Finance Committee on March 25th, 2009

[Kevin Page]

We raised issues, sir, with respect to providing a list of identified items related to vote 35, and the need for that. You know, Mr. Flaherty has publicly talked about his concerns related to due diligence, the risk related to implementing measures, that we could play a role, for all parliamentarians, to be scoring some of that risk.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Did you speak to the Treasury Board officials at all about whether they would cooperate with you in terms of providing information on getting money out the door?

[Kevin Page]

No, but we have spoken with the President of the Treasury Board.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

So you haven't gotten anywhere yet on this matter.

[Kevin Page]

Actually, if I could clarify, I did speak to Wayne Wouters, the Secretary of the Treasury Board, early on to request a meeting about quarterly reporting. That meeting hasn't happened yet.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

When did you ask for the meeting?

[Kevin Page]

It was actually.... I wanted to give him a heads-up that we were preparing what we thought was a best practice quarterly reporting technique, and I wanted to sit down in advance of release of the document.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

How long ago, approximately, did you ask to meet him?

[Kevin Page]

It was before we actually released our document.

I'm just checking. It was March 11 that we released our quarterly reporting--

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

It was about two weeks ago. Okay.

I'm a bit concerned about basing our assessment on a government website. Even if they did update it daily, rather than it having two-week-old, out-of-date information, they would choose which numbers to present and how. From an economist's point of view of scrutiny, it would seem that we need an independent voice to ask for numbers that are relevant for our purposes, rather than relying on the person who is under probation to independently decide which numbers to give to the world.

Is that a reasonable point of view?

[Kevin Page]

What we highlighted today was looking forward to the second quarter report. We didn't see those indicators in the first report and how the money would flow, what indicators they would use to show the impact these programs are having in terms of stimulus on the economy. We didn't see that in the first report. It may have been asking too much.

We actually were quite impressed with the first report in terms of the level of detail, but we did not see those forward-looking indicators that will actually measure, when the money does start to flow, whether it is having an impact. It may be useful to have an independent assessment on those types of indicators and perhaps even on the money and how the money is flowing.

The Auditor General has already indicated she will be providing an audit, but again, that will be a very retrospective kind of look.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I am less concerned about analyzing the impact of the money when we know how much money it is, because lots of people in the private sector can do that; any good economist can do that. What other people from the outside cannot do, no matter how good they are as economists, is get their hands on data that the government doesn't want to give them.

This is why I'm concerned. You don't seem to be making any progress with the government. Did they seem to be saying “You'll take the numbers we choose to give you on our website and we won't give you the raw data with which to do the analysis”? Is that a fair statement?

[Kevin Page]

We would be able to do a much better analysis if we had raw data.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. McCallum.

We'll go to Mr. Kramp.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I have one quick question, then I'll turn it over to my colleague.

On page 13, your graph on output gap, you say the projected downturn is expected to be worse than past recessions. I accept your information. But I'd like to turn that around to average everyday citizens and how this recessionary situation affects them. I can recall being in business, back in the 1980s, and being subject to the 22% interest rate and very high inflation, and that affecting the population in a very serious manner.

We don't have those same factors now. We have different problems. Can you relate the comparative effect on the everyday citizen then versus now, based on this graph?

[Kevin Page]

You would need much more information to provide an individual citizen's perspective on the level of pain we're experiencing now, or starting to experience in the first quarter of 2009, compared to previous recessions in the nineties and eighties. In the information we presented today we gave you a perspective on the level of output of the Canadian economy. We also talked about employment and provided comparisons with previous recessions. But the job losses today are already quite significant.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have a minute left, Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I find it kind of ironic that in 2006 the Liberals didn't support the budget but the Bloc did, and this was in there then. Then they supported the current plan we have in front of them, and last night they supported the votes on spending that are now before the Senate.

On page 2 you say:

Depending on which information gaps remain after the second report, my staff may begin a more detailed assessment of potential high-risk initiatives based on comparables derived from other jurisdictions and international best practices.

What is your definition of a high-risk initiative that's outlined in the economic update?

[Kevin Page]

Almost a hundred measures were put through the Budget Implementation Act. Some of them, like infrastructure, have had high lapses in the past. It is difficult to get the money out the door into shovel-ready kinds of projects to have an impact. That might be an example--based on indicators and money flowing--of a high-risk initiative. We wouldn't be getting the money out the door in a timely way.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So the risk of it not happening is the high risk. The better potential for it not to happen is your definition of high risk.

[Kevin Page]

Yes.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

We'll go to Mr. McKay, please.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I'm just looking at the chart on page 22 and trying to relate it to the things that ordinary folks would understand. If the budget did nothing, the employment impact would be somewhere below 17,100 jobs.

Can you just read that chart for me? I'm not quite sure I understand the implications of what you're putting into that chart.