Evidence of meeting #123 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Dean Beyea  Director, International Trade Policy Division, Department of Finance
Mario Albert  President and Chief Executive Officer, Autorité des marchés financiers
Julia Deans  Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Youth Business Foundation
Alex Levasseur  President, Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada, Confédération des syndicats nationaux
Pierre Meulien  President and Chief Executive Officer, Genome Canada
John Lounds  President and Chief Executive Officer, Nature Conservancy of Canada

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 123 of the Standing Committee on Finance. Orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, May 7, 2013, a continuation of our study of Bill C-60, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.

Colleagues, we're very pleased to have before us today the Honourable Jim Flaherty, the Minister of Finance, to discuss this bill.

Minister, I understand you have an opening statement, and then we'll have questions from members. Welcome back to the committee.

3:55 p.m.

Whitby—Oshawa Ontario

Conservative

Jim Flaherty ConservativeMinister of Finance

Thank you, Chair.

It's good to be here with the finance committee and the members of the committee. This is a hard-working committee, of course, particularly with respect to budget preparation, and I thank all of you for that.

I'm always short, but I'll also try to be brief in my opening remarks.

Your work pre-budget and the report you wrote were an important part of the presentation of the budget this year, as it is most years. Your recommendations do inform the budget, and I include from the committee's report—because I looked to see—some of the things that ended up in the economic action plan of 2013, including establishing a long-term plan for infrastructure, reviewing the temporary foreign worker program, extending the mineral exploration tax credit, reviewing current tariffs on consumer goods, ensuring fairness and neutrality in the tax system by closing tax loopholes, and further strengthening Canada's manufacturing sector.

Secondly, I'd like to congratulate the committee on its recent study and its in-depth report on options intended to increase charitable donations in Canada by using tax incentives and other targeted initiatives. The recommendations in this report also greatly influenced the preparation of the 2013 budget.

I will continue, but I will not say all the things I was going to say because I'm sure some of it will come up in questions, and I know votes may interfere.

Canada has done relatively well. Let me speak about this context. I use the word “relatively”. The world has been through a difficult time, particularly the western industrialized economies, since what the economists are now calling the great recession of 2008-09.

We had been paying down public debt in 2006-07 and into 2008—about $38 billion of public debt in Canada—in preparation for what was at that time the concern, quite frankly, which was more the American deficit and the accumulating public debt than it was Europe, although today perhaps the emphasis is more on the continuing recession in most of Europe.

In January 2009 we brought in the economic action plan, which was the budget of 2009, the earliest budget in Canadian history. It was a dramatic move toward stimulating the economy because of the fear that we had of very large unemployment and a deep, dark, prolonged recession.

The economic action plan worked. Canada came out of recession before any of the other industrialized economies. We were in recession for three quarters only. Our unemployment rate, thank goodness, never went into double digits.

Times remain challenging. I just came back from a G-7 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting 10 days ago in the United Kingdom. As I said, Europe has been in a prolonged recession. We're not out of the woods yet. There's a tension between some of the industrialized countries in the west—and I shouldn't just say the west because Japan is part of this—about spending more, stimulating more, more debt, more deficits, more perceived economic growth, and more printing of money, which is euphemistically called “quantitative easing”.

And then there are those of us who feel that the correct balance is what we tried to do in the budget this year in economic action plan 2013; that is, moving continually toward a balanced budget, which we will have by 2015, which was the plan from January 2009, while at the same time stimulating the economy in a few very important areas, which this committee has also highlighted from time to time—manufacturing through the accelerated capital cost allowance extension; infrastructure, which is vitally important to our communities and our municipalities in Canada; and skills training through the Canada job grant.

We feel we've hit the right balance, and we encourage our colleagues in the G-7 to follow that pattern.

The IMF recently remarked—and I'm quoting—“Canada is in an enviable position...[and] the policies that are being deployed are, in our minds, broadly appropriate”.

