Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.
Public Accounts committee That's how it used to work, and that is the way it works now. The change was put in place to correct for the fact that under the previous legislation the reduction in the public sector benefits was more than warranted by the CPP benefit that the employee received. Just to use a v
November 20th, 2007Committee meeting
Paul Rochon
Public Accounts committee It's the large bulk of it.
November 20th, 2007Committee meeting
Paul Rochon
Public Accounts committee It's about $3 billion, as I recall. I'd have to get an exact number, but it's significant.
November 20th, 2007Committee meeting
Paul Rochon
Public Accounts committee Over time--
November 20th, 2007Committee meeting
Paul Rochon
Public Accounts committee I can answer that. About 12% of that is owed to foreign lenders, and I distinguish between the amounts of debt that are owed to foreign lenders versus the debt that's actually denominated in foreign currencies. The latter is an even smaller amount. It's in the order of 2% to 3%.
November 20th, 2007Committee meeting
Paul Rochon
Public Accounts committee I believe the significant difference reflects an actuarial adjustment to pension benefits reflecting legislative changes that were previously made to improve the integration of the CPP and the public sector pension plans. There was a problem with the integration whereby previousl
November 20th, 2007Committee meeting
Paul Rochon
Public Accounts committee Sure, I can give you a quick answer to that. The government announced that it would achieve that target three years ahead of when it was initially announced, so in 2011-12.
November 20th, 2007Committee meeting
Paul Rochon
Public Accounts committee I think for the year that's currently under way the government is planning on a debt reduction of $10 billion. I would think this would be sufficient to ensure that the books stay at least in balance. For future years, the government is planning on a debt reduction of $3 billion
November 20th, 2007Committee meeting
Paul Rochon
Public Accounts committee No, I don't.
November 20th, 2007Committee meeting
Paul Rochon
Finance committee The easiest way to answer that is, we plan on the basis of a five-year framework for the fall update or the economic statement, as was presented this year in the fall, and in the budget we go forward on a two-year basis.
November 15th, 2007Committee meeting
Paul Rochon
Finance committee In the budget, yes.
November 15th, 2007Committee meeting
Paul Rochon
Finance committee In fact, in the fall update we provide a five-year forecast for both the economy and the fiscal position of the government. In the budget, decisions are made on a two-year basis, and the projections are provided over the same time period, two years.
November 15th, 2007Committee meeting
Paul Rochon
Finance committee We assumed essentially, as an operating assumption for years three, four, and five, that equalization would grow at roughly 3.5% per year.
November 15th, 2007Committee meeting
Paul Rochon
Finance committee That was purely an operating assumption.
November 15th, 2007Committee meeting
Paul Rochon
Finance committee Yes.
November 15th, 2007Committee meeting
Paul Rochon