Government Operations Committee on April 14th, 2026

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Because of the spending of the Liberals, there's more money going to interest on the debt that Canadians have to pay than to health care transfers. Bankers and bondholders are getting more money than doctors and nurses.

Is that how I'm reading it? Am I correct in that?

[Nick Leswick]

I'm fearful that you might put words in my mouth, but I would agree on the nominal value of public debt charges versus the nominal value of the Canada health transfer.

Yes, sir, that's the debt.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Is it concerning to you at all that more money is going to interest on the debt than to health care transfers for the provinces?

[Nick Leswick]

What I can say is that public debt charges are associated with $1.5 trillion in marketable debt. That debt is associated with however many generations of decisions by current and previous governments.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Would it not be more responsible, in a time like now...? At the end of the day, who is going to be paying for that debt? Canadians will, and generations of Canadians in the form of taxes, most likely. Would it not be more responsible for us to, let's say, find savings wherever there's wasteful spending so that we can bring down the deficit? Would that be something that would make a little more sense?

[Nick Leswick]

From my perspective, if deficits are sustainable, then our debt load is manageable and there's a fiscal track that can demonstrate some level of fiscal sustainability.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

The reason I bring that up is that certain people in Canada are paying more in taxes now than they are for all the necessities combined: housing, clothing. We're hearing about 2.2 million Canadians going into a food bank in a single month. Whether it's sustainable or not, at the end of the day, it's the taxpayer—Canadians—who is having to take on that burden. Do you think it would be more responsible to help lower that pressure on Canadians rather than piling on more by finding savings within this review?

[Nick Leswick]

What do I think? What do I know? I know this process was an effort to make sure that government was operating as efficiently as it could and that programs and services that were low-performing and maybe would be considered wasteful were eliminated. The proceeds of that exercise were reallocated to other programs and services.

I don't want to be argumentative, sir. I agree with the principle. It's a fair point.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Yes, that's—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Your time is up, Mr. Hallan.

Ms. Rochefort, go ahead, please.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To follow in line with the questions from my colleague from across the room, I'm wondering about your views on the statement that the overall intent of the comprehensive expenditure review is not about austerity. It's not about cuts but it's about enabling strategic investments to modernize the Canadian government and to ensure that our country is better positioned for the 21st century. I'm wondering what your views are in regard to that particular statement.

[Nick Leswick]

I would agree with that statement.

I do have a balanced view. I can see both sides. There are those who would advocate for a lower deficit profile, a more aggressive path to lower nominal deficits. However, I also understand that deficit consolidation can be a drag on growth itself.

The current government has a perspective that it wants to take the proceeds of the exercise and reinvest those proceeds into government efforts, government initiatives, programs and services that deliver returns—either economic or social—that it thinks are beneficial to Canadians.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I see that you have budget 2025 with you. It specifies that the savings to be achieved would fall into three categories: to modernize government operations, to recalibrate government programs and to streamline program delivery. Dollar targets were set for each of the three areas.

Are you satisfied that the results of the comprehensive expenditure review are lining up with these targets that were set?

[Nick Leswick]

Thank you. I'm going to ask Thomas to answer that.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

That’s fine. Thank you.

[Thomas Larouche]

Thank you very much. It's a good question.

The budget is a plan. At this moment, in our view, the comprehensive expenditure review is being rolled out as planned. The idea is that the next step in those three categories, as you heard from my colleagues from the Treasury Board Secretariat, is to effect these reductions through the main estimates. Those have now been tabled.

In general, these three themes give you a flavour of the intent behind the review, which is really focused on efficiencies and modernizing government operations. That is about, give or take, between 55% and 58% of total savings. This is focused on back-office efficiencies, reducing administrative functions and leveraging new technologies. Really, it's being more productive with existing resources.

As well, when we look at recalibrating government programs, the idea behind that stream was to look at programming that, as the deputy said, was of lower value or maybe was not performing as intended, because there are better uses for those resources.

This was the plan that was set out in the budget. At this moment, this has been effected in the main estimates for 2026-27, and it's going according to plan.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Are you in any way concerned—coming back to my colleague's question about the turmoil in the world—about economic conditions that might derail this particular plan as we move forward?

[Thomas Larouche]

The government is always looking at conditions, and we need to react as necessary. One thing that's important to keep in mind is that in very large organizations like the federal public service, which has a lot of different departments, it's good practice to look at spending and to be more efficient, regardless of the country. The OECD and a lot of observers say that, so it's a good thing to look at our spending and see where we can be more efficient.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

This was not just an across-the-board exercise cut. That was not at all what this comprehensive expenditure review was all about; I've heard that said.

[Thomas Larouche]

I mean, it has features of both. In the budget, what is said is that it's not across the board. This is in the sense that the targets are variable; they vary by organization. For example, National Defence, the security organizations, the RCMP and the CBSA have lower targets. That's a recognition of the fact that there are government priorities in this area.

One of the design features of the review was to really minimize impacts on the safety and security of Canadians. Indigenous Services Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, and Women and Gender Equality Canada also have lower targets. The targets vary by organization in that sense. It's not one-size-fits-all across the board.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks very much.

Go ahead, Madame Gaudreau.

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

I’ll continue with my series of questions.

We are talking about the energy transition and green growth. I think you will agree with me that a climate transition requires massive investment.

How does the government intend to uphold its commitments on the environment and green growth, or even go further, when it is prioritizing other areas, such as defence?

[Thomas Larouche]

In the budget, the government spoke of a climate strategy. I think it is currently working on its approach and that details are to follow.

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

Will this be in the next economic statement?