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 970
View Ted Falk Profile
CPC (MB)
View Ted Falk Profile
2021-05-18 17:14
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to all of the witnesses. I enjoyed hearing your various comments and testimonies.
I'd like to ask Mr. Moody a few questions. You indicated in your opening comments about the size of the budget—724 pages—with this bill being 366 in all, how extremely extensive it is and that to give it an adequate study it would take a lot more time than what we're doing.
You also talked about inflation, and I've had the same experience you've had. I know that when I go to the grocery store groceries cost more. They're telling me a sheet of OSB for building houses was $8 a year ago. Today there's a limit on it at $80 a sheet. A homebuilder, on the weekend, told me it costs an average of $40,000 more this year to build a home than it did a year ago. RVs and autos are more expensive. Housing and even the cost of everyday goods and services have seen, for the most part, a significant increase. We know that inflation is happening, and we know when inflation happens interest rates are going to increase.
Have you done any calculations as to what size of a rate shock Canada can afford on its debt?
Kim G. C. Moody
View Kim G. C. Moody Profile
Kim G. C. Moody
2021-05-18 17:16
Thank you, Mr. Falk.
The short answer is no. I personally have not. I spend all of my time in tax stuff and tax policy more than in inflation and economics. I leave that to my economist friends. I think common sense dictates that it's not going to take much of a rate increase in order to have a huge economic shock.
David Macdonald
View David Macdonald Profile
David Macdonald
2021-05-18 12:46
I have indeed. Thanks so much for the invitation to come back to speak to you today about Bill C-30 and Budget 2021.
The last time I was at the committee, I presented you with the results of our 2020 child care fee survey in the context of the fall economic update. I was pleased to see those child care figures appear in Budget 2021 as the starting point for the government's ambitious national child care plan.
Parents have two main complaints about child care in Canada. First is that fees are high, and second is that wait lists are long. Targeting a reduction in fees, particularly with quick and substantial reductions by 2022, will have a noticeable impact and make a big difference for parents with young children. However, the expansion of spaces at the same time will be an important corollary to fee reductions to ensure that we don't trade lower fees for longer wait lists. I look forward to specific targets on space increases, as well as reductions in fees.
When it comes to building a recovery from COVID-19, affordable and accessible child care is in a unique position. It certainly supports women as they return to the labour force after they have been harder hit than men during the pandemic due to job loss, but it also provides improved productivity due to higher female labour force participation, thereby driving long-term real GDP growth. Moreover, it pays higher tax dividends than other programs do.
The reduction in child care fees so far has been largely driven through provincial expenditures—certainly in Quebec, but also in Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, which all have set fee programs, although at a higher rate than Quebec.
The higher income tax that results from higher female labour force participation goes disproportionately to the federal government, despite the provinces being the ones that support it. This makes the federal government an ideal partner on this file, as it is also the main beneficiary of that increased tax revenue.
Budget 2021 is relatively limited in its focus on new revenue generation. I'm not overly concerned about deficits, but now is the time to start to consider new measures so that they can be properly implemented in the future. In the short term, I would encourage the committee to consider a CEWS clawback for profitable companies. In the initial months of the rollout of the wage subsidy, the barriers to entry fell quickly. The upside was easy access for businesses that needed it to continue to operate. The downside was that businesses might squeak by on the rules, but that the subsidy, in the end, would boost profits.
While the CRA has aggressively pursued CERB recipients, there is no corresponding effort on the business side. Recent media reporting has highlighted publicly traded companies successfully receiving the CEWS all the while declaring substantial profits. I would encourage the committee to consider a CEWS payback regime, whereby companies that received it but also declared profits pay it back.
Given that more support has gone to business than to jobless Canadians during the pandemic, it only makes sense that profitable companies that don't need the wage subsidy send it back to support other recovery efforts.
In the longer term, I would encourage the committee to consider other revenue options. The federal government could build on its closure of the stock option deduction scheduled for July through an examination, for instance, of the capital gains inclusion rate. Given its immense cost, this could provide additional funds for the recovery, as could a more thorough review of tax expenditures given that many of those tax loopholes go to a very small slice of the upper end of the income spectrum.
The proposed digital services tax at 3% of revenue provides a model for how profit-shifting by international corporations can be tackled. The 3% of revenue is a sort of minimum corporate tax for foreign companies, although it could certainly be expanded far beyond digital services, which is its starting point.
