Evidence of meeting #47 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was finance.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Tim Wach  Director of Legislative Development, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Diane Lafleur  General Director, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Tom McGirr  Chief, Equalization and Policy Development, Department of Finance
Gérard Lalonde  Director, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Pierre Mercille  Senior Legislative Chief, Sales Tax Division, GST Legislation, Department of Finance

Noon

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Good afternoon, everyone. This is the 47th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. Our orders today are pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, November 4, 2010. We are studying Bill C-47, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 4, 2010 and other measures.

We are very pleased to have officials from the Department of Finance, and the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Jim Flaherty. We have Minister Flaherty for the first hour.

Minister, as you saw when you came in, you were very warmly welcomed by all members of this committee; we appreciate having you here. We look forward to your opening statement, and then we'll have questions from members. Welcome to the committee.

Noon

Whitby—Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance

Thank you, Chair.

I will not go on too long in my opening remarks, to make sure there is lots of time for the committee's questions.

Before I begin, let me congratulate the chair and all members of the finance committee for their work over the past few months on the annual pre-budget consultations. Along with my own consultations as the Minister of Finance, the finance committee's pre-budget consultation helps ensure that Canadians have the chance to make their voices heard. Recommendations flowing from this committee's hearings always inform and influence the ultimate budget content. I urge the finance committee to conclude its work. I know you're in the process of preparing your report, and I look forward to receiving and reviewing your findings.

First, however, I want to urge the committee to study and adopt Bill C-47, the Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act.

The Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act is one of the many measures the Conservative government has taken to address the global economic crisis. The act contains many provisions that are key to Budget 2010 and is thus an important part of Canada's Economic Action Plan, which helps create jobs and contributes to economic growth from coast to coast.

Since July 2009, nearly 430,000 net new jobs have been created in Canada. Of those, 380,000 are full-time jobs. The IMF and the OECD both project Canada to lead the G-7 in economic growth over the next five years; we're not alone in recognizing the strength of the Canadian economy. The Economist magazine calls Canada an economic star; the OECD says “Canada looks good—it shines, actually”.

Our government is on the right track on the economy and for Canadian families. However, as we have said all along, the global economic recovery remains fragile. That's why we must continue to implement Canada's economic action plan and move forward. Bill C-47, the Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act, does precisely that, moving forward to ensure that our economy continues to stay on track.

The act includes measures to help Canadian families get ahead: by indexing the working income tax benefit, or WITB; by allowing RRSP proceeds to be transferred to an RDSP, a registered disability savings plan, on a tax-deferred basis; by allowing a 10-year carry-forward for RDSP grants and bonds; by further strengthening federally regulated pension plans; by measures to cut red tape, helping registered charities with disbursement quota reform, allowing taxpayers to request online notices from the Canada Revenue Agency, reducing the paperwork burden for taxpayers; by measures to close down tax loopholes, such as better targeting of tax incentives for employee stock options and addressing aggressive tax planning relating to TFSAs or tax-free savings accounts; by measures to protect consumers, such as improving the complaint process for consumers when dealing with the financial services industry; and finally, measures to promote clean energy, such as expanding access to accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation.

Clearly the Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act introduces key measures to support Canada's economic recovery. I would like to highlight a few of the aforementioned measures—only a few—starting with closing tax loopholes.

Our Conservative government understands that ending tax loopholes is necessary to ensure that all taxpayers pay their fair share of taxes.

In order to broaden this objective, measures were announced in Budget 2010 and are included in this act regarding the taxation of employee stock options. For instance, changes proposed to the taxation of stock option cash outs will address aggressive tax planning strategies. These strategies have enabled some individuals and businesses to avoid paying taxes on a portion of stock-based compensation.

I'm happy to report that this move in support of fairness has been welcomed even by business. I can't say that the closing of these tax options has been uniformly welcomed by business, because I have heard some concerns expressed by some businesses about the fact that we are taking away a rather lucrative tax option that has been exercised by some. But I think most of the business community accept the fact that we need to have a level playing field and that the key is lower taxes overall, not special tax options that certain groups can take advantage of.

In fact, that view is reflected by John Manley, the president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Here's the way he put it. He said:

...our members have always felt that if you get the system right everybody's going to benefit. ...if you said to them, would you rather have some special treatment on options or would you rather have very competitive corporate income tax rates, they would say we will take the latter, thank you very much. Keep the rates as low as you can. Forget any special loopholes. ...having a fair tax system is going to be the top priority.

Mr. Chair, before I conclude, I would like to address important measures in Bill C-47 related to the RDSP. One of the most important actions our government has taken in support of persons with disabilities has been the creation of the registered disability savings plan. The RDSP helps parents and family members provide long-term financial security for a severely disabled child.

The Sustaining Canada's Economic Recovery Act includes two proposals to further improve the RDSP.

