Finance Committee on April 30th, 2020

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

I'm okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'll just follow up on what Michael was talking about earlier. On the CEBA, there is a problem showing up. I don't expect anybody to probably answer, but I'm going to outline a problem that I would ask people to think about.

On the CEBA, it says very clearly that you have an active business chequing or operating account at the banking institution. I have quite a number of sole proprietors who actually use their personal banking account. They did it for various reasons—they started when they had no money, or they didn't want to pay the extra fees for the business account.

I'll give you an example. This one individual, as a small contractor, did 900 thousand dollars' worth of business last year, had three employees over the summer, paid out $87,000 in wages and sent out the T4s for those wages. He said to me, “Look, CRA doesn't mind taking my cheque for CPP and EI every month, plus my own personal income tax every month, but they don't want to give me one back all over not having an active business account with the bank.”

There must be a way of curing that problem because he can show the T4s, he can show the business he has done, but he does it through a personal chequing account. I'm not asking for an answer. I'm just saying it's a problem we have to try to address.

Turning to the last series, Ms. O'Connell, welcome back to the finance committee.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thanks so much. It's good to be here.

I want to start with a question to CRA. I know we've extended the filing time for businesses reporting taxes, as well as individuals, but some of our measures also include increased supports for the CCB or the GST rebate. I know a lot of focus has been on the public service and CRA to process these new changes and measures. They have done a fantastic job. My constituents also say thanks for all of the hard work that's being done.

That being said, people are filing their taxes prior to the extension. They might be doing so to ensure that they qualify or get access to the CCB or any rebates and programs and money that they need. How are we assuring people who have filed their taxes on time or early, given the new deadline, that those are actually getting processed so that their supports are then sent out without delay?

[Frank Vermaeten]

I'd be happy to answer that.

The CCB and GST see increases. In fact, they are based on the 2018 taxation year with respect to people's information. As long as we have that information on file, people are getting the CCB and GST based on that.

That said, we encourage people to file because you are thinking ahead to the next entitlement year, which will be 2021, and those payments, the July payments, are typically based on the tax returns of 2019. In that sense, if people get those in, when we calculate those entitlements it's going to be based on the most up-to-date information we have. We are putting in place provisions, as is ESDC, to ensure that even if somebody doesn't file, we're going to have a continuity of benefits. Again, it is advantageous to file. We encourage that.

I'll add one more thing with respect to the CERB. Whether or not 2018 was filed, it's not income-tested in that sense. Whether or not they filed, doesn't make a difference.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.

If I have time I want to ask about some of the feedback we're receiving locally about the rental subsidy, keeping in mind, of course, that I get that a lot of this negotiation is between the provinces too. Some of the feedback we're getting is that the banks are not actually saying that these businesses or these landlords are eligible. It's being based on operating costs and not the full breakdown of the rent.

I don't know if there is enough time to fully answer this question, but has the finance department heard feedback from banks? Apparently RBC is saying the rollout is not what they thought, and, therefore, they are now rejecting some of these applications. Is there a quick explanation of what the landlords can qualify for?

[Soren Halverson]

Just so I am sure to answer the question correctly, is this in respect of financial institutions and the deferral of their mortgages, or is it about the rent subsidy program?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

It's about the rent subsidy program. Some people are saying that assistance can only be provided for certain portions. I understood it very clearly as being 50% between the federal and provincial governments, 25% from the landlord and then 25% from the tenant. Now, some of these financial institutions are breaking it down even further, saying that it's 25% of the operating costs, not the full cost of the rent, and are getting into some of these complicated calculations. Are you hearing that? Is this maybe some one-off, or is there some clarification we can provide?

[Soren Halverson]

If you're getting those kinds of questions, I would have them directed toward the finance department or CMHC. They're questions of a nature that we'd like to perhaps work through a bit more with the people who are posing them. I can't immediately get insight into where they might be coming from.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

That's fair. If we could understand that it's maybe not an overall concern but maybe some one-off, that would be good to know.

If I have time, I just wanted to ask if Finance Canada has scenarios or forecasting for the future. We have in place various programs and certain timelines, but we don't really know how long or short a time some of these programs will be needed for. Is scenario forecasting happening at Finance Canada to ensure that we're prepared if we need to extend certain programs?

[Andrew Marsland]

Perhaps I could answer briefly.

Yes, we are actively thinking about working with Health Canada and the Public Health Agency, as is everyone else, to understand the trajectory of the current crisis. Each of the programs has a duration, whether it's 12 weeks for the wage subsidy or 16 weeks for the CERB. But we are actively examining what the evidence is, in consultation with the health experts, to understand how and when the economy starts and what the sequencing will be and the implications for all of the programs that the government has put in place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. We will have to end it there.

I want to talk to committee members for a few minutes about the changes that are happening for next week. Before I do that, I want to sincerely thank the officials from the three departments for coming forward, also on behalf of Canadians and committee members.

I know that these are long days and that you're working under fairly strenuous conditions as we try to put the meat on the bones of the various policies that are being implemented and to improve upon them once they are in fact implemented. I want to sincerely thank each and every one of you for your efforts in that regard. Thank you, and thank you for coming.

For committee members, there have been changes. We have the two panels tomorrow, but because there are so many committees meeting now, along with the COVID whole House committee, and because technology can only handle two committees at once, we are now meeting next Tuesday—these are Ottawa time frames—from three o'clock to seven o'clock. That will give us two panels. The first panel is the one that we had to move over because we're only meeting once today. That would be manufacturing and construction. The second two-hour time slot is open.

