was in the 1950s and 1960s. Anything we can do to make that process more efficient will be a good investment in future growth.
Second, a national child care program, as announced, can also help boost labour force growth. I do hope it can be deployed without delay. This is the sort of program that can literally pay for itself. If we can boost the level of national income by a mere 2% in this way, which amounts to $40 billion to $50 billion more national income every year, then $6 billion to $8 billion will automatically land in government coffers, also every year.
Third, as I've argued before in this committee, one of our biggest untapped sources of future economic growth is to harmonize provincial regulations across the country to reduce interprovincial business frictions. This initiative has about twice as much economic growth potential as the child care proposal, and in fact would cost nothing to implement. It seems to me that finding innovative ways to boost economic growth and avoid raising taxes should be at the top of our list, at this most precarious time, at both the federal and provincial levels.
Thank you, Chair.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Dwivedi, for your great presentation.
You have already mentioned that the amendment would enable funds to be used for infrastructure and economic development purposes.
Are you able to speak a little bit more about how this amendment would help with economic growth and creating jobs?
Garima Dwivedi
View Garima Dwivedi Profile
Garima Dwivedi
2021-05-17 14:44
For example, if a first nation wanted to build, let's say, a gas station or some other economic development type of activity, it could build that using the revenues from FNGST or FNST, and it could get a loan to build that through the First Nations Finance Authority and through the capital markets at reduced rates.
That would generate economic activity.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank Mr. Watton for his patience and for answering all of our very detailed questions.
My question relates to the intention of this program and these amendments, as it relates to to economic growth and creating jobs. Can you speak to that, please?
Steve Watton
View Steve Watton Profile
Steve Watton
2021-05-17 15:28
Yes, this program is designed to increase access to financing for small business owners who would not otherwise be able to get this sort of financing. A lot of these small businesses are modernizing. We're in a bit of a digital economy. It is a knowledge-based economy, and a lot of the assets and financing, if you will, are softer sorts of costs like intangible assets, start-up costs, inventories, marketing, promotion and websites; those sorts of things. In the past, this program has been used for real property, equipment, leaseholds and improvements.
We're trying to modernize the program and make it possible for more small business owners to access the types of financing in the amounts they require to start up, scale up and modernize. As a result of these changes alone, the expectation is that we would facilitate an additional $560 million and help on the order of an additional 2,900 businesses over and above the $1 billion, and the 5,000 to 6,000 small businesses, that we already do. As a result of that, you would get additional employment, additional economic impacts, etc., and additional positive benefits to society.
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-05-11 16:39
Minister, I do not want to rain on your parade, but many of us had hoped this would be a historic growth budget.
I sent a letter to you, suggesting that we needed comprehensive regulatory and tax reform. We asked you to address the flight of foreign direct investment from Canada. We needed a new comprehensive innovation strategy, not just the same old, same old.
As you know, many economists have lamented the fact that this budget is more about short-term benefit than positioning our economy for long-term success.
I am glad you referred to outside validators, because I have a few of those.
For example, Mark Carney, someone you know well, a former Bank of Canada governor, said, “What we’re seeing in some other jurisdictions is that the focus is more squarely on the growth.” David Dodge, also a former Bank of Canada governor, highlighted “a lack of growth-focused initiatives in the budget.” Robert Asselin, a former top economic adviser to your government, described the new spending as “unfocused and unimaginative.”
Finally, today, a former Clerk of the Privy Council, the highly respected Kevin Lynch, made so many different points. I will just summarize a few of them. He said that the budget “misses an urgent opportunity to rebuild our longer-term growth post-pandemic.” He added that “It does not set a clear fiscal anchor.” Furthermore, “Despite the extraordinary emphasis on stimulus, there is little focus and few measures to rebuild Canada’s longer-term growth.” He went on to say, “Our potential growth will drop...due to weak productivity, tanking competitiveness, and labour force challenges.” He ended by saying, “This budget’s intergenerational transfer of debt and risk is unprecedented.”
Minister, your own fall economic statement and budget betray the reality that as you raise more money through tax revenues and otherwise, you're simply going to spend more and borrow more, but there is nothing to position our economy for long-term growth.
This is a huge let down. Why?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fast, as you know, I have a great deal of respect for you, as a person, and as a former minister, but I have to very respectfully say that I disagree very strongly with all of your contentions just now.
Let me take them in turn. First of all, when it comes to outside validation of the budget and of the fact that our budget is on a sustainable and responsible fiscal track, from my perspective, there is no better judge than the credit rating agencies, which are paid to assess the credit worthiness of borrowers.
For me, it is therefore really important to underscore for Canadians that S&P, a week after the budget, came out with a very strong endorsement, reaffirming Canada's AAA credit rating, and reaffirming that the outlook for Canada was stable. It really doesn't get better than that.
I would also like to refer members of this committee, and you, Mr. Fast, to the comments of the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz, who was appointed by former Prime Minister Harper. He gave an interview, published today, in which he talked about the budget as being sustainable. He spoke about the conservatism in the numbers that he saw in the budget, and he spoke about the fact that this sustainable plan was put together without a meaningful increase in taxes of any kind. I couldn't agree more strongly.
When it comes to growth and innovation, let me point to three elements in the budget that, to my mind, are absolutely critical.
One is early learning and child care. We have heard from the IMF, Bank of Montreal, Scotiabank, TD, and from economists across Canada and around the world that investing in early learning and child care is a powerful long-term driver of jobs and growth. That is what this budget does. I think that is well understood across the country.
A second really important investment in long-term growth in this budget is the Canada workers benefit. In fact, BMO picked up on how that investment, which supports the lowest paid Canadians, is going to increase labour force participation.