Under the current rules for RRSPs and RRIFs, a deceased individual's RRSP or RRIF proceeds may be transferred on a tax-free basis to the registered retirement savings plan or income fund of a financially dependent infirm child or grandchild. To give parents and grandparents more flexibility in providing for a disabled child's long-term financial security, Bill C-47 proposes to allow a deceased individual's RRSP or RRIF proceeds to be transferred on a tax-free basis to a financially dependent infirm child's or grandchild's RDSP as well.

The second improvement to the RDSP would allow a ten-year carry-forward of Canada disability savings grant and Canada disability savings bond entitlements in an RDSP. Colleagues, this recognizes the fact that many families of children with disabilities may not be able to contribute regularly to their plan. This will give them more opportunity over a longer period of time to top up those RDSPs.

Both proposed changes will further ensure that RDSPs give Canadian families peace of mind, helping them save for the long-term financial security of a loved one with a disability.

Tina Di Vito, director of retirement strategies at BMO Financial Group, called the changes fantastic measures, adding:

...the benefit will be huge. This will allow more people with disabilities to get the care they need. With the RDSP, Canada is leading the world in showing how smart policy can help provide financial security and independence for people with disabilities.

Mr. Chair, in summary, this act will help ensure that the Canadian economy continues to move in the right direction. With support from Canada's economic action plan, the Canadian economy has started to recover. We must continue to provide the steady guidance that has allowed Canada to continue on the right track to recovery.

With that, I invite the questions of the committee.

Thank you, Chair.

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much, Minister Flaherty.

We will start questions from members with Mr. Brison for seven minutes.

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Thank you, Minister, for meeting with us today.

You speak of the global economic system. My first question has to do with the global financial system and our G-20 commitments.

At the London G-20 summit, Canada committed to reshaping its regulatory systems to address macroprudential risk. The commitment was reaffirmed at Pittsburgh and also in Seoul. What new macroprudential measures has Canada implemented in order to meet its G-20 commitments?

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

I'm pleased to say that the reforms that the G-20 has been working on in large part mirror what we've already done in Canada.

We do have a FISC committee, comprised of the leading participants in the Bank of Canada, the Department of Finance, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada, and CDIC. They meet regularly and keep an eye on the macro-economic system in Canada, looking for early warning signs. Canada's regulatory structure and regulatory rules, particularly with respect to the quantity and quality of capital and caps on leverage, have been in fact mirrored in the reforms that have been brought forward to the G-20 by the Financial Stability Board.

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Minister, the FISC committee has been in place since the 1980s. Other countries, including the U.S., the U.K., and also countries in the EU, as well as Australia, have set up financial stability committees that would, in Canada, take the FISC, which is Finance Canada, the Bank of Canada, OSFI, and CDIC, but would also add participants like CMHC. We've been told by your officials that there was work being conducted within these agencies in Canada, with the finance committee, the current members of the FISC committee, and CMHC and other players, to set up a financial stability committee right here in Canada, similar to those that have been set up by our other G-20 partners. We're told by your officials that your government stopped them from doing that and aborted the project. Why was that?

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

I'm not sure how that was put to you. I view the FISC committee as performing that function in Canada. I'm glad we have it. I'm glad we've had it in place for a long time. It has clearly worked well, because Canada has done better than most other countries coming through this recession, which came from outside Canada.

You raise an important point, though, about CMHC, whether CMHC ought to be part of the FISC committee. As you know, CMHC has two mandates: one relates to the provision of affordable housing in Canada; the other relates to the mortgage system and insuring high-ratio mortgages. We have looked at the possibilities of CMHC, with respect to their mortgage insurance view of the world, participating in the FISC, and I'd welcome the advice of this committee on that subject.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Minister, you've said that the financial crisis in Ireland was caused in part by a housing bubble, but I think that's broadly recognized. Various sources, including the Economist Intelligence Unit, say that Canada has a housing bubble that is in some ways worse than Ireland's. Why did your committee go against your officials and abort the formation of a financial stability committee similar to that implemented by other G-20 partners, which could take prudent action to address Canada's housing bubble?

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

First of all, the evidence is not there that Canada has a housing bubble. In fact, the evidence with respect to affordability of mortgages in Canada is solid, and we have a stable market. It's a long, long stretch to compare our housing market with that of Ireland, where the banks were lending money 100% on properties, including second properties. It's a far cry from the Canadian mortgage system.

As you know, we tightened up the provisions with respect to lending on high-ratio mortgages in 2008 and again this year in 2010. Both times those measures, as well as market forces, of course, have had the kind of impact we wanted them to have; that is, a moderation on demand in the housing sector in Canada. In fact, we've seen that moderating demand this year in 2010.

My view is that we have the FISC committee that performs the functions of a financial stability committee. As I mentioned, I think it's a good question whether or not CMHC should join that committee or not, and I welcome your advice on that.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Minister Flaherty, other countries have set up financial stability committees, which are distinct in terms of their mandates from the FISC committees. Your own officials wanted to set up, and were working to set up, a financial stability committee and your government stopped them.

