Finance Committee on Oct. 20th, 2014

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Mr. Joanis and Mr. Caron, thank you.

Mr. Keddy, you have up to seven minutes, please.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Welcome to our witnesses.

Mr. Joanis, you made a statement earlier that infrastructure helps to make towns and cities more prosperous. I think most of us would agree with that. You went on to say that it's not, however, just transportation infrastructure, that there are other types of infrastructure as well, such as recreational infrastructure, and governments federally, provincially, and municipally have to prioritize, and I appreciate that.

I wonder if you've done any modelling on infrastructure projects in recreation. One thing I've found in rural Canada is that you have to have enough base recreation ability to attract younger professionals—doctors, lawyers, engineers—who quite frankly will go somewhere else in the country if you don't have that base. Have you done any modelling on that, and do you have anything to add to that?

[Dr. Marcelin Joanis]

I have not done any modelling on that specific aspect, but you are right to bring this up. Infrastructure has to be considered in a broader sense. That involves anything you may refer to as amenities, which are essential to municipalities in particular.

Once again, it would be important to establish priorities for projects by considering the concept of infrastructure in a broader sense.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Ms. Cobden from the Canadian Climate Forum, you talked about building in climatic resilience and discouraging construction in flood plains. I would have thought it would be illegal in Canada, as it is in most municipalities, to build on a flood plain, quite frankly. I realize that maybe in southern Manitoba it's all flood plain and they're going to continue to build there, but a lot of mitigation has already occurred.

There's always a short-term view that's immediate, but there's also a long-term view. Maybe Mr. Orb from the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities would speak on this as well.

The long-term view in Nova Scotia, quite frankly, is that the ocean is getting higher—there's no question about it—but we suffer from a dual problem, because the land is actually slipping. The land is sinking as the ocean rises. How much of this, in a situation such as this, can be the responsibility of any level of government?

I'll go back to the long-term planning. Is it the job of the federal government to come in with disaster relief money in every single case when we know, by every measure, that we will have a problem in oceanfront property in Atlantic Canada, for instance?

Mr. Brison would be interested in this question, I'm sure.

[Catherine Cobden]

There are a lot of themes and comments in that question. I'll take the first stab, and perhaps Mr. Orb will add to it.

I think, in the vision of the Canadian Climate Forum, we're actually thinking about partnerships and broadly encouraging multiple skills to come together. This isn't about government taking all the burden. We certainly would prefer to not have the disaster relief programs but instead to work ahead of those imminent disasters, because they're highly disruptive to the economy and to the people who live in those communities, obviously.

For example, on the resiliency side, I know that it might seem perverse that you can build in flood plains, but you might be able to do things through design to make things work better, in any event. If you're in southern Manitoba and you don't have a choice, perhaps you could have better requirements municipally for backcheck valves, or perhaps you don't want to put your energy system in the basement of a tall building but do something slightly different.

I don't know that it has to be entirely punitive. I think that's the idea, though. We have to adapt to these changing ideas, and we have to bring multiple disciplines together.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Along that line, Mr. Orb, maybe I'll lead my question to you a little bit.

One of the recommendations you make is that the eligible rate for private contractors for disaster relief should be the going rate. I think we understand that, and that's reasonable. At the same time, you'd like to have gravel that's used—I'm assuming this is municipal gravel owned by the municipality—be a recoverable expense. Again, along that same train of thought, how much of the responsibility needs to come back to almost a P3 look at how we do disaster relief, so that, yes, there's a huge responsibility on behalf of the federal government and we lead in that, but we also have provincial and municipal support, that everyone makes a contribution and therefore, because they have skin in the game, we have stronger and more realistic laws governing how we actually construct?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

You have one minute, Mr. Orb, to answer that question.

[Ray Orb]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The question might take a little bit longer than a minute to answer.

Basically I can tell you that most of the rural municipalities in their zoning bylaws try to make sure that people don't develop in areas that are flooding. The problem is those are a moving target. As you know, one year it seems to be worse than another year.

We are looking at the guidelines to the DFAA, the agreements we have with the province and the federal government. To do our own work in the municipalities.... You alluded to the gravel. That would be actually a saving to the program if municipalities were compensated. I believe it's quite a bit cheaper, maybe in the neighbourhood of 35% to 40% cheaper, for municipalities themselves to provide that than it is to hire a contractor. Most of the municipalities—the rural areas, I should say—have their own gravel, and that is a saving.

The disaster mitigation program is something we're looking forward to working on with the federal government. We also work with FCM, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, to try to design that program so that we can prevent flooding. In some cases it makes more sense to be cost-effective and to design channels and things like these rather than to repair the work after the flooding occurs.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you, Mr. Orb, and thank you, Mr. