Evidence of meeting #26 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mic.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Dale Koeller  Vice-President, Calvert Home Mortgage Investment Corporation
Susan Eng  Vice-President, Advocacy, Canadian Association of Retired Persons
Susan St. Amand  Chair, Conference for Advanced Life Underwriting
Kevin Wark  President, Conference for Advanced Life Underwriting
John deHooge  Fire Chief, Ottawa Fire Services, Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs
David Macdonald  Economist, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

6:50 p.m.

Vice-President, Calvert Home Mortgage Investment Corporation

Dale Koeller

I apologize. I'm not sure I understand how people are using their RRSPs as they are not intended. To me, the way our MIC operates, we're very much using it within the confines of the Income Tax Act. We're not investing anything we should not be. We'd be happy to open up that question: are MICs investing in something they shouldn't be? I believe we could fix that and close that loophole. That could be a legitimate loophole.

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Describe how you do it in your business. Do you mind doing that?

6:50 p.m.

Vice-President, Calvert Home Mortgage Investment Corporation

Dale Koeller

Not at all. Do you mean how we invest?

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Yes, and how you combine your RRSP with the MIC.

6:50 p.m.

Vice-President, Calvert Home Mortgage Investment Corporation

Dale Koeller

I buy shares in my corporation. I either buy them directly, outside of my RRSP, or I invest the money in my RRSP, and the RRSP then buys the MIC shares. I can invest in my own MIC either way. Typically, I would say maybe half of our share certificates are in RRSPs versus non-RRSPs.

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Just repeat the first part again as to what you do, so I make sure I have that correct.

6:50 p.m.

Vice-President, Calvert Home Mortgage Investment Corporation

Dale Koeller

Sorry, which part?

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

The first part of what you said. Just repeat that.

6:50 p.m.

Vice-President, Calvert Home Mortgage Investment Corporation

Dale Koeller

I can either own shares of the MIC directly, or they are owned through my RRSP. I could buy Suncor shares in my RRSP or outside my RRSP. It happens either way.

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Suncor pays corporate tax. The MIC does not.

6:50 p.m.

Vice-President, Calvert Home Mortgage Investment Corporation

Dale Koeller

Yes, that's absolutely correct. MICs were intended to be a flow-though from their creation.

6:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

I understand that. The problem the Department of Finance has identified.... And I have to say that the more reading I do, the more I'm sympathetic to what the finance department is saying, in the sense that the RRSP is being used for an unfair advantage here. It is not fair, because MICs do not pay corporate tax. Therefore, if the RRSP is being used in this purpose, it's not appropriate. RRSPs are supposed to be used for retirement, and not for, as you've said, investing in your own company.

I'm engaging in a dialogue. That's just where I'm coming from right now.

6:50 p.m.

Vice-President, Calvert Home Mortgage Investment Corporation

Dale Koeller

I think I understand, but it was absolutely the intention of the legislation. We're defined under section 130.1 of the Income Tax Act, and when we were legislated in--in 1972, I believe--we were RRSP-eligible at that very point. It was a way to encourage investment into this sector. It was an enticement. Since it was always registered-account-eligible, I believe we're just doing what we were always able to do.

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Okay. My time is up. I'd love to continue. Maybe I will continue later.

We'll go to Mr. Julian, please.

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Mr. Chair, you ask interesting questions.

I will give all my time to Mr. Giguère, as he wants to speak to this matter.

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Okay.

Monsieur Giguère.

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

The committee has to understand that what these people were doing was legal. But suddenly, there was a lot of abuse, and I can easily imagine the kind of abuse that may have happened. The 20 shareholders were all members of the same family. When salaries were transferred to the RRSP, all 20 members derived a benefit from it. So, that really was a major tax avoidance issue, and on top of that, these companies did not pay corporate taxes. That was a double advantage, and it was time to put an end to it.

The problem is that some people have always acted within the law and suddenly, they are told that what they were doing legally is now, and even retroactively, illegal, and they will be penalized up to 100%. This is the issue. People who obey the law should be allowed a transition period to adapt to the new provisions, and there is no such transition period here.

