Finance Committee on May 17th, 2016

[Joseph Galimberti]

Absolutely.

We are a fully integrated steel market here in North America. We've seen some instances where ships that we believe were originally destined for the United States have instead come to ports like Hamilton because they believe it's a more attractive place to offload. That steel on the dock in Hamilton has a negative pricing effect on the entirety of the North American market and it can just as easily be rerouted to the States.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

What's the average salary in the steel industry?

[Joseph Galimberti]

The average steelworker in Canada makes between $75,000 and $85,000. These are highly trained and highly educated individuals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Mr. Ouellette.

We will suspend for the vote. We will likely be gone for 25 minutes or so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Liepert, you have seven minutes as we reconvene for questions.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you all for being here. I know that this was a rather hurried exercise and has been a little disjointed today. Thanks for your patience.

I want to spend a little time, Ms. Reynolds, asking you a few questions relative to what isn't in the budget. You made mention of it: the promise that all parties made during the election campaign about reducing the small business tax. We've also heard from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and I think the parliamentary budget officer did a report on it as well.

What I'm interested to know is whether your organization has any data that lays out what a cut to the small business tax of, say, half a percent means in the way of job numbers and maybe even on whether not having the cut to the small business tax rate might result in such things as the closure of businesses?

Is there any data that you have to back up some of these issues?

[Joyce Reynolds]

I can go back and speak to our economist to find out specifically about the difference between the 10.5% and 9% and see whether he can do some calculations of what the job impact would be, but I have to say that I don't have them on hand.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

That's fair. If you had something you could provide us, I think it would be very helpful.

I happen to represent a riding in Alberta, and the provincial government has started a very aggressive increase in the minimum wage. I know this is not necessarily tied into the federal budget, but what is the impact of the combination of no tax relief and being forced at the same time by government to pay a higher minimum wage and probably being impacted by—the government has certainly indicated federally that they're looking at doing this—increasing CPP premiums...? Do these issues also impact your members in a significant way?

[Joyce Reynolds]

The minimum wage issue in Alberta is very concerning to our members. We are looking at many restaurants that are struggling to hold on to their businesses and hold on to their employees, given the huge downturn in the economy. We surveyed our members on the impact of the minimum wage increase that happened last September and the potential of a $15 minimum wage under the current economic situation in Alberta, and 49% said that it's going to result in a reduction in staff. They're obviously going to have to raise their prices. I don't have all the stats in front of me right now, but I know that 94% said it would have a huge negative impact on them.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Have your members raised any issues around CPP contributions?

[Joyce Reynolds]

We're getting a lot of feedback is about the ORPP in Ontario. There's huge concern about the impact it will have on jobs, going forward. We are a very labour-intensive business—food and labour account for the lion's share of our operating expenses—so when labour costs increase significantly for us, as a very small-margin industry, it always has an impact on our ability to provide hours and jobs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I don't want to interrupt you, but it would be best if we could stay as close as possible to the federal budget implementation act, because that's what we're here to discuss.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Okay.

One thing in the federal budget act is the Canada summer jobs program. Are you familiar with it?

[Joyce Reynolds]

Yes.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Is there much take-up on this program within your industry?

[Joyce Reynolds]

Yes, there is take-up on the program. I'm sorry I don't have stats on that, but I know that it's a program that is used by our members in different parts of the country.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

I have just a couple of questions to Ms. MacEwen. I think we had discussions previously. I think you made a presentation prior to the budget.

You made some comments in your opening remarks today on private-public partnerships. I can't remember the exact terminology for it, but it's basically the P3 initiative by the federal government. What basis do you have to make the comment that the P3 process is more expensive? I think, both federally and provincially in the country, we've had good indications that in certain projects—not all of them, but in certain areas—P3s work very well.

[Angella MacEwen]

Actually, the Auditor General did a report showing that in Ontario it's more expensive and that the risk stays in the public sector, and what we're sold is that the risk is privatized. The profits are privatized, and the risk remains in the public sector. Also in Saskatchewan the Auditor General showed that this was the outcome, what has actually taken place.

You could possibly design a system that didn't operate that way, but that's not what we've had. That's why we're calling for transparency.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Mr. Liepert.

Mr. Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here today.

I have a number of questions. Since I have just seven minutes, I'll probably ask four questions to four witnesses, to cover all the points that interest me.

Ms. Eng and Mr. John, thank you very much for appearing before the committee. Ms. Eng, I believe we've worked together in the past.

My first question has to do with changes to the guaranteed income supplement, which will not come into force until July. My political party and I are proposing that these changes be applied retroactively to January 1, 2016.

Do you have any concerns about the date? You mentioned your concerns about the amount of money and about the people who are excluded. Can you speak more to that?

Do you think there will still be a very high number of seniors in poverty after these changes are implemented? Can you give us an estimate of how many?

[Susan Eng]

Absolutely. Thank you for the question.

Today, using the low-income measure, there are about 600,000 Canadian seniors living in poverty. The poverty line is different for each geographic region. It's not to say that all those who are living in poverty are just under the poverty line; rather, many are in the mean, which is sometimes in the range of $9,000 a year. This is clearly not enough for people to live on, and when they live in poverty, it's severe poverty.

The amounts that are in the budget today and the other help for improvements to housing and so on will of course make a difference; in fact, the increases to GIS are supposed to help 900,000 seniors. That is also commendable, but will it lift every one of them out of poverty? The answer is no. The exact amount that is necessary has not been identified, but the fact remains that this is not enough to reach the actual goal that we should be reaching for, and that is to make sure that no senior is living in poverty in Canada.

Obviously, the patchwork that we have, while welcome, needs to be improved. We could make improvements, within the context of this committee's mandate, by increasing the amount, or by broadening the date on which it happens.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Parent, you spoke about the challenges of evaluating the fairness of the measures and compensation promised in the bill. You're well aware that before, the bill was separate and was known as Bill C-12. It's now integrated into Bill C-15.

These are exactly the kind of questions we could have asked and could have gotten answered if experts had appeared before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, to which Bill C-12 would have been referred. If we could have heard what came out of a study by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on this bill, it would have been better than integrating the bill into another bill that also requires discussions with venture-capital representatives, restaurant owners, and retirees, for example.

[Guy Parent]

Thank you for the question.

It is important to realize that all of the measures taken by the previous government and the current government have attenuated the negative aspects of the new veterans charter. At the very least, experts could have established objectives.

This budget contains measures to fill the gaps, but they are not necessarily elements that were planned. People say that the benefits were introduced over the years and combined with other things. We do not necessarily have the shared goal of determining what we want for our veterans. Do we want them to reach the poverty line or surpass it? We haven't talked about that. The committee would benefit from getting a better sense of what our veterans and their families need.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Which will be impossible because the bill is part of a bill that amends 35 different bills.

[Guy Parent]

Exactly.