Evidence of meeting #10 for Finance in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rules.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
It would increase the deficit.
Conservative
Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
I do not. We are planning on publishing, about 10 days after the budget, a budget issues note. At that point, we'll be in a good position to provide you with a number.
Conservative
Sandra Cobena Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
You've just mentioned tens of billions of dollars of additional spending, meaning that it will most likely be going straight into the deficit.
If the government refuses to rein in spending, then what are the intergenerational consequences? Are we effectively passing today's bills to our children?
Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
From an intergenerational perspective, it depends on how the deficits are financed or what the deficits look like, because, of course, what we published in September was a baseline, and we have to wait until November 4 to see how the government responds to that baseline.
The government has already indicated that it plans on restraining and potentially cutting spending. It has already announced some additional measures. There could potentially be additional revenue measures that would close the deficit as well.
I think the other key point is that everyone at this point has been sensitized to the idea that the deficits are going to be potentially substantial for the next two to three years. The real question, and the question I have raised, is this: What happens in years three, four and five?
In highlighting the debt-to-GDP ratio and the path of the debt-to-GDP ratio, the concerning aspect of it was that, in the outer years, it continued to increase, so the economy was not growing fast enough to pay for the growth in that outstanding debt stock.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Mr. Jacques. That concludes that time period.
We'll go back to Mr. Turnbull for the final three minutes of this session.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Mr. Jacques, thanks for being here.
I would assume that as acting PBO, you have a lot of respect for former PBOs like Yves Giroux and Kevin Page.
Interim Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Yes, absolutely. Kevin and I are close personal friends.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
That's great. I figured as much.
I know that you're new to your role, but both former PBOs, after your appearance at the OGGO committee, had some words to say about your testimony.
Yves Giroux said that your comments were somewhat “premature”. Kevin Page said that the language you used isn't typical for someone in a non-partisan role.
Kevin Page also said, “I think the language from the current parliamentary budget officer, Mr. Jason Jacques, is just wrong and he should walk that back, quite frankly.” He said that he should tell people that our fiscal situation is “sustainable”.
I noticed in your opening remarks that you said you were learning to avoid adjectives. I just wondered if you had any regrets about the kind of emotionally charged language you used in your previous testimony.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Madam Chair, I have a point of order.
Earlier, my colleague raised a point of order to say that our Conservative colleague should be talking about tax avoidance and not the carbon tax.
I don't think the objective of the Standing Committee on Finance is to put Mr. Jacques on trial. I would show some humility—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Identify the point of order.
We will let Mr. Simard finish his point of order.
Then I have Mr. Kelly, and then we'll go to Mr. Turnbull.
Bloc
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
I would show some humility. There's a custom where we don't damage the reputation of public servants, officers and people who come to answer the committee's questions.
I don't think Mr. Turnbull's question has anything to do with tax evasion, so I'd advise him to take the comment he made to our Conservative colleague and apply it to himself.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Mr. Simard.
I have Mr. Kelly and then Mr. Turnbull on the same point of order.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Crowfoot, AB
Yes. Thank you.
I agree with Mr. Simard.
I had argued that latitude is typically allowed when there's an officer of Parliament, but I can't help but note, Chair, that you three times interrupted Mr. Hallan to steer him towards what you thought might be a bit more relevant testimony. I would hope that that standard would be held with Mr. Turnbull, and you'll maybe rein him in and get him on topic, if there is in fact any time left, and it doesn't look like there is.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Well, it's interesting that the latitude that the members opposite asked for in this committee.... I would suggest that Mr. Kelly made some effort to bump himself back into the lane of relevance, but Mr. Hallan made no effort to do that, despite being asked by you many times.
You opened the door, and you don't want the rules to apply equally to other members in this committee.
I do think, Madam Chair, that if you allotted that latitude to members on the Conservative side, the Liberal members should have the same—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
I hear you, Mr. Hallan. Mr. Turnbull has the floor. We'll come to you in a moment. I did hear you, and I mentioned that you were on the list.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Pardon me, Madam Chair. I'm used to Conservative hypocrisy, but at the committee we should, I think, allow the same latitude to all members on the committee. If other members are arguing “latitude” when they have time to ask questions, then that should apply to all members equally.
Liberal
Conservative
Jasraj Singh Hallan Conservative Calgary East, AB
Absolutely.
Thank you, Chair.
I want to thank my friend, Mr. Simard, for bringing up this very relevant point of order. I fully agree with him and Mr. Kelly.
I think the issue here is that what Mr. Turnbull is trying to do is make a personal attack on Mr. Jacques, and that is the point of relevance that we're trying to bring up here—that he's trying to use someone else's words against Mr. Jacques, which is not only unfair; it's unprofessional. I would ask Mr. Turnbull to please respect our witness and not make any personal attacks.
You're more than welcome to go down the path of tax havens, which this study is on and which we all focused on. We all said “tax havens” in all of our interventions. I'm just hoping that Mr. Turnbull will respect the committee and do the same.