Finance Committee on Nov. 24th, 2025

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Yes, and Germany and Canada both, as you know, have AAA credit ratings. Do you think Germany is at risk of a downgrade in terms of credit rating? Do you think they actually have that risk or do you think Canada and Germany are at a good standard?

Kevin Page recently said he was very comfortable with Canada being at around 2.2% to 2.5%, which is right in the range that Germany and Canada are at in terms of deficit-to-GDP ratios. Can you comment on that?

[Jason Jacques]

Sure. I didn't see the work that Kevin did.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Kevin just said that he is very comfortable with Canada, implying that it's not necessarily.... I know that opposition members have referenced the Fitch Ratings as evidence that they think Canada is going to be downgraded in some ways for our credit rating, but I don't think there's any risk of that.

Do you think there's any risk of that in the current context?

[Jason Jacques]

I don't work for one of the ratings agencies. I might look like I do, but I don't. Because I don't do the analysis of the ratings agencies, I'm not well placed to determine how the ratings agencies would assess Canada's debt now, or in the past, or in the future.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Okay. Just to be clear, you've mentioned transparency, credibility and accountability a number of times in this committee. I think it's been an ongoing theme, and I think it's good that parliamentarians are having these debates. I assume you believe that the finance committee has a very important role to play in promoting transparency and having those debates and dialogues.

[Jason Jacques]

I believe in parliamentary democracy. It's why I've chosen my job.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Yes, and does that include studying the budget implementation act, do you think?

[Jason Jacques]

It's a question of studying all of the legislation and the policies before government.

Again, going back to the issue of the one recommendation we did offer in this report, it's around studying when there are substantial changes made with respect to the fiscal anchors of the government within a relatively short period of time and to long-standing fiscal anchors. That's something that parliamentarians may wish to consider, and we would recommend that they should probably take a look at.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

So you agree that we should study the budget implementation act and have these debates then.

[Jason Jacques]

One of the fundamental responsibilities of parliamentarians is to evaluate proposals from the government with respect to spending money. I think it was decided in 1215 with King John that no money could be spent without approval.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you for that.

I'm going to move the following motion:

Given the recent passage of budget 2025, which will catalyze generational investments in the Canadian economy to create lasting prosperity, protect our communities, and empower—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I'm sorry, Mr. Turnbull; there is a point of order.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

No, I'm merely catching your eye to speak to the motion once it's made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Oh, I'm sorry.

Please continue.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Given the recent passage of budget 2025, which would catalyze generational investments in the Canadian economy to create lasting prosperity, protect our communities and empower Canadians, the tabling of the budget implementation act 2025, and the scheduled upcoming appearance of the Parliamentary Budget Officer as part of the budget implementation act prestudy, that the committee immediately commence a subject matter study of said legislation; and that the committee invite the Minister of Finance, relevant officials and expert witnesses to conduct a detailed examination of this important legislation.

Madam Chair, I would like to speak to that. All parties should have that in both official languages, because I put it on notice on Friday.

Mr. Jacques has been very generous with his time today, and I know has appeared in this committee multiple times in the last four or five weeks. It's great to have him and his expertise. I think that we agreed in our last meeting that his testimony should be included as part of the BIA study. What I'm proposing here is to commence that study of the budget implementation act.

I know that members opposite wanted to ensure that they had the language of that budget implementation act before we started the study. That 604-page document has been tabled in Parliament. I'm sure members opposite have had the chance to dig in over the weekend. I know that there's a lot of work to do on that. I think it's important work that we have to do. I think the debate and the witness testimony that we can get on the record here in our committee is really imperative for us to be able to evaluate the budget implementation act together and to work together on it.

Fortunately, we're not going to a Christmas election, and I thank the members who voted in favour of the budget. It passed the House with the majority of members, and it's certainly great to see the support. The will of Parliament has demonstrated that there's a majority of members of the House of Commons who support the budget. I think Canadians would rightly expect us to dig in to that work.

I've had the chance to really pore over the BIA. There are lots and lots of measures. I know that Mr. Garon was very concerned, as we all were, when we heard in previous deliberations in this committee that certain members of the disability community might be adversely impacted by a tax cut that the government had proposed. The fix for that is in the BIA. We heard the minister come before this committee. I can't imagine that the Bloc members would not want that to be deliberated in this committee or would not want a solution to that to be sought. I think we should take the time we need.

