Evidence of meeting #24 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was estimate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4 p.m.
Conservative
4 p.m.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Well, I got most of my questions in before the bell, so I'm quite happy to pass to the other side at this point.
Thank you.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you.
I'm sorry I missed the opening comments, Mr. Page, but thank you for coming.
I have a quick question. On page 3, you say “extrapolated nationally”. What worries us is the extreme numbers you have; it could be either in the millions or in the billions, as other MPs have suggested.
When the Bloc members testified the other day, they indicated that they looked high and low and couldn't find any companies that met these criteria, other than the two they mentioned, which were Atlas and Jeffrey, but on page 3 you say there are other companies that would fit immediately into this bill.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I don't know if somebody has already asked you or if you've already addressed it.
4 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
This is information we obtained from the provinces of Alberta and Nova Scotia, which we then extrapolated up to provide a national—
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I'm sorry; I should have been clearer. Which names have you found that would fall under this bill?
4:05 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
If you mean names of specific companies that have had financial distress, I don't know if we have specific names here today.
4:05 p.m.
Financial Advisor, Expenditure and Revenue Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
No, we don't. We followed up with the two provincial regulators, but given that we didn't have clarity back from the committee with respect to the underlying assumptions, we didn't actually ask for the individual names; it would have required additional effort on the part of the provinces to give the information to us, and we didn't know how much information the committee was actually looking for.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I'm asking only because the sponsor of the bill indicated there were no other companies that would be affected. That starting point is quite important. If there are no others, it's easy to extrapolate, but if we don't have to extrapolate, then we are looking at an estimate at the lower end of the scale instead of the higher end of the scale. It's just to get an idea of how much this bill is really going to cost. If there are no companies, then we are probably closer to the lower end of the scale, and that would make me feel much more comfortable.
I'll give the rest of my time to John. If you do find the names, I'd appreciate it.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I know that as a sort of operating technique a great way to kill private members' bills is to simply get the government to say that the whole thing is way too expensive and we can't possibly do it, and then you arrive at some dream-type numbers....and $11 billion certainly seems to be at the upper end of the dream number.
That said, it's also disconcerting that this range is so extreme as to not give you any comfort or any appeal. You are the Parliamentary Budget Officer. You are here for all members of Parliament. You do have a heck of a lot of courage in the face of a lot of criticism, particularly on the part of the members on the other side. I'm inclined to think you've given us about the best advice you can under the range of assumptions that you've given us.
What makes me mildly concerned is your last sentence on page 3, just before “Next Steps”, which is that “...the assumptions underpinning the Bloc Québécois estimates may underestimate the costs of proposals given the potentially greater number of distressed RPPs”. The words “may underestimate” may be the understatement of all time.
I'm not quite sure how to square this circle. I suppose I circle back to the notion that unless there is an agreement between the government and the Bloc as to what the bill means, your job becomes virtually impossible. You've come here and said that under this set of assumptions, it's this, and under that set of assumptions, it's that. I don't know that we're a heck of a lot further ahead. That's the problem.
Then we're being asked to go to clause-by-clause study and vote up or vote down based upon an absurd range.
I know you're not legislators, but what is it in the bill itself that would take out the discrepancy between the government's underlying assumptions and the Bloc's underlying assumptions?
4:05 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
Well, sir, I think it's perhaps as we see here, or as Jason mentioned earlier, there are, again, four things that we really need to kind of nail down so that we can do a proper costing. Again, I apologize that we have to provide this broad range, but it's based on very different policy intents from a costing by the government and the policy intent of the Bloc Québécois.
But we need to be clear on the eligibility. Does a tax benefit apply to retirees currently receiving pension income, or does the extent include members who will have their future retirement benefits reduced as a result of RPP impairment?
We need to be clear on transferability. Could the original RPP benefits be transferred to a surviving spouse? Can the tax credit be similarly transferred or not?
Then, with respect to the benefit, does the tax credit apply to all beneficiaries of pension income from registered pension plans or only those who have their pension income reduced, as I think the intent is of the Bloc Québécois?
And refundability: is the tax credit refundable or not?
So on those four things, if we can get clarity, we can come back to you, not on a costing from effectively $10 billion, $11 billion, or $12 billion to $5 million to $50 million—some variation depending on economic and fiscal uncertainty—but we can provide you a much better estimate.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
So really, until we come together on those four questions, you're just going to be going around in circles.
4:10 p.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
That's right, sir, and that was the reason why we sent the letter to Mr. Rajotte on May 14.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McKay.
Monsieur Carrier, s'il vous plaît.
June 3rd, 2010 / 4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Good afternoon, Mr. Page.
As I understand it, while the government estimate is $10 billion, you still made a prudent prediction of about $50 million. I think this is what you wrote in your letter of May 14. Is this correct?
4:10 p.m.
Assistant Parliamentary Budget Officer, Expenditure and Revenue Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Library of Parliament
The cost can vary from $5 million to—