Finance Committee on Dec. 7th, 2021

[Maximilian Baylor]

Right.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Is that a yes?

[Maximilian Baylor]

Mr. Chair, we can endeavour to provide those answers along with answers to the other CRA-related questions that were asked earlier, if that's all right.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

I have another question that's related to the same line of questioning. Let's say that people came prepared today and they actually provided details that they would certainly have. My question is, with regard to the number—which we now have to wait potentially another day for or maybe forever for—is that number included within the $7.4 billion worth of spending, or is that an increase, an extra expenditure?

[Maximilian Baylor]

My colleague Mr. Poirier can verify, but my understanding is that it's included.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

I have one final question for now. How many staff have been hired to carry out the doling out of $7.4 billion?

[Maximilian Baylor]

Again, that's a question on the administrative side of things, a question for the Canada Revenue Agency, so I can't speak to that.

[Jake Stewart, Conservative, Miramichi—Grand Lake, NB]

Through the chair, CRA needs to be here tomorrow. That's yet another question that has gone unanswered.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Stewart.

We'll move now to the Liberals.

Mr. MacDonald, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

This is relevant to the supply chain disruptions we heard about earlier and the persistent supply constraints. Now we're into a variant and limited international travel. What effect do they have on our economic level at this point? How important would this bill be to suffice to improve that?

[Catherine Demers]

Maybe I can try an answer that perhaps will not directly respond. That said, the benefits that are proposed here are exactly to help contain the spread of the virus, helping individuals who are at risk to stay at home. Whether their region is in a lockdown or there are higher risks related to the restrictions, or it's in their communities, it is really meant for that. It's to support individuals by helping them make the decision to stay at home and not go back to work.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Can you explain how the general economic situation has improved because of the programs that were put in place—and potentially the program that we're dealing with right now, Bill C-2?

[Catherine Demers]

What we are seeing with the transition, with this more targeted suite of supports for workers impacted by the pandemic, is a recognition of two things. One is the movement into a next phase of the recovery where we're seeing employment levels back to pre-pandemic levels, where we're seeing an increase in job vacancy rates and where we're seeing a return of the economy across sectors, really leading to therefore the provision of additional supports that are really much more targeted in the context of providing the supports that are needed in the context of public health restrictions, and really leading to public health-related support versus addressing broad-based, generalized economic impacts of the pandemic.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I'll change it up a little bit and go back to the CRA question. If someone can't provide a document during a CRA audit, it's likely they would be rejected or be asked to repay it. Is this correct?

[Catherine Demers]

I'm sorry, I did not hear the question very well. If they are deemed to be ineligible, they would be in a situation where they would need to repay. That's correct.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you. That's fine.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you very much, Mr. MacDonald.

We will move to our third round, starting with the Conservatives.

Mr. McLean, you have five minutes.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Thank you.

We've heard a lot here today. Following on my colleague Mr. Blaikie's comments about the lack of definition for clarity about what we actually are going to be dealing with going forward here, I'll say that clarity is required for the definition of the money we're going to be spending here. Surely there's a financial model that's predicated on some real definitions of how this money will be spent and under what circumstances. If we don't even know what those circumstances are in retrospect, and if they apply, then clearly this modelling is somewhat suspect.

I'm going to make some excuses for the Finance officials here, because I know that you arrived late and were briefed on this late to be able to appear here today. That's a result of this bill's being jammed too late into a process that's going to take a bunch of time here right at the end of the year.

However, there was a time when the Department of Finance, in drafting a bill like this, starting in the mid-1990s, was rather good at making sure that this modelling was clear. This modelling is no longer clear. I don't know if it's because things have been lax during COVID, but this is something that you need to get right for the country, so I do have some questions around the financial modelling and the expectations, because here we've heard that $7 billion might be the amount we spend, depending on the definitions, through to May, but then it might go through until July.

This is just a blank chequebook, and I know the government has had a blank chequebook for far too long. This has to change, and this has to change in the Department of Finance in particular, because they're advising the minister.

I know there are a lot of moving parts. Let me ask a question about the debt-to-GDP ratio, because with the amount of spending this government has taken on, they've ramped up the debt-to-GDP ratio to 54% and are going to manage it down to 51% over the next handful of decades and keep it there. Have you factored these numbers into that debt-to-GDP ratio? I know that there are a lot of moving parts. Is this even a consideration?

I hear silence.

[Maximilian Baylor]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I can maybe just add that the economic and fiscal forecast again is sort of outside the scope of what is in the bill. It is something that is done by officials, like I say, on the economic and fiscal forecasting side, on the tax policy side. We're essentially here to answer questions on what's in the bill, so I'm not sure I'm the right person to address that, Chair.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Okay.

Let me ask some more questions here respecting tourism. You're not sure of the definitions on tourism recovery here. You're proposing that the amount of subsidization go down by half in March to May in the current bill. What percentage of Canada's tourism industry ramps up in the spring?

Boy, it takes a long time to get an answer.

[Maximilian Baylor]

Well, again, the horizon for these programs and the way they sort of phase out is based on the economic projection and the health outlook. That's the notion on which those are based.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Okay. On the outlook, I appreciate that.

At the end of the year, these entities are going to have to pay back $40,000 of the $60,000 that they have been loaned by the government. Do you have any idea of how that's going to happen in the cash flow that you might have forecast for the industry going forward?

[Maximilian Baylor]

I'm sorry. I didn't hear the question. There was something, a service break.... I apologize.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

A lot of these entities were accorded $60,000 of relief by this government to get through the first stages of COVID, of which they have to pay back $40,000 by the end of this year. Do you have any modelling about how that's going to affect their viability this coming year, when they may not have any money to pay it back?

[Maximilian Baylor]

I believe that's referring to another program. I'm not sure what program the honourable member is referring to. Is it the loan program? If so, again, that's not my area.