Government Operations Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2023

[William Robson]

I think the federal government has a strong role to play in investing in infrastructure under its jurisdiction. I would never quarrel with that. The topic of the federal government's spending in areas of provincial jurisdiction came up earlier. One of the things that does concern me is the federal government's expanding of its fiscal footprint. It is both crowding out the future revenue sources that the provinces might need and also exposing them to the cutbacks that may well occur at some point in the future when the federal government feels itself to be a little fiscally overextended, with interest payments growing and so on.

Having been a provincial finance minister, you know what it's like seeing the federal government not come through with the money you were expecting, or finding out that you are constrained in raising the revenues that you needed as a result of the federal government's already being in the field.

I would like to see the federal government spending smarter, and in a more focused way, because the provinces, in the long run, are the ones that are carrying the can when it comes to health care and many of the other infrastructure needs that the country has, so each in its lane.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

I appreciate your comments in that regard. We want transparency by way of our transfers to those governments. Certainly, I always wanted that to be the case when we were looking at health transfers to ensure that we were held accountable as to where some of that spending would occur, and sometimes that doesn't necessarily happen. When you look at the Province of Ontario having a cap and trade system exempt from the carbon pricing and enabling another $1.2 billion or $1.5 billion in revenues, which was eliminated, that seems a little careless and a political decision.

The other question I want to get to, because I know we're out of time, is with regard to Alberta. You're big into the pension plans, and we've had a lot of debates, you and I, over the past years. They were very fruitful for me, because they were very enlightening. When Ontario was looking forward to putting the Ontario pension plan as an add-on to the CPP, we were able to initiate that and leverage the enhancement of the CPP, which I think was better for all of Canada, not just looking only at Ontario.

What is your take on Alberta putting at risk, if you see it as such—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That is our time.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

It's a good question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I appreciate your dragging provincial politics into this.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Can you send that in writing?

[William Robson]

I'd be happy to take it up later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Perhaps we need to, as Mr. Robson says, stay in our lane, but I appreciate your attempt.

We are done here. Before we excuse the witnesses in order to deal with a few minutes of committee business, I want to thank Mr. Giroux and his team, as always, for being with us. As I've mentioned before, you are like George Martin, the fifth Beatle. You're the extra member of OGGO. I truly appreciate that.

Mr. Robson, thank you for your time. We wish we could have seen you here in person, but perhaps another time.

[William Robson]

I hope so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We certainly appreciate your being with us today.

Before you go, Mr. Giroux, using the chair's prerogative, I have just a quick request.

In the spring the government appropriated x amount of money for specific programs. I'm thinking they should report now on the programs that they're not going to spend the money on, but for which they have appropriated.... We've seen them come forward with $500 million in announced reductions, in money that has already been approved. I'm wondering if your office would perform an analysis on the cuts and services to the programs with the $500 million, similar to the one that the PBO did in 2012. It would be specifically on the $500 million.

[Yves Giroux]

If it's the desire of the committee, through a motion, I'd be happy to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Colleagues, do I have your agreement for a rather simple request?

[A voice]

I hope you don't take the government to court, though, like last time.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Are there any objections?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

No objection, but can we just have the text of what you're specifically asking? I'm sure we'll support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Sure. It's for the PBO's office to perform an analysis on cuts and services to programs with regard to the $500 million in savings announced, similar to the one performed by the PBO in April 2012.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Basically, we want to understand the nature of the $500 million in savings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Yes...whether it's lapsed or what it is.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.

[William Robson]

Thank you for the work you do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks very much. You can hang around and listen to the real fun stuff now, if you wish.

Just very quickly, everyone, we need to approve the budget. I know it's a large amount, but we'll lapse probably 90% of it.

Do I have approval for $6,000 for the supplementary estimates studies?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

For a bunch of muffins...?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!