Finance Committee on April 9th, 2024

[Stephanie Woo Dearden]

Thank you for your comments and for your recognition there. That's a big question, by the way.

In my view, there's a symbolic aspect that indicates that mental health care, psychotherapy and counselling therapy are on par with other health care professions, such as seeing a physiotherapist, an acupuncturist or a podiatrist. It destigmatizes it for Canadians, in addition to the money they will save from the taxes they would have had to pay.

It has been found that the rate that psychotherapists and counselling therapists charge ranges between $120 and maybe $190, so a 10% to 13% savings each session could be a couple of hundred dollars a year for each Canadian. It could mean that the money goes towards something that's important to them in their lives. It could mean more sessions for them, if they need it.

This will have a big impact on the health care system.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

In my previous role as health critic, I saw data from British Columbia showing that of the top 10 reasons people go into emergency rooms, the top four had to do with mental health issues. I'm wondering if you think this measure will have a bit of a knock-off effect, in that if people get the therapy they need, perhaps that may have the salutary effect of keeping them out of emergency rooms.

Do you see that as being a potential consequence?

[Stephanie Woo Dearden]

I think many of us here can agree that health is not just the absence of illness. I think psychotherapy and counselling therapy are a big part of helping people stay in that healthy place.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Smith, the title of this provision in Bill C‑59 and the way it's described or referred to is “Excessive interest and financing expenses limitation”. It seems like a pretty positive thing. I don't think any of us are in favour of excessive interest and excessive financing expenses. It seems, as a description, that we would be motivated to want to limit that.

Is that an improper description of this provision, in your view? You clearly don't want it to apply to your particular sector or industry. I'm just curious. Does your industry need excessive interest and excessive financing expenses, or is that just a misnomer, in your view?

[Derek Smith]

For our industry, it's probably a misnomer. It doesn't align well. I think if you look at our business, it's regulated to have certain amounts of debt and certain amounts of equity. That's to keep the cost of energy affordable for customers. It just so happens that the amount of debt is significant relative to other industries. When the debt is high, it spreads the cost of projects over time. We're not collecting monies from customers up front. We're collecting it over time. At the same time, by keeping the equity low, it restricts the amount of return or profits that are available for the shareholder.

The reality is that, when we work our numbers through, the rules don't necessarily work for our industry, hence the reason we have utilities within Electricity Canada members that are having interest denied under the rules.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

I see.

Mr. Vichie, in a statement in response to the 2023 fall economic statement, you said:

We are pleased to see that Canada continues to provide a comprehensive and effective policy response to the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act.... Today's Fall Economic Statement...makes progress in key areas vital for developing Canada's clean energy sector.

Specifically, greater clarity on eligibility and timing for the Clean Technology ITC and Clean Hydrogen ITC will help ensure Canada attracts the investment and talent needed to be a global leader in clean energy.

I think you emphasized that message here today.

Draft legislative proposals for the introduction of Canada's clean hydrogen investment tax credit and the clean technology manufacturing ITC were released for public consultation in December.

Could you provide this committee with an overview of EverWind Fuels' response to those draft proposals?

[Trent Vichie]

I think, broadly, what was provided was fairly good, but there were a few things that I would say were missing.

One is this, for example: When you build a wind farm, significant investment goes into building roads and access ways. The cost of that was excluded, which plays into the importance of labour as part of developing these types of projects. I think that is one particular area we would like to emphasize.

The other is this: Without getting into too many minutiae, it's important for us to [Technical difficulty—Editor] administrative aspects of this, once the bill is passed. It's a lot of work to get the details right, and passing the bill allows NRCan and the CRA to drive this forward. These are billions of dollars in project financing, legal work, etc.

The biggest key message is to drive the bill forward and not delay because, as I said before, it's like a freight train to get these projects moving and coordinated to deliver.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies.

Members, I'm looking at the clock. We have very little time left, but every party will have an opportunity to get in one more question. We have about five minutes left, so you have about a minute each.

We'll start with MP Chambers.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

In my minute, I will clarify a couple of questions with Mr. Powell and his colleague.