Then we're meeting on Thursday, in the same time frame of 3 p.m. to 7p.m. We have time slots for two panels there. I know the clerk has 42 requests to appear before the committee. Three of them have come off on today's meeting, but we need to make a decision on what we do next Tuesday and what we do next Thursday in terms of panels. I'll tell you what's left in the system, and there may be new ones proposed.

We haven't done the health care system, ensuring accountability or policy design. It has been suggested to me as well that we should be doing a panel on arts, culture and sport. Another suggestion was self-sufficiency and export opportunities, kind of looking to the future.

From what I'm seeing in Atlantic Canada—and Sean could speak to this as well, I'm sure—we're getting a lot of feedback from fishermen. Looking through the list of other committees, there is no place on other committees for actual fishers to go. The government has proposed a program for the fish processing side. I know it's been talked about, but there's nothing there that actually deals with the fishers themselves to any great extent. We might want to consider bringing them in early in the week, if we could, so that they have an opportunity to express their views to some committee in the House of Commons and have their views known out there.

Does somebody want to start? We have the first panel on manufacturing and construction. We could go to a second panel just by pulling some names off the list of those who want to go. I see Peter's hand is up.

Go ahead, Peter.

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

Thanks very much, Wayne. I'm glad we're not interfering with the COVID committee coming right after that.

I think the scheduling is good. I would concur with you on manufacturing and on the sort of forgotten folks. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples sent yet another request to appear before committee today, so they definitely need to be on for Tuesday. I would suggest CFS as well.

You talked about health care, and I would agree with that. On policy design, I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but I would agree with art, culture and sports, and I would agree with fishers, both for next week and the following week. I need to know more about this policy design thing, but health care; art, culture and sports; and fishers present a good range for the next group of topics.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That was in our first discussion back months or more ago. Somebody put in policy design as a panel. I'm not sure myself, to be honest with you.

What we could do then is this. On Tuesday, we have manufacturing and construction. I believe the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples is on the clerk's list of those who have requested to appear. Let's take our second panel to each of our parties and let them pull off who they see as a priority on that list. There really is not one national fishermen's organization. It's a different fishery on the west coast than on the east coast, so we need a couple of organizations to represent fishermen in that regard. We could go with eight in total, with six off of this list. Perhaps somebody has a suggestion for fishers in the west. Then we'll get one organization from the east. That would do the second panel on Tuesday.

Is that okay?

Go ahead, Peter.

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

Sorry, Wayne.

I was suggesting that we have a separate panel on fishers, and a separate panel on arts, culture and sports on either Thursday or the following Tuesday. I don't think fishers should be shoehorned into the forgotten folks you're talking about for Tuesday night. I think they warrant a complete panel of two hours.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. We can do that for Thursday.

You're putting a thumbs-up, Elizabeth. You're okay with that.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I think the fishing community.... I'm with Peter. I know I don't have a real say in this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You do.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

They're going through a lot and the east coast issues and the west coast issues are quite different.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes, go ahead, Pierre.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Wayne, I'm trying to understand the division of labour here. We now have all of the other committees up and running.

For example, if farm groups have something to say, is it more appropriate for them to say it before finance, or before the agriculture committee? If an industrial group has something to say, is it more appropriate for it to come to finance, or to the industry committee?

I'm wondering because there are huge organs of the state that report to this committee that haven't been heard from. They have really no other place to go. They have enormous impact on the financial well-being, or lack thereof, of Canadians. For example, the CMHC is now pumping tens of billions of dollars into the banks with very little discussion or accountability. Those are Canadian tax dollars that we may never get back. That can contribute to inequality on a massive scale, as we saw in the States when similar actions were taken in 2008-09. That's really finance. There's nowhere else to study that.

If we keep adding witnesses to the finance committee who also have their own policy committee to which they would normally testify, how are we dividing up labour among the committees?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That in fact is why, up until now, we were pretty nearly the only place to go. I went through the committees that are up and running and there is nowhere for the fishery.... That committee is not operating. There is nowhere for them to go. That's why I suggested them. I think we're the only place in town for them to go.

I would agree with you. I think there's a lot on the industry side now, and that's where they should go. There are some on the farm side. Agriculture is going to be up and running next week as well. Some of these requests we have could be sent to other committees. On the fishermen, though, I don't see a slot for them.

Who would you see on the CMHC issue?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Definitely you want the CEO of CMHC. There's no question about that. We also have CPPIB, which manages $400 billion for Canadians. That is an entity that reports to this committee.

We haven't heard from the Auditor General yet. There are gargantuan amounts of money that are being moved around among varied financial interests in this country with literally no public scrutiny whatsoever. We're not looking at any of those things. I just worry that we're going to end up doing every other committee's job without doing our own.

I know that for the AG, the CMHC CEO, someone from CPPIB, that's our core duty here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We don't know the schedule for the week after next. The whips have told us that our meeting slots are going to be different again that week.

Could we consider one panel on, for lack of a better phrase, strictly finance-related issues or witnesses?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Wayne, I had hoped we'd have more than one panel on finance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes, we will, but we certainly could.... We'd have to give CMHC more time too, probably, so let's see. Maybe we could have a four-hour session for strictly the areas we see as finance-related, like CMHC and CPPIB. There are other areas for sure. We've had the Bank of Canada—