Evidence of meeting #21 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was budget.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Finance and Administration Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
Mr. Chair, in discussions with the Treasury Board Secretariat it was determined that it would be appropriate for us to do so from a transparency perspective to Parliament. So we're pursuing that.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I looked through your estimates here, and in all but one program area, you have, over time, reductions in staff. You have a little bit of an increase on the taxpayer collection part. Are you projecting this reduction in staff just through retirement, or how are you planning on handling the HR aspects of what's happening?
4:55 p.m.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Finance and Administration Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
Mr. Chair, we're not predicting any reductions in staff at the agency. We have a really strong track record in the agency of retaining our staff, qualified staff and skilled staff. There is no intention to reduce staff at this point.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
No, I don't mean.... I mean in future years, when you look at all your programming. Right in my little book here, it has HR equivalents, or FTEs, and in 2011-12 they all reduce but in one program area.
I'm not asking you whether you're out there firing folks, but is this basically looking at retirements not being filled, or do you have any idea?
4:55 p.m.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Finance and Administration Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
We have an attrition rate of approximately 5% in the agency. That's probably a reflection of what you're seeing.
The other element that I would like to flag is that the area of internal services is probably one of the areas where there is an increase, and that's basically because of the accountability to deliver on some of the major programs that we have.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Based on Mr. McKay's question, I have one of the agencies that we took back right down the hall from me at my office in Burlington. They were anxious to talk to me when we were making the decision. They were questioning the cost, but they were questioning our effectiveness in collecting the amount of money. Are we able to collect the same volume of cash from delinquent student accounts as they were, or are we ahead or are we behind?
4:55 p.m.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Finance and Administration Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
Mr. Chair, when we made the proposal and subsequently accepted in terms of taking responsibility for the student loan programs, there were specific targets that were given to us as an agency vis-à-vis the subsequent years further to that decision since 2008. In all of those years, we've been able to meet and exceed those targets.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Okay, thank you.
My final question is about the future-oriented non-tax revenue--on the back page of your report--which shows that you are able to generate non-tax revenue for the agency of $572 million from a variety of areas. There are fees for administration, fees to Canada Pension, fees for other government departments, provincial programs, ruling fees to taxpayers. I don't know what that means. Are these fees set by policy, or do you as an organization sit down and say, “Hey, maybe we can make more money this year if we charge this”? How does this $572 million get generated, and what's its future?
5 p.m.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Finance and Administration Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
Mr. Chair, the cost recovery mechanisms we have in the agency vary. Our biggest component is our relationship with the Canada Border Services Agency, whereby we provide ongoing support and systems integration further to the split that occurred a few years back. In addition to that, we do enter into some arrangements with certain provinces in order to undertake work in specific areas such as aggressive tax planning, for example. We also have an area within the agency that Mr. McCauley is responsible for, which is the income tax rulings area, whereby we provide advanced income tax services.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Are those fees set by you guys or is it by policy, by government? How are the fees determined?
5 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
They're set at a market rate in discussion with Treasury Board and practitioners to be reasonable, and I think we're currently.... I think it's about $125 an hour, but we can confirm what the rate is. But as you know, we're not allowed to charge fees that make a profit. We're allowed to charge a fee that covers our cost for delivering a service, and we're not allowed to run a profit. So therefore they're fees that reflect our true costs and do not have a profit margin.
5 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible--Editor]
5 p.m.
Conservative
5 p.m.
NDP
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Thank you very much. And this time I will keep my time.
I have a couple of questions. I want to go back to the Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Act. You have the estimates here, and yet, as Mr. Carrier has indicated, on March 18 you did indicate that it was $180 million for 2008-09. For 2009-10 you expected it to be—and this is what I quote from you—“$188 million”.
So knowing that it's only $8 million over, why would you still ask for $479 million—like, $50 million more than last year's estimate? If I were to do that with my grocery budget, I wouldn't be able to sustain the rest of my expenses. I'm just trying to get some sense of this. Are you expecting a massive amount coming in, or...?
5 p.m.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Finance and Administration Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
Mr. Chair, it's really a question of timing. We're in discussions with our colleagues, and in terms of the timing of the main estimates, we just haven't concluded those discussions in terms of bringing further precision to the estimates. But we do plan on being in the position in the near future to bring precision to this.
5 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
Maybe it's the way they're presented. These aren't our expenses. What we're trying to do is make a provision that the agreement requires that exporters pay the levy. We collect the levy. We then calculate the expenses that the Government of Canada incurs to administer the program. Everything else then is returned back to the provinces.
This was an estimate done by Finance and DFAIT, I guess, some time ago saying, well, we expect the levies for the year will be around $470 million. So that's a provision that would allow for that money to come in and go back out again. But if the actual is $188 million or $210 million, then our expenses come off--ours, Justice, and DFAIT, I think, are the three big ones--and then all the net moneys....
Every quarter we have to account to all of the provinces, and the money is sent back out. So it's something that hopefully will be fixed, but as I said, it's been a very difficult couple of years to try to estimate lumber exports, as you can imagine, down into the States. But it is not an expense number.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
At the end of the day, you still have to have some figures in place. I'm just saying that these figures are quite a bit out of whack, so it's something to consider. I don't know why you would ask for more in the main estimates when you didn't even approach that last time. I don't know; it's not right.
I'm just wondering if you could tell me your projected HST income in Ontario with the new tax coming in, how much that is. And what are you expecting if everything works out with B.C.?
5:05 p.m.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Finance and Administration Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
Mr. Chair, unfortunately, we don't have projections in terms of the added revenues as a result of harmonization, but I can commit to come back with a response.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
You don't have them here or you don't have them at all? I'm just trying to figure it out. To me, if you're looking at a budget, then you're anticipating getting this extra income, and I'm wondering how much that is.
So you do have the numbers somewhere, or you don't have them?
5:05 p.m.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Finance and Administration Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
It is likely that we do have the numbers somewhere. I'd have to go back and come back to you with that. I believe we do have the numbers, but I just don't have them with me. We would speak to our colleagues in Finance and provide you with those numbers.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Carol Hughes NDP Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Okay. I'm hoping that you have the numbers, not “likely”.
I also want to talk about the ombudsman's office. According to your main estimates for 2010-11, you're looking for $3.2 million for the taxpayers' ombudsman. That's a decrease of $80,000, or 2.4%, from last year's estimates. I'm just trying to get some sense as to why that is. I would tend to think that normally, because this is a new office....
Is the demand not there? Is that why you see a decrease?
