Government Operations Committee on April 30th, 2026

[Annette Ryan]

Let me say that I work for parliamentarians. I do not take direction from PMO.

In the testimony, repeating the government's key statement of what it intends to do, to me, is important to understanding what they say their objectives are so that, as Parliamentary Budget Officer, I can work with the teams and say, “How can we track if the government is actually spending less?”

As I opened with, earlier in questioning, there is very little information on the comprehensive expenditure reduction plan in the spring economic statement. I intend to publish, next week, material that says so publicly in greater detail, and bring forward questions that parliamentarians may want to use to hold the government's feet to the fire, as we will, as well, with our costing. That's very much the commitment.

I look forward to building your trust and helping you see that I am not here to promote the government's vision but, rather, to challenge it and to help parliamentarians know, as governments spend more, what the plans are. Who is responsible for that? What will be delivered? What are the metrics that the government is using to track success? What does that mean for Canadians, in terms of better services, less regulation and greater interprovincial trade? No matter what the objective is, how can we follow that through, from budget promises to spending requests and to results?

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you. I'm looking forward to that report you're talking about, Ms. Ryan.

Your predecessor Mr. Jacques was truly a fantastic watchdog and someone I admire personally, but he was criticized, at times, for being blunt about the country's finances. Whether people agreed with him or not, Canadians understood where he stood and what the risks were.

If you believe the government is heading in the wrong financial direction, I hope you too are prepared to point that out in the plain terms and blunt language we have come to expect from our PBO.

[Annette Ryan]

I think it is very important that the work of the PBO be done rigorously, with the highest standard of excellence and independence. I also believe it should communicate clearly in ways that can help parliamentarians support debate and, again, hold the government's feet to the fire.

I look forward to your receiving our initial report next week so that you can judge whether that test is being met.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

I have a quick question reflecting back to your time at FINTRAC. You were there in a senior role.

That agency helps track suspicious financial transactions, money laundering and those kinds of things. Over several years, $18 trillion in transactions moved through weak anti-money laundering controls at the Canadian-based TD Bank. I was left wondering why FINTRAC only issued $9.2 million in administrative penalties, while U.S. authorities got over $3 billion in U.S. money and also secured a criminal conviction. I believe this was in 2024.

What lessons did you take from that experience? Do you believe Canada's system today is properly connected—FINTRAC, police agencies and international partners—or are there still serious gaps? Can you apply those lessons to this new position and identify fraud in government agencies early on?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm afraid there's no time left for a response. Maybe you can provide one in writing to us.

We'll go to Ms. Sudds.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I give you a warm welcome, Ms. Ryan. Congratulations. We're certainly happy to have you in this role and at committee today.

For my first question, I'm thinking through some of our government's priorities around catalyzing large-scale investment, most recently through initiatives like the sovereign wealth fund and the Major Projects Office.

I'm wondering what impact you believe this type of public-led investment strategy can have on long-term productivity and economic growth.

[Annette Ryan]

Let me start with the sovereign wealth fund, the Canada Strong fund. I think the announcement in the spring economic statement raised more questions than it answered. In terms of long-term growth, let me speak to some of the questions that come to mind from what was presented in that statement.

The statement set out the government's objectives as essentially twofold. One is to grow the economy, build infrastructure and tackle productivity, which is really quite a broad range of actions to make the economy better. The other is to essentially allow Canadians to invest in that fund so they would be protected from downside risk and would be able to benefit from upside risk that would be tagged as a great rate of return.

Canadians already have a stake in the spending of public money through the debt, debt charges and taxes that they pay. I think there's an important set of governance and transparency questions about how those debt charges will be calculated in that rate of return and what transparency and protections against misappropriation and misuse will happen in terms of how investors can benefit from those public funds but be protected from downside risks and loan losses, and who will track those loan losses and who will benefit from those loans.

Separately, I think there are a range of questions raised in terms of spending less to invest more.

