Finance Committee on April 30th, 2013

[Chris Matier]

It would be difficult to respond to them without having their projections and their detailed assumptions to allow us to reconcile the differences. Probably, the important point is that there is some uncertainty around the year that the budget returns to balance, but the direction is clear. The structural surplus that's in place will allow that budget to return to balance over the medium term.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

If I could return to jobs, you've said you're largely in line in terms of the government projections on GDP, but with respect to job growth, you see job growth occurring but you think there could be more job growth if the changes.... Now, is it the changes in 2012 and 2013 or is it the reductions only in 2013 that affect job growth going forward?

[Chris Matier]

If you were to compare the differences between the current private sector outlook and our outlook, I think you could explain those differences by looking to the impacts that we have. Perhaps private sector forecasters have a different estimate or are underestimating the impact of these reductions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'm bumping against my own time here, but explain then, on a very fundamental question. You're saying the government ought to keep spending higher to ensure that more jobs are created in the future. Obviously, you want to get through a recessionary period by having stimulus spending, but you want to wind that down and have the private sector step in to create those jobs.

It's a big fundamental question and there's not much time, but do you want to try to answer that?

[Chris Matier]

I agree it's a fundamental question, but that's beyond the scope of the mandate of our analysis. It's an extremely interesting question. It's being debated everywhere around the world at this moment.

As much as I would like to respond, I will not respond.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Well, you can respond if you want. It perplexes me that the office would sort of imply that the government ought to keep its spending at a high level in order to create more jobs which presumably would simply be in the public sector, which is not what you want to see happen in terms of economic growth going forward. You want the private sector to be generating the bulk of the jobs.

[Chris Matier]

I agree with that statement. It's not the underlying assumption in our work that the government should be increasing spending. What we're trying to provide here is an impact analysis of what could be some of the implications of these decisions, much like the government did in its first economic action plan.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

Ms. McLeod, I apologize. I did take your time.

I want to thank our witnesses very much for being here, and for responding to questions from the members as well.

Colleagues, I'm going to clarify the calendar.

As you know, the calendar did say we were going to start the budget implementation bill on Thursday, but some members have strongly suggested that we not start that bill until it has been referred to us by the House, until it is voted on at second reading. Therefore, I am recommending, as your chair, that on May 2 we deal with main estimates 2013-14, and on Tuesday, May 7 we deal with a private member's bill, Bill C-462, the Disability Tax Credit Promoters Restrictions Act. I'm hoping we can start the budget implementation bill with officials from the Department of Finance on May 9.

I'm looking around for nods and I hope I have agreement to do that, as your chair.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.