Evidence of meeting #130 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was subcommittee.
A video is available from Parliament.
Noon
Conservative
Noon
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you.
Let me start by saying welcome back again. I'm glad that this is a committee that you feel quite comfortable coming to on very short notice, even nowadays when the situation is hot.
We've talked about a number of things here, aside from the supplementary estimates (A), so I'm going to go on that path as well. Thank you for clarifying on the gag order. You've done that in both official languages, so thank you very much.
Can you quickly highlight what the difference is between a raw data file that was transferred to you as opposed to a so-called secret report by the government? Can you distinguish the difference between those two? Also, is there a secret report that you are holding, that the government may have passed to you?
Noon
Senior Advisor, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Thank you for the question.
The information we requested related to estimates of the economic impact of carbon pricing. We were referring to a report that the government had published entitled “How pollution pricing reduces emissions”. We wanted the corresponding economic data related to those emissions. That information was provided in the form of an Excel spreadsheet and was very detailed. It did fulfill our request in terms of the nature of the data—national and provincial GDP, impacts on investment and labour income. That was provided.
However, as Mr. Giroux said, we were restricted from distributing that or disclosing the data itself until the government published that last week, on June 13.
Noon
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you for that.
Mr. Giroux, has your office done any study on the capital gains policy that's being released?
Noon
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
We haven't yet. We're in the information-gathering stage. We sent information requests to the Canada Revenue Agency. We are waiting for that data, but we are planning on doing that as soon as we get data that we can use.
June 17th, 2024 / noon
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you.
Lots of my colleagues across were asking questions as if.... Thank you for being comfortable to at least share your thoughts, at a given point, with reference to the already existing information, while you don't have all the data and you haven't done a report. You qualified that in your statement. You said that you haven't done the report and that there is no analysis yet, but that if you look at that instance, these are the indications. Thank you for also clarifying that there has been no capital gains study done yet, but you plan to do it.
Now, with about two minutes left, I'd like to go back to the supplementary estimates (A). Planned spending on professional and special services account for about $704 million in proposed spending, bringing the total proposed authorities to about $19.8 billion. What trends do you see in that? Is the government on track, in your opinion, in terms of reducing the professional services?
12:05 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
It's a bit early to be definitive about that, but based on the current year-to-date trend, I would say that the authorities suggest that it will be difficult. It's still possible to reduce spending on professional and special services, but the authorities, to date, suggest that departments will have authorities to spend close to, or even above, what was spent in 2022-23.
We don't have the final numbers for 2023-24 yet, but the authorities are $1.8 billion lower than they were in 2023-24, and there are still supplementary estimates (B) and (C), so we could be very close to last year's authorities.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
These supplementary estimates are seeking $1.6 billion across 11 initiatives as compared to the $7.2 billion across 17 different initiatives last year. What's the difference?
12:05 p.m.
Senior Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
For the budget measures, that's the amount we're at for implementation in supplementary estimates (A). We don't have much more information to share, other than it might just be a bit of a slower pace of implementation. As we noted before, the later budget this year could explain why we're seeing less coming through supplementary estimates (A) this year as compared to last year.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
We go to Mr. Savard-Tremblay for two and a half minutes, please.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Giroux, on page 8 of your report on these supplementary estimates, we can see the number of new zero-emission vehicle registrations as well as the proportion of all new vehicle registrations that this represents. For example, the proportion for 2023 is 10.8%.
However, we know that the plan is that there be no new gasoline vehicles by 2030.
Do we have any idea what might happen after that?
12:05 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Given that the mandate will be binding on manufacturers and importers due to regulations, we expect the targets set by the government to be met so that there will be no new internal combustion vehicles by 2035.
So far, efforts in this regard have been voluntary. Given that regulations will be binding from now on, we expect the proportion of new zero-emission vehicles to reach 20% in 2026, gradually rising to 40%, then 60%, and finally reaching 100%.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
There are figures here, but do we have any idea of the expenses this would represent?
12:05 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
We haven't made any projections in terms of spending, because given the binding mandate for vehicles to be imported or sold, manufacturers may no longer need subsidies as much. So it wouldn't be necessary to have both at the same time. If there is a binding mandate, subsidies may no longer be necessary.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
On page 12, it states that “PBO did not receive a breakdown by spending type for all organizations”.
My question may seem both naive and far-reaching: How do you get your work done?
12:05 p.m.
Senior Analyst, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
We are still waiting for data to do the analysis.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
How are you going to get access to it soon?
Can we have access to more details, too?
12:05 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Just so we're clear, you're talking about professional and special services, right?
12:05 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
We operate on a macro approach, i.e., we look at the data included in the main and supplementary budgets, which gives us an overview of overall authorizations. If we want a more precise breakdown, we can ask for it during the year, hoping to get that data.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay Bloc Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC
As my time is coming to an end and my next questions require some development, I'll just say thank you.
12:10 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
I accept your thanks.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kelly McCauley
Thanks.
Mr. Green, for your final intervention you have two and a half minutes, please.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Green NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I actually just have a concluding question, so feel free to take your time and answer it to the best of your abilities. I want to go back to the original analysis on the carbon rebate. When you did your original analysis you claimed that, while most families would receive more from rebates than they paid into carbon pricing, those benefits would be erased once the impact on job growth and incomes was factored in. You did not, however, factor in the impacts of climate change if the tax is not implemented.
Why did you choose to analyze the potential impacts on job growth but not on climate change, especially given that the Canadian Climate Institute estimates that, by 2030, the changing climate and extreme weather events could cost the Canadian economy $35 billion?
