Finance Committee on Oct. 30th, 2012

[Kevin Page]

At present, we have received information from nearly 50% of the departments and agencies and about 25% of the information from the departments and agencies relating to jobs and work force. The figures are almost the same for the services. What we are receiving is still falling short of our objectives, but over the last day we have received information from 10 other departments.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

If I understand correctly, you still do not have all the information you have asked for.

[Kevin Page]

That is correct; we are missing information about the strategic and operating review.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

In terms of the budget and Bill C-45, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget, have you had a opportunity to analyze them?

[Kevin Page]

I do not have the time and capacity to do a proper examination of a budget bill.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

So you do not intend to take a look at the fiscal impact of that bill?

[Kevin Page]

No.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Have you studied the ways and means motion that has been introduced concerning the fiscal measures bill, which is 1,000 pages long?

[Kevin Page]

No.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Nor do you have the time. That is unfortunate, because it could have helped us.

In terms of the information available to you, or the lack of information, can you say something about the budget measures? Why are you not able to help us on this? Does it have to do with the fact that your budget has been cut? Are you lacking resources?

[Kevin Page]

I think it is really important that all parliamentarians have the information they need for examining the restraint program before the authorities approve it.

I think it is necessary to have information that establishes the level of spending, the changes, and program activities in terms of spending and the impact on jobs. We also have to know whether there is a good plan for managing the restraints. That is important not just for our office. It is much more important for all parliamentarians.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I agree with you, and we would have liked you to have more resources and means, to be able to help us understand all these bills better. We are very grateful for the work you do.

In your report, and this was raised with the Governor of the Bank of Canada, you said Canada is not doing very well in terms of productivity. You also said it would be a good idea to invest in increasing productivity. Can you tell us more about that?

[Kevin Page]

We do not have a mandate to study all of the issues relating to policies and to determine what the best program is in terms of policies to stimulate productivity. That is really not our office's mandate.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Perhaps you have analyzed the measures that were taken recently, to determine the economic impact and the impact on productivity, since we know our country is not performing very well in that regard. Have you done that?

[Kevin Page]

If legislation is introduced by the government, it is possible for our office to examine the impact of the programs. However, it is not our role to develop policies.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

We'll go to Madame Glover, please.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to say welcome to Mr. Page and to all of the other gentlemen who have joined us today.

I have a couple of questions that I'm hoping you will be able to answer. I want to say as I start that as I look at the different averages of the outlook for real GDP growth between 2012 and 2017, I note that the PBO's outlook is exactly in line with the October 2012 survey put out by the Department of Finance, in which we look from 2012 to 2017 at 2.3% and 2.3%.

Looking at long-term sustainability as well, I really appreciated your opening remarks, Mr. Page, indicating that you agree that the government's fiscal structure is sustainable over the long term.

I would ask, just so that we can compare, how many other G-7 countries also have a long-term sustainable fiscal structure.

[Kevin Page]

It's a very good question. We could put together a survey and we'd be happy to do that for you, because we use methodology that's very similar to a number of other countries, certainly that of the U.S., which is not sustainable. We share similar methodologies with the United Kingdom, and they do not have a sustainable situation. For some of the other G-7 countries we would have to examine and compare methodologies, but we'd be happy to do that for you.

But clearly, we are sustainable at the federal level.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

That would be awesome. Honestly, if you could do that, I think it would be very helpful.

Let's turn to what you were discussing earlier. You mentioned that some reasons for our long-term sustainability are policy changes by the government with respect to the Canada health transfer, reductions in government program spending, and the age eligibility for the OAS system.

I'm curious to know: if we were to reverse all of these decisions, what impact would that have?

[Kevin Page]

We would be back to where we were when we did our 2011 fiscal sustainability report, which showed that the federal government would have a fiscal gap, meaning it would not have a sustainable fiscal structure. We would not have a structure in place that would deal with aging demographics, and it would result in rising debt relative to GDP.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you for that, because that ultimately is something that was a huge concern to the government, which is why we made some very difficult decisions, and they were difficult decisions. We don't take those decisions lightly, but we knew they were in the best interest of the country.

I want to turn to a question that I'm particularly interested in. It has to do with something in your report with regard to the female employment rate. I take note that in the assessment of Canada's labour market performance report, you note that Canada has actually led the G-7 with respect to the female employment rate. I'm curious to know whether you could elaborate on that and tell us why it is that Canada has a such a strong leading employment rate among females.

[Kevin Page]

As the report says, at a high level on both a male and a female basis we went into this recession with relatively good employment and unemployment rate numbers. In the report we highlight some of the differences between males and females. We would be hard-pressed to explain why Canada does so much better than France, why Canada does so much better than the U.S. Again we could provide comparative numbers in that regard, but it would probably take some time for us to provide an explanation of why the numbers are better.

Certainly, you're absolutely right. Our numbers are better.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Are you not sure why the female employment rate is different? Do you not have any hypothesis about it? Maybe we're smarter, or we're stronger. I'd love to hear that.

[Kevin Page]

Certainly, for all the females in this room that would be more than apropos.

It was really not the objective of the study to provide a policy difference reason for why we are better, but yes, our females are better.