Finance Committee on Oct. 5th, 2018

[Leona Alleslev]

Ms. Marrone, if I can go to you for a moment, you talk about what we need to have around tax reform. We need to have support for people filing taxes because it's so complicated. We need people to be able to file their taxes because, of course, that's a good thing, yet other countries have made taxes simpler and less complicated.

We haven't had tax reform since 1970. The nature of work and our society has changed. Would your first position be support for filing taxes, or perhaps just an overhaul to make the tax system simpler?

[Mary Marrone]

It depends. Simpler isn't always accessible or always better. Generally it is, but we've seen situations where it doesn't necessarily take you down the road you want to go.

[Leona Alleslev]

Would it be a good start?

[Mary Marrone]

There are two issues here.

There's the filing of taxes, which is complex and needs to be simplified and probably has many options. I understand in other countries the government does it for you and that's your default, so your filing happens automatically. That would be worth looking at.

The issue for us is that we are seeing more and more income benefit programs being delivered through the tax system. A system that is primarily for collection of revenue and determining tax liability is being used to deliver income benefits. They've been successful programs, so we wouldn't say not to use the tax system. That is actually much simpler than a lot of social assistance programs we see, so that's a good step. However, if you're going to go down that road, you need a dispute resolution process that people can actually use.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. Thank you all.

We're doing well on time. We will have time for one question from each party.

Now we'll go Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a number of questions for the witnesses, and the first one is for Mr. Kingston from the Business Council of Canada.

In your presentation and in your brief, you talked about the “patent box”.

Can you briefly describe the model of a country you would like Canada to follow?

[Brian Kingston]

Sorry, my French is not good enough to talk tax. I'll have to respond in English.

One model we've looked at is the U.K. model. They've introduced the “patent box” regime and it seems to be having some effect. Essentially what you're doing is giving a favourable tax rate to companies that do R and D in your country. You can set it up in a way to make sure that it's actually being used for its intended purpose.

I'd start with the U.K. as a model to look at and then determine if that's appropriate here in Canada. Part of the reason we think this is important is because some of the U.S. tax reform changes actually make Canada's existing SR and ED credits, which encourage research and development, less effective. This is part of the U.S. strategy to draw more capital outside of Canada and other countries into the U.S.

We think our existing suite of R and D supporting programs have now been hurt by the U.S. reform, so a U.K.-style patent box could be a useful counter to that.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much.

My second question is for Ms. Tamblyn Watts.

You mentioned an issue, which is a good issue to have. Canadians are living longer and longer. You mentioned the fact that the registered retirement income fund should be adjusted. The age limit for a contribution must no longer be 71.

Do you have any idea of the financial consequences of a change like that or do you think it would be the same?

[Laura Tamblyn Watts]

Thank you for your question.

My French is not always so good for tax either. With your indulgence, I'll respond in English.

We're looking at eliminating mandatory registered retirement income fund withdrawals. We would like to see them eliminated. We don't see any economic benefit to forcing older adults to withdraw their money, from a tax point of view.

Eliminating forced RRSP withdrawals, which punitively taxes the growing number of seniors working past 71 and also makes no sense.... We do not see anything but a disadvantage to older adults and to Canadians, generally.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much.

My penultimate question is for the representatives from the Canadian Women's Foundation.

I must tell you that I really enjoyed your presentation today. Your points seem very important to me.

I want to give you time to explain why it's so important for teenagers to benefit from programs that teach them how important it is to have appropriate relationships and that consent is essential in our society.

Could you tell us what measures we should take to ensure that such programs are available to young people?

[Karen Campbell]

That's a very important question. The research that we've done tells us that the teen years are a critical time to teach violence prevention because patterns of abuse are often learned very early in life. Young people are highly focused on relationships. We need more open spaces for dialogue for young people to be able to have honest and open conversations about these things.

We've been working in this area for about 20 years. There are a number of organizations that are working on programs to offer this kind of education across Canada. We see it as really important to build that field of healthy relationships, as a primary part of our work in violence prevention.

I would add that another part of our programming focuses on adults who have experienced sexual exploitation at some point in their life. What they tell us is that, if they had had healthy relationships education and been able to recognize the signs in this relationship, whether it's with peers, parents, teachers, other adults or other young people, then maybe they would have been able to avoid those situations as well.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I don't want to interrupt the discussion, but very briefly—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Are you watching your clock?

Go ahead.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I'm sorry. Unfortunately, this will be my last question.

What role does the federal government have to play? The provinces are often the ones investing in that type of program. Can you suggest how the federal government could contribute and invest resources?

[Karen Campbell]

There are healthy relationships programs that are offered in the schools, as part of curricula, but there are also many community organizations and women's organizations that need financial support to be able to run those programs. Our budget brief outlines a $4-million annual investment. As Mr. Julian said, that's not a lot in the grand scheme of things.

