Government Operations Committee on Jan. 27th, 2026

[Jason Jacques]

It's something we're following carefully.

Obviously, the modelling that everyone undertakes with respect to the economy and investment is based upon historical data or evidence from other jurisdictions. What the government has put in place are structural changes with respect to how projects are approved. That's very difficult to model because the structure itself is changing, so it's something we're following with keen interest to see if we do see an inflection point in the overall level of investment starting to tick up in comparison to what we would have otherwise predicted based on what we've seen in the past.

I would say the government itself, in terms of the $1 trillion figure of its capital investments, has also taken a bit of a parsimonious approach, and it highlights in the budget that figure does not include the potential upside should there be a fundamental change in the level of investment that's occurring across the economy as a result of structural changes.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

How much time do I have, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You have 30 seconds.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

I yield my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Before we move to Ms. Gaudreau, you had asked a question about some of the numbers, and Mr. Jacques said he could get back to us in a report.

Can we agree that if Mr. Jacques is offering, we can have him do that? Will that satisfy you?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Perfect, that's wonderful.

We'll go to Madame Gaudreau, please, for six minutes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Chair, we are starting 2026 with a consensus. I hope it will continue that way.

I am very grateful to the witnesses for being here.

Mr. Chair, I have quite a few questions for the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

First of all, I'm pleased to hear that we'll soon be getting the communication strategy and the OECD report. Right now, however, there's one question on everyone's mind, including the people on the ground, who all want clarity around the $1‑trillion investment. Where is the provincial money, the municipal money, the private sector money coming from?

Have you been able to break down this investment to show which sectors the money will go to so we know what to expect, or is it vague?

[Diarra Sourang]

I think it's important to understand the methodology behind that $1‑trillion figure.

Essentially, the starting point is the $285 billion.

Depending on how the funds are distributed and which sectors they're invested in, cost-sharing ratios, as they are commonly called, were used to multiply these base amounts for these industries. Those figures will be calculated for each sector, and that's how you get $1 trillion.

That number does not necessarily mean that these are guaranteed investments. It is based on historical programming, on what was done in the past, what programs the government put in place. We have seen how much investment increased as a result of such programs. That doesn't necessarily mean these investments will actually happen. It doesn't necessarily mean that those investments wouldn't have happened anyway, with or without government support. It also doesn't mean that we have a good idea of what is actually additional, in the sense that, when we do our forecasts, we assume some growth in those investments, whether it's at the federal level, other levels of government or the private sector.

We already have an idea of their future investment plans. What's important to us at this point is figuring out to what extent these additional total investments can be reflected in our forecasts. We have to consider whether it's significant enough to materially change our forecasts. That's the hard part.

What we can say is that, even if we look at the net amount, which is $126 billion, which we assume to be total investments, we can only estimate that as a maximum range of what the total increase in investments would be.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I don't find that very encouraging, especially since it's already been two days. This is a judgment on my part, and I know you may be uncomfortable, but the department already has its budget 2025 talking points. They can't help themselves. They're always talking about a strong Canada with $1 trillion worth of investment.

How can we reassure people that this will produce good results? I'm asking because, even in your report, you wrote that it was not quite that good. Help me understand this better, because I find it quite vague and unclear. I don't find it reassuring at all. Those talking points are too good to be true. Help me understand that.

[Diarra Sourang]

I would really emphasize the point that Mr. Jacques made earlier. It's important to understand that the figures we put forward are based on the status quo, assuming that the structure of the economy remains as it is, but there are unknowns. How effective will the investments be? To what extent will businesses and investors get on board with this plan? Could the structure of the Canadian economy undergo a fundamental change? Will we see productivity gains? Depending on all these factors, the impact on GDP could be much greater because more capital will be unlocked and productivity will go up. That would increase nominal GDP.

It really depends on the structure of the economy and productivity gains in the future.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

So we should try to be positive and look on the bright side. Personally, I don't find that reassuring given the current geopolitical context. It may be true, but it doesn't reassure voters. This is playing games with people's trust. We'll see what happens.

Now let's talk about the cumulative economic impact of federal spending. According to your notes, that has not been assessed. Could some more detailed analyses be included in the report we want? That's what the discussions were about earlier, right?

[Jason Jacques]

Yes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I didn't start my timer, Mr. Chair. I'm out of the habit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You have 35 seconds.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have one last question. It's a yes-or-no question.

Does your analysis take into account tax policies that differ from one province to another?

[Diarra Sourang]

No.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Perfect. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Okay, you'll get back to us.

We will go back now to Mr. Chambers for a five-minute round.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to pick up where I left off last time. I may have a better question to ask, if I wasn't more precise before.

If budget 2025 had never occurred, in your analysis, what level of investment was going to happen?

[Diarra Sourang]

Based on our September outlook combining both business and government investment, we were sitting at $700 billion of total investment in 2025. We expected that number to grow to approximately $900 billion by the end of 2030.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

If the government put out a very ambitious or attention-grabbing number, like that our investments will deliver $1 trillion, in your conversations with the government to pressure-test this assumption did you come across a way that the government is measuring this result?

[Diarra Sourang]

No, not presently.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

The government told the Canadian public that its investments—what it's calling investments, but it's spending—would generate a certain amount of economic activity. From your understanding, not to say that it doesn't exist, but you have not come across a measurement capability that the government is checking up on the claim. Is that fair?

[Jason Jacques]

From our perspective, it's something that we pay very close attention to. The private sector banks and forecasters also pay very close attention, too, because of the importance in capital investment and capital formation across the economy and the links to productivity and growth within the economy.

If, in fact, there is an inflection point, if we are at a change in how the economy is structured. If what we've seen in the past in terms of capital investment is not what we're going to see in the future, everyone needs to pay very close attention to it because it will certainly affect our economic forecasts.