It is clear from American disclosure that many multinational companies regularly employ profit-shifting strategies to declare profits in tax havens instead of in the countries where those profits were generated. Examining a minimum corporate tax, possibly based on the 3% revenue rule, would go a long way to avoiding corporate freeloading on Canadian infrastructure done by foreign multinationals, all while levelling the playing field for Canadian companies that do pay those corporate income taxes.
Finally, like the government, I have limited concern about federal deficits and new federal debt. Interest paid on the federal debt has fallen to historic lows when adjusted for GDP. This is true even when one includes the record pandemic deficits and new spending over the next five years. Incredibly, we would have to look to before the First World War to see the federal government paying less to service its debts, adjusted for GDP, compared with today. Those low rates make this an ideal time for the federal government to invest in short-term pandemic economic recovery but also in long-term issues, like much-needed changes to avoid the impact of the climate emergency.
For members concerned about interest rate increases, it's important to remember that those increases would hit all sectors, not just the federal government. Including the pandemic spending, the federal government's debt-to-GDP ratio now sits at roughly 50%. Household debt-to-GDP stands at more than twice that, at 112%. The corporate equivalent is at 130% of GDP.
The debt of these portions of the private sector, household and corporate, have jumped 10 points during the pandemic, so even small changes in the interest rate brought about by, say, the Bank of Canada's increasing the overnight rate would have big impacts on the private sector. The impacts would not only be because they are more leveraged but also because they pay a higher interest rate to start with. In that sense, heavy indebtedness of the private sector will protect the federal government from interest rate increases.
I thank you for your time and look forward to your questions.
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 Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Minister.
My regards also to the officials with you today.
Mr. Duclos, you are the President of the Treasury Board, as well as an economist. In the document that I am about to show you, you will see figure 1, dealing with the composition of expenditures in the Main Estimates 2021-2022. You will see a green circle, indicating the cost of servicing the debt.
This year's budget shows $21 billion for servicing the debt.
Does that concern you?
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Paul-Hus, and all my colleagues on the committee.
I am indeed an economist by training and I am also President of the Treasury Board. As such, my responsibility is to ensure that the Government of Canada's funds and efforts are directed to where the pandemic makes it important.
As an economist, I also understand, as do many others, that, if we had not invested quickly and massively to support Canadians and their companies, the result would have been terrible. We would have found ourselves not only in an extraordinary economic crisis, but also in a social crisis…
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Mr. Duclos, you know that I do not have a lot of time.
I want to know whether it concerns you. I especially want to know whether you have assessed the impact that a 1% increase in the interest rate could have on Canada's finances.
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
Lib. (QC)
We know two things about that.
First, the interest to GDP ratio in Canada is the lowest it has been for almost a century.
Second, our financial and budgetary conditions are among the most enviable in the developed countries. It is important…
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
So your answer is that you are not concerned about the medium-term impact of a possible rise in interest rates for Canada and its taxpayers.
As the parliamentary budget officer has indicated, an increase of only 1% would have impacts on society as a whole and on all taxpayers.
Does that concern you?
View Jean-Yves Duclos Profile
Lib. (QC)
The concern we absolutely must have at the moment is to get out of this crisis as strongly as we can. That is exactly what will allow us to avoid accumulating deficits, which would become greater and last longer. Those deficits would lead us into a fiscal and economic slump that we absolutely want to avoid.
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-05-11 16:13
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for appearing before committee again.
I again want to congratulate you for being the first female finance minister to deliver a federal budget and, hopefully, it's the first of many to be delivered by women in the future.
I do note, however, that this is also the largest spending budget ever and creates the largest debt and deficits in our country's history. My fear is that future generations will look back on this budget as the one that created a financial burden that undermined their prospects of living the Canadian dream. I certainly hope that is not the case and that, in fact, Canadians still have the prospect of a bright future ahead of them.
With that in mind, I want to refer you to not only the fall economic statement, but also the budget that this BIA implements.
I note that in the fall economic statement you projected GDP growth at 4.8%, but the budget says that it's going to be better than that; it's going to be 5.8%. You projected in the fall that revenues would be around $335 billion. Now, in the budget, you're predicting that it's going to be better than that, and we're going to have $20 billion more. With more cash coming in by way of revenues and more economic growth predicted in this budget, you're still projecting a deficit that is higher than what you projected in the fall economic statement.
