Evidence of meeting #37 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bank.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jeremy Rudin  General Director, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Bill James  Director General, Employment Insurance Policy, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
Chris Forbes  Director, Fiscal Policy Division, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Andrea Lyon  Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada
Rosaline Frith  Director General, Canada Student Loans Program, Department of Human Resources and Social Development
Gérard Lalonde  Director, Tax legislation Division, Department of Finance
Yves Giroux  Director, Social Policy, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Krista Campbell  Senior Chief, Director's Office, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch, Department of Finance

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, April 10, 2008, we are dealing with Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget.

We have with us this afternoon the Minister of Finance, Mr. Jim Flaherty. We want to thank you for coming and getting to the committee as promptly as you have. We have you for an hour, and we don't want to waste much of that time, so we want to get right into your dialogue, and then we'll move on to questions.

I want to remind the committee that with the minister being here, the questioning is a little bit different. We'll start with the opposition members first, seven minutes each on a round, and it will go all the way down through to the NDP and then to the Conservatives. That's according to the rules of this committee. With that, we'll proceed.

Yes, Mr. Dykstra.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Chair, you described it very well, and I don't want to take up any time, but I wondered if perhaps, seeing as we're going to be here for an hour, five-minute rounds might be better, to allow a few more people to ask questions.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

I would be open to that if there is no objection, and I am seeing none.

Yes, Mr. McCallum.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

I guess that would work. If the minister has fifteen minutes and we have five-minute rounds, then we'd have time for nine. Is my math right? Yes.

3:30 p.m.

An hon. member

You're the economist. You're the one who was going to baffle us with numbers.

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

That's all right. Let's not pull out the calculator quite yet, but we will proceed that way. The minister has assured me that he will not be going more than 15 minutes, and so with that, we'll give the minister the opportunity to start with his 15 minutes.

Mr. Minister, the floor is yours.

April 16th, 2008 / 3:30 p.m.

Whitby—Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate this opportunity to meet with you and the members of the committee to discuss Bill C-50, which as you know, is an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008, which is the third budget of our government.

I am pleased to meet with you and the members of your committee today to discuss Bill C-50, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008.

This year's budget builds on the decisive and timely action taken in the October 2007 economic statement to support the economy. The economic statement provided an additional $60 billion in broad-based tax relief for Canadians. Since coming to office, our government is providing nearly $200 billion in tax relief in this and the next five years.

Now, reducing our overall tax burden at the federal level is providing a terrific shot of adrenalin for the national economy. Actions taken by the government since 2006 are providing $21 billion in incremental tax relief to Canadians and Canadian businesses this year. This is significant and substantial economic stimulus, equivalent to 1.4% of Canada's GDP. We have been ahead of the curve, managing the economy prudently and responsibly.

I note for the committee that the IMF World Economic Outlook, released last week, praised the Canadian government for its pre-emptive and ongoing measures, and I quote from the report: “A package of tax cuts has provided a timely fiscal stimulus...” and “... the government's structural policy agenda should help increase competitiveness and productivity growth to underpin longer-term prospects”. So clearly our tax reductions have helped place Canada in a position of strength and allowed us to respond more effectively during this period of economic uncertainty.

This includes historic business tax reductions announced in the October economic statement that will give Canada the lowest statutory tax rate in the G7 by 2012. It will also give Canada the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7, a goal that we will reach by 2010.

Budget 2008 also builds on the government's record of strong fiscal management. By 2012-13, total debt reduction by the government since coming into office will be more than $50 billion—that's five zero.

Commitment to sound financial management and debt reduction is never easy, but we are committed to eliminating generational inequity. We will not leave our children and grandchildren with the burden of paying for the excessive spending of the past. This bill reflects that commitment.

Budget 2008 also builds on the government's record of strong fiscal management. By 2012-2013, total debt reduction by the government since coming into office will be more than $50 billion. Commitment to sound financial management and debt reduction is never easy, but we are committed to eliminating generational inequity. We will not leave our children and grandchildren with the burden of paying for the excessive spending of the past. This bill reflects that commitment.

Mr. Chairman, with the limited time available to me today, I will only focus on a few of the key provisions in this bill.

Before I do that, I would like to mention Bill C-253, which is the private member's bill that proposed changes to the registered education savings plan, a proposal that could cost the government more than $900 million annually. I note that this cost estimate is a conservative one, as we have recently seen other estimates, like the one by Don Drummond of TD Bank, that the cost could be in the vicinity of $2 billion annually. Bill C-253 is a fiscally irresponsible measure that risks putting the federal government into deficit. In a time of global economic uncertainty, this is a risk our government is not willing to take. I would also note that a vast array of stakeholders, including prominent student groups such as the Canadian Federation of Students, have come out against this legislation. That is why Bill C-50 also includes language to protect the government's fiscal plan from the effects of Bill C-253.

