Finance Committee on Sept. 15th, 2009

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I appreciate that answer.

My next question is for the chamber.

I thank you for coming. I haven't been on this committee as long as John has, but I have been here a number of years. I thank you for coming again this year.

I'm looking at your recommendation two. You know, obviously the finance minister is looking at an exit strategy from the deficit situation that we've had to take on, as other countries around the world have done. You're recommending a 2% or 3% growth rate in program spending. How does the chamber feel about our program that we have put in place in terms of reviewing individual programs and seeing if they're meeting their criteria, meeting their goals, and are financially sustainable? Does the chamber have a position on that?

[Shirley-Ann George]

Yes. We have been long-time supporters of the need to review programs. Even the best programs are made better through a review. With the tough choices that need to be made, the only way you can do that is through some sort of systemic review.

So yes, we have been supportive.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

To the MS Society, I appreciate your being here. I'm very much supportive. I have my MS sticker on the back of my car.

You made some good points in your submission. I know that charities are tight on staff, but have you priced out what all these things, some of your recommendations, may or may not cost the government in terms of the financial impact? Do you have that information, as the MS Society, or is there somewhere I could go to find that?

[Deanna Groetzinger]

We certainly have looked at some of our recommendations in terms of....

I assume you're talking about the ones around the Income Tax Act and EI.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Right.

[Deanna Groetzinger]

With the EI proposal, which I think is very appropriate for the discussion today, we talk about more flexible sickness benefits that would allow people to actually work part time when they're able to, but still receive partial benefits. The way we would calculate that is that there probably would not be a significant cost to that as well. People would be allowed to work, so they would receive partial benefits. They would receive less than they ordinarily would on sickness benefits.

So depending upon how the program was structured, it actually could be, in terms of impact, fairly neutral. There would be a cost of some small amount--I don't have that figure right in front of me--in terms of allowing spouses to claim the caregiver amount as well as allowing people to make the disability tax credit a refundable benefit.

But in terms of the output of having people with a minimum amount of income actually receive that income, and having that put back into the economy, I think it would actually be a stimulus, a support to that.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay.

For the Labour Congress, if I have a minute--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have just a little over a minute.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

--I have a couple of quick questions.

On the GIS minimums increasing, it costs people differently, at different levels of income, to live across the country. Do you assume that it would be the same level everywhere, or would you advocate for seniors living in one part, let's say downtown Toronto, as compared with rural Canada, which may mean slightly different income requirements? Do you see it at one level or at a variety of levels based on where they live?

[Hassan Yussuff]

No, we're advocating for one level. Again, Canadians do move from where they live. I think we should just have a floor that everybody is guaranteed.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

My second question is about the 350 hours or 360 hours, whatever the number is. Has the organization been asking for that for a number of years, or is this the first year that you've asked for that reduction?

[Hassan Yussuff]

I think we've been to this committee long before you were here, and there may be others here longer--

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So you asked the Liberals for this, and they never responded when they were in government.

[Hassan Yussuff]

Exactly.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you very much.

[Hassan Yussuff]

I think the committee as a whole has recommended in the past that we should move to this, and it has never been implemented.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you very much for that answer, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Mulcair, please.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Kremmidas, you are the chief economist of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. In that capacity, you are used to choosing your words carefully, so I will ask you to explain the difference between the terms you used in your presentation and the ones contained in your text. I will read them to you in French and in English to avoid confusion.

In your presentation in English, you said that it is important “to avoid structural deficits”. This could be translated as follows: “d'éviter des déficits structurels”. In your document, you say: “we have to avoid permanent structural deficits”, an expression that could be translated by “l'obligation d'éviter des déficits structurels permanents”.

Isn't the expression “permanent structural deficits” redundant? What is the distinction between the two?

[Tina Kremmidas]

I think you're absolutely right. Technically there is no distinction. We need to avoid structural deficits, and a structural deficit is a deficit that we incur. We simply cannot grow out of it. The growth in the economy will not provide enough revenues for us to grow out of it. Permanent means permanent. You're absolutely right. That is redundant.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you.

May I conclude that according to your analysis, we are presently experiencing structural deficits?

[Tina Kremmidas]

There has been a lot of analysis around that particular issue. We can avoid a structural deficit provided that spending growth is brought under substantial constraint, roughly 2% to 3% a year; we can avoid a structural deficit if there is no major spike in interest rates; and we can avoid a structural deficit if there isn't another significant dip in economic growth.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Are you concerned that inflation is going to be part of the answer from the government side?

[Tina Kremmidas]

The inflation question is certainly an issue in the U.S. with the huge budgetary deficits they're facing; they are hoping inflation will be high enough to help them out of their situation.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

It's the only way to reimburse that. You can't reimburse $6 trillion without inflating the economy.