Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 46 - 60 of 459
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Thank you.
I don't believe there was a question there. We are straying somewhat from the amendment, but I think that's fine. These issues need to be discussed.
Mr. Kelly.
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
Thanks. I'll be very specific to the debate that is taking place on the amendment.
I wanted to comment on the issue that Gabriel Ste-Marie raised, because it was also raised in an earlier panel by other witnesses, and I think by committee members on the government side. It is this false comparison to anything that has happened over the years and the long history in the United States of brinkmanship over funding the government. One of the beauties and one of the real strengths of the Westminster system is that this type of government shutdown because of gridlock among legislators just doesn't happen. The minute a government cannot get authority to fund its expenses, that is dealt with through an immediate election. That's a loss of confidence in the government, and it would be referred immediately to an election.
This isn't about brinkmanship over the ceiling. This is about setting an appropriate ceiling. If one is to suggest that now is the time to set a ceiling that is at least $220 billion higher—at least—than the broadest worst-case scenario, the highest estimate of any possible borrowing figure, and if we were to accept the argument that we ought now to set it at $1.883 trillion, then one would really say, why not $2 trillion? Why not $5 trillion? Why even have a ceiling, if the ceiling is going to far exceed any notion of spending that has yet been presented to Parliament?
For the reasons my other colleagues have mentioned, I'm going to support the amendment, but I wanted to be clear about that. There's no equivalent or comparison to be made over the long history of gridlocked government spending that has resulted in shutdowns in the United States. That's not a feature of the parliamentary system and the system we have in Canada.
View Peter Fragiskatos Profile
Lib. (ON)
I won't belabour the point, Mr. Chair. It's an important debate. There's no question about it. The reason I focus on debt to GDP here is that, as we all know, it's a key economic measure. In the view of most economists, it is the key measure when we're looking at debt issues. That's why I raise it.
There's also the view of the International Monetary Fund, which I know my friends in the Conservative Party will be very fond of. They reviewed Canada's spending throughout COVID-19 and found the following. Let me put it on the record again to ease the concerns of Conservative colleagues, whom I care very much for. They said the following: Canada's response during the pandemic “provided crucial support to the economy and the functioning of financial markets, and helped protect lives and livelihoods.” The report also remarked on the importance of avoiding premature withdrawal of policy support, and it welcomed Canada's adoption of fiscal guardrails.
On the whole, the IMF is very comfortable with where Canada is in economic terms. Again, this is not The Socialist International. This is the IMF. If the IMF is good with it, then I'm pretty comfortable, Mr. Chair.
View Tamara Jansen Profile
CPC (BC)
I'm just very concerned about the way this is being done. We have no budget, and we are being asked to approve a credit limit that is massively increased, without knowing really where it's going. We've been told that we're going to be “reimagining” the economy, and I assume that's why we're asking for so much money. It is a pretty serious thing to ask us to say yes to this kind of borrowing when in actual fact we have no idea what the plan is.
We have to be ensuring that Canadians and parliamentarians have the opportunity to actually debate things, rather than saying, “Okay, approve it now, and don't worry, you'll get another chance later to rubber-stamp it.” That's what I feel like this is going to do. It's just going to rubber-stamp whatever is in the budget that we're going to finally see on the 19th.
View Ted Falk Profile
CPC (MB)
View Ted Falk Profile
2021-03-23 16:52
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to reiterate some of the things my colleagues have been saying. It seems to me that this amendment would do what the government is asking to do to meet its obligations for the commitments it's already made. What it wouldn't do is create that $300-billion cushion that the government is looking for, and it seems to me that would be like putting the cart before the horse. We were told earlier today by the Deputy Prime Minister that we can expect the budget on April 19. Once that budget is presented, if there needs to be an increase in borrowing authority at that time, it would make a lot more sense to me that the request come through the budget process and be coupled with the budget as presented on April 19.
This amendment would also actually support the concerns of both the Bloc and the NDP that the revenue aspect in our finances has not been addressed at all. If we wait until April 19, we may realize that the increase that is being asked for in this current bill is not warranted and that what we're presenting as an amendment is probably just fine and might even be excessive once the government, as Ms. Dzerowicz says, addresses the revenue side.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
I believe we're ready to go to the vote. I expect you want a recorded vote on this, Mr. Fast?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
On amendment CPC-1, Mr. Clerk, could we have a recorded vote?
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)
The Chair: The amendment is negatived.
Shall clause 15 carry on division?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Mr. Clerk, could we have a recorded vote on clause 15?
(Clause 15 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
(Clauses 16 to 19 inclusive agreed to on division)
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Shall the schedule carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: Shall the short title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
Mr. Clerk, we'll have a recorded vote on the bill.
(Bill C-14 agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)
The Chair: Shall the chair report the bill to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
The Chair: That concludes Bill C-14.
Mr. Clerk, without amendments I think we should be in a position to table that in the House tomorrow, if people can get that prepared overnight.
Okay. We will table that tomorrow in the House.
I want to thank the officials for coming before the committee, as they have done many times. I thank the officials from all the departments who appeared today.
Mr. Moreau, thank you for answering most of the questions. You did the heavy lifting today.