Let me stress, however, that this government is supporting post-secondary education in many ways that are fiscally responsible and effective. It is in this spirit that our government has taken action in the past two budgets to improve RESPs by expanding the program and making it more flexible and more available to students. Budget 2008 also builds on past action to help students pay for their education by committing $123 million over four years, starting in 2009-10, to streamline, modernize, and improve access to the Canada student loans program. Secondly, it supports students with a $350 million investment in 2009-10, rising to $430 million by 2012-13 in the new Canada student grant program. This new program will be easy to use, transparent, and broad-based, providing certainty and predictability for Canadian families and their children.

Let me now turn, Chair, to the main measures in budget 2008 that are incorporated in Bill C-50. As I noted, budget 2008 builds on the actions taken in the October economic statement in a number of significant ways. It helps Canadians save with a new tax-free savings account. It provides further assistance for Canada's manufacturing and processing sector. It supports small and medium-sized businesses by improving the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program. These measures, which I will now address in some detail, are just a few of the actions we are taking to help improve Canada's productivity, employment, and prosperity.

On the tax-free savings account, Canadians now have more money in their pockets as a result of our tax reductions. This is money where individuals, families, workers, and seniors can spend, invest, or save. To help Canadians realize even greater benefits from saving, our government is creating a new tax-free savings account, or TFSA. Christened a tax policy gem by the C.D. Howe Institute, the TFSA represents the single most important personal savings vehicle since the introduction of the RRSP in 1957. It's the first account of its kind in Canadian history. It is a flexible, registered, general purpose account that will allow Canadians to watch their savings grow tax free.

This is how it works. First, Canadians can contribute up to $5,000 every year to a registered tax-free savings account, plus carry forward any unused room to future years. Secondly, the investment income, including capital gains earned in the plan, will be exempt from any tax, even when withdrawn. Thirdly, Canadians can withdraw from the account at any time without restriction. Better yet, there are no restrictions on what they can save for. And finally, the full amount of withdrawals may be recontributed to a tax-free savings account in the future, to ensure no loss in a person's total savings room.

To make it easier for lower- and modest-income Canadians to save, there will be no clawbacks by the federal government. Neither the income or capital gains earned in a tax-free savings account nor the withdrawals from it will affect eligibility for federal income-tested benefits such as the guaranteed income supplement.

I'll say a few words about the manufacturing sector. The Canadian economy remains strong, yet we are mindful of the challenges before us: global uncertainty, volatile markets, and the difficulties confronting some of our traditional industries such as forestry and manufacturing. In budget 2007 we brought in a $1.3 billion temporary accelerated capital cost allowance. This initiative allows manufacturing businesses to fully write off investments in machinery and equipment over a two-year period.

In budget 2008, we extended this initiative for three years, on a declining basis. This will provide the manufacturing and processing sector with an additional $1 billion in tax relief. Manufacturers asked for this extension, and we delivered.

Through the community development trust, the government is also investing $1 billion to support communities and workers affected by international economic volatility. We are now working with each province and territory to identify priority areas for action and to seek their public commitment to support communities, consistent with the objectives of the trust.

Through the community development trust, the government is also investing $1 billion to support communities and workers affected by international economic volatility.

We are now working with each province and territory to identify priority areas for action and to seek their public commitment to support communities, consistent with the objectives of the trust.

I note the Province of Ontario has been particularly appreciative of the trust and their share of this funding of over $350 million. Indeed, the Ontario government has recently outlined its plans to spend all this money in their provincial budget, including programs to provide up-to-date training for Ontario's unemployed workers who require skills upgrading.

Our government made a commitment in budget 2007 to help promote research and development. In budget 2007 and in its science and technology strategy mobilizing science and technology to Canada's advantage, the government committed to identifying opportunities for improving the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program, including its administration.

Budget 2008 proposes to enhance the availability and accessibility of the financial support for R and D to small and medium-sized Canadian-controlled private corporations. Specifically, Bill C-50 proposes to, first of all, increase the expenditure limit for the enhanced scientific research and experimental development investment tax credit; and secondly, extend the enhanced scientific research and experimental development investment tax credit to medium-sized companies by phasing out access to the enhanced benefits over increased taxable capital and taxable income ranges.

This proposed action will help Canada stay at the forefront of R and D, which in turn will help Canada continue to be competitive.

Mr. Chairman, these and other initiatives in Bill C-50 clearly illustrate our government's commitment to deliver results. Budget 2008 reflects the stability and responsible leadership that Canada needs for these uncertain times. It builds on efforts we have taken since 2006 to reward Canadians for their hard work, improve standards of living, and fuel economic growth.

Budget 2008 reflects the stability and responsible leadership that Canada needs for these uncertain times. It builds on efforts we have taken since 2006 to reward Canadians for their hard work, improve standards of living, and fuel economic growth.

I now welcome any questions you may have about this bill. I am joined, of course, by officials from Finance Canada, who I'm sure will be of assistance to fully respond to your questions.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

And we want to thank you very much. We have a little extra time and appreciate that very much.

We will now move on to questions and answers.

We will start with Mr. McCallum. You have five minutes.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for coming here.

I thought I'd try something different in the sense that while I could find points in your statement with which I disagree, I thought I'd try to be non-partisan, in the spirit of this committee, on the asset-backed commercial paper issue, because this committee agreed in a consensual way to have hearings on what went wrong and what could be done to improve the situation. And I don't think there was any partisanship in our recent meeting.