Finally, I want to mention a third really important element, the unprecedented investments this budget makes in Canadian small businesses, allowing them to invest in themselves and giving them support to become more innovative.
View Peter Fragiskatos Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Chair.
Governor, thank you for being here. You shared with the committee in your remarks that you and the bank are foreseeing very robust economic growth in the year to come.
What are some key sources of potential risk, things that could stand in the way of that, things you worry about?
I know it's hard to predict that, but sources of risk are important.
Tiff Macklem
View Tiff Macklem Profile
Tiff Macklem
2021-04-27 17:03
I couldn't agree more, and as I said previously, there is a lot of uncertainty.
As I highlighted in a previous answer, the biggest uncertainty is the course of the pandemic itself. We're assuming this is a very nasty third wave. We are not through it yet. In our base-case projection, we have restrictions being lifted toward the end of May through June. If that gets extended, if there are new variants, if there are problems with vaccines, those will all have consequences for our economic outlook.
Beyond the pandemic itself, there are a number of uncertainties. I highlighted, in a previous answer, that the U.S. economy is doing well. We expect we will get some positive spillover effects from that. That will boost our exports, but there are risks to our exports. To be frank, we've been disappointed in the past.
Certainly, if the Canadian dollar were to be materially stronger, that could undermine the competitiveness of our exports and create a new headwind for our exports. There are also some risks with respect to protectionism. The U.S. has a buy America program. Hopefully, Canada and the U.S. can sit down and work this out, so that we can have an integrated North American market, but if there were new protectionist measures that limited our access to the U.S. market, for example, that would also dampen our exports.
To date, corporate bankruptcies have actually been quite low. That has a lot to do with the various supports that have been provided, but there's no question that there are many companies just hanging on. It gets back a bit to my earlier risk with respect to the pandemic. The sooner we can get through this and we can gradually reopen the economy in a safe way, those businesses can restart, but if that gets delayed, there are risks that bankruptcies could increase.
There are a number of upsides, as I mentioned. There are a lot of accumulated savings. That creates some upside risks. The U.S. economy is strong, but there are downside risks, and we're certainly weighing both of those. We will be assessing how those evolve going forward. I look forward to coming back to the committee and updating you.
View Peter Fragiskatos Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Giroux and your officials, for being here.
I want to ask you the same question I asked Governor Macklem a few minutes ago, and that relates to impediments to growth posed by risk.
At the end of March, I saw that you and your office forecast that this year, 2021, 5.6% is what's predicted in terms of economic growth for the country. In 2022, that drops a bit to 3.7%, but it's still robust. Those predictions are roughly in line with where the Bank of Canada forecasts things, as we heard earlier today.
My question to you is this: What sources of potential risk do you see that we all need to be mindful of and that could stand in the way of that strong growth?
Yves Giroux
View Yves Giroux Profile
Yves Giroux
2021-04-27 17:26
Like the governor said, I will probably identify the same risks as he did. The biggest risk, by far, is how the pandemic evolves and, flowing from that, how Canadians behave. What I mean by that is how secure they feel to resume what will be the new normal if it is back to where we were pre-pandemic. The recovery will be highly dependent on Canadians' confidence that they can go about their daily lives with travel, going out, etc., without getting sick. A lot depends on how the pandemic evolves.
Another big risk or uncertainty is the level of recovery in the U.S. If the pace of recovery in the U.S. is faster, as many expect, then it will have beneficial impacts on Canada.
Another risk is the risk of faster-than-expected rising interest rates. Faster interest-rate rises could dampen growth by weighing on households and businesses that then have to support a higher burden of debt servicing costs—and governments as well.
I could go on. There are upside risks and downside risks, but these are the main ones that come to mind.
View Peter Fragiskatos Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much.
I don't usually ask the same question twice. It's simply because we had the governor here today and you, and I think it's important to get on the record where both of you think the risk is, how both of you judge it and the sources of potential risk. The fact that your answers line up almost entirely with each another—you gave virtually the same answer, Mr. Giroux, as Governor Macklem did—says a great deal about these factors. They are the key things to pay attention to for us as a committee, so I appreciate it.
With that, I'll turn it over to my colleague Mr. McLeod.
View Annie Koutrakis Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Annie Koutrakis Profile
2021-04-27 17:52
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Giroux, for being with us this afternoon. It's always a pleasure to see you.
We know that economic growth is the best way to deal with rising debt after a crisis.
Do you think the federal government's policy response throughout the pandemic, as well as the measures announced in the 2021 budget, will be effective in generating the economic growth needed to address the pandemic-related debt?
Yves Giroux
View Yves Giroux Profile
Yves Giroux
2021-04-27 17:52
Thank you for the question.
This is a very risky question for me as a non-partisan officer of Parliament. It's difficult for me to answer this question.
My team and I will certainly focus on determining the economic impact of the measures announced in the budget. In particular, we'll be looking at the impact it will have on the economic growth as well as the level of employment.
However, it isn't for me to determine whether or not the measures are appropriate from a public policy perspective. These are eminently political choices. If you ask people of different views, they will have different opinions on how best to generate economic growth. It's a question to which, unfortunately, I can't give a clear and definitive answer.
View Ted Falk Profile
CPC (MB)
View Ted Falk Profile
2021-03-18 11:33
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Giroux and Ms. Yan, for your testimony this morning at committee.
I think that penalizing the individuals who have become wealthy is very short-sighted. I think the government should be focused on creating initiatives and plans for individuals to become wealthy, for our country to prosper and for there to be economic growth and abundance here.
I'm wondering if you can comment on that. Have you seen anything at all from this government that would indicate they have plans for people to prosper and to become wealthy?
Results: 1 - 15 of 24 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data