Publication Search

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the two of you for being here today. I did some research before I came. I'm not an expert in what you do for a living, and I have great respect for that.

I'm curious with respect to your benchmark. I looked into it a little bit. I read the words “mid-cap European” at some point, and it seems that some people with a little more knowledge than I have feel that your benchmark is not used by many others.

Could you explain anything and everything about the benchmark so that I can understand it?

Thank you for that.

Can you list other countries or jurisdictions that use a similar benchmark or exact same benchmark?

Thank you. I appreciate those answers. That gives me a lot of things to think about.

Another question I have is with respect to the real returns to the Standard and Poor's 500. What does it look like this year, and how does it relate to other years? Give me a little background on how those are going and what it looks like.

Yes.

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the answer as well.

I have one last question. Could you explain to the committee how you, in your position, would define equities? What does it mean to the pension fund when you're managing day to day? Can you give us an explanation?

I appreciate that. Thank you.

I have no further questions, Mr. Chair.

Yes, this amendment is important. It would basically have individuals with type 1 diabetes automatically qualify for the disability tax credit by removing the 14 hours a week for life-sustaining therapy. This is a no-brainer. This reduces the administrative burden on Canadians and allows their doctors to focus on their treatment, rather than completing confusing and arbitrary forms. This amendment is endorsed by both Diabetes Canada and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation.

Further, the intent for the amendment is based on a recommendation by Canada Revenue Agency's own disability advisory committee, which the government rejected.

By moving this amendment, we ensure fairness not only for Canadians with type 1 diabetes in my province of New Brunswick, but from coast to coast to coast. This is a rare opportunity for us in this committee to immediately improve the lives of 300,000 Canadians on a bipartisan basis.

Colleagues, it is the right thing to do, and I welcome your support.

I also wanted to read something. I had support from the JDRF, as well as Diabetes Canada. I'll quote from Diabetes Canada and Mr. Andrew Jones, executive director, government affairs, policy and advocacy. He said:

We find that the process for eligibility is full of administrative burdens. Patients are required to fill out lengthy, lengthy forms and communicate with their health care professional. Our major concern is around the [14-hour threshold] per week. [That's arbitrary] what counts towards this 14-hour threshold.... As I said in my opening statement, we maintain that individuals who are on insulin therapy—life-saving insulin therapy—ought to just simply qualify for the disability tax credit.

I have another quote here from JDRF Canada. We were fortunate enough to have them appear before the committee on two occasions. Dr. Alanna Weisman, endocrinologist, speaking about those suffering with type 1 diabetes, had this to say:

...If they were to not administer insulin, after a very short period of time they would be at risk of having dangerously high blood sugars, potentially leading to avoidable hospitalizations, coma or even death.

Our standard of care is to deliver insulin, as we call it, “intensively”, which means either through multiple injections per day with each of those injections needing to be thought about and calculated, or through an insulin pump, which again is still being delivered on a 24-hour basis, still with multiple calculations and adjustments that need to be made each day. Insulin is absolutely a 24-hour, life-sustaining therapy.

Also note that in type 1 diabetes, there are no other medications approved for treatment. We have one medication, and that is insulin.

I move this amendment in clause-by-clause, and I hope that all members of the committee will support it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Obviously this is a very important amendment to a lot of Canadian citizens that have type 1 diabetes. As parliamentarians we come here and a lot of the time we debate finances and money. This is actually something we can do that's really good and will help a large group of people across the nation. I think that goes without saying, and this is the type of amendment that should have all-party support.

I want to talk a little bit about the fact that I submitted this 12 days ago. Constitutional lawyers were sought in the preparation for it. As national revenue shadow critic, I had to get support from my party. I achieved that as well as the members of the committee—

A voice: I don't have anything to say on the policy side of things, I just wanted—

Mr. Jake Stewart: What is this?

A voice: He doesn't know he is on. It was an accident.

Mr. Jake Stewart: Mr. Chair, I'm going to read to you a couple of really important facts about the fact that this went in 12 days ago. It went through the shadow ministers' channels, the opposition channels—with my party, of course—with the members of the finance committee, with the clerk's office, with the lawyers who are already on hand and, as I mentioned earlier, constitutional lawyers who were acquired to draft this. Now I'm going to read you some very important points that will cover all of the questions we've been hearing.

Number one, the disability tax credit is a non-refundable tax credit. It does not require either a royal recommendation under section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which authorizes new spending. That's a very important fact right there.

Number two, because the disability tax credit lowers taxes payable to persons with disabilities, it does not infringe on a financial initiative of the Crown and does not require a ways and means motion to authorize the imposition of new taxes.

Number three, although there may be certain programs that use the disability tax credit for their eligibility, this is a separate matter that is covered by a different royal recommendation.

If this amendment were even remotely inadmissible or somehow out of order, with all of the expertise we have in the House of Commons and with the members of the committee and everyone that's employed on this Hill, it would not take 12 days to tell me that. Believe me. We have a lot of highly intelligent people around here, and we want to keep that good name for the people of this country who are watching at home and expect the business of government to run in a proficient and intellectual manner.

We know that I've answered every question that was asked beforehand. We need to support this to help people with type 1 diabetes.

Thank you.

On a point of order, I wish to challenge the ruling of the chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can you hear me? I was having some connectivity problems here in rural New Brunswick. It's common.

My questions today are for Mr. Paszkowski with Wine Growers Canada.

Mr. Paszkowski, considering that excise taxes negatively affect both consumers and wine producers, you would think it would have been clear that government would need to find a better solution. Of course, that's my opinion, but do you agree that this excise tax has the potential to produce real income losses across wages, profits and other returns to labour and capital in this industry?

Thank you so much for that. Thank you for the example as well. That adds some light to it.

Taking into consideration the hit to the industry that it actually causes based on the examples you just shared, we must also consider the consumers. Across the industry, what additional price increases can the consumer expect?

Thank you, Mr. Paszkowski.

We've heard now that basically the wine producers and consumers are going to be hit with this excise tax in numerous and different ways. To follow up on the obvious reduction in real income to wine producers, would you say that, coupled with the excise tax, the increased costs to producers associated with shipping as a result of the dramatic rise in fuel costs will most certainly drive prices to a point that sales will be negatively affected?

Mr. Paszkowski, if sales are negatively affected, wouldn't producers then be required to potentially reduce employee levels to compensate for the losses?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is to the Office of the PBO.

There was a stunning negative revelation outlined in your update document, which stated that the new luxury tax will result in over $2.8 billion in lost sales over five years. Someone called it a “torpedo tax” before you ask the questions, and I think this might work. I've heard it called this a few times. I've heard other members call it a torpedo tax, and that is valid. I liken what this government has chosen to do as being similar to a submarine targeting an unsuspecting merchant ship in the dead of night. This government is firing a massive torpedo at the Canadian car, boating and aerospace manufacturing sectors, among others.

Considering the struggle that all sectors are having after the pandemic, including manufacturing, are you of the opinion that this tax needs to be put on hold or done away with altogether?