Finance committee  Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie. That's an interesting question. It's often in the government's interest to advertise the merits of its policies and proposals to ensure the public accepts them. I think the government does a pretty good job in that regard. My office's role is obviously to provide cost analyses.

Finance committee  The capital gains applies to relatively few taxpayers, and the revenue from a capital gains inclusion rate increase is highly dependent on the behaviour of those corporations and individuals that can generate those capital gains. What we've seen with the announcement in advance is that there is likely to be room for some transactions being advanced in time.

Finance committee  Thank you, Mr. Turnbull. The error you're referring to is that we have included inadvertently, as I said in my opening remarks, not only the economic impact of the carbon tax but also that of the industrial emitters—the output-based pricing regime. The results published in our reports are including the government's entire climate plan, so in that sense it's not an error.

Finance committee  Exactly. I said that clearly.

Finance committee  I just want to clarify that the results are valid to the condition, understanding that they include not only the carbon tax but also the output-based pricing systems.

Finance committee  Well, the government made a commitment a few years ago to have a declining debt-to-GDP ratio over time. However, what we have seen is that the ratio increased for a year, then slightly declined. It is still not reaching the starting point, even after the pandemic. What we see is an increase and then a very gentle decline over the next couple of years, based on the government's own estimates.

Finance committee  We estimate, based on the budget document tabled on April 16, that there's a 72% chance that the federal debt-to-GDP ratio in 2029 will be below its 2022-23 level of 41.7%. However, as you pointed out, that's assuming there are no new measures beyond those that were announced in the most recent budget—or at least that, if there are new measures, they are offset by expenditure reductions elsewhere, or by tax increases.

Finance committee  Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. First, I'd like to say a few words about the office's work on carbon pricing. In April of this year, in the course of reviewing and updating our computable general equilibrium or CGE model, PBO staff discovered that the original CGE simulations underlying our March 2022 distributional analysis of carbon pricing inadvertently included the economic impact of both the federal equivalent fuel charge and the output-based pricing system.

Health committee  That, unfortunately, I don't know off the top of my head.

Health committee  I'm sorry. Lisa tells me that we have the numbers, so I'll probably let her speak.

Health committee  The numbers that Lisa mentioned are the expenditures that are currently being covered by public, private and out-of-pocket expenditures. For the drugs under Bill C-64— contraceptives and diabetes—it's about $5.7 billion. Assuming that all these expenditures would be covered by the federal government, that's how much it would cost.

Health committee  Everybody needs these expensive drugs, unfortunately, but it's true that while generic drugs tend to be a relatively small portion of all prescriptions, they are a much higher portion of total expenditures. You're right that when new drugs come onto the market, they tend to be much more expensive than generic drugs, as I'm sure Mr.

Health committee  Yes, we took into account inflation, past inflation as well as our projections for future inflation.

Health committee  No, we did not include any provinces potentially reducing coverage for diabetes and contraceptives.

Health committee  It is indeed a risk, as is the case if some employers decide to reduce their coverage, knowing that there is a public plan that would cover their employees.