Finance Committee on Feb. 3rd, 2020

[Nicholas Leswick]

Hugely important is access to these growing, large global marketplaces. That is huge for our Canadian exporters across the board: again the energy sector, non-energy sector and our service sectors.

Again, previous governments and this government have made important investments in things that would support Canadian companies getting access or actually installing in these foreign markets and exporting to these foreign markets through enhancements to the Trade Commissioner Service and concierge services through organizations like Export Development Canada.

Anything we can do to help Canadian companies grow, and to grow their businesses outside of Canada, is good for Canada.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Just remind me. I think we've opened up about 55 or 57 new—I'm trying to remember—offices around the world. I've forgotten what they are formally called.

[Nicholas Leswick]

I can invite my colleague to give you a whole commentary on things we've done to support export development. I don't know the number there, but yes, our investments in our Trade Commissioner Service—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Trade commissioner: that's it.

[Nicholas Leswick]

—and missions and embassies around the world have been bolstered over the last couple of years. There are more boots on the ground selling Canadian companies into these foreign markets.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you. That's helpful.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Ste-Marie, then Mr. Julian.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

I’d like to come back to the minister’s mandate letter, in which he is called upon to “complete implementation of the new financial consumer protection framework.”

Is the implementation of that new framework within your department’s purview?

[Soren Halverson, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Sector Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

Yes, it’s part of our department’s mandate, but it’s also done in coordination with other federal agencies, including the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

Could you please confirm whether the implementation of the new consumer protection framework for banking will alter or affect the application of Quebec’s Consumer Protection Act as it relates to banking? After all, Quebec has a civil law tradition, and the Civil Code governs banking.

Does that factor in to the department’s work on this issue?

[Soren Halverson]

If I may—I apologize for responding to you in English—the interests of provincial partners are very much fundamental to moving through an exercise like this. I think the issue you raise will be top of mind in the way those are developed.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

That’s quite reassuring, so thank you very much.

I’m going to switch topics now. The government proposed using employment insurance, or EI, benefits as payment during periods of illness. Has the department costed out that measure?

If so, is the current premium rate sufficient, in the department’s view? If not, where does the premium rate need to be?

[Suzy McDonald]

The program is administered in conjunction with our colleagues at Employment and Social Development Canada.

I gather that you’d like to know whether we’ve calculated the increase in the premium rate. Those calculations are part of our budget discussions. We are reviewing the data with our colleagues now, but they are the ones with the mandate to implement that measure.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

All right. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Do you have a very quick question, Gabriel?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Julian.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

No, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you.

I appreciate your answering these questions. I want to come back to TMX, and not just because taxpayers are currently subsidizing it. After interest charges, as we're all well aware, it's losing about $150 million a year. There's some real concern about putting more and more money into this.

I appreciated the comments around the EDC Canada Account. Just going on the disclosure form on the EDC website, they say that the Canada Account is for projects where “the risks are assumed by the Federal government”. We are talking about taxpayers' money here. Looking through the Canada Account, on the EDC website they do have a disclosure of 30 projects. It's about $7.5 billion this century. If we look at the size and scope of the cost overruns for Trans Mountain, most construction estimates vary now between $15 billion and $17 billion, much higher than the initial cost of about $7.5 billion. That eclipses in scope all of the Canada Account expenditures this century. That would be twice as much.

In terms of process, we finally get an updated construction cost. That means, say, $17 billion. It appears that cabinet has the ability, unless I'm wrong, to make that call and approve, through the Canada Account, risks assumed by the federal government of that $17 billion. Then, of course, we have the risk that the updated construction cost allows every single shipper, as economist Robyn Allan has pointed out, to pull out of the deal. It seems to be a bit of a house of cards.

I guess I'm wondering, first off, if our reading is correct that cabinet basically can make that decision even though it dwarfs all of the other expenditures around the Canada Account, at least this century. Is it entirely up to cabinet? What is the system of checks and balances around that? This is particularly in light of the impact on shippers' contracts and the fact that we could well end up with massive costs, with shippers pulling out for a variety of reasons, including the fact that they can legally do so once that updated construction cost is published.

[Evelyn Dancey]

I guess there are a few things that I feel I can follow up on in terms of information points, but I think a lot of what you're hypothesizing is in the realm of conjecture, and I'm not going to be able to comment on it. A $17-billion figure isn't something that—

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I understand. Yes. Those are for construction professionals.

[Evelyn Dancey]

That has not come to my attention. That's a number you've said, but that's not a number that has come to my attention.

First and foremost, this is a project that is being undertaken from a commercial mindset, and the Crown corporation responsible would have in mind its ability to profitably move product through the pipeline, so the concerns of shippers would be in the minds of the corporation and its board of directors. There's not more I can add on that as a finance official.

There is a kind of system of oversight around the use of the Canada Account that I think we undertake to provide to you in terms of what the decision-making points are around it so you understand the accountability for the use of that instrument of government.

It's certainly not the case that the spending by a Crown corporation would be an act; I've noted that there are corporate plans and there is Treasury Board approval of capital budgets, which are the investment budgets of Crown corporations. Obtaining a source of cash for the project is another decision point. The figure you mentioned isn't one I have anything to comment on in terms of process. There's a lot of process in behind both the authorization of the entity to pursue the commercial objectives as well as the government's process for obtaining cash to pay for construction costs.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Who else would be involved in the approval process?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

What was your quick one there, Peter? Who else...?