However, as our government has said over and over, we cannot let our guard down. As we are reminded too often, the world economy remains fragile. The United States and Europe, who are among our biggest partners, continue to face serious economic challenges. As it was noted earlier this month, the euro zone is now in the longest recession it has ever experienced, that is to say negative economic growth for six consecutive quarters.

In the middle of this economic and global turmoil, Canada must also face the reality of a more and more competitive world market, with the increased participation of emerging economies such as Brazil, India and China.

To build a stronger economy and produce increased job growth, the many positive initiatives contained in Bill C-60 include the major measures I've already mentioned with respect to manufacturers. There is also the indexing of the gas tax fund, which was a major pre-budget request of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities during our meetings with them, and I know the committee had the same experience. We are extending the mineral exploration tax credit. We know that sector of the Canadian economy has a lot of growth and is very important to Canadian economic growth overall. We are providing $165 million in multi-year support for genomics research, $18 million to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to help young entrepreneurs grow their firms and their futures, and $5 million to Indspire for post-secondary scholarships and bursaries for first nations and Inuit students.

Additionally, Bill C-60 brings forward many positive initiatives to support families and communities. Some of these are much less expensive than the major initiatives, of course: promoting adoption by enhancing the adoption expense tax credit; introducing a new first-time donor's super credit to encourage Canadians to donate to charity—that came in significant part out of the work done by this committee on charitable issues. We are expanding tax relief for our home care services, providing $30 million to support the construction of housing in Nunavut, investing $20 million in the Nature Conservancy of Canada to continue to conserve ecologically sensitive land, providing $3 million to support training in palliative care for front-line health care providers, committing $3 million to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to expand library services for the blind and partially sighted, and supporting veterans and their families by no longer deducting veterans' disability benefits when calculating other select benefits. There are also many other initiatives.

I know you have had an opportunity to look at Bill C-60 carefully. I know some parts of the bill have been referred to other committees of the House of Commons. I emphasize to you the need for balance in the approach we take as a government. I can tell you that in international discussions I have had with my colleagues in finance and central banking around the world, Canada is well respected for the way we have grappled with economic issues also facing other countries over the course of the past several years.

I am prepared to receive questions, Mr. Chair.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you very much, Minister, for your opening statement.

We'll start members' questions with Ms. Nash, please.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Mr. Minister, to the committee.

Of course, we're examining Bill C-60, which is another omnibus budget bill that affects about 50 different pieces of legislation. We've seen sections of this bill carved out and sent to other committees, although it will all come back here and we'll be voting on it—without having had the opportunity to hear witnesses' testimony or ask questions.

I want to ask you questions about two specific areas. First of all, part 3, division 17, gives the Treasury Board sweeping powers to unilaterally set the terms and conditions of employment for non-union workers and to impose a bargaining mandate on employees with a union. I'd like you to explain how allowing politicians to directly set wages and hours and perhaps even terminate employees is consistent with the independence of these crown corporations.

I just want to give you a couple of examples. Suppose a Bank of Canada economist publishes a research paper critical of the government's fiscal policy and the Treasury Board decides they want to cut that person's salary. Or suppose a CBC journalist publishes a story on the Senate scandal and the Treasury Board orders a reduction of that person's hours. These are scenarios that seem to be consistent with part 3, division 17.

I'm wondering if you can comment on the appropriateness of politicians making these decisions for independent crown corporations.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

Quite simply, this is a parliamentary democracy. This is not a dictatorship. Crown corporations have a certain amount of independence in certain matters, but they report to us as parliamentarians. They report to the government, which in turn reports to Parliament. There's a distinction between the independence in some areas and accountability. The CBC, Canada Post, all of them are accountable to the taxpayers of Canada. In other words, they can't just go do what they want with taxpayers' money, and that includes salaries and wages.

This makes it very clear in the legislation that they are accountable for their spending to Treasury Board, and through Treasury Board, of course, to the full Government of Canada and finally to the Parliament of Canada, including the House of Commons. This makes entirely good sense to me.

