Evidence of meeting #59 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was inflation.
A video is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you very much.
We are going to now hear from the Bloc.
MP Ste-Marie, you have six minutes, please.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I too would like to welcome our colleague Mr. MacDonald, who has just returned from his constituency. We all grieve for the people of Prince Edward Island, the other maritime provinces and eastern Quebec. Our hearts go out to them. I am pleased to be able to greet my colleague.
Mr. Jacques and Mr. Ammar, thank you for being here. As I say to your boss every time he comes to the committee, I take my hat off to you and thank you for the important work you do. It is so important to be able to rely on such rigorous and objective analyses as yours. So I say well done and thank you, and wish you well in the future.
I read with interest your report on the impact of Bill C‑30. It is very well done and, to me, everything is clear.
You said you are currently working on an analysis of Bill C‑31. I would like to share my concerns with you about this bill to see if you can take them into account in your analysis. I am concerned: I wonder if the people of Quebec will be assured of receiving their fair share.
Bill C‑31 has two parts, one of which concerns rental assistance. This assistance is provided through the one-time supplement to the Canada Housing Benefit. People in Quebec do not receive this benefit. We have our own program under the right to opt out with compensation. Can we assume that people in Quebec would have to apply for a cheque only once? Will they apply in large numbers, when they are often people who have less income and are less adept at all the forms like this? In other words, can people in Quebec expect to get their fair share? Indeed, as currently drafted, Bill C‑31 does not include any provision mentioning that the system is different in Quebec.
The other part of the bill deals with the issue of dental care. Bill C‑31 provides assistance in this regard that applies to children 11 and under, whereas in Quebec, dental care is covered for children 9 and under. When officials were asked about the application of this program to Quebeckers, they said that if no money was paid out, Quebeckers would not receive a cheque; if money was paid out for care not covered by the dental plan, they would receive a cheque, as is the case in the other provinces. Again, the programs aren't tied in, so can we expect people in Quebec to get their fair share?
I don't know if you have any comments on this or if you'd rather take notes, but for now, I'm listening.
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Costing and Budgeting Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Thank you very much for those questions.
We are aware of the current situation in Quebec and in other provinces where programs already exist. We are in the process of doing our cost estimate for housing assistance and the dental benefit. We will take into account the current situation in the provinces in our modelling.
With respect to the administration and the Government of Canada's approach to the particular situation in Quebec, which already has a program for children under 10, we don't have an answer. In fact, it is up to the Canadian government to explain how it wants to make the approach consistent for the coming year.
In a few weeks, there may be another invitation for representatives from the Finance or Health departments to come and explain this to you. We could also join the discussion to explain our cost estimates.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you. Unfortunately, I do not believe that Bill C‑31 will be considered by our committee, but our colleagues will certainly be able to ask you questions as we study this bill.
In the past year, the Canadian economy, like that of most countries, has experienced an inflationary crisis in which prices have risen more than usual. Indeed, Bill C‑30 is intended to be a partial solution to this inflation.
Has your office estimated the additional government revenue generated by this higher than usual inflation? If you have such data, I would like you to share it with us, either verbally now or in writing later. Because it is always interesting to be able to put into perspective the measures that the government has put in place in response to high inflation and the revenue that it is generating.
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Costing and Budgeting Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Thank you very much for those questions.
With respect to the effect of inflation on the fiscal framework of the Government of Canada, we published a report on that five or six months ago. There is obviously a positive effect for the Government of Canada. However, the current situation is a bit different compared to our previous forecasts. In the next few weeks, we will have further details as part of our new economic and fiscal forecast.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Our final questioner is from the NDP. We have MP Julian for six minutes.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
Thanks so much for being here.
I want to start off by confirming that the amounts that you see in the calculations around the temporary enhancement to the GST and HST run from $192 up to $402 for a single-parent family.
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Costing and Budgeting Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
That's correct.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Costing and Budgeting Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
By our calculations, it will go to 11.6 million.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
This is something that Jagmeet Singh, as the NDP leader, was urging for many months. Fortunately, I think the government finally listened. It would have been better to have this months ago, but it's better late than never in getting that benefit to people. Thank you for confirming that.
