Finance committee  We flag that in our report by raising a couple of issues of interest to parliamentarians. One of them is the government's progress in meeting its fiscal anchors. As you pointed out, one of the fiscal anchors that the government had was balancing the budget by 2019-20. It never—t

Finance committee  Officially, not to my knowledge or explicitly. In fact, the website that tracks mandate letter commitments still shows that commitment as “Actions taken, progress made, facing challenges”.

Finance committee  There are challenges, yes, but it's obvious that this fiscal anchor has been abandoned. There's no doubt about that. In our report, we suggest that the government might want to be more explicit about that and focus instead on the federal debt-to-GDP ratio.

Finance committee  You have raised two points. The first is the fact that the federal budget and the estimates will be better aligned, that is to say the parliamentary appropriations which you, as parliamentarians, must make decisions about. I think this is an improvement to transparency. Accordin

Finance committee  Yes. It's a big cloud of uncertainty.

Finance committee  We talk about that in the report. We talk about the distinction the budget makes between departmental spending—which is projected to increase at an annual growth rate of approximately 3%—and spending obligations related to the public service pension and benefits plan—which are ex

Finance committee  It has to do with the relative weight given to various factors. I can't speak for private sector economists or the Bank of Canada. As for our office, we expect business investment to pick up during the second half of 2019, with energy prices and the curtailment of Alberta oil pr

Finance committee  We wanted to look at the impact of the investing in Canada plan, so we focused mostly on this. With respect to the specifics, I think Jason would be in a better position to answer your question.

Finance committee  As Jason mentioned, the aim of the report was to look at whether there was indeed incrementality as a result of the federal investments. That was one of the main goals of the federal government's programs when they were announced in 2016. Incrementality at that point was an impor

Finance committee  Do you mean in the non-announced measures?

Finance committee  That's not what we find. In fact what we find is that in aggregate there could be $4 billion of non-announced measures, but it translates into a net minus $3.8 billion. It's thus either a net reduction in expenditures, increases in taxes or a combination of both. In your scenar

Finance committee  It could be anything that the government has not yet announced. It could be a tax increase. It could be an expenditure reduction of any sort. It can be virtually anything.

Finance committee  It's quite common, when the government has valid reasons to believe that it will indeed announce such measures. It has either made a decision already or there is a certain level of certainty with respect to actions the government will make, but it's not ready to announce it. That

Finance committee  Yes. The fact that it was a non-announced measure in the budget suggests it's more advanced and they will have to find—

Finance committee  It's laid out on page 30 of the English version.