Finance Committee on Dec. 1st, 2011

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

There is an agreement.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

—we would see that in a supplementary estimate coming back to us through your department. Is that correct?

[Pierre Mercille]

My understanding is that it will show up at the time the money comes back.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Right, but will we see that?

[Sherry Harrison]

My understanding is that the—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

It goes out of Finance and it comes back to Finance. Is that correct?

[Sherry Harrison]

The accounting for it will be reflected in the Public Accounts of Canada. Depending on the timing of the repayment, we may reflect a revised forecast for the statutory amount in the estimates.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay, that's fair.

I ask these questions because it's often hard to follow the bouncing ball of finance around here. In another department, the mains were approved and they had no supplementary estimates (A). With supplementary estimates (B), their authorities to date were different from the authorities that were approved. There was a spot where they sent me to find where the change was, but there was no footnote to tell me to look there. I'm just trying to keep my eye on the bouncing ball. I think the opposition asked this question before.

I have a question under the statutory piece. I just want to understand it. It is under vote 1b, the alternative payments for standing programs. It looks like $3 billion. Explain to me what's happening with that money. It's in brackets. Is that coming back or not being spent? I don't understand what's happening there.

[Chantal Maheu]

The money is coming back to the federal government. It's paid by Quebec. The reason they're returning funding to the federal government is that in the 1960s we transferred tax points. Quebec accepted tax points, and so they're raising these revenues for a set of programs. Now we're providing the funding for this through the transfers, so they're returning the value of those tax points.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So it's the value of the tax points coming back to us. Is that correct?

[Chantal Maheu]

Yes.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

That is there in perpetuity, then. Is that correct?

[Chantal Maheu]

Yes.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

The only way for that to change is if there were some sort of change to the agreement. Is that correct? Hmmm. Okay.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. Marston.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If Mr. Trueman could come back to the table, please, I'd like to ask him a question. While he's coming, I'll fire off another one first.

Regarding your advertising budget, I would point out that one of the things Mr. Giguère has raised here before is that it's been reported that as many 12,000 seniors don't even apply for the old age security. In that advertising budget you have, is there any provision for letting seniors know that, because they're a resident of Canada, they can apply for old age security?

[Sherry Harrison]

Perhaps my colleague could respond.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

It looks like there are multiple chair changes.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Jean-Michel Catta]

It would be a function, again, of the purpose or themes or messaging of the campaign. Specifically, if we refer to the $2.4 million for the June budget campaign, for example, it did not refer specifically to what you're suggesting. Again, that's a function of the nature of the campaign. Put it this way: it could also be assigned, potentially, to another department, for example CRA, or others to do—

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

That was where my next question was going.

[Jean-Michel Catta]

Again, it depends on the purpose and the nature.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

The CRA knows the income level of individuals. It knows the age of individuals. It would know, first of all, that they're eligible for OAS. It would know that they're potentially eligible for a guaranteed income supplement increase. We understand that there are as many as 12,000 people living under $10,000 a year out there. It just strikes me that if we're going to advertise, let's advertise to the folks who have a genuine, honest need and would qualify and be eligible.

I would just like to leave that with you as a thought going forward.

[Jean-Michel Catta]

Thank you.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Trueman, you've indicated that Canada has the lowest meter rate. I saw a certain satisfaction in that, and I don't take issue with that at all. But I think a layperson would view that as something like a taxi meter. If you've got the lowest meter in town, it means the taxi driver is getting the lowest income in town as well. It's not just all on the positive side.

Yes, in terms of competitiveness and the argument that would go back and forth here on that, it's pretty clear where the government would come down on that. But I'm very curious about that lower meter rate. What is the fiscal impact of the lower meter rate on the government's ability to provide the services and programs Canadians are asking for? Would it not make some sense to perhaps be in the middle of that group, as opposed to being the absolute lowest?