That number comes from the grant request that we received in our last national call for proposals. It indicates that there are organizations that need that kind of funding, just to be able to offer the programs. There's an important role for the federal government in doing that and supporting the convening of those groups, so that they can share information and understand better how to build out that sector.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you all.

As I said, we have time for one more question from each party. Turning to the Canadian Women's Foundation, my question to you would be this. What can we do better with what we have? I know you said that the $4 million is not a lot, but I'll tell you that, if you sit at this committee and with the number of witnesses we have had, the “not a lots” add up to a heck of a lot.

Your request here is really for $2,119,000,000 annually. What would you prioritize, so that it might be possible to get it done?

[Ann Decter]

We've talked about a range of things. Some of them are small and immediate, and some are big and long term. I think the government is on the right track moving gender-based analysis across the entire budget. If that is done thoroughly, some of the things that we have proposed will be irresistible. They will be in the path.

We've put in $2 billion for child care across the country, but you already have investments in child care. We say ramp those up to get to a universal system. Child care is really the biggest block in the pay gap—women's experience of the workforce is very different from men's—and it increases workforce attachment. The Quebec experience shows that it increases GDP and the participation of women in the workforce. Quebec, through its period of having low-cost child care and broad access to it, has gone from having the lowest workforce participation of women in the country to the highest. That is why they brought it in.

There are things like that. There are things that are immediate and easy. There are things that are conceptual—for example, moving sexual assault services into a comprehensive public health response. This is a long-term revisioning of what's going on based on everything we're hearing day to day and that's been coming out for the last four or five years. We are seeing the extent of this problem. It's woven into the country. It needs to be woven into the health system.

Some of the things we're suggesting are initial investments but also a long-term rethinking of what's going on. We know there's a huge issue around missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. The government has started on that path. A lot of what we're saying is to just keep going in the direction you're going. In terms of these small investments, something like $4 million spent on teen healthy relationships will pay you back many times over.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Kelly, Mr. Julian, and then Mr. Fergus.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thank you.

Ms. Watts, you made many detailed recommendations in your submission. I want to talk about elder abuse and a particular form of elder abuse, that being fraud. You have a recommendation that's fairly specific about the amendment to PIPEDA. Can you share with the committee whether you have any experience from your members of the response from law enforcement on fraud cases?

I'm aware of a case that touched my own family. I'm aware of some real frustration around the ability, and perhaps even the willingness, in some cases, of police to lay charges when they can be laid. I know that fraud across the board in society is a huge problem. Fraud cases are difficult to prosecute. They are difficult to get a conviction on, but when fraud happens and nobody goes to jail, it emboldens fraud and erodes confidence in our institutions, from law enforcement to finance to trust between people in society.

Could you give us some details of your recommendations around elder abuse as it pertains to fraud?

[Laura Tamblyn Watts]

I'll focus on three particular points. The first is that when we're looking at elder abuse, and financial elder abuse in particular, fraud is one component. It is important to know that two-thirds of all elder abuse, including financial abuse, is perpetrated by family members and those closest to the older adult. Stranger financial abuse is really only one third.

The cybersecurity that Mr. Liss was mentioning is a huge piece of it as well. Older adults are overwhelmingly targeted by fraudsters, and increasingly so in mobile and phishing-type scams as well.

I have the privilege of teaching police across this country about elder abuse. I can tell you that the police are willing but are massively underfunded and under-supported to engage in fraud investigations. They particularly need elder abuse prevention officers or elder abuse response officers. We have seen excellent initiatives, including in New Westminster, where we have an elder abuse fraud squad that specifically matches social workers with police officers. We know that conviction rates go up and victimization goes down, so increasing these pilot programs across the country would be of enormous assistance.

There's a third piece I want to offer. Because so much of this has to do with financial institutions being interwoven, without OBSI being a single, unified, binding place where older adults, and all adults, can go to deal with fraud and financial abuse.... Older adults make up more than 30% of all banking cases that go to OBSI. They need a single, binding place to go. The system is so enormously challenged, and older adults don't have the financial ability to go through the court system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to ask one question. It's a double-header.

First, Ms. Decter and Ms. Campbell.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

As long as it doesn't include the pipeline, we're okay.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

That's another issue to debate. I will note that I'm the only person around the table who has actually worked in the oil industry, as a refinery worker at the Shellburn oil refinery. That said, I'll leave that issue aside.

You've talked about universal child care. We know that universal medicare is, in a sense, a subsidy of $3,000 per employee per year for Canadian business. It's a major element of Canada's competitive advantage.

When we talk about universal pharmacare and universal child care, are we really, in a sense, not only adding to the quality of life of Canadians but also contributing to a competitive advantage for Canadian businesses? That's the first part of my double-header.

The second part of my double-header goes to Mr. Kingston. I certainly support your idea of having a comprehensive tax review. A number of other witnesses have as well. However, shouldn't that tax review include overseas tax havens and the competitive advantage that comes from universal medicare, universal pharmacare and universal child care, as things that support Canadian businesses and give competitive advantage to Canadian businesses?

Those are the two parts of my one question.