Evidence of meeting #186 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was benefit.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Blake Richards  Banff—Airdrie, CPC
Kim Rudd  Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.
Ava Yaskiel  Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Finance
Peter Fragiskatos  London North Centre, Lib.
Brenda Baxter  Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Alex Duff  Manager, Wage Earner Protection Program, Policy and Oversight, Labour Program, Department of Employment and Social Development
Dale Denny  Director, Financial Management and Reporting, Corporate Services Branch, Department of Finance
Darlene Bess  Chief Financial Officer, Financial Management Directorate, Department of Finance

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

The floor is yours, Minister.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Morneau Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

As I said, in the four provinces in which the backstop will apply, we've taken a look at the pollution pricing in order to give a rebate back to families, which is, for the overwhelming majority of families, in excess of any pollution pricing. Of course—

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Does that include the HST on the tax?

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Morneau Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

Of course, on top of that, there will be the decision on what they will take with their rebates. They could find themselves in an even better situation.

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Chair, the reason this is important is that the government is applying a tax that will raise the price of gas and home heating. Indirectly, goods like groceries, furniture and clothing will all go up. They admitted that. They have tables that show the cost to the average family. Now, on the carbon tax itself, people will also pay the HST. I'm simply trying to ascertain how much they will pay in HST on top of the carbon tax to see the impact on family household budgets.

It's a simple question for which you must have the answer. You've been the minister now for three years. You have one of the most advanced finance departments in the world, capable of conducting these calculations. Why not just open up and tell the truth?

How much in HST will the average family pay on the carbon tax itself? What's the tax on the tax?

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Morneau Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

We did modelling with this, of course, to assure ourselves that in fact we did not see any material increase in GST coming to the federal government.

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Okay, thank you, both.

Mr. Fragiskatos, go ahead.

November 6th, 2018 / 4:40 p.m.

Peter Fragiskatos London North Centre, Lib.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here. Thank you for the work you're doing. In the riding of London North Centre, which I represent in the House of Commons, 19,000 children have benefited from the CCB. That is tremendously important in a community that has struggled economically since 2008 but is now pivoting. This very program is putting money into the pockets of hard-working parents so they can go and spend.

We're seeing tremendous growth in London, with the lowest unemployment rate, now under 5%, that we've seen since 2004. Our government isn't completely responsible for that, but when people have greater purchasing power, I think it speaks volumes.

I want to ask you something different, though. I want to shift from the CCB and talk about the environment. On matters of national priority, I don't think there should be room for partisanship. We've heard my friend today engage in a very partisan attack. My interest here is to get down to the facts and to understand issues of national priority from that perspective.

When it comes to the environment.... I want to read a quote here. It comes from Preston Manning, so that's how non-partisan I am being. He said:

“Conservation” and “conservative” come from the same root.... You can't demand more out of natural systems than you are prepared to put into sustaining them. And so I argue with conservatives, let's extend the concept of living within our means financially to living within our means ecologically.... Conservatives profess to believe in markets.... So why don't conservatives major on how to harness markets to the environmental conversation, and make that their signature contribution.

All of that says to me that there is room for a reasonable dialogue among all parties on this issue.

You alluded to this today in your opening remarks, and you've spoken about it before, but can you touch on how our government's move toward putting a price on pollution actually rests on free market principles?

4:40 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Morneau Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

I think it's a really great question for us to consider here. Canadians need to know what it is that we're trying to achieve.

A few weeks ago, William Nordhaus, a leading economist, won the Nobel Prize for economics, based on his work around the need to price pollution, the need for us to put a price on pollution in order to actually use a market-based mechanism to reduce the amount of pollution.

This is not a novel economic concept. This is a broadly accepted economic concept. It's not a partisan concept. People understand that when you put a price on something, you actually have an impact, so we put a price on something that we don't want. Pollution is something that we don't want, and we deal with it in a way that allows people to make their own choices. We give people the money from which they can make their own choices on how to best satisfy their family goals and demands. That is exactly what we're trying to do here.

In my estimation, the people who are arguing about this either don't believe in climate change or don't care. It's one of the two options. We believe in climate change, and we care about climate change. That means we're going to take the most economically efficient way to deal with the long-term impact of climate change, and that's by putting a price on pollution. That's what we're trying to achieve here.

The minor squabbles from people who are trying to serve themselves with political points.... Over the long term, I think what Canadians see is that we're actually trying to make a difference for us today, for our children and for our grandchildren by actually having a material impact on our environment.

4:45 p.m.

London North Centre, Lib.

Peter Fragiskatos

When Preston Manning agrees with the rationale of our policy, I think it speaks volumes about our direction, quite frankly.

There's a minute left in my questioning here, so I want to ask you about pay equity. We've been talking about doing something for decades. This is the most meaningful piece of legislation that's come forward.

My friend across talks about constitutionality. You should know, Minister, that this is based on witness testimony from this morning, from one group, which—and I won't speak for my colleagues—I found to be very incoherent. I wasn't sure where the witnesses were going when they talked about the unconstitutionality of the legislation. It's quite constitutional. I don't think my friend has done an analysis in the past few hours to determine whether it is constitutional.

You pointed to this at the outset, but could you talk about pay equity as actually benefiting the economy—not only being the right thing to do in a very abstract sense, but being the right thing to do if we're trying to generate further economic growth?

