My second question....
Evidence of meeting #24 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was infrastructure.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #24 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was infrastructure.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Monsieur Giguère, we'll be going on to the next member.
I just want to remind members that there was a full technical briefing offered by officials. If we're going to be asking things of that nature, we're going to be here until midnight. That's fine with the chair, but there was a full briefing offered by all officials, to which all the parties were invited. I encourage members to raise issues they need clarification on further to that briefing.
The next person is Mr. Julian, please.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Well, Mr. Chair, the standard format for committees is that when the minister and senior officials appear there is a fairly wide-ranging depth of possibility of questions. I would agree with you that if we were in clause-by-clause, we would be restricting the questions to a very limited range. But generally speaking, certainly in the seven years I've been here, when we're at a point where there are more general questions, and that's certainly what happens around the appearance of a minister, there's some scope for questions.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
To respond to that, I'm not saying general questions are not allowed; I'm saying the officials cannot answer why something is in there. They can answer on the how, but they cannot say why this is in this budget. Only the minister can answer that, which I think you understand very well.
In terms of general questions, absolutely they're allowed. I would just say that the committee has agreed to deal with this in three meetings—tonight, tomorrow night, and Thursday night—and it's up to the committee as to how long we sit each night. That's all I'm saying on that point.
6:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you for clarifying, Mr. Chair.
And thank you to the officials for coming. My questions will deal with the how and the what.
My first question regarding the how is on the volunteer firefighters tax credit. I believe you evaluated the global estimate per year as $15 million. In the evaluation of the cost of the volunteer firefighters tax credit, I'm wondering whether there was any consideration of the $3 million that firefighters have been requesting for a number of years in the public safety officer compensation fund. You'll recall, of course, that Parliament adopted that about five years ago.
So with regard to the $15 million for the voluntary firefighter tax credit, did you do an evaluation as well—
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I appreciate going perhaps to the more general, but Mr. Julian is looking for items that aren't in the BIA. They weren't in the budget.
I think we have to respect what the officials are here to do. Again, that's a political conversation. It's not appropriate for this venue.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
6:30 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
I have two, so that was the first one, an evaluation of whether or not the public safety officer compensation fund was evaluated.
The second is on the temporary accelerated capital cost allowance. With regard to the extension to the end of 2013, certainly that's a measure we've supported in the past.
Was there an evaluation on to what extent the accelerated capital cost allowance has contributed to the dearth of business investment in machinery and equipment? Over the course of the last few weeks we've certainly seen to what extent there's been a fall in business investment. Was there an evaluation of the impact so far on business investment, before we look at the extension?
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Again, Chair, he's asking the department to speculate on something.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
The way I read your question, you're asking them to speculate on a comparison. Maybe I've misread your question.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
My understanding of the question is that he's asking the officials to say whether they have an analysis of the effects of the accelerated capital cost allowance to date in terms of its impact on investment.
6:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I can put that question to the officials, but, frankly, the panellists we have coming up in about 20 minutes would also be able to answer that question.
Mr. Lalonde.
6:30 p.m.
Director, Tax Legislation Division, Department of Finance
Well, I think I'd first like to answer the question about the firefighters tax credit. The important thing to understand about the firefighters tax credit is that it is an alternative to the existing tax exemption, and the policy behind it had not so much to do with this other fund that the honourable member has mentioned as it did with recognizing the fact that the existing exemption of $1,000 didn't get you much if you weren't being paid anything in the context of being a volunteer firefighter. As the word “volunteer” implies, that was often the case.
Hence, there were some recommendations to the government to introduce instead a tax credit that would offer relief to those who didn't receive compensation for their volunteer firefighting, and those are in the alternatives. Someone said earlier, if you don't have your 200 hours, isn't this worse than what you had before? It absolutely is not, because what you had before is still an alternative. You can have one or the other, but you can't have both. So that's the answer to that question.
In terms of the analysis of the effectiveness of the accelerated capital cost allowance, we're really sort of delving into advice to the minister that we've given in the course of developing Budget 2011. As was indicated before, these things are really the purview of the Minister of Finance, and with regard to that, I think it's obvious that the government considers an extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance to be a good and worthwhile idea.
I suspect you're thinking that maybe it should be made permanent, but the government has had a policy for the last several years of trying, for the most part, to keep capital cost allowance rates in line with economic depreciation. This is a drastic divergence from that policy, and it's done on a temporary basis as part of the economic action plan, but not as part of a long-term policy for the government.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, thank you.
Colleagues, we still have parts 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 18, on each of which we have at least one question, so I'm going to recommend we move to part 2.
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Chair, part 1 covers many considerations. If we had a total of 40 parts, I would have been willing, but almost 30 elements are included in part 1. Those who drafted the bill may have gotten a bit carried away when they put part 1 together. Part 1 covers all kinds of different things. There are too many elements to discuss.
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I appreciate that, but I have eight more parts to do tonight. We have witnesses who are waiting to present. This is the schedule that was agreed to by all three parties, not one imposed by the chair. We all agreed to do this tonight and tomorrow night and to have clause-by-clause on Thursday afternoon.
If the committee wishes to change that schedule, it can do so, through a majority vote, indicating that to the chair. There were discussions among three parties to come up with this schedule. This is the schedule the chair has to adhere to.
There is an option to keep going with part 1, but we're not going to keep our witnesses waiting for another hour and a half in the crowd. So the parties have to decide: do they wish to move to part 2 and try to get through all eight of the other parts they have questions on, or do they wish to continue with part 1? At a certain point I'm going to move to the witnesses who are patiently waiting in the crowd to present to us tonight.
Mr. Julian.
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Thank you.
Because I wasn't part of those discussions, I apologize for this question in advance. But I fail to see why, if some members are asking questions on part 1, we can't have the other witnesses come forward for the other parts and handle them all at the same time. Is there something I'm missing here?
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
When do you want the other witnesses, the finance officials, on the other parts to come forward?
6:35 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
My understanding was that there was scope for asking questions on various parts of the bill. But when you say you want to move on from part 1, is that because what you would like to do is have other witnesses come forward? My only question is this. Is there a problem with having all the witnesses come forward so that we can go through the questions one after another?
6:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Because you weren't part of the discussions, let me explain the process. The process was that we were having three sessions to deal with this bill. In the first session, the first hour was the Minister of Finance; the second hour was senior officials from the department; and then from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. it was witnesses, as agreed to by the three parties. We're obviously late because of the half-hour vote, so we've pushed that back and the witnesses are waiting in the crowd to present.
We're still in the senior officials part, and we were supposed to be done by 6:30, but obviously we're running past 6:30. Tomorrow night we have more witnesses, as agreed to by the three parties, to appear before the committee. Thursday afternoon we've agreed to deal with clause-by-clause.
That is the agreement between the three parties, and that is what the chair is attempting to get through, in the interest of time, because it may get to be midnight and we'll still be here. I suspect that's not what committee members want. I'm assuming the opposition wants to deal with the other eight parts of the bill it has questions on, which is why I've asked members about 16 times to prioritize their questions on the sections.
At a certain point the chair is going to move to the witnesses in the crowd and allow the finance officials to go home.
Yes, Ms. Glover.