Finance Committee on March 26th, 2018

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Aren't you just buying votes, Minister? Isn't that what this whole budget is about? It's a cynical political gesture. You're saying these words because you do not at all emulate...or try to foster any of the things that you're talking about in your budget whether in your past corporate life, within your own department, or even in your own ministerial staff. Isn't this just a way to get a woman's vote? Isn't that what this is all about?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Minister....

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I find your line of questioning to be offensive.

What I can tell you is that how I've comported myself in my life to date, and what we're trying to achieve, is about getting the greatest amount of success possible. I absolutely believe that doing that by promoting women into positions of leadership is one of the key success factors. We'll continue to do this. If people like you don't buy into it, that's a problem we'll have to face. However, my view is that we will be more successful collectively if we're actually able to successfully promote women into leadership roles. We will drag along the neanderthals who don't agree with that, and that will be our continuing approach.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

I'm not a neanderthal under people like you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Dusseault, you have six minutes.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, thank you for being here.

I will start with a question that should be easy, since the title of your 2018 budget contains the words “middle class”.

How does your government define “middle class”?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

In our opinion, the vast majority of Canadians think they belong to the middle class. That means that, for them, it is always possible to do better. There is a need to find ways to improve the situation of this vast majority of Canadians.

That's exactly what we did by adopting measures like the Canada child benefit, which helps nine out of ten families, but it is not intended for families with annual incomes over $150,000. That's what we're doing by introducing the Canada workers benefit, which is intended to help people whose situation is currently difficult join the middle class.

In short, we are going to continue to improve the situation of the vast majority of Canadians who are really part of the middle class.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

So from what I understand, you don't have a definition of the middle class. You simply consider that it's the majority of Canadians.

Furthermore, 20 years ago, the Liberals announced the implementation of a pharmacare program. Now, 20 years later, you're still announcing your intention to introduce such a program. I'm a trusting person, and I will believe you this time. However, what worries me and what worries many other people who have spoken, is that the dice are loaded. In fact, the plan you have in mind is pharmacare that is not public, universal or free. This is clear to most people. You've mentioned it.

Do you think it's worth setting up a group of experts when your intentions have already been set for the program you're going to implement?

In addition, there are some people who criticize you for having a conflict of interest on this issue because the company you run is in that area, namely, employee drug benefit programs. How do you respond to them?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

We don't know the solutions yet. We know there is a big challenge. Right now, part of the population can't access prescription drugs. It's a 21st century problem.

We must find a solution to this challenge. To do this, we will hold good consultations. We chose to hire Eric Hoskins to help us. We will examine the challenge and try to determine how the eventual program we want to implement can be funded. This is how we'll find a solution. It's clear that it hasn't been done yet. It's difficult.

Over the last two decades, as you said, we have seen tremendous change. There has been a big change in the structure of employment: today there are more self-employed people. In addition, the price of prescription drugs has changed significantly. The challenge is different, and to find a solution, we must consider the challenges of today.

That's why we have opted for a process that will allow us to consider the important things. We will have a report with recommendations to establish a program that will work for all Canadians.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, but I don't think anyone finds this answer reassuring.

The last time we met at this committee, we talked about tax treaties. The government was supposed to review the tax treaties it had signed with many countries. We talked about Barbados, where Canada made direct investments of $68 billion. It's the third largest country in terms of our investments abroad. I was trying to find out what this $68 billion investment was for, and you promised me that you would provide an answer later. It took four months before your department could give us an answer, through our committee clerk. We learned that 95% of that $68 billion was directed to the financial sector, meaning banks and management. It was a one-paragraph response. It left me with more questions than answers.

Since you started reviewing tax treaties, have you found any that you could do away with? Primarily, have you looked at the one with Barbados?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

In our opinion, it is very important to have tax agreements with other countries. Canadian companies can then work with other countries. It is very important to have an approach that works. That will continue to be our approach.

At the same time, we have a responsibility to make sure that there is a way to verify the various taxation systems in each country. That is why we have reached agreements with the OECD, implemented the Common Reporting Standard, and implemented measures to combat tax base erosion and profit shifting, also known as BEPS. In that way, we will see what the situation is in each country and, at the same time, to find out whether there is a way in which companies can do business in a way that is advantageous to them.