I want to contrast that amount that you've estimated at $2.6 billion with another figure from another PBO study, which dates back to June 20, 2019. That was the study on international taxation. To refresh all of our memories, I'll reread the conclusion paragraph, which states:
For illustrative purposes, if we assume that 10 per cent of the $996 billion in reportable transactions with offshore financial centers...has avoided corporate income taxes in Canada, it would represent an amount of $100 billion of taxable income that should have been taxed at the general rate of 15%...Looking at electronic funds transfers (EFTs) would generate an even higher estimate. Indeed, if we assume that 10 per cent of the $1,639 billion in outgoing EFTs to [offshore financial centres]...has avoided taxes, this would represent approximately $164 billion in taxable income and $25 billion of tax revenues lost.
That's in a single year.
I want to start by asking whether the PBO has done an update to that. These are astronomical figures of money going to offshore financial centres while Canadians really struggle to make ends meet. Have you done an update to that study?
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Costing and Budgeting Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
We have not done an update to that study. The primary reason we have not done an update to that study is that the Government of Canada and in particular the Canada Revenue Agency have been undertaking a comprehensive study of the tax gap on their own.
Based on the quality of that work, we didn't think it was productive for us to duplicate the work of the Canada Revenue Agency. This is because, by and large, it corroborates the number that we released in 2019 that demonstrates that there are potentially tens of billions of dollars of uncollected tax revenue, of which a good part is potentially not being paid by multinational corporations or is being held in offshore tax havens.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you for that.
If that's the case, then.... If we're looking at $25 billion a year—at the time, I remember the PBO at this finance committee saying it was a conservative estimate and that it may indeed be higher—that would mean $100 billion has been lost to overseas financial centres over the last four years since the study was done. That includes the financial years 2019, 2020, 2021 and, of course, this year by the time we hit December 31.
Would that be accurate? Is it at least $100 billion?
5:15 p.m.
Director General, Costing and Budgeting Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
I think, grosso modo, that would be accurate, only with the caveat that the Government of Canada....
Again, every year for the past 15 years, the one thing you can always expect to see in a budget document is additional money for the Canada Revenue Agency to ensure tax compliance and enforcement to hire additional auditors to shake the trees or, I guess, shake the towels on the beaches in Turks and Caicos to find the additional money that's not being paid in tax revenue. There has been additional money given to the Canada Revenue Agency to do that.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Yes, although as we've seen around the finance committee, there has not been a single prosecution, not a single one, whether we're talking about the Paradise Papers or the Bahamas papers. In every single one of these scams that takes money from Canadians, at this point the CRA has not charged, let alone successfully convicted, a single person, and that's certainly, Mr. Chair, work for the finance committee. I know that the member from Elmwood—Transcona is on that, and I hope the whole finance committee is.
That's an astronomical amount of $100 billion, and yet, if you'll permit me a bit of a partisan comment, Mr. Chair, the leader of the official opposition is suggesting that what should happen instead is that we cut back on CPP and on employment insurance. I don't know whether the PBO has done any study about the impacts of that, of not making sure that we have adequate pensions in place and adequate supports for employment insurance. Is that something that the PBO has been looking into?
5:20 p.m.
Director General, Costing and Budgeting Analysis, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
No, not recently. The last time we did look at the current CPP enhancements that are currently under way for the increase in rates, which would have been back in 2016, we did look at the economic impact, at that juncture, of the requirement to pay additional premiums, but otherwise we have done nothing recent on that front.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you.
Thank you, MP Julian.
We want to thank the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer and we want to thank Monsieur Jacques and Monsieur Ammar for coming before us and answering so many questions, not just on Bill C-30, but on a number of pieces of legislation, as we've done here today. Thank you very much.
Members, we are going to suspend and then move into our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-30.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
All right, members. Let's get started on Bill C-30 and clause-by-clause consideration. We have about 23 minutes or so to get this done, and that takes us to the two hours for today's meeting.
With us, via video conference on the screen, we have Lindsay Gwyer and Pierre Leblanc back, if any questions need to be asked of the ministry, and we have our legislative clerk here to answer any other questions that may be asked about the legislation. However, it sounds as though we have a lot of support here for Bill C-30.
I do see a hand up. Go ahead, MP Albas.
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Although I'm not able to read the minds of any other members, I would say that if people feel comfortable with clause-by-clause consideration, you could perhaps consider testing the unanimous consent of the room to move forward. Instead of having votes for every single part, if we all can agree that this bill should be passed, maybe as you hit a clause, you could ask for questions, and if there are no questions, then just simply see if there's unanimous consent for the motion to move forward. Hopefully, we can work that way.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, MP Albas. I think that's a great suggestion. I will be using that tool here in the room. Let's move forward and see how quickly we can get this done.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, short title, is postponed. The chair calls clauses 2 to 4.
Shall clauses 2 to 4 carry?
