You have one minute.
Evidence of meeting #37 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was economy.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #37 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was economy.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I'll make it quick, then.
One piece of testimony you gave today, Monsieur Giroux, was about Canada's deficit or debt position in comparison with that of its international counterparts. It struck me that we may be a little better than middle of the pack right now.
Is that a fair assessment, insofar as it impacts our overall debt and our debt-to-GDP ratio?
6:10 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Yes, I would say that 11 out of 29 is slightly better than middle of the pack. That's a fair assessment.
6:10 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Yes, it's overall net debt, but the IMF also includes assets of public pension plans such as CPP and QPP. These offset some of the other levels of debt. Most other countries don't have assets to pay for future benefits. In that sense, Canada is in a privileged position.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
With respect to our debt-to-GDP ratio, within the same group where do we sit?
6:10 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
I'd say that's what I was referring to: we're 11th out of 29.
April 27th, 2021 / 6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
You slid in a little more than one question there, Mr. Fraser.
We've had many good questions and a lot of good information put out here. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your work. I used to look forward more to your reports when I was in opposition than now on the government side, but I think we all, as MPs, as soon as a report is tabled from the PBO, go to see what it states.
I want to thank not just the three of you, but also your teams for the analysis they do. We appreciate it, and it gives us good information with which to raise further questions. Thank you very much for your presentation. We can release you folks now.
Turning to the committee, we have 10 more minutes. You have the subcommittee report that was sent to you by the clerk. I'll table it now. I won't read it all; I'll just highlight it. It's before you.
The subcommittee met on Monday evening and agreed to invite again, on Tuesday, May 4, Dr. Paul Kershaw from Generation Squeeze, as well as witnesses from CMHC and two additional witnesses, one from the governing party.
I won't read Mr. Julian's motion, but we agreed to basically continue the study on tax evasion and to pull forward the evidence from the previous Parliament on the tax evasion study for the benefit of the committee. We would meet on May 6 on this issue and invite six witnesses for that panel and possibly further panels.
We agreed to call another subcommittee meeting within a couple of weeks.
The subcommittee report goes on:
That if the Budget Implementation Act is presented in the House, the committee commence a pre-study of the said Act on May 11 and 13, 2021 and that the Minister be invited as well as senior officials....
It also says, “That the committee continue its study on the Budget Implementation Act during the week of May 17...with witnesses”. Although it says “from the public” here, it's actually from both the government and the public. If we're not done with the government witnesses, that means that your constituency week has, I'm sorry to say, gone by the wayside.
The report further orders:
That the Analysts work with the Chair and the Clerk to provide the committee with a summary of recommendations in regard to [our] study on COVID-19 Spending, Programs, and Related Monetary Policy for an eventual report to the House.
That's what the subcommittee agreed to.
Could we have somebody move acceptance of that report? Then we'll get into a discussion of it, if necessary.
It is moved by Peter Julian.
Is there any discussion, or are there questions?
Ms. Dzerowicz.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the subcommittee for putting forward this report. It always takes a lot more time than any of us ever imagined.
I want to put on the record how disappointed I am that, after the OECD, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Council of Chief Executives and even the current leader of the Conservatives, in his leadership platform, put forward that interprovincial trade barriers are an urgent priority for us to deal with, that's not on the agenda.
We spend a lot of time during our meetings, and today was no exception, talking about how we gain more revenues and how we deal with some of the structural deficiencies in our economy. This is absolutely one of the key ways for us to do so, and it wasn't seen as an urgent priority for the group.
I want to express my disappointment. That's not to say that we're not studying important things, but I do want to express my disappointment that we're not moving forward urgently on a matter that needs to be looked at immediately, so we can start putting things into place.
Those were my comments, Mr. Chair.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you. You're not moving an amendment, I take it, but you'd be more pleased if that was included in the report.
Is there any other discussion?
(Motion agreed to)
We will go forward with that, and we will plan another steering committee meeting as soon as possible in a couple of weeks.
Thank you, all, and thank you, Mr. Clerk, for gaining us the extra few minutes to have an hour with the PBO and also get this subcommittee report done.
The meeting is adjourned.