If the government is not happy with how the mixture of EDC, BDC, the Canada Infrastructure Bank, regional development agencies, grants and contributions on business, and tax breaks for business is not delivering results, it would be helpful if the government could be clearer on what gap it's trying to solve with this new agency that will have overhead and the transparency questions that I tagged earlier.

If that's the path forward and the protections are in place, where will the government spend less in terms of that large suite of expenditures that are already targeted at meeting those objectives?

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

That's fair. Thank you for that. I agree that there are many questions, and I think the Prime Minister and the government have been clear that there is a plan and there needs to be consultation as to the finality of what this looks like, and, of course, governance and transparency are certainly among the things on which work needs to be done.

I don't have a lot of time, but I do have one more quick question.

Earlier this month, our government announced it would be pausing the federal fuel excise tax to bring down the cost at the pump on average by around 10¢ a litre for gas and four cents for diesel. From my perspective, this is a sound policy that is temporary, targeted and helps with affordability, and it gives space, I think, for the bank to help make its rate decisions.

Can you speak to this at a macro level?

[Annette Ryan]

We have a paper coming out next week that will show our calculations.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

Very good.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Well done. You had seven seconds left.

Madame Gaudreau, please go ahead.

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

I'm going to try to be efficient as well, because I have three questions to ask in two minutes and 41 seconds.

First, I'd like to talk about the sovereign wealth fund. Many of us are wondering about the difference between a Norwegian-style sovereign wealth fund and the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, for example. How could this be described? In my opinion, it's more like the government is getting a credit card. Can you explain this to us?

[Annette Ryan]

As I just said in English, I think the announcement earlier this week about the Canada Strong fund raised more questions than it answered. I think there's a real risk that the structure of this fund will function more like a credit card with no repayment. As another member of the committee said, this raises issues of governance and taxpayer protection, and these issues will be of great interest to the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, as well as to—

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

We're therefore going to ask for an update on the economic update so that we can get more answers. That's a bad play on repeated wording. I don't know how it will be translated.

[Annette Ryan]

I agree.

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

My other question concerns the report that will be published in the coming days. Have you received all the relevant information on the contracts related to Cúram and Phoenix, for example? Even in the update, we are shown the cost, we are told that it cost less, and in the end, it's costing five times as much. In fact, it's five or ten times—I'm no economist—the equivalent of SAAQclic.

Do you have everything you need?

[Annette Ryan]

The notes that will be published by the office next week will be presented in a new editorial style. It's a quick analysis comparing the economic update documents with the promises made in budget 2025. It's structured to provide parliamentarians with a quick analysis of what's in the update and what's not. For example, do the figures on the number of houses built match what was stated in the 2025 budget?

So this analysis doesn't focus on cost estimates or the cost of specific government measures. Rather, it is intended to share with you what we've observed, as highly qualified and experienced economists, to provide you with questions.

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

I'll have my answer next week, when she comes to meet with all of us.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Madame Gaudreau.

Mr. Patzer, please go ahead, and then we'll finish with Mr. Gasparro.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Thank you very much.

I appreciate your coming here today, and I'd like to quickly thank you, Mr. Jacques, for your time as interim PBO.

Ms. Ryan, did you receive any briefings at all prior to your appearance at the finance committee or the Senate?

[Annette Ryan]

Briefings from whom?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

From any government agency, PCO or anybody at all.

[Annette Ryan]

The Privy Council Office has an expert on contract who helps people prep for committees. I spent two hours with that person, who is a former journalist, and he peppered me with a few questions. I said, “That's a good one. Let me think about it and I'll come back to you,” but no, I certainly wasn't coached or briefed by government officials.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Thank you very much.

How did you decide to apply for the role of PBO? Were you approached for the role?

[Annette Ryan]

I was approached by a retired deputy minister who was working with PCO to encourage qualified candidates to apply for the poster. That was in November 2025, and he did ask me about my background. He knew where I had worked in some aspects of my career but was a bit surprised that I had a wider breadth than he might have thought.

We spoke in French.

After that, he did encourage me to apply for the poster.