With that, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you, all.
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
We'll call the meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 28 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of March 8, 2021, the committee is meeting to study Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 30, 2020, and other measures.
Today's meeting is taking place in the hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. Just so you're aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.
Welcome to our witnesses under this new format. We have three witnesses in the first hour-long panel, and we'll start with Mr. Macdonald with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Mr. Macdonald, could you hold your remarks pretty close to five minutes? We're tight on time.
Go ahead. The floor is yours.
David Macdonald
View David Macdonald Profile
David Macdonald
2021-03-18 10:03
Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Easter.
I hope everyone can hear me.
Thanks so much to the committee for the invitation today.
Certainly, the economic response to COVID-19 from the government has been unprecedented in Canadian history. We'd need to look back at the World Wars to see government expenditures on this scale, although we'd also have to look back to the 1930s, almost a century ago, to see unemployment at this scale, particularly in the early months.
My recent report, “Picking up the tab”, was a comprehensive dataset of all 850 direct federal and provincial COVID-19 measures through the end of December 2020, including the fall fiscal update. The overall conclusion of this compilation is that, when it comes to measures to combat COVID-19, this has been almost entirely paid for by the federal government, with 92% of every dollar spent on measures to combat the coronavirus—everything from the purchase of PPE, to business and individual supports—having come from the federal government. Even in areas of provincial jurisdiction, like health care, 88% of the cost was borne by the federal government.
The largest expenditure, including both federal and provincial programs, has been in support of businesses, amounting to $4,100 a person. Supporting individuals comes in a close second at $3,900 per capita, and health care support is a distant third at $1,200 a person.
In each of the categories examined, except one, federal support was larger than provincial support. The one area where the provinces are spending more is on physical infrastructure to stimulate growth. This is being driven particularly by the western provinces. The federal government's major infrastructure program at this point is the resilience stream of the Canada infrastructure program, although this only reallocates existing funds and doesn't spend new funds.
It's worth pointing out that as the federal government embarks on new rounds of upcoming spending in the spring budget, in the last round of spending many of the provinces didn't properly match federal spending in support of municipal deficits, and many provinces didn't fully access the federal money available to them. In the next phase of the recovery, the federal government should keep a close eye on matching dollars and fund utilization to ensure the maximum impact for its expenditures.
This brings me to the next stage of federal COVID-19 spending, which has been promised at $70 billion to $100 billion in the upcoming spring budget. As I mentioned, infrastructure spending is already budgeted in several western provincial budgets. This is certainly an area where the federal government can back provincial efforts, like it did in the safe restart agreement. New infrastructure spending that reduces the country's carbon footprint can be an important opportunity to build back better, and further encourage central and Atlantic provinces to devote more of their COVID-19 dollars to infrastructure.
I'd also like to take a moment to call members' attention to our annual child care fee survey, published just this morning. It provides a detailed look at child care fees and COVID-19 impact in 37 Canadian cities. This year's survey shows a very concerning decline in enrolment in child care due to COVID-19, at the same time as fees remain high across many cities in the country. The decline in enrolment is worse in cities with high fees, and worse in cities with high unemployment. Without immediate consideration, site closure and/or the loss of staff may make a rapid recovery in the summer and fall impossible as parents can't find spaces for their kids as they hopefully go back to work.
One of the other ongoing lessons of the child care fee survey, which may be instructive for future federal efforts, is that the lowest child care fees are always found in cities where providers receive provincial operational grants, and then charge a low set fee. Just last year, Newfoundland became the fourth province to join Quebec, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island in this approach, and it looks like the Yukon will soon follow suit.
More broadly, I am encouraged that the federal government is committed to rebuilding the economy, rather than being overly preoccupied by federal deficits. Large federal deficits were necessary to avoid much worse deficits in other sectors. Had the federal government not covered expenses, as it had, those deficits would have occurred elsewhere in the economy, particularly in the provinces, as they covered health care costs; for individuals, as they lost jobs and weren't covered by EI; or for businesses, as public health measures wiped out incomes while expenses remained.
A deficit is neither good nor bad on its own. It is merely one side of an accounting relationship, with an equally sized surplus created in another sector. Every dollar comes from somewhere and goes to somewhere. To evaluate the utility of a deficit in a particular sector—say, the federal government sector—we have to track where the surplus was created, the other side of that accounting relationship.
For the past four quarters, the federal deficit of $220 billion has created a surplus of an equal amount, three-quarters of which has ended up in the household sector and one-quarter of which has ended up in the business sector. Thankfully little of the surplus has escaped Canada in the form of financial flows to non-residents.
The federal government isn’t constrained by deficits or debt-to-GDP ratios. It is constrained by the country’s productive capacity. As long as we have people who can’t find jobs, as well as empty stores and restaurants, we aren’t at our productive capacity.
Inflation is the constraint the federal government faces. We have to remember that going into this crisis we managed historically low unemployment and rock-bottom interest rates, and we still weren’t seeing sustained inflation. When we have 800,000 low-wage workers still out of a job compared with the numbers in February last year, we are nowhere near full capacity and inflation will remain subdued for a long time to come.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Results: 46 - 60 of 459 | Page: 4 of 31

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data