I forget which meeting it was, but it was fairly early on when this committee came back after the summer, and we started our deliberations on Bill C-4, which was the affordability measures that the government had put forward. I remember members opposite talking about how they would have wanted more time for consultation and to have witnesses from their jurisdictions come to committee and give us their perspectives.

In terms of the BIA, we received 940 pre-budget consultation submissions and tens of thousands of survey responses. We did what I would consider a very comprehensive consultation process that involved stakeholders across the country, a lot of listening and a lot of taking that feedback and integrating it into the budget. I think the budget reflects that input, but more so, I think we need to ensure that this committee—and it was a good theme out of today—knows just how important this committee is in terms of creating a forum for democracy and debate on key financial measures and issues but also in terms of budgeting what the government is proposing.

I wrote down on a piece of paper what Mr. Jacques said, which is that the government's job is to make budget decisions and decide how to measure. I think that was the direct quote, and I hope I'm not misquoting him. I believe that's what he said in response to Mr. Lefebvre's comments.

I think it's true. That is the government's job, but Parliament has an important role to play as well. We are privileged to sit on the finance committee, but it also means we have a responsibility to Canadians. We have a responsibility to scrutinize the BIA.

In the past, members opposite have produced many potential amendments, and we went through quite a rigorous process. I was here for clause by clause and hearing from witnesses. It took many hours of our time. We extended our meetings to go, in many cases, right until midnight, and we turned up the pressure on ourselves in order to complete those things on a timeline that was beneficial for Canadians. We really saw some urgency in getting budget measures out the door.

I think that's the same urgency we should see in this committee. I know the Conservative members wanted to study tax havens, and we did quite a number of meetings on that topic. I know the Bloc proposed having the Parliamentary Budget Officer appear, and we eventually agreed with that. Initially, we were a little skeptical, because we had already had the interim PBO here about a month ago, but we were reasonable.

I haven't sensed the urgency around studying the BIA from opposition members. I really think that it's incumbent upon all of us, as members of Parliament, to get into the BIA now that it's been tabled in the House. We have the ability to scrutinize it.

I'm sure members opposite will have cause for criticism and areas that they're concerned about or that they will want more testimony on from stakeholders. They would like to push in this or that direction to go further, and I think that debate is really important. I believe in a parliamentary democracy. I think that process has been very constructive and fruitful in the past, and I think we should get on with that work.

In this motion, I'm proposing we get down to work on the BIA and that we consider the testimony today of Mr. Jacques and his team as part of that study so we can incorporate both some of that critical lens and fair and expert testimony. We should hear from other witnesses, too, on the various topics we've covered today.

I think there's lots in the BIA. I could spend a lot of time talking about the BIA, because I'm quite excited about it. In particular, I'll mention a couple of things quickly.

I'm really excited about the immediate expensing and the amendments to the SR and ED program and the clean economy investment tax credits, which are being altered. I get excited about those—and this goes to the conversation we've been having today about a capital budgeting framework—because I think those measures respond to the lagging or stagnant productivity in Canada. I think they will spur investment in our economy, which is greatly needed to enhance growth and productivity.

When a company can invest in new machinery and equipment, protect its intellectual property or take money it has been putting aside to pay its taxes at the end of the year and invest directly into productivity-enhancing equipment as well as other activities that will enhance productivity, I think that's a good thing for our economy.

I think that's what we heard from the Bank of Canada governor and the deputy Bank of Canada governor when they were here. They confirmed that those things would spur investment and likely contribute significantly to capital formation.

Although we may have some difference of opinion, I think that there are many jurisdictions around the world that see tax incentives or tax credits as a way of stimulating capital formation, and they do include that, as I understand, in their capital budgeting framework. I don't think it is that unusual. Again, there are lots of experienced experts who could come and tell us about how they do it, as part of a study on the BIA.

I really would like to see us move forward. I'm willing to work with members opposite to see a path forward on studying the BIA, ensuring that all parties, of course, get to submit witness names and that we have an adequate number of meetings dedicated so that we can deliberate on the BIA.