The same is true in 2022-23, which is the next fiscal year. Again, the projected revenues are going to be up by about $20 billion, so you have more revenue coming in, more money in the bank account, and your growth is projected to be close to 1% higher than the fall economic statement had suggested, yet you're predicting a deficit that is $9 billion higher than the fall economic statement.
My concern is this. We have better growth; we have higher government revenues in this year and the next, yet, for some reason, you're not only spending all of the unexpected additional revenue, you're also increasing the amount you're going to borrow each year. We're going backwards, big time.
For every extra dollar that comes in in revenue, you seem to think that you can spend that dollar and then borrow even more than you had initially projected, so how is that a sustainable fiscal and debt management plan?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
First, Mr. Fast, thank you for your kind comments. You made a similar comment that I really appreciated when I delivered the budget. I will take this opportunity to recognize a woman who I think deserves the respect of all of us, and that is Kim Campbell, Canada's first woman prime minister. She was, of course, a Conservative, so I will take this opportunity in turn to congratulate you and your party for having broken that glass ceiling, and to congratulate Ms. Campbell.
You have addressed some questions broadly around fiscal sustainability in the budget and around debt and deficits, and around the FES projections and the budget projections. Let me make a few comments.
The first comment I would make is that when it comes to the growth projections, a long-standing practice, in fact one that dates back to 1994, is that the budget is based on the average of forecasts of private sector economists. I think this is a great example of institutional strength of Canadian institutions and I make that point to the committee to be clear about why the projections have changed. The projections of private sector economists have changed and that has been what we have used as the basis of our fiscal track. Now, I know that members of this committee are well aware of this, but I just want to be clear with all Canadians.
To the second point around the sustainability of our spending, I assure members of the committee that I am very confident that the spending in our budget is reasonable and sustainable. There are a couple of key markers that I would point people to. The first is that we show a declining debt-to-GDP ratio, falling to 49.2% in 2025-26, and likewise, a declining deficit, falling to 1.1% in that outer year. I would also point out that it is not merely my judgment that the debt and deficit track is reasonable and sustainable, it's also the judgment of some important outside validators. I would start by citing S&P. On April 26, they reaffirmed Canada's AAA credit rating, the highest there is, and said that the outlook was stable. That was after reviewing our budget.
I would also point to comments published today of former governor Stephen Poloz, who was, of course, appointed by Prime Minister Harper. He actually spoke about how in his view the assumptions in the budget were actually quite small-c conservative and that he did believe there was a sustainable path.
Paul Kershaw
View Paul Kershaw Profile
Paul Kershaw
2021-05-04 16:05
Thank you very much.
As a reminder, I'm a policy professor at the UBC School of Population Health and founder of Gen Squeeze.
Gen Squeeze is a force for intergenerational fairness to improve Canadian well-being. It is powered by the voices of Canadians in our 20s, 30s and 40s, the kids we represent and the family members who love us, all backed by cutting-edge research.
When you requested my participation a couple of weeks ago, I focused in particular on the need for policy-makers to reduce an intergenerational tension in our housing system.
Our current policies incentivize many everyday households to want two incompatible things from housing. On the one hand, we often want housing to provide an affordable place to call home. On the other hand, we want housing to provide a good return on investment. The problem is that those two things are incompatible, because when something provides a good return on investment, by definition its value grows faster than local incomes. When something grows faster than local incomes, it becomes less affordable.
For the last several decades, a cohort of Canadians who tend to be older and reside more in urban areas have reaped substantial gains in wealth as a result of rising home prices, all while sleeping, watching TV, cooking, raising kids and making our homes. I share with you my own story about how my own wealth windfalls are implicated in that.
Unfortunately, one of the outcomes from housing wealth windfalls for people like me and others is that those who follow in our footsteps, our kids and grandchildren, have a much more challenging time to find a place to call home that is affordable, even in places where they grew up.
I pointed out last time that our national housing strategy so far fails to address this intergenerational tension, because it never once mentions the word “wealth”. That omission reflects a hesitancy on the part of our world of politics to address intergenerational tensions. By being silent, our world of politics is collectively standing by as many Canadians are over-consuming wealth windfalls that erode the sustainability of the housing system to deliver affordability for generations to come.
