Finance Committee on Oct. 15th, 2012

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

That's what's exciting. In Prince Albert we still have these guys working in Fort McMurray flying back and forth. We need 300 new people, so it's 300 new families moving into the Prince Albert region, and that's not talking about the truckers, the loggers, and all the other small communities. Our vacancy rate, they're telling me now, is less than 1% or 2% as far finding places to live is concerned. All of a sudden there are opportunities for carpenters, but try to find a plumber and an electrician.

These are great problems, because in 2005, when we had an NDP government, the issues that were coming to me were regarding who's going to pay the infrastructure bills in these towns, because nobody was living there. Now the issue is how to get more money for infrastructure when we don't have people to build it. It's actually an interesting problem.

You talked about the rail services. I know in the agriculture sector we have huge issues in rail service. I know what it's like to be a farmer and have six or seven semis on the road on a Sunday night, showing up at an elevator, and all of a sudden I get a phone call Monday morning saying that the train didn't show up, so what do I do with these six semis that don't belong to me? I have to get them unloaded somewhere, and the elevator is full.

Where are you at in dealing with railways as far as the service level agreement is concerned? I understand they said that they made negotiations in some agriculture sectors with some of the companies that are doing that. Have they been able to do that with you guys?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

We may be out of time, so give a very brief response, please.

[David Lindsay]

The time I didn't use on the last one I may use on this one.

The rail companies have reached out to some of our members, but the Forest Products Association, through my colleague, Catherine Cobden, tried on a number of occasions to come up with an agreement that would be acceptable to all parties, and that was rejected.

Our concern is that we have gone up to the altar a number of times, and then it falls away, so if we have a service level agreement understood in the legislation, then that will create a business tension for the two parties to come together to work it out.

We're not asking government to impose service level agreements; we're asking for a safety valve whereby, should business-to-business discussions not be successful, there is a mechanism to resolve that in the rail and shipper relationship. We're not asking for rules to be imposed; we're asking for a framework if we cannot come to an agreement. If the rail industry is telling us that those are easy to do, then they shouldn't mind having this legislative enhancement.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

Thank you, Mr. Lindsay.

Mr. Giguère, you have five minutes.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I want to thank the witnesses for joining us.

We know that our colleagues from across the table spend more time making up stories about us than looking into the repercussions of their own economic policies. If you are behind a $15-billion annual increase in the price of fuel, you should have the decency to refrain from laughing. Canadians who fill up pay that $15-billion amount every day.

We could also criticize this government for limiting itself to a single economic sector—that of natural resources. In terms of figures, in my riding of Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, we lost another 200 jobs recently. Those are 200 workers who need wages, who were ready to work and wanted to work in the manufacturing sector, at the Paccar truck factory. They are joining the ranks of 500,000 Canadians who have lost their job in the manufacturing sector, and that explains the additional 300,000 unemployed people compared with 2008. That is incredible and unspeakable.

Mr. Schetagne, what are the economic consequences of a policy based on a single economic sector?

[Sylvain Schetagne]

You have showed those consequences. Such a policy has repercussions on workers' lives, jobs and revenues. Currently, a number of things are coming to light.

We can say that the current government's economic development policy, in terms of sectors, is to have no economic policy. The hands-off approach is used at any cost, under the pretext that the market will take of everything and, if people happen to die, it's their own fault. A magic formula or a miracle is hoped for. We are even hearing the government representatives say that private companies should invest and that everything is there for them. They could invest, but they are not investing. It is up to the companies to invest, but we do not understand. That is the result of the hands-off approach, and we see that proceeding in this way has very poor results.

A nice opportunity is being missed, in a number of respects. We have the opportunity to use our state's borrowing capacity to invest in us, increase our productivity, create more jobs and invest in training for workers.

An opportunity is being missed to be much more strategic in the way the country's natural resources are being used. Those resources should be not only mined here, but also transformed here, to create jobs and expertise here.

An opportunity is being missed to create more training opportunities for Canadians, so that, instead of importing labour force, we can use the 1.4 million Canadians who cannot find jobs. This is especially the case with young people, whose unemployment rate is between 15% and 20%. Some nice opportunities are being missed.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I have one last question for Mr. Duguay regarding co-operatives.

An issue has come to light. Many SMEs have no successor lined up. The owners are unable to find, within their family, anyone to take over their company, and that is paralyzing investment. What kind of opportunities are there for creating jobs and improving that sector through co-operatives?

[Patrick Duguay]

The issue lies not only in creating jobs, but also, most importantly, in maintaining the existing jobs. It is easier to maintain existing jobs than to create new ones. In Quebec, 22,000 companies will change hands over the next 10 years. That issue is important for SMEs because they create a lot of jobs.

