Finance Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2010

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Yes. I all too familiar with them.

[Glen Doucet]

--that will end up costing the government more.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

That is going to be my last question, because I would like to address another subject with Ms. MacQuarrie.

In the early 1960s, the NDP advanced the principle of universal, public, free health insurance. The main consideration was hospitalization. There is a paradox in your analysis. A person who is not being adequately cared for at home with drugs because the cost is not covered is going to end up in hospital. In hospital, on the other hand, everything will be paid for. So there is a kind of paradoxical perversity in the system. For the province, at least, there is practically an incentive to find a solution for the future. The agreement with the federal government would cover hospitalization, which reflects how medicine was seen 50 years ago, but we would also contemplate, for the future, that ambulatory medicine would be a firmly established part of our day to day concerns.

In other words, for the 2014 negotiations, should we not be making sure that the drugs, the tests, and so on are a mandatory part of what is negotiated, and that the funding cover that too?

[Glen Doucet]

Yes. In the past, the Canadian Diabetes Association and many other health-care-based associations have supported the call for a catastrophic drug coverage program to ensure that people living with diabetes, for example, don't face catastrophic costs due to their illness. Formularies differ across the country based on the province, and some provinces obviously make decisions around affordability.

Obviously, the varying capacity of provinces to provide health care services are very much a concern to the Canadian Diabetes Association.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have one minute.

[Glen Doucet]

We would encourage the federal government, in their negotiations with the provinces, to take that into account and ensure that provinces can at least provide a comparable level of service across the country.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. MacQuarrie, one paragraph in your brief is entitled "Secure a Robust and Comprehensive Disability Data Collection Strategy". Where does that fit in with the respective powers of the federal government and the provinces? Do you want there to be an incentive at the federal level for the provinces to coordinate this? In the past, there have been efforts in that direction, but it has not always been a success.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Answer briefly, please.

[Anna MacQuarrie]

Yes. I think we need to ensure that our data can talk to each other. We have a lot of provincial data and a lot of federal data. We have data that have difficulty communicating with each other. We need to ensure that whatever strategy moves forward, they have the capacity to talk with each other, so that we get a comprehensive picture.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Merci.

To Mr. Szabo now, for a five minute round, please.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you.

I want to thank the Canadian Home Builders Association for raising the issue of the underground economy. Estimates range anywhere from $10 billion to $30 billion a year. I think your suggestion is certainly worth considering, around getting more people who are under the radar now.

Since he raised it, I wanted to ask the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants about whether the CICA and its collaborators in the world of looking at people's.... I think it's whether or not the government should seriously consider getting into some more forensic auditing to start picking away at the significant sectors of our economy that are abusers in the underground economy.

[Bruce Flexman]

The value of forensic accounting is really dealing with a fraud issue.

I believe the best approach is to have a system that encourages people to comply. If people feel the tax system is fair...I think things like a value-added tax make it more difficult not to comply or have consequences.

I know the government has introduced some reporting requirements, particularly within the construction trade. The best approach, from a tax policy standpoint, in my view, is to go at it from the end of promoting better compliance. Forensic accounting is really coming in at the end in trying to define the--

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Okay.

My time is limited. I'd like to move on to Mr. Beatty, a former minister of health. I do appreciate the work that you did a long time ago on poverty-related issues.

Mr. Beatty, you did say “keep our word” as part of your.... I guess our word is very important. Particularly today, in a dysfunctional parliament, people get judged on their word.

The government initially proposed in the budget EI increases three times larger than they're proposing now. It looks like they have said that now it's only one-third of the EI increases, so let's give credit to the government for taking that decision.

What really happened is we have created a crisis or an alert, and now we've resolved the problem we created in the first place and somehow we have to get credit.

How do you read the signals it gave to business about having increases of EI three times larger than the current proposed increase?

[Perrin Beatty]

Thanks very much, Mr. Szabo. It's a very important question.

What the government did was to put in place a mechanism where they would receive a recommendation to bring the EI account back into balance. The recommendation they received was for an increase three times the size.

The Canadian Chamber was very active on that front because we recognize that payroll taxes are job killers. The government, fortunately, agreed with us that this would have been exactly the wrong thing to do at this point in the recovery and decided what it would do is reduce that increase by two-thirds.

I think it was the right thing to do--

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

I understand the math--

[Perrin Beatty]

We also believe, Mr. Szabo, that there needs to be a fundamental reform of the EI system and of the system that's used to calculate how to bring the account back into balance.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

All right. I only have a short time, so I'd like to shift to another.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has issued his own alert about the possibility that of the economic stimulus projects currently approved, from 25% to 50% of them may not be complete by March 31, 2011.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

One minute, Mr. Szabo.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Would it be your view that the government should keep its word, honour those projects, the job impacts, the economic impacts, provided that any delays were beyond the control of the applicants?

[Perrin Beatty]

Mr. Szabo, the commitment that was made by Parliament was that the program would expire at the end of this fiscal year. All of the applicants understood that at the time they made their applications.

In some cases, because of circumstances that weren't their responsibility, their fault, obviously they're affected by it. But at some point the program has to end. The key is for us to transition from a stimulus-driven recovery to one that's driven by the private sector.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

But it certainly does put a lot of municipalities and cities in a bad situation when they don't know whether or not it's going to happen...beyond their control.

And keeping our word...let's remember income trusts.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you. I guess we'll leave that as a statement.

Mr. Carrier, you have five minutes.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My first question is for the people from the Alberta Chambers of Commerce.

You are proposing to retain or restore the accelerated depreciation treatment in the case of mining and oil sands projects. Do you have an idea of the cost that represents for the government?

[Ken Kobly]

You bet. We believe there is no incremental cost, simply because the capital cost allowance that is currently allowed and is 25% would extend the time period the company would have to write off their asset. The accelerated capital cost allowance would mean that they would be able to write that off sooner. But once you get to the end of the write-off period, the amount they've been able to save in taxes or that costs the government is identical.

So if you go back to the paper that I referenced in 2001, by those three gentlemen from Finance, they said, based on the benchmark system that exists--the 25%--if the accelerated capital cost allowance comes along and does not cost the federal government any additional dollars, there is no tax expenditure.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

But still, this is revenue the government will lose in the immediate future, in the first few years, that it might be important to allocate to other needs. I understand this is depreciation that is done immediately and replaces depreciation that might be done later, but there are also other demands. We are meeting with dozens of groups here, and we see all of the needs that exist. I will limit myself to that information for the moment.

I want to ask Ms. MacQuarrie a question.

What you are asking us for strikes me as refreshing. I am an MP from Quebec and we are currently receiving requests from organizations complaining that budgets have been cut for the Opportunities Fund for Persons with Disabilities. The information we have receive is that the reduction would apply only in Quebec. This is a question we are setting aside and will be asking the government. Nonetheless, the overall budget is very limited.

You want a refundable tax credit for persons with disabilities to be added. Do you have an idea of how you want to model the credit? Would it be by disability? Do you have any idea on that subject?