It's quite similar to our climate change problem. While the last couple of years clearly signal some important federal progress, Canadian policy remains quite slow to address the reality that Canadians today are over-consuming the atmosphere's scarce capacity to absorb carbon. We don't yet price pollution at a high enough value for the harm that it's causing, so what do we do? We leave younger Canadians and future generations to pick up the tab for our present over-consumption of this scarce capacity, and that over-consumption undermines the sustainability of the very climate on which younger Canadians are depending for their health and economic well-being, and we know that's a big price to impose.
It's not just environmental debt; there's also government debt, which we know is ballooning as a result of the emergency response to COVID. That response is appropriate in this emergency moment, but the sustainability of government finances was already being disturbed prior to the pandemic, in no small part because the federal government was not prioritizing balancing budgets even when we were not in a recession.
One of the concerns I want to draw attention to today with the moments that I have remaining in my opening remarks is that the world of politics has shied away from helping Canadians to recognize another intergenerational tension, in this case in regard to our old-age security system, which is a very important system to protect, but it's at the heart of an intergenerational tension in our budgets. Our budget messaging coming out of Ottawa each year is risking burying those details in its fine print, which is not a partisan problem; it's a long-term problem.
The most recent budget is really instructive. Everyone in this room could be forgiven for thinking that child care was the biggest social spending increase in federal budget 2021. You should know that Gen Squeeze is proud of what happened in that budget. We worked hard to popularize the concept of $10-a-day child care when we first gave this label to a pan-Canadian child care recommendation in our lab over a decade ago, and along with tremendous mobilization by the Coalition of Child Care Advocates and early educators in B.C. , a 10aday.ca movement was born, and it's clearly had an important influence on national thinking.
I want to congratulate the federal government for really investing now in a meaningful way in child care, but it should be known that child care is nowhere near the largest social spending investment in the 2021 budget. Increases to OAS absorbed far more taxpayer dollars, and I beg of everyone in this room to go pay a lot of attention to table A1.6 of the budget, which shows that the Government of Canada plans to increase spending on OAS by $22 billion as of 2025, compared to a year ago.
That $22-billion increase is three times more than the roughly $8 billion that Ottawa plans to add to child care in 2025. It's more than the nearly $18 billion that budget 2021 plans to spend over several years for its green recovery to create jobs, build a clean economy and protect us against climate change. Also, it's about 10 times greater than the $2.5 billion that budget 2021 adds for affordable housing over the next several years. When Canadians and our politicians reflect on why our national government still plans a $31-billion deficit in 2025, well after we hope the pandemic-induced recession is over, it's going to be important to acknowledge that growth in OAS spending is a primary factor.
To be clear, OAS spending itself is not a problem on its own. Old age security is important because it helps seniors enjoy financially secure and healthy retirements. Almost every younger Canadian will have a parent or a grandparent who uses OAS. My mom and dad do, and so do my in-laws. However, it is a problem that governments resist being honest with Canadians about the need to consider new ways to raise revenue to cover its growing cost.
This means that today's retirees can rightly claim that they paid taxes towards OAS throughout their working lives, but the problem is that our governments weren't sufficiently honest with them about how much they needed to contribute in the past in order to ensure that their generation didn't take from the current system more than they put in. That outcome is unpaid bills that they leave for their kids and grandchildren.
Let me close. Intergenerational tensions are at the heart of a lack of political commitment to sustainability in our housing system, sustainability in our climate system and sustainability in our government budget system. Now is the time for us to come together to build for our world of politics the political cover to be courageous, to act on the evidence, to reduce these tensions, so that Canada truly works for all generations.
Thank you.
Yves Giroux
View Yves Giroux Profile
Yves Giroux
2021-04-27 17:11
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to discuss Canada's economic and fiscal outlook. I am also pleased to highlight some key issues arising from budget 2021, tabled on April 19.
I am joined today by Chris Matier and Trevor Shaw, who will help respond to your questions.
We released our pre-budget outlook on March 31. Our outlook showed a significant improvement in the economy owing to the earlier-than-expected arrival and administration of effective vaccines, higher commodity prices and a stronger U.S. recovery.
