Government Operations committee  I can certainly get back to the committee with that information.

Government Operations committee  My main concerns relate to the fact that, for parliamentarians and Canadians who have an interest in budget making, the main estimates are tabled before the budget, so the mains do not include any budgetary initiatives. You're asked as parliamentarians to review the main estimate

Government Operations committee  We have not estimated the value of such a measure, but I believe the committee has expressed a desire for me to do that work. So, if that is indeed the desire of the committee through a motion, we can provide you with a more detailed estimate of the cost of applying this to senio

Government Operations committee  To my knowledge, no cost-benefit analysis has been done—as I think that's what you're referring to—on whether or not to increase benefits for seniors aged 65 to 74 by 10%.

Government Operations committee  That calculation may have been done before, but not recently, at least not to my knowledge. I know it's not something we've done. I don't know if it was done by the government when the 10% increase for those aged 75 and older was being considered or announced.

Government Operations committee  That can be one of the intentions behind that. I'm not sure about the extent to which that will be effective, because it's not something that I have personally studied, nor have we looked at the incentive impact of a differential treatment of those ages 65 to 74 versus 75 and abo

Government Operations committee  I can't speak to the intention of the government when it announced that in 2011. I can probably safely say that there are two main reasons for doing that. One reason can be to reduce the overall cost of the program. The other reason can be to provide further work incentives. When

Government Operations committee  I don't know how many exactly, because I think the intent was to implement it gradually—advancing or postponing the age of retirement or eligibility for elderly benefits by two months per year or something like that. It would have made a difference to probably thousands and thous

Government Operations committee  That's a policy decision. I'll let you, amongst yourselves, as parliamentarians, debate what is a good idea and what is a bad idea when it comes to policy decisions.

Government Operations committee  It will certainly make more seniors tax-free. It will ensure that more seniors do not pay taxes. Those who still pay taxes will pay lower taxes, with the increase in the basic personal amount.

Government Operations committee  It's not something that's usual, especially when the amounts are fairly specific and vary from year to year. You mentioned the net amount over five years, I believe. Again, the amounts are positive and fairly accurate in some years, but negative in other years. So the absolute va

Government Operations committee  I do not want to suggest that there is anything untoward or unduly hidden. However, I am concerned for one reason: When the government announces the measures behind these amounts, it will be very difficult to match the amounts that are mentioned in the budget with the initiatives

Government Operations committee  The federal debt-to-GDP ratio is increasing in the short term as a result of slower-than-expected GDP growth—so, inflation and nominal GDP. Inflation is expected to slow down. Also, government spending, notably the deficit, is expected to increase, which will put pressure on the

Government Operations committee  If the government wanted to keep the debt-to-GDP ratio on a downward trend in each and every one of these years, it would need to either increase taxes this year and next or decrease spending—or a combination of both—to ensure that the ratio maintains a downward trajectory in eac

Government Operations committee  It's a difference in the growth. The growth is expected to be slightly lower in the outer years, because of the faster growth earlier in the period. It's a displacement in growth.