Finance Committee on April 27th, 2010

[Tom McGirr]

I certainly can.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We have a gentleman here who will answer Mr. McKay's question.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

What was the question?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Could you please repeat the question, Mr. Behboodi, and introduce yourself?

[Rambod Behboodi, General Counsel, General Legal Services, Department of Finance]

My name is Rambod Behboodi. I'm general counsel at the Department of Finance in general legal services. Excuse me; I may lose my voice shortly.

You had a question about section 1647 of the bill. This is the technical reference, the technical amendment that is being made; that is to say, the underlined sections refer to sub-item 24.7(1.2)(b)(ii)(A)(I). The existing reference is to subparagraph 24.7(1.2)(b)(i).

The part that is being amended, which is paragraph 24.702(b), refers to additional cash payments. The formula is set out, and “A” is a factor in that formula. That is what “A” is being defined as.

What the current section refers to is the actual equalization payment that is being made, which is incorrect, because the equalization being made cannot be a factor in the determination of the cash payment being made. The correction that is made is in the next subclause in section 24.7, which then refers to aggregate of revenue sources. It's simply that one of the factors in the determination of cash payments is being correctly identified as the aggregate of revenue sources, rather than what is said in the incorrect section.

I hope I made that clear.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

If anybody else at this table understood that, they're much more able than I am.

The chair raised an interesting point. The effect of moving it from column A to column B or from (i) to (ii) is that this is a cash transfer to Ontario, because it is entering into a recipient state, while Alberta is not a recipient state and therefore stays in its original position. Have I got that right?

[Rambod Behboodi]

Mr. McKay, I must not have been very clear. Evidently, I wasn't.

It's simply a question of a calculation formula. There is a formula that's set out in the existing provision. The formula has different factors. One of those factors is this factor A that is being defined.

The reference currently is a wrong reference. So the factor that is being defined is being defined in terms of something that is incorrect. It's just a reference, so it's just a reference that is being corrected.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

It's not a calculation that's being...?

[Rambod Behboodi]

It's not at all. No, it's just a reference.

Right now the factor is referring to the total amount, and that's illogical, because the factor determines additional amounts. So it can't refer to the total amount. That's all.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I'm not going to prolong this, because I don't pretend to understand what it is you've just described. Frankly, I'd have to take this out, have you sit with me, and figure out where you screwed up and how you're fixing it, and try to follow that through as an impact.

So I'm prepared, Chair, to let this ride, unless other colleagues have other questions.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Well, I do.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Colleagues, we have two minutes, and your chair does need some direction as to what the committee wants to do with the budget bill.

Mr. McCallum, go ahead very briefly.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I have one simple question.

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the essence of what Mr. McKay was trying to find out is whether the introduction of HST in Ontario would impact transfers by the federal government to Ontario.

[Rambod Behboodi]

Well, my one defence, in response to my one answer, is I'm just a lawyer. I just wanted to give you a very technical response to Mr. McKay's question in response to clause 1647.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

So you can't answer the question that I just asked?

[Rambod Behboodi]

No.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Monsieur Paillé, you're satisfied?

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

No.

What I understand from the answer of that unknown specialist is that there was a mistake from (ii) to a single (i). Reference was made to a single (i) in both French and English. So it wasn't a translation mistake. In the formula you developed, we were caught in an endless loop. We were using exactly the same figures.

[Rambod Behboodi]

More or less.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

More or less.

At one point, a calculator exploded and we wondered why. If it can help my colleague, it's like a dog who tries to catch his tail and who winds up eating it.

For the moment, Mr. Chairman, I'll be quiet.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

I want to thank you very much, Mr. McGirr, for all of your responses to our questions. We appreciate those. We appreciate the officials coming. Unfortunately, we will not get to the other parts today, but we want to thank you for being here.

Colleagues, we will suspend for a minute, and then we'll go in camera for committee business.

Thank you.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Chairman, we still have questions for Mr. McGirr. We haven't finished with him. We want him to be here next time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The problem is we have committee business at 12:30, because—

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

We don't mean this afternoon, we mean the next hearing of this committee on Bill C-9. We want to have Mr.—