Evidence of meeting #88 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rate.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Chief, Labour Markets, Employment and Learning, Department of Finance
No, no, it was $57 billion. The last year that the EI account was in operation or was used as a bookkeeping entry, it was at $57 billion, yes.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
It was at $57 billion, and then it was formally reduced to $2 billion.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
We had this debate on that budget implementation act. Ms. Miller, just to clarify, what the officials told us at the time was that they didn't actually move $57 billion over. It was a bookkeeping....
4:35 p.m.
Chief, Labour Markets, Employment and Learning, Department of Finance
The government effectively changed the bookkeeping entry and how it tracked the ins and outs.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
It was an active debate at committee at the time. The officials are on record, the opposition's on record, the government's on record. I would strongly advise us, as a committee, to move on. Okay? I think I have a consensus to move on, unless you feel you have to make the point, Ms. Glover.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Well, I want to make sure the officials are clear.... There was no cash moved. Perhaps you could clearly explain that there was no cash moved and that it was a simple way of recording numbers. The cash that was in the account when there was a new opening.... The new account was so that we could close loopholes allowing government being able to access money.
Can you just be clear about that so that Ms. Nash understands?
4:35 p.m.
Chief, Labour Markets, Employment and Learning, Department of Finance
The EI account was a bookkeeping entry as a way of tracking the ins and outs of EI premium revenues versus EI benefits. All of the accounts are consolidated with the consolidated revenue fund and are part of general revenues, so it wasn't a matter of moving cash from one account to the other but simply a matter of how the ins and outs of the EI account were tracked.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
The cash in the account at the time was equal to what?
4:35 p.m.
Chief, Labour Markets, Employment and Learning, Department of Finance
It wasn't a cash entry. It was a bookkeeping entry. I'm afraid I'm not an accountant, so I can't speak specifically to how that would be qualified in general accounting terms.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, thank you.
If you wish us to consider anything further on that, you can always submit it to the committee, but debate will continue, I'm sure.
We want to thank you so much for being with us here and for responding to our questions on the two divisions you were here today to present on.
We will bring our next set of officials forward.
Colleagues, perhaps while we're getting the next officials to come forward, I'll ask the clerk to pass around a very small motion. I think it has been agreed to by the three parties, but perhaps I could ask all the members to read over the motion. If there are any problems with it, please indicate this to me as the chair.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Mr. Brison, you don't have to do this formally, but do you wish to formally give notice of your motions?
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay, Mr. Brison wishes to give notice for two motions, I believe.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Chair, I'd like to give notice for the following two motions, to be debated on Wednesday. One motion is “that the committee requests the Parliamentary Budget Officer undertake a cost analysis of Bill C-377”.
The other is “that the committee invite officials from the Canada Revenue Agency to appear as witnesses to answer questions regarding the cost of implementing and administering Bill C-377, and that this appearance take place prior to the committee's clause-by-clause consideration of this bill”.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Mr. Brison is just presenting these motions as notice. They will not be debated today.
Do you want to speak to this point, Mr. Jean?
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I have a point of clarification. Are they two separate motions or one motion? I'm just curious.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
We want to thank our officials for being here, for discussing part 4, division 23, public sector pensions.
We'll ask you for a brief overview of these amendments, and then we'll have questions from members.
4:40 p.m.
Kathleen Kelly Executive Director, Pension Policy and Program, Treasury Board Secretariat
My name is Kathleen Kelly, and I am the executive director of pension policy and programs at Treasury Board Secretariat.
I am here with Joan Arnold, senior director, legislation, authorities, and litigation management, and Kim Gowing, director, pension program management and regulatory policy.
The amendments we're here to discuss are to the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act.
The Public Service Superannuation Act amendments provide that contributors pay no more than 50% of the current service cost of their pension plan. In addition, for the public service, the pensionable age is raised from 60 to 65 in relation to persons who become contributors on or after January 1, 2013.
For the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the amendment would change the limitations that apply in respect of the contribution rates at which contributors are required to pay, as a result of the amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Similarly, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act is being amended to change the limitations that apply in respect of the contribution rates at which contributors are required to pay, as a result of the amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act.
Thank you.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you very much for that presentation.
Are there any questions?
Ms. Nash, go ahead, please.
4:40 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
First of all, I have a technical question. What would these changes mean for people who are in the public service, leave, and then come back? Would they in fact be involved in two different plans? Would that be the outcome?
November 5th, 2012 / 4:40 p.m.
Kim Gowing Director, Pensions and Benefits Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
If members of the public service leave and they leave a vested interest in the plan—for example, if they leave a deferred annuity—and come back as employees after January 1, 2013, they will go under the old provisions, .
However, if these employees had severed all ties with the government and took a transfer value, for example, then they would come under the new provisions of the plan.