Finance Committee on Feb. 6th, 2020

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

The last issue I want to touch on is royalties.

This was a subject that was hot and heavy during the campaign. In the north, we've always said that we should be able to keep 100% of the royalties that are collected. Right now, we collect only 50%. We would like to see the remaining 50% go to either indigenous governments or the Government of the Northwest Territories. They are very underfunded and have very little in terms of revenue.

You talked about leaving royalties in the jurisdiction where they are collected. Could you expand a little bit on that?

[Brendan Marshall]

MAC has a policy called resource revenue sharing that has been endorsed by our board. It supports a redirection of royalties from mine sites from governments to the communities that are proximate to those sites. Again, I'd be happy to share that policy with the committee for consideration. At the end of the day, we appreciate that these are complicated conversations. Our goal is to try to operate competitively in a framework that grows the pie and creates more wealth. Our experience is that when more wealth is created, people tend to argue less about how to distribute it, because there's more of it to go around.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Mr. Ste-Marie.

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

Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for your presentations.

I'll start by talking about family business succession in both farm businesses and SMEs. This issue has been addressed by MNP. Quebec has already changed its tax rules to facilitate family transfers, and I can say that this approach is working. There's little risk that the rules will be circumvented, because the system is well regulated. We're waiting impatiently for the federal government to put this system in place as well.

I have a few questions for Ms. Tassé-Goodman, the president of the Réseau FADOQ.

Ms. Tassé-Goodman, you started your requests by talking about the most disadvantaged seniors, those living on low incomes. You're asking for an increase in the guaranteed income supplement of at least $50 per month.

Can you tell us about the day-to-day choices faced by these seniors and about how this type of increase would make a real difference in their lives?

[Gisèle Tassé-Goodman]

I'll start by telling you, Mr. Ste-Marie, that last December, a senior who received the guaranteed income supplement, along with old age security and Quebec pension plan benefits, obtained $18,000 a year. That's really not enough. We know very well that they're in a precarious financial situation.

Think about health care or the purchase of dentures, a pair of glasses for either nearsightedness or farsightedness, or a hearing aid. We know that they can obtain only one hearing aid. We know that these people suffer from deprivation and isolation and that they don't gather together, because they can't afford these items.

Increasing the guaranteed income supplement by $50 per month would have a major impact on their budget. We're talking about $600 a year. It could help prevent isolation and improve their quality of life.

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

You talked about the fact that the government provided only one hearing aid.

[Gisèle Tassé-Goodman]

Exactly. However, it has been demonstrated that a single hearing aid is useless. As a result of all the ambient noise, seniors tend to take their hearing aids out. They need two hearing aids to keep up with everything happening around them and, ultimately, to socialize.

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

Of course. Thank you.

You're asking that, in the event of a person's death, old age security benefits continue to be paid for three months to the surviving spouse. If you don't mind, I want you to explain the reason for this request.

[Gisèle Tassé-Goodman]

As I mentioned earlier, there was an election promise to that effect. When an election promise is made, we're confident that it will be fulfilled. We're asking that, after the death of a spouse, old age security benefits be extended for three months and transferred to the surviving spouse, especially since certain expenses incurred by the spouse during their lifetime are still ongoing. The surviving spouse must also reorganize their finances while they grieve. In our opinion, these three months of benefits for bereaved spouses would be appreciated.

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

These three months of benefits, in a tragic situation such as this, would give the surviving spouse some financial leeway.

[Gisèle Tassé-Goodman]

Exactly. I would also point out that the deceased spouse's pension benefits stop being deposited into their bank account in the month of their death, while the surviving spouse is grieving. Any money paid after that must be paid back. We're asking for this three-month extension to help the surviving spouse meet their needs.

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

Okay. Thank you.

Informal caregivers receive a tax credit. I gather that, if their annual income is too low, they can't claim it because, in that case, they may not need to pay taxes. That's why you're asking that this tax credit be refunded to informal caregivers. We know that informal caregivers help ease the strain on our health care system, among other things.

[Gisèle Tassé-Goodman]

Informal caregivers are often retired people aged 65 and over. We're asking that the tax credit be refundable. It's currently not refundable. The FADOQ is also asking for assistance for family caregivers who provide additional support. They're often close family members.

Workers are currently entitled to 15 weeks of employment insurance during which they receive an amount equal to 55% of their salary. This period can be extended up to 26 weeks for compassionate reasons. The FADOQ is asking that this period be increased to 52 weeks so that the workers can keep their jobs. Workers who are family caregivers often experience emotional stress and financial insecurity, since this situation involves costs. Extending the benefit period to 52 weeks could ensure that family caregivers keep their jobs.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You're all done.

