Evidence of meeting #59 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was physicians.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Member Relevance, Canadian Medical Association
The average income would be about.... Well, gross income before overhead would be approximately $350,000.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Grewal Liberal Brampton East, ON
The average income for somebody—I should have become a doctor—who is a member of your organization is $350,000. You're advocating for a tax break.
6:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Member Relevance, Canadian Medical Association
No, we're not advocating for a tax break at all. We're advocating to have some tax equity between different structures that are supplying needed health care services to Canadians.
6:20 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Grewal Liberal Brampton East, ON
That's a nice way of putting it, and I commend you for that. The fact of the matter is that the small business tax deduction is supposed to be used by.... If there is a group of physicians, all 35 get to split the $500,000 evenly, as opposed to what you guys are advocating, that each individual gets the $500,000.
6:20 p.m.
Prof. Richard Davies
The number from our group was 35.
We would like the members of our group to be treated the same as a private practitioner who is out in the community.
I'm not going to speak to whether or not the small business deduction is intended for them. The fact is that it's the inequity between the private practitioner and the person who is trying to practise academic medicine. That's the specific problem.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Raj Grewal Liberal Brampton East, ON
Okay, fair enough.
I want to comment on one thing. You're saying that this change, this proposed legislation in the bill, is going to impact recruiting doctors to Canada, residency programs, and the entire profession across the board. I have a tough time understanding that.
I will admit right from the beginning that I'm obviously not a doctor. I never went to med school, but I am a lawyer and I have a lot of cousins who are going through this process. A lot of them are extremely frustrated by the lack of residency spaces in Canada. They all want to practise medicine in Canada. I have cousins and family from the United States. One went to Berkeley med school, one of the best med schools in the world, and gave up probably millions in the U.S. because he wanted to raise his kids in Canada.
I think that people make a decision on where they live, more than on the tax. I'm sure the argument goes both ways, but there is an argument to be made that Canada is a better place to live, to raise your family, and that's where doctors want to stay as well.
However, I do want to hear your comments on how this is going to impact residency. We have many students who want to come to do their residency in Canada, and we don't have enough spaces. I have cousins who have gone to med school and couldn't get a residency.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Raj, I'm going to have to cut you off there.
We can have a quick answer. Mr. Lauzon hasn't had any questions, and we'll go to him then, if that's okay.
Mr. Davies, go ahead.
6:25 p.m.
Prof. Richard Davies
I have a quick answer.
The residents could be impacted by the lack of good teachers.
I'd like to make a differentiation between living in Canada and joining an academic practice like the one we support. We're saying that these rules that have been put in place specifically disadvantage us in an academic practice that's trying to support this academic mission to recruit somebody who might just go to the community. Now, he may live in Canada, but he's not practising that top-tier medicine that we're trying to promote.
November 22nd, 2016 / 6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you, Chair.
I would like to ask my question to Mr. Wudrick.
May I ask in French?
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
I'm here today to replace my colleague Steven MacKinnon. I couldn't ask you any questions without following the same tack he would.
Mr. Wudrick, you talked a few times about simplifying income tax returns. The committee will begin a study on this soon. You have already developed some possible solutions in this respect. You've already mentioned some areas. I would like to know which parts of the provisions are more specifically in need of reform and simplification.
6:25 p.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
With respect to the Income Tax Act specifically, personal tax credits are certainly one thing. The previous government was very fond of certain measures—the fitness tax credit, arts credit, these types of credits. We were never big fans of these measures and think, again, they play favourites. To give this government credit, they have looked at repealing a number of those. That said, they've chosen to introduce a few of their own, so we think it's a bit of a trade-off.
Then with respect to taxes more broadly, we think that it would be a fair trade to look at the removal of certain tax credits for businesses in exchange for a lower overall business tax rate. There are concerns when certain sectors receive certain favourable treatment. It's simply not fair to other sectors. The easiest way to do that is to take them all out and lower the overall rate for everything.
6:25 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
How would simplifying the tax provisions be beneficial?
6:25 p.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
One is certainly a greater ease of compliance. There are compliance costs with a complicated tax code, so making it simpler would make it easier to comply, and removing barriers in the economy, I think, is good for the economy. If you send signals that certain sectors receive certain preferences, you may be harming other sectors inadvertently, so I think by making a level playing field across sectors it benefits everyone.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Based on what you're saying, there would be consequences if the government didn't simplify these provisions and continued to promote numerous tax cuts and breaks.
What do you think these consequences would be?
6:30 p.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
I think we can all agree right now that the economy is in slow-growth mode. This government has stated repeatedly that its objective is to boost growth, so I think not removing those would not be in service of that objective. This government was elected on a platform of change. If it's going to do business the same way as all previous governments, I don't really think it's keeping true to that.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
The other question is for Mr. Schnapp.
I find your role as ombudsman very interesting.
Could you tell me how it would be beneficial for the government to have an ombudsman service? If your service was across the country, how would that benefit the government?
6:30 p.m.
Ombudsman, ADR Chambers Banking Ombuds Office
I think generally speaking an ombudsman is a dispute resolution tool that offers an objective look at a situation. Our service is geared towards the banks. We are governed by the FCAC. We have strict parameters and terms of reference. There's a health ombudsman.... I think the ombudsman is a very beneficial thing all across, but I think it also has to be designed for each organization or type of legislation that it governs.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I have one question for the Canadian Medical Association and Mr. Feeley.
MD Financial is an in-house advisory to Canadian Medical Association and doctors, correct?
6:30 p.m.
Vice-President, Member Relevance, Canadian Medical Association
That is correct.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We have your numbers, which come up with a certain opinion. We have Finance Canada's numbers, which come up with a certain opinion or figure. Is there any independent analysis out there on the numbers that we can lay our hands on? In terms of what the costs to this would be to the medical profession, beyond the other implications that you're talking about in terms of some going to the United States, etc., is there anywhere where there's an independent analysis that's not Finance Canada and that's not MD Financial?
6:30 p.m.
Vice-President, Member Relevance, Canadian Medical Association
Not at present, but we would be happy to, together, engage a third party to review the numbers. We're happy to do that.
6:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The problem is that we're under a very tight time frame. Anyway, we'll give that a little thought. I'd love to see what those independent numbers would be.
Committee members, tomorrow we meet in room 112-N for clause-by-clause examination of Bill C-26 and we go until we're done.
Witnesses, thank you very much for your presentations and your responses, and thanks to some of you for coming on short notice.
The meeting is adjourned.