I'd like to focus on that, and if I may, I'd like to focus on the federal role, because you have said this strengthens the case for a single regulator. You have said provinces or provincial agencies were at fault. I don't really deny that, although I would point out that I think the U.S. and the U.K., who do have single regulators, did worse than Canada. So it's not a panacea or a cure-all, but I don't disagree with that angle. I think there's a lot of blame to be shared.

I would suggest that for a federal minister or a federal finance committee, our first responsibility starts with our own federal agencies. So whether the provinces were guilty or not guilty, I'd like to focus on federal agencies, federal responsibilities, and in particular OSFI, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

I'm not making accusations here, but we have heard from more than one expert that to a significant extent, OSFI had inappropriate regulation that made the crisis worse than it otherwise would have been. And what I am referring to is that OSFI allegedly encouraged banks to offer conditional liquidity facilities for issue of asset-backed commercial paper rather than the international--

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

Before you go too much further, I am not necessarily overly concerned, but I do want to remind the committee that we're on Bill C-50. It's not estimates, where we have the ability to ask any questions. So I want to be careful that we not get too far on this one. But go ahead and ask it, and we'll see if the minister answers it.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Then let me suggest that asset-backed commercial paper is closer to the budget issue than are our new immigration rules.

3:45 p.m.

An hon. member

Yes, absolutely!

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

But I'm trying to be non-partisan and ask an honest question.

The point I'm making is that certain experts have suggested that the fact of conditional liquidity facilities rather than unconditional made things worse, because while the conditional facilities allowed the paper to be issued, when the crisis hit, the fact that they were conditional made them not work, because there was an escape hatch. So a number of experts have said that this was the fault of OSFI, which clearly exacerbated the crisis.

So my question to you, Mr. Minister, is whether you accept that position or whether you have any comment in general--not on the crisis in general, but on whether OSFI in particular is blameless or whether OSFI might have some responsibility for the crisis.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

Thank you, Mr. McCallum. I'm only concerned with trying to figure out, if when you act non-partisanly you ask an honest question, what kind of question you ask when you act in a partisan way.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Perhaps a little more aggressive in tone.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

I have not heard that suggestion about the conditionality and non-conditionality, but Mr. Rudin may be able to assist.

3:45 p.m.

Jeremy Rudin General Director, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Thank you.

I understand that you'll have hearings in more detail on this, and since it's quite a technical issue I won't take a lot of time.

I think the key points to make in this regard are that the possibility, the treatment in regulation, that there might be conditional or unconditional commitments was recognized worldwide; that the rules that OSFI had in this regard, the differential treatment between conditional and unconditional treatment, were well aligned with those of other regulators; and that the transactions involved were not necessarily under the purview of OSFI. That is to say that a number of the financial institutions that were providing this conditional liquidity support were regulated by their home regulators, not by OSFI.

We could go into more detail, but that will take us far from Bill C-50.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

So am I summarizing correctly in saying that you do not believe this was an issue or a problem in the crisis?

3:50 p.m.

General Director, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance

Jeremy Rudin

The fact that liquidity support was conditional obviously had an impact on the events that took place in Canada. The point I'm making is that there was nothing specific in Canadian regulation that permitted this, in the sense that others didn't. Indeed, that much of the regulatory supervision of those institutions that were providing conditional support was done by foreign regulators.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield

Mr. Crête.

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, thank you for being here.

In Bill C-50, an amendment to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act makes a sudden appearance.

Do you agree with me that it would only be proper to refer that part of the bill to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in order for that committee to consult experts in the field, members assigned to that file, not just members of the Standing Committee on Finance?

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

I think this committee is fully capable of dealing with that issue.

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Minister, we actually find that that is clearly not within our purview. It's a devious way of doing things that we've seen develop in the United States, particularly by the right wing there. I'm very disappointed that the federal government is taking that approach.

However, since we don't have much time, I'm going to move on to another point. On employment insurance, I have here an opinion of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, from which I quote a paragraph on the surplus:

[Translation] It's as if the plan were being allowed to use only two of the current $54 billion dollar employment insurance surplus, and only temporarily at that. But in practice, the operation of employment insurance is being isolated by no longer allowing it to serve the purposes of the plan. Two-billion cushion: the plan should instead have a $15 billion fluctuation reserve [...] [...] the rate should be stable for an entire economic cycle, as stipulated by the 1996 act.

You're telling us you have a responsible budget. Given the current economic slowdown, wouldn't it have been a lot more reasonable to follow the recommendations, like those of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, instead of having a cushion of only $2 billion?

We know full well that the economic slowdown could very rapidly push the plan into deficit. Workers are the ones who contributed the most to the fight against the deficit. There was $54 billion, and you've reduced that to $2 billion.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

What's the question, Mr. Crête?

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Why not follow the recommendation of the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, who suggested a $15 billion reserve instead of a $2 billion cushion, which is completely out of line with our needs for the economic cycle?