So it is necessary to have agreements. Clearly, we must ensure that we have an approach that works, but that poses no taxation problems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll have to cut it off there.

Ms. O'Connell, you have the last question in the first round.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being here.

I find it extremely offensive to suggest that buying votes for women is done through types of policies and transformational work. Let me set the stage a little about, once again, the hypocrisy that we hear from the other side.

Let me ask this question. How many women did the Conservatives put on this committee? Zero. Let's also talk about—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I think the questions are for the Minister.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Okay, let me go back to that, then.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

The Minister can answer that question, too.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

It's easy when there are three, and there are zero.

There are currently eight women in the Conservative shadow critic roles—eight. Prime Minister Harper had six ministers out of 26 in 2006 and 12 out of 39 in 2013—I have Google, too—so let's talk about what this budget actually means for women, despite the hypocrisy coming from the other side over there.

Is parental leave enhancement so that women can get back into the workforce about buying votes from women, or is that about creating greater flexibility for women in the workforce? What about the funding and the carve-outs supporting women entrepreneurs? Do the Conservatives believe that is buying votes? I guess they don't really know the supports that women need since they clearly don't see a role for a woman on the finance committee. What about women in trades? Is that important to the economy and to women?

Perhaps, Minister, you can speak about the actual proposals in this budget and why you felt they were needed now. We can all go back to the dark ages of the Harper Conservatives, but that hasn't helped women, so can you talk about what the future holds for women? We all have to acknowledge that this isn't the end, but certainly some of the proposals in this budget are meant not only to stimulate the economy but also to help women get into the workforce.

I want to bring up one line that I mentioned in my delegations to my local councils when I spoke about the budget. It was said in this budget that the issue of women in the economy is not just a moral issue but an economic issue to be seized. The previous Conservatives and the current Conservatives didn't bother to seize that moment. Can you talk about why you are?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

The frame of this is always the situation that we find ourselves in. We look back over the last 40 years and consider how our economy has grown. A third of the growth over the last 40 years has been women entering the workforce. Then you have to consider whether we have gone as far as we can go in this regard.

Women in Canada are in the workforce at a 61% workforce participation rate. Men are at a 70% workforce participation rate. That means we're eighth out of 29 OECD countries. In my estimation, we can do better than eighth out of 29.

In terms of equal pay for equal work, we have women earning about 88¢ on the dollar compared to men, for an equal amount of full-time work, if you want to look at it that way. That's about 15th out of 29.

What we're saying is that as we face a significant demographic challenge, because we're having more people retiring as the baby boomers retire, we need to make sure that all Canadians who want to work and have the capacity to have an impact are able to meet up with their full opportunities. That's the challenge we're facing. We think we can do better for women in this country, and we think that will have a really important impact for all Canadians.

It will also have a specific impact for women who actually find themselves in these advantageous situations. For the parental leave that you were talking about, the five-week “use it or lose it”, the idea is that we're going to get more second parents—and typically, it's men—taking time off. This is going to enable women to go back to the workforce more rapidly or in greater numbers.

The idea that we're putting in an additional amount of money through the BDC and EDC for women entrepreneurs means that there are more opportunities for women business leaders to be successful. It means for young women today that they'll see more opportunity in the future.

The fact that we put a significant amount of money into science and research and say that we want to tilt that towards younger, more female, more interdisciplinary work means that when a young girl is thinking about what field she might want to go into, she's likely to see more researchers who are going to be in science and engineering down the road because they will have more grants that will have been given to them.

These are all about the long-term idea that we want to see more success for women in our economy. It won't be done overnight, but I think the starting point that we began right at the very beginning of our government, where we looked to fill leadership positions with an equal number of men and women, and the continuing focus on how we can do better are going to have an impact.

Whether it's for the young women of today or a girl who's just thinking about what she's going to do, she'll see that she'll have more opportunity in the future, and that will end up being better for her. That will end up being better for our economy. Even for the people who don't buy into this, it will be better for them, so we're going to keep on it.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'm sorry, we'll have to end it there. That was a long question with a long answer, and six minutes have gone.

Five-minute rounds, Mr. Poilievre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

You promised the budget would be balanced next year. Will it?

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

We're not going to take the Conservative approach to cuts—

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Sorry, this was the Liberal approach in the platform—

[Bill Morneau, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

—cutting things like the veterans benefits, for example.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

—in the election platform.