While the more recent surge in new COVID-19 infections presents a near-term risk, the resilience and adaptability that the Canadian economy exhibited during the second wave—combined with increased vaccination—should limit the economic impact of the third wave. Nevertheless, we will continue to closely monitor developments.
Our outlook, of course, did not include the new measures that were announced in last week's budget. Nor did it include the up to $100 billion in stimulus spending earmarked in the government's fall economic statement.
Our outlook showed the level of nominal GDP and budgetary revenue returning to their pre-pandemic paths over the medium term. On a status quo basis, we projected the budget deficit to hit 16.5% of GDP, or $363 billion, in 2020-21 and then decline to 0.7% of GDP over the medium term. The federal debt-to-GDP ratio was projected to peak at 49.8% of GDP before gradually declining over the medium term to 45.8% of GDP.
As noted in our report, uncertainty surrounding the outlook remains high. That said, setting aside the government's earmarked stimulus and budget 2021 measures, we judged that risks to our economic and fiscal projections were roughly balanced.
I will now turn to budget 2021.
Key issues in budget 2021, from our perspective, are, first, the fiscal guardrails. In our December report we judged that the $70 billion to $100 billion earmarked in stimulus spending could be miscalibrated if the focus was solely on returning selected labour market indicators to pre-pandemic benchmarks.
Given the improved labour market outlook, our pre-budget report reiterated this assessment. Based on our projection of the guardrail indicators, the government identified in its fall statement, almost all of the ground lost in the labour market due to the pandemic will be made up by the end of 2021-22. To be clear, we're not referring to temporary COVID-19 measures, but rather, as the fall statement indicated, to targeted stimulus to jump-start the economy. Moreover, measurers could be fully justified based on policy objectives other than providing economic stimulus.
In budget 2021 the revision to the private sector economic outlook and fiscal developments provides $109 billion in terms of new fiscal room over six years; that is, before any new measures were introduced, the budget deficit would be over $100 billion lower on a cumulative basis than forecasted in the fall statement.
This new fiscal room is used to finance over three-quarters of the $143 billion in measures detailed in budget 2021. While the budget refers to all these measures as “investments”, $37 billion is tied to COVID-19 spending. Up to $69 billion over the next three fiscal years could be construed as stimulus spending.
Budget 2021 also estimates the economic impact of $126 billion in recovery plan measures over the next three fiscal years. These estimates, however, likely overstate the impact of stimulus spending on the economic outlook presented in budget 2021.
The impact of $25 billion in measures from the fall statement should already be reflected in the March 2021 private sector survey. The recovery plan also includes $32 billion in additional COVID-19 supports, which are not, per se, stimulus measures. Moreover, some of the remaining measures were anticipated by economists and would also be included in their forecasts as the government had clearly signalled its intention to spend $70 billion to $100 billion in the fall statement.
We will be providing our own estimate of the economic impacts of the $69 billion in budget 2021 stimulus spending in a future report.
Finally, concerning the fiscal anchor, budget 2021 sets out a fiscal anchor, which is reducing federal debt as a share of the economy over the medium term and unwinding COVID-19-related deficits.
Over the medium-term horizon, the government projects the federal debt ratio to decline marginally to 49.2% of GDP from a peak of 51.2%, and remain well above its pre-pandemic level of 32.1% of GDP. Long-term projections presented in the budget also show the federal debt ratio remaining above its pre-pandemic level through 2055.
This suggests that the government has decided to effectively stabilize the federal debt ratio at a higher level, potentially exhausting its fiscal room over the medium and long term. This means that any substantial new permanent spending would either lead to an increasing debt-to-GDP ratio, or have to be financed through higher revenues or spending reductions in other areas.
With that, we'll be pleased to respond to your questions.
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-04-27 17:18
Thank you very much, Mr. Giroux. It's good to see you at committee.
There are some who have suggested that we shouldn't get our knickers in a knot about the size of the debt because debt servicing costs are so low. However, there are some fears that the Bank of Canada rate may rise earlier than expected, perhaps some time in 2022.
Can you speak to the risk of rising interest rates, and has your office modelled what each 1% increase in rates would mean for the debt that the federal government has incurred over the last six years?
Results: 1 - 15 of 970 | Page: 1 of 65

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Show both languages
Refine Your Search
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data