Government Operations Committee on June 16th, 2026

[Annette Ryan]

It's a calculation that you for sure could do depending on what you think GDP is going to do. There's certainly some sensitivity work we could do in that space. It goes to the government's assertion that by investing more, they're going to expand the base and get a virtuous circle of more GDP, but the government has also been clear that a number of risks could transpire. If it doesn't come through, then the debt is certain to remain.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

On page 5, you note that the increases to the government's revenues are being generated by higher energy prices, not stronger economic activity. Is that correct?

[Annette Ryan]

I would say that currently, a lot of the government's revenues have been generated by energy prices.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's your time.

Ms. Sudds, go ahead.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Ryan and all of your team, for being with us here today.

I'm going to continue on a similar track, as one of the things that caught my eye in your analysis of the supplementary estimates was the reduction in projected public debt charges. Given that debt servicing costs are often a major focus of fiscal debates in this committee and, of course, in the House, I think it's important that Canadians understand what's driving those changes.

Your report notes a reduction of approximately $1.5 billion in projected public debt charges. Can you explain what factors have contributed to that improvement and tell us a bit about it in relation to Canada's current fiscal outlook?

[Annette Ryan]

Thank you for drawing attention to that. I think it's important to shed light on the positive news as well.

That type of analysis shows up both in the study that we did on the supplementary estimates (A), which is the track of what's being put before Parliament right now, and in the economic and fiscal outlook, where we project lower debt service costs, versus previous forecasts, as being a positive factor for the forward deficit and debt projections.

Principally, conservative budgeting approaches showed up as being warranted and prudent so that as conditions came forward to have a better interest rate profile than had been previously forecast, that let those charges come in lower than previously forecast.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

That's excellent. Thank you for that explanation. It's very helpful for those who are paying attention.

Moving on, or pivoting slightly, we're certainly living in a period of considerable global uncertainty. Trade relationships, of course, are shifting, geopolitical tensions remain elevated and many advanced economies are facing fiscal pressures after years of responding to successive crises.

Looking strictly at the fiscal indicators and the economic outlook, does Canada enter this period of global uncertainty from a position of relative strength compared to most advanced economies?

[Annette Ryan]

Your question is well framed in flagging a context that is still precarious and will give us some bumpiness and some scruffiness going forward.

There are many reasons to think that Canada comes into this period from an advantageous position. We spoke earlier about the economic conditions that are positive, including our natural resources—which are definitely always a strength for Canada—and our vibrant, educated workforce. Our tax levels compare favourably, in many ways, to those of other countries, and our federal debt is lower on a comparative basis than in other G7 countries. Those are all positives that work in Canada's favour.

That said, our business conditions have been concerning for quite a while. Our productivity numbers, our business investment, our research and development and our entrepreneurship numbers have been flat for quite a while, and that has translated similarly into a lack of growth in GDP per capita over an extended time period. That raises concerns as well.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

Would it be fair to say that maintaining fiscal capacity today gives Canada more flexibility than many of our peers to respond to future economic and national security challenges?

[Annette Ryan]

That is absolutely a straightforward statement.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

Thank you.

I think that's my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You have 13 seconds. OGGO thanks you.

Madame Gaudreau, you have two and a half minutes, plus 13 seconds of Ms. Sudds' time.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's kind.

Ms. Ryan, I have three follow-up questions about major projects and growth.

In terms of public finances, is the main risk today surplus investment or a deficit in productive investment? It's about the quality of investments.

[Annette Ryan]

You would need to clarify what you mean by surplus and deficit.

I'll start by saying that one of the arguments that's been made in the last decade is that the lack of major projects contributes to the lack of productivity growth. In other words, there's a deficit in terms of major projects.

Your question relates to the bottleneck and constraints associated with having a large number of major projects that we want to advance at the same time. The availability of labour, management skills and funding must be taken into account to advance so many projects at the same time.

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

This brings me to the following question: When it comes to fiscal quality, are there sectors where public spending is increasing faster than it is delivering results?

[Annette Ryan]

I understand the logic of your question, but I don't have an answer for you today.

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

Is it possible to answer it?

[Annette Ryan]

I would ask you to—

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

I'll put the question in writing for you.

I'm done, but I'll add that the problem isn't just how the money is being spent. It's also about the purpose behind it.

My time is up. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Colleagues, I just got a note from one of our associates in the House saying that there's a vote coming. We'll have 30-minute bells, of course. If the lights flash, can we agree that we'll continue, at least until we get through our last two interventions?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That's wonderful.

Next we have Ms. Jansen for five minutes, and then we'll finish with Ms. Martin for five minutes.

Go ahead, Ms. Jansen.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

To follow-up on my colleague's question, can we get you to produce a report on the projected future costs to our GDP due to red tape and regulatory uncertainty?

[Annette Ryan]

I would be happy to work with you on how you would define those things and see what's possible.