Again, it's substantive, which is not uncommon. Conservative and Liberal governments, as I understand, have put forward quite large BIAs in the past. Ours is quite large as well. It has lots of measures in it, lots of exciting, meaty things for us to discuss in this committee. I'm excited to get down to that work. I would ask members opposite, in good faith, to put their best foot forward, to work with us, to do the work that this committee is assigned to do and that we have a duty to do.

Madam Chair, I know that as the chair of this committee, you'll guide us, but it's up to members of Parliament to decide what the agenda looks like. To date, it seems that we've been prioritizing other matters. We've had Conservative and Bloc motions get passed. We've studied and we've heard from witnesses they've put forward. I think it's time that the government members have a say in our number one priority here, which is the budget implementation act.

I know that the will of Parliament has shown us that a majority of members in the House support this budget. We really ought to get down to work on this. Canadians, I think, want to see us do that work.

I'll leave it there for now, but as I say, I have lots more to build the case for why I think a BIA should be our next study.

I apologize to the witnesses for treading on some of their time, because I really do value their perspectives. I don't always agree with witnesses' perspectives. I think that's part of what this committee does. It has lively debates on various topics. I should be able to ask Mr. Jacques and his team challenging and difficult questions, just as members opposite do all the time with witnesses in this committee. I think that's our duty.

I'd say that we need to extend that to the BIA, which is going to be a very large undertaking. It's a large bill. From my perspective, it has lots of very positive things in it. Members opposite won't always see it that way, I understand. If we don't get down to business on debating those and structuring a study, I wonder how long that's really going to take. I think we need to ensure that's top priority. Really our primary job as members of the finance committee is to deliberate on budgets, BIAs and government legislation.

Government legislation is supposed to take precedence at committee. I know that Mr. Kelly will say that committees are masters of their own domain, which they are, but I also know that the informal practice of the House—and there's probably a standing order, as well, that says this—is that government legislation is supposed to take priority in terms of the deliberations.

I'm sure that we'll get into more debate about this motion. I hope it will pass quickly. I know members opposite want to get down to business on the BIA.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Kelly, please go ahead.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

The member is right. It is a priority of this committee to study government bills when they pass Parliament. The BIA has not passed Parliament. It has been just tabled in Parliament. The proper order, ordinarily, is to allow that debate to occur, and then it is referred to a parliamentary committee. That is the motion before the House, to refer it to this committee. After the vote takes place in the House of Commons, that is when it is referred to this committee.

Now, Mr. Turnbull is absolutely right. The committee can decide to do whatever it wants, and that's why, Chair, I strongly encourage you to hold a subcommittee meeting with your vice-chairs. That's where the business of committee can be agreed to in an orderly fashion, so that we don't resort to interrupting the testimony of an officer of Parliament to conduct committee business, which is what this motion is.

With that, With that, I move that debate on this motion be suspended—sorry, adjourned. I move that we adjourn debate on Mr. Turnbull's motion.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

I know there is very specific wording for that dilatory motion and Mr. Kelly did not say it in the way that it's supposed to be read, so I don't know whether it actually counts as a dilatory motion. Maybe the clerk can check.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I'll check with my clerk.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I know from my experience on the procedure and House affairs committee that a dilatory motion to adjourn debate has be to word for word what it is in the Standing Orders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Because Mr. Kelly corrected himself, we'll accept it.

We will now move to a vote on the motion to adjourn debate on this motion.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 4)

The debate on this motion is collapsed. We will return to Mr. Turnbull, who has about a minute left in his speaking time.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have lots of questions for the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer.

I know you have said that there's less than a 7.5% chance of maintaining the declining deficit-to-GDP ratio, but wouldn't that imply that you could predict the growth of GDP in the economy? My understanding is that assumes the GDP level would stay at what level...?

[Jason Jacques]

It accounts for the growth of nominal GDP in the economy. That's correct.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

It accounts for the growth, but are you able to predict that effectively?

[Jason Jacques]

We evaluate the forecast accuracy of our “Economic and Fiscal Outlook” periodically. The last time we did that was —