Finance Committee on Oct. 29th, 2012

[Terrance Oakey]

Sure. I have a long list here. I don't have the time to go through it now, but I'm happy to table it with the committee.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Thanks.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Scott Brison]

Mr. Mai, you have the floor.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to come back to what my colleague, Mr. Caron, was mentioning when he was addressing Mr. Van Iterson.

Actually, I would like to get some clarification. In your brief, you said:

“Implementing a price on greenhouse gas emissions, through a cap-and-trade system or/and a carbon tax.... ” Just to clarify—I think some of my colleagues are a bit ill-informed—can you tell us if there's a difference between a carbon tax and a cap and trade system?

[Andrew Van Iterson]

Yes, there clearly is a difference between a carbon tax and a cap and trade system. A carbon tax puts more of a fee on—

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Everything.

[Andrew Van Iterson]

—fuel through the whole system. A cap and trade effectively does the same thing by requiring emitters to buy permits to pollute, and the clean energy companies—and there are a lot of leaders in Alberta that would be able to make a lot of money out of cap and trade—would be able to sell their permits and make some money from that. I think it's a very efficient way to implement the market mechanisms to put a price across the economy.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I guess that's why in 2008 the Conservatives were pushing for cap and trade, and so were we.

Again in your brief you mentioned there is $1.3 billion in terms of subsidies for oil and gas. Can you expand on that? We were saying that it still exists, but the Conservatives are saying it no longer exists. Can you tell us what's happening right now?

[Andrew Van Iterson]

The government, to its credit, has reduced subsidies in three of the last six budgets. We appreciate that, and we're highlighting three mechanisms that I mentioned we'd like to see for this year's budget. Those would help reduce another $300 million or $400 million, the key being the Canadian exploration expense. If you successfully find oil and gas, it no longer should qualify as an exploration expense; it's just a cost of doing business.

The second is the accelerated capital cost allowance for the mining sector. Clearly this government very credibly eliminated or is phasing out the ACCA for the oil sands. It makes equal sense to do so for another type of mining, for the mining sector.

The third, the mineral exploration tax credit that we're talking about, was introduced more than seven years ago. It's been renewed year by year, but it was brought in as a short-term mechanism to support the mining industry. Evidence has found that its use declines when the mining industry declines, so that benefit doesn't seem to be there.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I'd like to continue more on investing in technology for reducing energy use. In my riding of Brossard—La Prairie there is a company called Distech Controls. They actually invested in headquarters. They're doing a great job internationally in terms of promoting the technology for reducing energy use.

Unfortunately, I don't have much time left.

I have a question for the FCM. You say in your brief that investing $1 billion in infrastructure can create 10,000 jobs. Obviously those are jobs here in Canada. We've seen that with the corporate tax cut that the government has been pushing forward, now companies are sitting on $500 billion of dead money. Can you tell us why we should invest in infrastructure, and why is it that money that is sitting in those private companies is not helping the economy?

[Karen Leibovici]

The reason to invest in infrastructure is that's what makes our economy grow. When you can't get goods and services across the city because the roads are congested or the roads are in need of repair, that hurts the economy. When you are in communities that can't rely on their water systems or on their storm water systems, that hurts the economy.

The fact is, to have the economy grow, which in fact creates jobs, you have to have a good solid infrastructure. It's the backbone of what makes this country work. That's why it's so important.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Buy, when you were talking about the current policy, you said that it "...hinders the ability of people to get retraining and be better productive members of the society." I very much agree with you. Would you like to take a few seconds to tell us more about that?

[Serge Buy]

Absolutely.

Making changes to the Canada scholarships program is a very easy and very simple solution. It would cost nothing and would allow people to become more productive more quickly.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Scott Brison]

Thank you, Mr. Mai.

Now we have the lovely Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

You're so nice in the chair. It's unreal.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks for coming here. It's been a great discussion.

Ms. Robinson, as a federal government we spend about $2.5 million through the provinces and territories for transfers for the labour market agreement.

What's your analysis? Is it effective? How can we measure their success?

[Nobina Robinson]

That's a huge question and I know a very topical one, because our colleagues at HRSDC currently are thinking this through in many ways.

Where I am best suited to answer is to tell you that as part of the stimulus spending through the LMA, things were done to encourage, for example, pre-apprenticeship programs getting into secondary school, promoting the awareness of the trades.

The problem with all of this is that it's chaotically delivered. There isn't a national standard. There isn't a national outcome. It's that whole decentralized nature of the spend, and the shared jurisdiction issue, which came up in my discussion with Mr. Brison.

I would say that as we look at renewals for the labour market agreements, one of the things is to come to some common data sets as to what is the problem and what is the goal that we all want. For example, there is a lot of concern right now around the issue of, well, we have to get more young people interested in the trades. That is valid, but it's equally important to get the people in the third and fourth year, before they get their ticket, to complete.

There could be targeted uses of the LMAs if we could agree on the problem.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I see what you're saying. It appears to me, though, that there seems to be a problem that stems from the very root. Am I correct?

[Nobina Robinson]

Yes.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I threw this question at another panel here last week, when we talked about streaming. Of course, the German approach is streaming, and they're very successful. There's a cultural difference, though, isn't there, with Canadians? There seems to be a real aversion to that sort of suggestion that we should....

I'm getting a nod from Monsieur Buy.

Would you comment on that? Should there be a public discussion in education that would include the feds, and an honest discussion about where our education is taking us and whether or not we need to make some real changes?

[Nobina Robinson]

Oh, I absolutely agree with you. I think the issue that comes down—I talk about this issue all the time—is that there are very distinct motivations for the different actors in the education systems. We've actually tried to peanut-butter the problem and ascribe to every single actor the same motivation.

Universities are motivated by something very different from colleges and different from unions in training, but we all have something to contribute. If we understood a highly differentiated system, which is the German system, I think we'd actually get collaboration and better outcomes.

I will tell you on the streaming issue, though, and this is anecdotal, that we actually do a kind of streaming in our secondary school systems. The high school teacher decides, well, you're not so good at math, so you do the lower-level math; and you, you're going to go to university.

We're making some streaming decisions in grade 10. I know. My brother-in-law is a grade 10 math and grade 12 math and science teacher. Who is making those decisions, and why haven't we then said to that student who is going to the lesser math, hey, did you know you could do X, Y, Z that is also productive?

When you get into the data that 69% of parents want their kids to go to university and only 15% of the parents want their kids to go to college, and yet we don't have the labour market information in the hands of the parents and the high school counsellors, that is the kind of national discussion we need in terms of the long-term bias.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Do we have time for Mr. Buy, Mr. Chair?

[Serge Buy]

I will need just a few seconds.

I think you raise an interesting question. The problem we have I think is that with education having many players, including the provincial government, it's going to be really hard to change everything. However, the government has the ability and the capacity to direct funding where education is needed and workers cannot be found for jobs that exist. In Alberta we have employers who cannot find workers. In Nova Scotia we have companies that now, with the huge shipbuilding that is happening, are scrambling to find education.

In terms of our funding for the Canada student loans program and the Canada student grants program, we're going to keep giving money to people who are making their choice to go to universities and get a degree and a diploma where no jobs are there. In articles in the media, you have journalists asking why we are funding professions where there are no jobs—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Scott Brison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Buy.

Go ahead, Mr. Brahmi.