Public Accounts Committee on March 5th, 2013

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you.

As a follow-up question with respect to government spending, “Government actions to return to balanced budgets over the medium term and preserve social programs will help ensure that public finances remain sustainable”—there's no doubt about that—“while maintaining Canada's long-term economic and fiscal prospects.”

On that note, I'm wondering how important will restraining government spending and ensuring existing spending is as efficient and effective as possible be to maintaining a sustainable fiscal track for Canada going forward and providing Canada with the flexibility to respond to unexpected economic shocks in the future.

[Nancy Cheng]

Mr. Chair, we did not specifically look at the impact of spending measures in our audit. Having said that though, when we look at the overall analysis for budget 2012, we identify that spending measures would be an important factor as well in terms of making sure the government is on a sustainable path. The big measure there is the CHT, the Canada health transfer, which accounts for about 60% of the government's improved situation. We have identified that in paragraph 7.54.

We also highlighted the fact that changing the age of eligibility for the OAS is contributing to that and also the spending restraint measure, which is what the member talked about a moment ago.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Chair, how is my time?

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

You've got a minute and a half.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

You mention that spending is a factor. How important a factor? A number one factor?

[Nancy Cheng]

Mr. Chair, we have not done a specific analysis on spending restraint as a measure. We looked at six specific measures and we looked at the overall impact. We would not be able to identify the exact extent to which the spending restraint contributes to the overall improved picture.

The single biggest factor is the change in the CHT escalator that was discussed a few minutes ago, and that alone accounts for 60% of the improved picture for the government.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

CHT being...?

[Nancy Cheng]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, it's the Canada health transfer program.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Okay. That accounts for 60%.

Could you just outline, for my benefit, a few of the other factors as well?

[Nancy Cheng]

In the report we highlighted primarily three factors: the CHT, the Canada health transfer program; the old age security, increasing the age of eligibility; and the spending restraint. But the lion's share is borne by the CHT program.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Which you say is over 60%.

[Nancy Cheng]

About 60%.

[Jay Aspin, Conservative, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, NDP, David Christopherson]

Thank you.

We'll move over now to Mr. Byrne. You have the floor.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like our witnesses to draw their attention to the issue of making long-term fiscal sustainability analyses public.

Ms. Cheng, you noted in your remarks that long-term fiscal sustainability analyses have been regularly prepared since 2010. Without prejudice, notwithstanding the issue of making provincial or territorial analyses public, which I'll defer because the issue is a bit contentious, regarding the federal fiscal long-term sustainability analyses, are you disappointed and is the Auditor General of Canada disappointed that the Government of Canada has failed to make public the long-term fiscal sustainability analyses that have been prepared since 2010?

[Nancy Cheng]

Mr. Chair, we basically noted the situation. As a matter of fact, we did identify that some years ago when we did a study on long-term demographics. We did encourage the government to provide information in a public forum. We saw that the government made a commitment in 2007 to provide such information, so our hope and expectation were to see that the government does make this particular information public. The government did not, and we basically take note as a matter of fact.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Are there negative consequences to parliamentary oversight of government spending by not making this information public, either to parliamentarians or to the Canadian public?

[Nancy Cheng]

We certainly see the value of providing this information to Parliament and the public. In the report we actually identify a number of benefits. These are our thoughts, but also they are identified by various best practices that we saw, including recommendations from the OECD, and that would be on page 18. You see that in paragraph 7.52 we talked about increasing transparency, increasing the ability for Canadians to better understand what the future looks like based on the analysis of the impact of the specific measure. It helps hold leaders accountable. It also provides more transparency to capital markets that might wish to invest in Canada. The list goes on, and there are a number of benefits.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you.

On page 2 of the Auditor General's report it states:

This lack of reporting means that parliamentarians and Canadians do not have all the relevant information to understand the long-term impact of budgets on the federal, provincial, and territorial governments in order to support public debate and to hold the government to account.

Ms. Cheng, did you or your principal auditor, Mr. Domingue, have an opportunity to review these reports dating back to 2010, 2011, and 2012?

[Nancy Cheng]

Mr. Chair, I believe we did have access to the 2007 report. I don't know if we did review other reports that were published more regularly. We wanted to know whether those reports were being prepared and how often they were prepared. Based on the evidence that we saw, we were able to conclude that in 2010 onward they were prepared regularly.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

So you know that they exist.

[Nancy Cheng]

Yes.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Then I'll turn to Mr. Robidoux.

Would you be prepared, Mr. Robidoux, to make these reports available to the committee for our own analysis, since they are indeed referenced in the Auditor General's report?

[Benoît Robidoux]

I think you have the report of the government with you, or if you don't, we could provide it to you, the one that has been published. I think this is the report. I think the other reports that are mentioned are not reports but are analyses that we are doing on a regular basis to advise the Minister of Finance.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Thank you, but it says in the Auditor General's report, “While long-term fiscal sustainability analyses have been regularly prepared since 2010, they have not been made public”. Would you be prepared to make those reports that are noted in the Auditor General's report now public, since 2010?