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

I question whether journalistic independence would be respected in the case of political decisions being made, and whether there are truly independent decisions that will be made at the Bank of Canada under that scenario. But I need to move on to a different section.

This is part 3, division 9, temporary foreign workers. Back in 2009 the government admitted that there were no provisions existing in the regulations to hold employers accountable for their actions regarding temporary foreign workers. Nothing was done in that regard for another three and a half years. Now we see HRSDC is suffering the largest job cuts of any federal department, with more than 3,800 workers affected. They've been delivered notices about their jobs.

Will these job cuts affect the department's ability to administer the temporary foreign worker program and the new powers they are given under Bill C-60?

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

There's about one minute left for a response.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

The reductions of which you are speaking arise out of the deficit reduction program that the government has undertaken in the past several years. It is within individual governments and government agencies that adjustments are made. Indeed, adjustments were made in the Department of Finance. We reduced the size of the workforce in the Department of Finance. The Bank of Canada made adjustments at my request, as did the other crown agencies that report to me, as Minister of Finance, and to Parliament. We don't have any free agents out there doing whatever they want.

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON

Excuse me, Mr. Minister. It's already clear that there hasn't been enough oversight in this program, and now this department is going to take a major hit in terms of loss of personnel. How can Canadians be assured that the temporary foreign worker program will not undermine the ability of Canadians to get available jobs and ensure that their rights are protected?

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Minister, a brief response, please.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

There will be adjustments to the program, as you know. Bill C-60 provides for that. The minister responsible was satisfied during the budget process that he had adequate resources to accomplish the goals.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

We'll go to Ms. McLeod, please.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your opening statement.

I also need to reflect that I remember it was about this time last year when the finance committee was travelling, and in every meeting we went to, people were incredibly complimentary—Washington, New York—in terms of how Canada had seen itself through a very difficult time. I think perhaps we sometimes forget how fortunate we are in Canada in terms of the relative good health of both our employment numbers and our net debt to GDP.

Certainly, an important feature of that is, of course, our manufacturing industry. We know that about 1.8 million Canadians are employed in the manufacturing sector. Ontario, of course, took a significant hit during the global recession.

In this fragile economy, could you talk a little bit more about the beneficial measures in this bill in terms of our Canadian manufacturers and processors?

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

This was a major issue during the preparation of the budget, and I don't mind saying that. The accelerated capital cost allowance is a temporary measure. The standard capital cost allowance in Canada, as you know, is 30%, and this accelerated capital cost allowance is at 50%.

I was looking for the numbers. It's $1.4 billion in tax relief to manufacturers.

You're absolutely correct that the large concentration of manufacturing is in southwestern Ontario, and the recession struck that area of the country and that province hard with respect to the manufacturing sector. We thought it was appropriate to use some of the limited resources available to provide incentives, and to provide this major incentive in the manufacturing industry. It is supported, of course, by the Canadian Manufacturing Coalition.

But I have to stress that this is a very generous capital cost allowance at 50%, and it is not a permanent measure.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Thank you.

The next focus I would like to talk about is the common securities regulator, and I don't think it's a secret that we've been long looking to establish a security regulator in Canada. I see the legislation will extend the mandate of the Canadian Securities Transition Office by removing its statutory dissolution date. In other words, it seems clear the federal government is looking to move forward with this idea.

Could you explain why the creation of a common securities regulator in Canada is so important, and how the current plans relate to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in December 2011?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

Sure.

I've been advocating a common securities regulator for a long time, with limited success.

The Supreme Court of Canada said two primary things, on my reading of their judgment, among other things. That is, all of us should cooperate, the provinces, territories, and the federal government; that we all have constitutional responsibilities in the area of securities; that the federal government has a systemic responsibility for systemic risk across the whole country, in terms of the securities market; and that the provinces, if I may use imprecise language, have day-to-day regulatory responsibilities.

We have tried greatly and repeatedly to get the majority of the provinces with large populations—and smaller populations for that matter—to join with us in a joint regulator. This is not a federal regulator. This would be a joint Canadian regulator, similar to the Canada Pension Plan, where the provinces and the federal government would delegate power or jurisdictions. This, among other things, would get over any legal jurisdictional arguments, because we would voluntarily delegate.