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Morneau Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

Let me first just say that I wasn't in the meeting this morning, so I don't have an ability to respond to that.

I do think that having a pay equity approach that's not based on people having to complain but is proactive and gets people to come to these conclusions for the long-term benefit of their organization and for our broader economy is critically important.

The economic benefits seem to me pretty straightforward. If you believe that people take jobs in order to make money, and you believe that people take jobs if they can earn more money more readily, then you believe that the market incentive works. We don't think the idea that women don't earn as much gives them the same incentives to want to be successful in our economy.

It's as simple as that. We want women to be successful. We want our economy to be successful. Having workers paid for work in an appropriate way doesn't even seem to me to be a question that we should be debating in 2018.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you, both.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to take just a few seconds to reply to my colleague across the way. Four groups endorsed the findings of the pay equity coalition this morning. All of them pointed to the fact that eliminating it from human rights legislation meant that women would have to go back to court to challenge the pay equity legislation and have their rights re-established. That is what—

4:45 p.m.

London North Centre, Lib.

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

That is what testimony came, Mr. Chair. My colleague wants to interrupt me, but when you have four groups—that's one third of all witnesses in the short time we have heard from witnesses—all saying the same thing, it is beholden on the government members to listen to what they are saying.

That being said, I will go back to the minister and start off with the issue of the pipeline. Mr. Poilievre raised it, but he's not the only one asking about this.

You must have a range and the actual cost for what it will cost Canadian taxpayers for the building of the pipeline, particularly in light of all the changed circumstances. What is that range?

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Morneau Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

The most recent estimates for the building of the pipeline were those done by the proponent. It's an extensive process to redo those pipeline building estimates. In our analysis, we looked at a range of possibilities, but the only number that's been developed was the one developed by the pipeline proponent prior to the purchase.

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

We've heard estimates from $11 billion to $15 billion, depending on who is doing the estimate. You have internal estimates that have been developed through the ministry. There's no doubt about that. What do those estimates say?

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Morneau Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

No, you are incorrect. We have the estimate done by the proponent prior to the purchase. On the estimates you're talking about, I have no idea what you are referring to, because the only ability to go forward and come to a new estimate would be by what is now the organization for the Trans Mountain pipeline, and that work has not been done.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

I will move on. I note your non-answer, and I find it quite concerning, but I will move on to a number of other questions, because I only have a couple of minutes left.

First, turning to supplementary estimates (A), what is the total cost across all ministries for funding related to government advertising programs?

Perhaps I can give you questions two and three as well, to give you the time. You have your colleagues there from the finance department, so that will give you the opportunity to look.

First is the total value of government advertising in supplementary estimates (A) right across all departments.

Second is the expenses related to the Phoenix pay system, getting the Phoenix pay system to work somewhat adequately. Our public servants are being treated in an abominable way with the Phoenix pay system's malfunctions. How much in the supplementary estimates (A) are the expenses related to the Phoenix pay system and correcting that?

Third, what is the writedown for the G7 summit? We heard that about 600 new automobiles were purchased by this government for the summit. They are now attempting to sell them, and there is some difficulty in selling that many vehicles. The Department of Finance must have an estimate of what the writedown is. Some of these vehicles have travelled 40 kilometres and that's it, so there is a huge writedown to Canadian taxpayers. How much is the value of the writedown for the summit?

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Morneau Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

First of all, I think all these are from the main estimates and not from the departmental estimates. We would be happy to get back to you with responses on these issues. They aren't from the departmental estimates.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

You would know about the summit, and you would know about the writedown there, as it's in the public domain.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Morneau Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

Again, we're happy to get back to you.

I don't think it's appropriate for me to speak off the cuff on something that requires that level of detail.

4:50 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Thank you.

My final question in the few seconds left to me is around the family debt crisis.

We have Bill C-86, which is deeply flawed. A number of witnesses have pointed to that. As I mentioned, we're seeing increasing inequality in both the parental leave provisions and the pay equity provisions. The family debt crisis in Canada is now the worst among industrialized countries, and certainly it's the worst in Canadian history.

How do you intend to resolve family debt crisis if Bill C-86 can't be fixed appropriately so the pay equity provisions have a positive impact on women and the parental leave provisions benefit all families?

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Bill Morneau Liberal Toronto Centre, ON

There are a number of things in that comment, and I'm not entirely sure I follow the argument.

I think it's appropriate for me to respond that we are very closely monitoring the level of Canadian indebtedness. We've been focused on this issue from day one as a government. The biggest portion of that family indebtedness, of course, is typically mortgage debt, and we've looked at that very carefully. We've put rules in place to protect current homeowners and protect people from taking decisions that put them in vulnerable positions.

We are starting to see some impact that is reducing some of the significant risk, but it remains a risk. I think you're entirely appropriate to point it out. We need to stay on top of this. The reality is that our economy is doing well. As our economy does well, we're seeing that the Bank of Canada is currently looking at inflation and following through on their mandate. Most recently, they've raised interest rates, and while it's not in my jurisdiction to opine on it, that is not unlikely to happen in the future. We need to help prepare Canadians for that potential eventuality, which is a risk. We are working on that, and we'll continue to do so.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you, both.

The last round of questioning is for Mr. Fergus, and then we'll have to adjourn this session.

Go ahead.