Would the bill in its current form, if passed, result in an increase in energy bills for residents in Nova Scotia, yes or no?

[Michael Powell]

Yes.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Derek.

[Derek Smith]

Yes.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Are you aware of any amendments currently being considered that would fix these problems?

[Michael Powell]

We proposed amendments in our submission, but I'm unsure whether one of you is interested in advancing them. We'd be happy to chat about this, if so.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

In the 15 seconds I have left, I'll provide verbal notice of a motion. Out of respect for my new colleague from the NDP and the non-permanent member from the Bloc, I won't move it.

It is the following: In respect of amendments to Bill C-59 ruled in order and substantive by the Chair, that clause-by-clause for these respective clauses be paused until such time as officials present testimony on these amendments; that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, President of the Treasury Board or—it's “or”; I'm not being greedy here—the Minister of National Revenue appear for one hour to answer the committee's questions. However, in order to be expeditious with the bill, this does not prevent other clauses from being reviewed out of order.

If there are substantive amendments coming to this bill, we need to examine them with the proper testimony. We were shortchanged access to the CRA officials and other officials at the very beginning of this study, so this is the motion that has now been tabled in public.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Chambers.

I'll go to MP Dzerowicz.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Is this for my one minute?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

What I'm going to say first to all the witnesses is thank you. This is very important testimony. You've been heard.

I want to say a special thank you to Ms. Dearden. Since I was elected over eight years ago, Davenport residents have been asking me for the elimination of the HST on therapy services. They did a happy dance when the fall economic statement was read.

I'd also say thank you for your testimony, Mr. Powell. I heard your ask loud and clear.

Professor Dehejia, I wish I had more time with you, because I wouldn't mind talking to you a bit about some of the information that came out from the 200 economists last week. They disclaimed the myth about carbon pricing driving up the cost of living and being a major cause of inflation. What the evidence has shown, they said, is that “Canadian carbon pricing has a negligible impact on overall inflation.” They also disclaimed the myth that carbon pricing harms Canadian business competitiveness. They said the evidence showed that “Canada’s carbon-pricing scheme is designed to help businesses reduce emissions at low cost, while competing in the emerging low-carbon global economy.”

I would say to you that we have a growth issue. We have a productivity issue. We have a competitiveness issue. They're not issues that happened over the last eight years. They've been issues that have accumulated over 30 years.

I'm very proud that our government has taken a number of steps to try to address the competition issue. We've tried to address the productivity issue. We've introduced a national child care program, among the many other things we've done.

We have a lot more work to do, and I'm hopeful that in budget 2024 we'll see some more measures that will show how we will be prosperous moving forward in the 21st century.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Dzerowicz. There's no time for a response. However, you could provide, Mr. Dehejia, if you would like, a written response to the committee.

I have to move on.

Let's go to MP Lemire, please.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Ms. Woo Dearden.

This morning, the committee heard from representatives of the Regroupement d'ordres professionnels en santé mentale du Québec, and later today, we'll be hearing from representatives of the Association des psychoéducatrices et psychoéducateurs.

Do you believe that all professionals offering similar services in Ontario, Quebec or elsewhere in Canada should have access to the same GST exemption?

If there were a problem with interpretation, an amendment would have to be tabled to resolve the situation, in the interest of fairness. These are words you used earlier.

[Stephanie Woo Dearden]

I am less familiar with the Quebec landscape in terms of the diversity of mental health professionals, so I can't answer this particular question.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Earlier, you mentioned that this tax exemption shows how much the government understands the importance of psychotherapy.

Keeping these values in mind, how would you react if you were told that one province was obliged to go and have expertise validated by another province? For example, for Quebec professionals to have access to these exemptions, validation would have to be done by Nova Scotia. Would you see this as an inequity or injustice?

[Stephanie Woo Dearden]

If there is a Quebec body that practises psychotherapy or counselling therapy and their practice is found to be similar in scope to that of their Canadian counterparts in different provinces, then they would be included in this amendment.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

That's what we'll have to try to create.

Thank you very much.