Mr. Julian.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses.

Ms. Drever and Ms. Lidder, as you know, Guy Caron, who was an NDP member, tabled a bill in the last Parliament that addressed the transfer of family farms and businesses. We'll come back to that bill in this Parliament. Thank you for your comments.

I'll start with you, Ms. Tassé-Goodman. In your brief, you talk not only about informal caregivers, but also about the importance of establishing a public and universal drug plan. We already know that assistance for seniors and drug plans can improve the health of these people. As a result, our health care system saves money.

To your knowledge, have any analyses been conducted to look at this issue more closely? What's the impact of a drug program? What's the impact of additional support for informal caregivers with regard to maintaining a good quality of life and good health?

[Gisèle Tassé-Goodman]

There's currently a clear shortage of experienced workers. The caregivers who make up for the shortage of these workers are a huge help. In many cases, informal caregivers are women and retired people who don't have the type of income that a worker earns on the labour market.

That's why we're asking for a refundable tax credit. These people nevertheless hold a job that a worker would have, if there were workers available.

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

Yes, of course, and it would improve the quality of life.

[Gisèle Tassé-Goodman]

Exactly. It improves the quality of life and helps to prevent isolation. Often, family caregivers or informal caregivers are family members.

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

A universal public drug program would have the same impact. It would improve quality of life and prevent people from needing to use health care services because their health would be better.

We also understand the importance of indexing the Canada health transfer by 6%. The former Conservative government reduced this transfer by cutting funding for the health care sector. Unfortunately, the new Liberal government hasn't fixed this. Clearly, this issue must be addressed.

I'd like to go to Dr. Gaden and Mr. McClinchey.

I'm surprised—and maybe I misunderstood—that Canada is not keeping its obligations under the Convention on Great Lakes Fisheries. As I understood it, Canada was actually providing less than half of what the treaty requirements oblige Canada to contribute. I'm wondering what the impact is of Canada not contributing its full share. Does that mean that many of these initiatives are taking place only on the American side of the Great Lakes, or does that mean that the United States is trying to fill the hole that's not being met by Canada, or does it mean simply that programs go without and we're not able to accomplish what is so vitally important in the Great Lakes? What is the consequence?

[Dr. Marc Gaden, Director of Communications, Great Lakes Fishery Commission]

It's the latter two. The United States is basically picking up the slack, because the United States has fully committed to implementing the convention. The current funding arrangement is that Canada is contributing a good portion of its share to the lamprey control effort, but not all that it should. It should be 31% of the control, but it's currently contributing about 17% towards that, which means the U.S. is picking up the rest.

Canada is not contributing anything in terms of fisheries science, the coordination role that we play. We have a role to play under the treaty, to help the jurisdictions work together. There are eight states, the Province of Ontario, and indigenous groups. The United States is paying all of that.

We're not going without, but there's less of what we need to do to implement the treaty.

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

Brian Masse, the MP for Windsor West, has been very outspoken on this. You provided some guidance about how Canada can fully meet its obligations, but would you suggest we need to go beyond that? If we're already cutting short what are vital investments that need to be made, should Canada be thinking of going even beyond that? For how many years have we been shortchanging this treaty?

[Dr. Marc Gaden]

It's been a very long time. I've been with the fishery commission for about 25 years, and I can't think of an instance in which the two governments have been fully at the funding arrangement. The last time we had an increase, it was about a decade in coming, so we're not even keeping up with inflationary increases, let alone the full implementation of the convention.

That said, the budget we submit to this committee and to Parliament would require about $19.4 million from Canada for a fully funded convention that would meet the funding formula that the two countries have agreed to. The United States at the moment is over-contributing. To have it fully funded, Canada would need to contribute that amount. That would allow, then, for the full delivery of a sea lamprey control program that's equitable to the 69% U.S. and 31% Canadian funding arrangement. It would allow for us to fully address the scientific needs in the Great Lakes. Right now, again, the United States is paying for all of that.

We have a lot more science needs than we're currently able to fund, so Canada's increase would allow us to address those needs, which, I should point out, the members of the commission, the parties to the treaty who were appointed by the Privy Council and the President, have agreed need to be funded, so that would allow that to happen.

Right now, Canada is not contributing to the communications program, so Greg and I provide a lot of information to members of Congress and members of Parliament on a wide range of policy issues, and we'd like to continue to provide that service to the members who, rightly so, follow Great Lakes issues quite closely. We provide neutral science-based information, and we'd like to be able to fully do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll have to leave that discussion there.

Thank you, all.

We now go to five-minute rounds, with Mr. Cumming first and then Mr. Fragiskatos.