One of the things Quebec has traditionally asked the federal government for is a joint tax program—such as the Régime d'investissement coopératif, Quebec's co-operative investment plan—to encourage workers to invest in the companies that employ them. That would help inject new funds to meet the challenges and keep those companies healthy. That is one of the tools we should have at our disposal.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

You have 30 seconds left.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

My question is for Dr. Tétreault.

Thank you for your presentation.

Many stakeholders have said that one of the main causes behind the rising health care costs was poverty, as it led to medical costs.

Could you tell us a bit about that?

[Dr. Michel Tétreault]

On the one hand, that is absolutely true.

On the other hand, I think that the current health care system is not compatible with peoples' needs. In fact, the people with the most needs are those who are the least well-off. The health care system should be adjusted based on those people's needs.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

Thank you, Mr. Giguère.

Ms. Smith, you have five minutes, please.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was puzzled when I listened to some things that were being said on the committee. I am going to direct my comments to Mr. Schetagne, first of all.

In your presentation you stated that the government had a false understanding of the economy. We all know, and it's public knowledge, that 770,000 net new jobs have been created. We have a AAA credit rating. We have been known, for five years in a row, as the most solid banking system in the world, so we're doing something right.

When I listened to you a little later, you advocated a 30-hour workday. You said that we need to do a child care program, which is basically provincial jurisdiction and not federal jurisdiction. Then you said we should open up free trade. Well, we have opened up more free trade agreements than any government in the history of Canada and we're working now with more. All of these things have been met.

As I listen to you, I am trying to understand a little bit. You talked about taxing people and things like that. How do you square a $21 billion carbon tax being laid on the people? How do you think that would help these people you are talking about, the workers? How would that affect them? That's what members opposite are advocating. I am just curious to hear what you have to say about that.

[Sylvain Schetagne]

There are some confusions in terms. First I want to say that we're not recommending a 30-hour workday. As for the answer about the false understanding of the economy, it's a false understanding that giving across-the-board corporate tax cuts would magically create jobs. Our message here around the corporate tax cuts is that we could be a lot more targeted.

The second thing, as I said earlier, is that I think there are missed opportunities for doing better. This is the main point of our presentation. We haven't called it that.

As for the use of the $500 billion in dead money, if I recall, $500 billion is about the size of our national debt. This is how much money it is. There's a lack of opportunity for that money in not putting it to work. What we're saying is we can put that money to work to make a better Canada now. As we said, we should invest in multi-year, major public infrastructure that would increase our infrastructure and also increase our productivity.

There are also other things that we think should be tapped. For instance, we do not have a good sectoral development strategy; what we have is basically a magic miracle hand.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

I did mean, as you know, a 30-hour workweek, not a workday. You know that.

Having said that, I want to give my time to Mr. Jean. He wants to ask a question. I have more questions for you, but I'm going to give it over to Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I'm just curious, Mr. Schetagne, in relation to the $123-billion infrastructure deficit that we had in 2006, when we came into government. That was identified by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Are you familiar with that, sir?

[Sylvain Schetagne]

I am familiar with the existence of underinvestment in municipal infrastructure—

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

No, I'm asking you about the FCM, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. They specifically said there was a $123 billion deficit in 2006. Are you familiar with that? They did say that, anyway.

[Sylvain Schetagne]

Yes.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Are you familiar that the federal government brought in the economic action plan in 2006, 2008, and stimulus funding in the range of $45 billion?

[Sylvain Schetagne]

I would like to say I am familiar with this, although I would like to say that I would like to hear your entire rationale, because you could be saying, for instance, that the dictionary is big and I am big so I'm a dictionary. I would like to hear your entire rationale before answering the questions.

Thank you.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate your interruption.

You also know, of course, that in that economic action plan the federal government put certain requirements in place, including municipal investment. It was in the economic action plan that the federal government put forward, with provinces matching those funds as well. In essence, the $45 billion, including the stimulus and economic action plan funding, is going to be somewhere around $135 billion. At least, that was the idea.

Do you know, sir, that in relation to this economic action plan, we've had tremendous amounts of investments in highways across the country? VIA has received almost $1 billion. We've had a huge amount of green infrastructure invested, etc. Were you aware that in relation to all of this money, every single member of the New Democratic Party voted against that stimulus funding and all that economic action plan? Were you aware that they actually stood in the House of Commons and said “no” to all of that economic action plan, into which you're suggesting we put forward more? Did you know that?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

Thank you, Mr. Jean. You're out of time, so please give a very brief answer, Mr. Schetagne.

[Sylvain Schetagne]

I believe I'm out of time.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

I'm offering you a brief answer if you'd like to answer.

Okay.

With the committee's indulgence, we started just a few minutes late. I'd like to offer Ms. Glover her full time if there's agreement to do that. We did start a few minutes late because there was a procedural question. If the witnesses are fine for one more round of questions, Ms. Glover, you will have five minutes.