We've been unable to reach that kind of consensus. Now what do we do? We're faced with the reality that the Supreme Court of Canada has told the federal Parliament that we are responsible systemically for the system. What will happen when the next crisis happens will be that, again, the provinces will come to Ottawa to ask to be bailed out, like they did with the non-bank backed asset-backed commercial paper several years ago.

We feel we have to act; otherwise we will not be following the directions of the court. We will, if we have to, create a federal securities regulator to deal with those areas of jurisdiction the Supreme Court of Canada told the federal Parliament that it has.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. McLeod.

We'll go to Mr. Brison, please.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, today the committee received a letter from the president of the CBC where he essentially threatens to sue the government if C-60, your budget bill, passes as is. He says that your budget bill “would reduce the independence that is critical to our operation” and that:

This could potentially embroil the government, our Corporation, and its unions in litigation, a result that could be avoided with an amendment that protects that independence.

Would you support an amendment to your budget bill that protects the independence of the CBC and avoids a court battle between the government and the CBC?

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

No. The reason for that is what I already expressed, and it's in response to Ms. Nash.

The CBC may think it's a special, independent part of a crown agency. Some other crown agencies seem to have this idea. This is wrong. All crown agencies have a responsibility through ministers back to Parliament and to the people of Canada. They can't just do whatever they want, particularly with taxpayers money. CBC receives large amounts of federal taxpayers money every year, and they must be accountable for it, and I'm not saying they do, but they can't pay their executives and pay everybody else whatever they want to pay them. It has to fit into the larger picture.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Minister, some will see this not as an issue of accountability of the CBC but of your ideological view of public broadcasting in Canada. But we must move on.

You've said that iPods will remain exempt from tariffs under tariff item 9948. CBSA is now telling importers that products under item 9948 require end-user certificates to be eligible for the tariff exemption. Importers are telling us that collecting these end-user certificates is not practical. Can you confirm if the tariff exemption for iPods under item 9948 will depend on a requirement to collect end-user certificates? Yes or no.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

You're talking about a process problem. Substantively there is no tax on iPods. End-user certificates have been required for a long time on a large range of products. Some vendors have obeyed the law and some haven't. And some who haven't obeyed the law found themselves in some difficulty. That's what happens.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

On the broader issue of tariffs, your budget says that some tariff reductions in this bill will “lower prices for Canadian families”—that's on page 223—“...help sustain a higher quality of life for hard-working Canadian families”—that's page 9—and “help reduce the gap in retail prices that Canadian consumers pay compared to those in the U.S.”

Your budget actually increases tariffs by $250 million; that's the net increase. Do you accept, based on the logical corollary of your own words, that the tariff increases in budget 2013 by rate will, one, raise prices for Canadian families, two, reduce the quality of life of hard-working Canadian families, and three, help increase the gap in retail prices that Canadian consumers pay compared to those in the U.S.?

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Flaherty Conservative Whitby—Oshawa, ON

Not surprisingly, I entirely disagree with all three. Two different things are going on here. The Senate did a study at my request to look at the retail price differences in Canadian retail outlets compared to American ones. And I'm sure you've heard demands from your constituents on this subject as well. They want to know why, and I don't blame them. The Senate undertook a study, made certain recommendations, and we decided to follow up on a couple of the recommendations as a test case. We want to see if prices will go down.

The Retail Council of Canada thinks so. They've probably given the same evidence here as they've said to me about the fact that they want to examine the situation. They think prices will go down by these tariff reductions. We'll see. We're going to watch carefully in the next year.

The other thing you're talking about is the preferential tariff for goods from certain countries. It comes from the 1970s. It was designed as a foreign aid project. We still had China on the list. If you think Canadian taxpayers should be subsidizing goods coming to Canada from China, I beg to differ.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Minister, if you were really interested—

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative James Rajotte

Very briefly, please.