You've said recently that “This is not the time for dangerous and risky new spending schemes that will increase deficits.” Have you spoken to your justice minister about his Truth in Sentencing Act, which initially the department said would cost $90 million over two years and now has said will cost $2 billion to implement? Can you explain this revision from a $90 million cost to a $2 billion cost? And wouldn't you consider this to be a risky new spending scheme that will increase the deficit?

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Minister, you have about 30 seconds on that.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

We have built appropriate costing on government initiatives into the fiscal framework.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

Mr. Paillé, you have seven minutes.

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm happy to have the first opportunity, after a year, to talk to the Minister of Finance for more than two 35-second periods. I'm referring to Question Period in the House of Commons.

Minister, you said that you look forward to receiving our report on pre-budget consultations. The report has actually already been made public, so you can read it now.

I would like to talk a bit about what I'm really pleased with, that is, your plan to set up a securities commission, which you mention in your budget. You probably know that, in June 2010, people like Paul Volcker, Gary Cohn, of Goldman Sachs, and Mary Shapiro came to Montreal for a meeting of the International Organization of Securities Commissions. Last week, you said that the agreement with China was actually signed by the securities commissions of Quebec and other provinces.

It seems to me, however, that the support of important institutions, such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, is rapidly fading. This morning's issue of the National Post contained a very good article by Mr. McIntosh.

The transition plan you released on July 12 stated that the provinces would sign a development agreement by September 2010.The annual report you submitted on October 5 stated that the agreement would be signed in fall 2010. Then, on October 8, a statement was issued saying that there was no need for that agreement.

Shouldn't you should just admit that you're giving up on the initiative.

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

Not at all.

I want to thank the MP for his question.

The initiative is a voluntary one. The provinces may adopt the system, but don't have to. The initiative is of a voluntary nature, as I've always maintained.

Now, this idea of a national securities regulator is before the courts. The Government of Quebec chose to take the matter to court in the Quebec Court of Appeal. That was the choice of the Government of Quebec. We respect the choice of the Government of Quebec to go to court. The Government of Alberta also chose to do the same thing. We respect that choice. I am sure those governments respect our choice as the federal government to refer the entire proposed legislation to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has set aside, as I understand it, two days in April to hear full argument, and I'm sure we'll get a reasoned view from the Supreme Court of Canada about the legislative authority of the Parliament of—

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC

Pardon me, Mr. Chair, but I don't want the Minister to use up all my time.

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

—Canada to legislate in this area. We are the only industrialized country in the world without a national securities regulator.

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC

I understand that, but I don't want you to take up all my time.

You said that membership is voluntary. In the Attorney General of Canada's factum to the Quebec Court of Appeal, your lawyers state that the government's objective is to create a Canadian securities regulatory body. Further on, the document clearly states that the progressive implementation shows the government's willingness to set up a single regulatory body. I think that your sales pitch doesn't hold water. You say that this is how things will turn out and that the opting in is a lock-in.

Are you not merely announcing that the federal government will take control of matters and then, as people will see, it will bulldoze ahead, end of story? If your bill passes, what will become of passports issued by Quebec, Alberta and other non-member provinces? Do you intend to force billers in Canada to switch to a passport system, and will your program result in two passport systems?

What would have happened when the merging took place, when the Montreal Exchange was taken over, when the Autorité des marchés financiers approved the transaction, but stated that there will be no substantial changes unless they are greenlit by that body? If everything becomes centralized in Toronto, how do you expect Quebec financial markets to remain independent?

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

Thank you for the question.

The proposal is for a single national regulator. It may be that some provinces will choose to continue with their own regulatory commissions; that's up to them. The Hockin report, by the way, recommended that this not be an optional system. It was our view that in the spirit of cooperative federalism the option should be given to each province and territory to decide what they wish to do.

These recommendations have been made in Canada since 1935. The big hole we have in regulation in Canada is securities regulation. This is a weakness that is an embarrassment for Canada around the world and we need to fix it.

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC

Simply put, this is an embarrassment for you. It's an embarrassment for Toronto because everyone knows that you want to set up the regulatory body there. However, you mention the Hockin report. Have you read...

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

You have 30 seconds left.

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC

Have you read the Lortie report? Pierre Lortie is not just an average Joe; the man was chairman of the securities commission...

This is my time, Mr. Chair, and I intend to use it.

I would like to give to the Minister a copy of

Securities Regulation in Canada at a Crossroads, by Pierre Lortie. I think you have to read it.

12:25 p.m.

Voices

Oh, oh!

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Minister, you have 10 seconds to tell us whether you've read that report.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

I've read some of what Mr. Lortie has written in the journals and the newspapers, and he's entitled to his view.