Finance Committee on Feb. 18th, 2016

[Jeannie Baldwin]

It was the golf course that was privatized.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

That's right, and I hope the record reflects that because that's a very different prospect from a national park. As you probably are aware, I am from Cape Breton and I know the area quite well.

I also had a question with respect to deficits. Given that you do take the point of view that taxes on taxpayers should be raised in order to pay for services, do you have a point of view on how big the deficit is and how big a deficit the minister should run in this budget? Is there any level that you think is too much in terms of an overall deficit?

[Jeannie Baldwin]

I believe that Canadian voters made a clear commitment because they elected the Liberal government knowing that they will come out with a deficit, but the message was that they want to make sure that Canadians are provided with the programs and services they deserve.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Right, but the Liberals promised a $10-billion deficit. That's what Canadians voted for. Wouldn't you agree?

[Jeannie Baldwin]

I'm not quite sure.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

Mr. Caron.

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

Thank you very much.

I will start with Ms. Forget.

I'm an economist by training, and I am progressive. For me, the idea of a guaranteed minimum income has always been very attractive. I followed the experiment in Dauphin to some degree. I am in no way against conducting a study, but I have the impression that a study in a municipality, like in the case of Dauphin, would not include all the components that would be needed if it was done at the federal level.

First, the definition of a guaranteed minimum income varies from person to person. Some say that, at the end of the day, it should be a tax credit offered to everyone or a minimum income, a negative income. Some feel that everyone should receive a cheque and that, then, as the person works, a portion of the cheque would be repaid through the tax system.

However, a pan-Canadian system presents a difficulty. A lot of people are not considering that, to have a meaningful guaranteed minimum income, almost all other aspects of social security would have to be eliminated. That means employment insurance, the basic exemption, social assistance. A number of models handle it that way.

First, I would like to know how much the guaranteed minimum income would be in a project like the one you are suggesting. Do you think that each home or each individual should receive $10,000, $5,000, $7,000? If it is a large-scale initiative, how might it be funded?

[Dr. Evelyn Forget]

You've asked some hard questions.

Yes, absolutely, a number of people...there are a lot of different models of a GAI out there. Most people who are seriously talking about this in Canada right now are talking about a negative income tax model or a refundable tax credit.

In terms of what other aspects, I mean, that's where the debate lies: which other programs get eliminated in order to introduce a guaranteed annual income? I've done some classing exercises, looking specifically at replacing adult benefits. We're talking about provincial welfare systems and INAC support on reserve, and looking specifically at that, keeping in place everything else except for a few minor little tax credits. We're keeping in place CPP, EI, and so on.

As to what level, obviously the more generous it is, hopefully the better the outcomes, but also the more expensive it gets. One reasonable thing to do is to say, well, suppose we decide that no adult should live on less than they would get if they qualified for OAS or GIS. We're talking about $18,000 per individual, more or less, and $25,000 for a family of two. If you cost that out with that kind of model, you come up with a total pan-Canadian cost of about $30 billion net, having eliminated the provincial social assistance.

It's a net cost of about $30 billion, which is about 10% of total federal government expenditure and a good deal less than we're currently spending on benefits for the elderly.

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

I'll be quick because I would also like to ask Ms. Baldwin a question.

Ultimately, what you're saying is that the programs or social benefits that would be used to fund this program are all provincial, not federal. Should we leave this initiative to the provinces?

The initial project was carried out by the NDP in Manitoba under Ed Schreyer. Since no federal programs are included, the federal government should fund this program, but by including only the social benefits that fall under its purview.

Is that what you are saying?

[Dr. Evelyn Forget]

The difficulty with doing it on a provincial basis is that there is a big difference between provinces in this country. If you're talking about Ontario and Quebec, you can possibly talk about this provincially. If you're talking about P.E.I. and Manitoba, the story changes a little bit.

You're quite right that—

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

I'm sorry but my time is short, and I also want to ask Ms. Baldwin a question. I'm sure we'll have an opportunity to continue this discussion. Thank you.

Ms. Baldwin, I would like to talk about the Coast Guard. As we know, there have been a lot of cuts. Several radio stations and search and rescue centres have been closed. At the time, Liberal MPs and Liberal candidates who are now MPs agreed and stated that the ideal response time for search and rescue centres should be no more than 30 minutes.

Do you agree?

I would also like to know what you think the current response time is, now that these facilities are closed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

A quick response, Ms. Baldwin....

[Jeannie Baldwin]

I don't have that information, but I will get that information for you.

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

I would appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You can send it to the clerk.

Mr. MacKinnon, you have five minutes.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I think that we have discussed the minimum guaranteed income in some detail. I would like to thank Professor Forget for being here today. We now have a better understanding of the matter.

I have a question for Ms. Baldwin, as well.

As you know and as my colleagues know, I represent many federal public servants here, in the National Capital Region. People have often spoken to me about sick leave. As we know, the previous government used an omnibus bill to pass a short-term disability or benefit system. We are now proposing Bill C-4, which aims to repeal these legislative changes.

Since we are putting things on the record, as my colleague Ms. Raitt said, I would like Ms. Baldwin to describe for us the Public Service Alliance of Canada's position on this issue.

[Jeannie Baldwin]

As you know, the sick leave benefits are there for a reason. It's like an insurance program. It's like car insurance. You use the sick benefits when you get sick. There are no federal government workers that raise their hands and want to be sick. These sick benefits are there to protect their families and it's also to protect them, to care for their family when they go off sick. This sick leave is not paid out when an employee retires. It stays on the books.

I hope that answers your question.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Baldwin. That does indeed answer my question.

I'd like to turn to Mr. Kingston. You talked about infrastructure and infrastructure has certainly been a running theme in the discussions of this committee.

Am I fairly characterizing your organization's position to say that you are in favour of what we would call “stimulus spending” on infrastructure?

[Brian Kingston]

We're absolutely in favour of infrastructure spending. We would caution, though, that it is in accordance with the economic situation. If we are into a recession period, then stimulus is required, of course, but it should be at the level that's appropriate as dictated by the economy.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

One of the things we've been discussing is alternative financing or infrastructure banks, increased involvement by pension funds, other pools of capital in the development of infrastructure.

Could we have your perspective on that?

[Brian Kingston]

Yes, definitely, that is something that we support. Actually, there's a great report by Jack Mintz and Philip Bazel on establishing agencies that will look at infrastructure needs and find a way to prioritize infrastructure spending, and also looking at things, as you mentioned, like public-private partnerships and different financing models.

There's a huge need for that to ensure that we actually put money into the projects that are most productivity enhancing and will enable trade, frankly.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

I'm sure I would be remiss if I didn't characterize Ms. Baldwin's view that the public-private partnership need not mean that we don't have public sector workers working on the particular project. You're obviously open to that.

[Brian Kingston]

Yes.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

In terms of shovel-ready versus shovel-worthy—again, the running theme of this committee—in terms of your membership, what kinds of infrastructure do you favour? Is it transit, is it an innovation category, a social infrastructure category, or what?