Finance Committee on May 17th, 2016

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Mr. MacKinnon and Mr. Hodgson.

Mr. Aboultaif.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

I have a question for you, Ms. Smith. Have you run the calculation on the difference between the old child benefit program and the new one to see how much of a difference there is?

[Heather Smith]

I'm going to pass that one to Mr. McGahey.

[Robert McGahey, Director of Advocacy and Labour Rights, Canadian Teachers' Federation]

We've been relying on the publications of the CLC and the Canadian Child Care Advocacy Association to do those calculations. We're of the opinion that, for the most part, it is going to be a net benefit to families and children in Canada. However, we're also of the belief that this is only one piece of a comprehensive anti-poverty plan that needs to be put in place to fully address the problem.

On the previous question about food, for example, we're one of the few OECD countries, if not the only one, that does not have a national food program for schools. If that money didn't have to be used exclusively for that, because those people in poverty could get a meal at school, then.... You see it as part of an integrated program, a national plan that has to be developed.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Just for your information, the difference is $1 billion, equal to $27.77 per capita based on 36 million population in Canada. So I don't know how much this is going to help pull nine out of ten, or hundreds of thousands of, children out of poverty. That's just for record, and I'd like to make the following point to you.

Looking at another point, about $453 is spent out of pocket on average by teachers, and you've got 200,000 teachers in your organization. That's probably about $90 million a year. I hope those numbers are not really there, because it's really concerning if that's the case. Can you explain where in the budget it helps on that front?

[Robert McGahey]

Thank you.

Just to clarify, you mentioned $27 per capita. That's an average?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Twenty-seven dollars and seventy-seven cents.

[Robert McGahey]

That's an average? On average.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Yes. If you divide $1 billion—

[Robert McGahey]

As you may know, it's the same with the expenditures for teachers. Those expenditures by teachers in the classroom range from $200 to up to $2,000 per teacher. It averages down in the same way as the benefit is going to benefit those who are in the lower income percentiles more than it's going to benefit those in the higher.

To get to the teacher tax credit, the amount that teachers are paying—and the number of teachers in Canada is closer to 300,000, or maybe more than that—ranges between that low of about $200 per teacher to a high of up to $2,000. At the high tend, unfortunately, tend to be those younger teachers who are just starting and just setting up their first classroom and are making the least amount of money.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Are you aware of the elimination of the textbook tax credits? Can you explain that? Again, that's taking away something from students, from parents, on this front. That's really putting a levy on every Canadian family.

[Heather Smith]

Do you mean the university textbook credit?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Yes.

[Heather Smith]

Well, we're representing K-to-12 education, but I can comment as a parent of a student in university. Yes, I'm aware of it.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Okay. What do you think of that? Is that the right move?

[Heather Smith]

I can't comment on that in my role as president. As my role as a parent, yes, I'll see the difference in my taxes next year.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

So we'll be looking for results next year to see the impact? Is that what it's going to be?

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Time for one quick question.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

I have a quick question for Mr. Hodgson. The budget includes a projection of 1% GDP growth, and the baseline numbers also include a unilateral decision by the finance minister to downgrade private sector GDP forecasts by $40 billion. Are these numbers credible?

[Glen Hodgson]

Well, those are really the bottom end of the range. I have the privilege of being part of the circle of economists who give advice directly to finance ministers, and I told Mr. Morneau that he was the eleventh minister in my career. I was surprised, in fact, by how cautious some of my colleagues were with their forecasts.

We were actually at the higher end of the range, so a real economic growth forecast around 1% wasn't that far below the bottom of the band; it was kind of forming the bottom of the band.

I do think it's prudent to build some contingency into the budgets on a going-forward basis. Historically, finance ministers have often had a contingency reserve between $3 billion and $5 billion on a budget of $275 billion or $280 billion in spending. That's a very, very thin margin when you can't control revenues.

The federal government can control spending; it can't control revenue. That's really very much driven by the growth path of the economy. So as a matter of good practice, I think building a bigger contingency in is the prudent thing to do. How you do it is open for debate. I would probably advise to put it right into the budget as a reserve, but Mr. Morneau chose to be prudent, and I have a hard time taking exception to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Caron.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Ms. MacKay.

I am so pleased that you talked about seasonal workers in the Atlantic provinces and eastern Quebec. I represent a riding in eastern Quebec. That is a reality in those regions because seasonal work accounts for such a significant part of the economy.

Before 2012, there was a provision—it was a pilot project—that extended the benefit period by five weeks. In many cases, regions with high unemployment rates are those that depend on seasonal jobs.

The Conservatives got rid of that provision, so we now have the “black hole” from when benefits end to when work starts up again for seasonal jobs. It can last three months.

Then the five-week benefit extension was reintroduced. It applies only to certain regions, not necessarily those with the highest unemployment rates, but those where unemployment rates have gone up. That excludes pretty much everyone in the Atlantic provinces and certainly everyone in Quebec. It is limited to 12 regions across the country, soon to be increased to 15.

What does this budget bill really do to help seasonal workers? What could the government have done for seasonal workers that would really have addressed their reality?

[Lori MacKay]

Obviously, repealing all of the 2012 changes would help seasonal workers, because almost every aspect of those changes is a tax on seasonal workers. You talked about the black hole that exists now in the Atlantic and a lot of seasonal areas. I want to say that seasonal work is also happening all across this country. It's actually in cities now. We're creating jobs in this country that are precarious, that are part time. Seasonal workers are everywhere, although they are predominantly in areas that depend on the weather; we can't pull potatoes out of the ground in January.

We also need to reverse the classifications of workers, the categories of workers, because that has actually enhanced the black hole. We lost the five weeks, but if you're a seasonal worker, and you've accessed EI a number of times, you actually lose benefit each and every year you go back to EI. Your black hole is increasing. Most certainly we need to repeal that.

As for working while on claim, apparently the budget will address the fact that people can actually opt back into the old working while on claim pilot. We're concerned that the eligibility requirements around that are still in place. We have to make sure that those eligibility requirements are removed so that people will actually be able to opt in.

I'll use the mussel industry as an example of a seasonal industry. There's one day of work per week through the winter season, because they can harvest mussels in the ice. It's not a week of work, it's one day a week. That's why the working while on claim in the old system for the seasonal industries is so very important.

The other part is the “best 14 weeks,” a pilot project that needs to be put back in. That was just basically deciding what the benefit was in the areas because of the precariousness of the work.

Again, I want to stress that I'm speaking from P.E.I.'s perspective, because that's where I come from. But this is a seasonal industry issue that goes straight across this country. It's in rural Quebec. It's in rural Ontario. It's in rural Manitoba. It's in rural Alberta. It's in rural B.C. It's everywhere. And it's in the urban areas as well.

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

You talked about the mussel industry, so let's look at the fish industry for a moment. If you take these changes, or lack of changes, and add the fact that the government will exempt the fish and seafood processing industry from temporary foreign workers regulations, or tighter regulations, would you say that the situation, especially in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and P.E.I., is actually worse than it was before 2011 definitely, and maybe even before this bill was proposed?