It is a kind of fiscal abuse that we have to stop, I agree. When we say the law is complex, I guess this is a very good example of it. There should be a transition period to allow those people who have always obeyed the law not to have their income taxed up to 100%. That is what they ask, mostly. But this loophole had to be closed because it really amounted to abusive fiscal planning.

I will leave what is left of my time to my dear colleague.

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Thank you very much.

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Mr. Julian, three minutes.

6:55 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to come back to Ms. Eng.

On the issue of the non-refundable versus the refundable tax credit for the caregiver, do you have any estimate as to what the differential would be, how many people who wouldn't be able to access it if it were non-refundable will be able to access it if it is refundable?

I'd also like you to speak to the savings for a moment, if you could. You did reference that earlier, that home-care costs and caregivers help to subsidize the health care system enormously. Otherwise we're talking about seniors who end up in acute-care beds at massive cost. So home care makes a lot of sense, and providing support to caregivers makes a lot of sense.

Putting aside the personal benefits, how does the overall fiscal situation for governments improve if we move more to that model and expand non-refundable to refundable?

6:55 p.m.

Vice-President, Advocacy, Canadian Association of Retired Persons

Susan Eng

Thank you for the question.

The opportunity to divert a massive amount of demand from the health care system is huge. I recognize that you're diverting it from the provincial budget in the health care system, but if we think of a single taxpayer, it's important for us to save to the whole system. In this case, at this point, it's estimated that family caregivers provide 70% of the community care now for seniors. We estimate that the value of their work, and there has been research that indicates this, is somewhere around $25 billion a year. That's the kind of money you'd have to spend if you didn't have these people providing care.

The cost per person in home care versus being in an institution at the same level of care was described in a 1990 document; I would say the numbers would be more dramatically different now. The document indicated that with moderate care at home the annual amount would be around $9,500, and in an institution around $25,000, for a 63% saving for that one individual. In heavy care, obviously the savings would be less because at home you still have to pay professional home-care workers as well. The difference there was between $35,000 and $45,000, but I just checked today, and the Province of Ontario pays a per diem per resident valued at $55,000 a year. In that circumstance, that's not even counting the co-pay the family pays for nursing home care. In such a case, your savings are less dramatic because you have heavy care at home as well. Nonetheless, there are huge dollars.

If we looked at the approximately 600,000 people who need heavy care, then we're looking at the difference in savings, when you multiply that out, in the neighbourhood of $6 billion a year between having them at home versus having them in institutional care. So those are the magnitudes of dollars that can be saved.

Please don't hold me to those exact calculations. I think this is something the finance department should probably apply some resources to, in order to get exact figures. But those are the magnitudes.

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We'll go to Mr. Jean, please.

7 p.m.

Conservative

Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wasn't going to take a question, but there was something Mr. Macdonald said that I couldn't help but take note of. I was looking at his organization's website, and it's very interesting: his organization has gone from two to twenty full-time staff--quite a success story. I was wondering, first of all, if the staff and your organization actually write your Wikipedia webpage, because on the Wikipedia web page, specifically, it says: “The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives is an independent, non-partisan policy research institute in Canada that leans to the political left.” You mentioned you're progressive, and I was just curious, because obviously most people write their own Wikipedia website, so I would imagine that's what it says and that's the situation. I was just kind of curious if you have any comments on that.

As well, you talk about things in here. I know alternative policy is interesting, but you talk about pushing to privatize health care--which quite frankly scares me--and indeed that the aging population won't cripple health care, and we've heard evidence that we believe it will; many of the witnesses have as well. You say further on—or at least Mr. Campbell, the executive director, says—“The alternative federal budget is a 'what if' exercise”, which I think is great, but “...what a government could do if it were truly committed to an economic, social, and environmental agenda that reflects the values of the large majority of Canadians—as opposed to the interests of a privileged minority”.

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Order, order.

7 p.m.

NDP

Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC

Are we now discussing Bill C-13?