Evidence of meeting #61 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was transfer.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I appreciate that you said it would be inappropriate for you to decide from a small written paragraph what is releasable and what's not.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
That's it? Thank you, Ms. McLeod.
Do you want in on the same round, Mr. Jean?
Conservative
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you. I'll be very brief, Mr. Chair.
I want to say, first of all, that with all these hours of work we're putting in, that is the best meal, and whoever ordered the fish did a great job. It's not a Clearwater River fish from northern Alberta, but it's not bad.
You missed those comments earlier, Mr. Brison, when I invited Mr. Mulcair to Fort McMurray to do some fishing. I'd invite you along to do the same, because you obviously don't know what pipefitters and welders make in northern Alberta. They make more money than you and I do in this job, Mr. Brison. So if you want to have that opportunity, you can come up.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rodrigue, I understand you are in what we would refer to as a hot seat in some sense, because it's very clear from your responses to us that somebody someplace has coached you in the positions you have to take, and I appreciate where you find yourself.
Are you aware of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's opinion on the sustainability of OAS, and that the OECD's pension team had the same conclusions? Are you aware of that analysis, sir?
Chief, Social policy, Income Security, Department of Finance
I'm aware of that analysis, yes.
Chief, Social policy, Income Security, Department of Finance
As I said, I'm here to provide, with my colleagues from—
Chief, Social policy, Income Security, Department of Finance
I can provide explanations, answers on the bill that is—
Chief, Social policy, Income Security, Department of Finance
I'm not to comment on policy—
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Okay, let's go into some numbers a little. I may not be absolutely precise on these, but currently, I understand, number one, this is old age security; this is not a pension plan. This was put in place for the poorest of the poor. You work with this every day, and I appreciate the work that is done for people.
I understand that about 2.16% of GDP is used today, roughly $36 billion to $39 billion, to pay OAS. Is that correct?
Chief, Social policy, Income Security, Department of Finance
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the expenditures on OAS today are $38 billion.
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
As I said, it's $36 billion to $39 billion. It's going to go to roughly $109 billion—
Chief, Social policy, Income Security, Department of Finance
To $108.7 billion in 2030, yes.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
We're pretty close, yes. That's roughly 3.1% of GDP.
What we hear in the conversations around OAS and sustainability is about the growth in population. We don't disagree with that. We just agreed on the figures. There is no problem there.
What we don't hear in the equation, though, is people talking about the incremental average growth in GDP that happens year to year, which leads us to believe that the OECD and the Parliamentary Budget Officer are correct, that it is sustainable as it is.
As well, changes will be made after 2017 to the Canada health and social transfer that will reduce the liabilities for the government. So there is more flexibility than what is being spoken to here.
What's important to us, and the reason we ask you to provide any of the materials of analysis that might have been used, is for us to be able to confirm whether we are right or wrong. It is very difficult for us sitting here when we get a witness who responds that he is limited in what he can say. In fact, it's very frustrating.
The government at one point told all departments they had to look for efficiencies. They had to save money to address the deficit, so that happened about a year and half ago, somewhere in that time range.
Prior to the government calling for deficit-fighting measures, was your department already looking at making this change from 65 to 67?
Chief, Social policy, Income Security, Department of Finance
I'm sorry, sir, I cannot speak to the intention of the government at any point except for what has been announced in the budget.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
That wasn't my question. I was asking about your department, not about the government, not about an opinion. Was your department looking at this before? There is a reason for my question.
Could you give me a simple yes or no? If you're not aware of it, that's fine too.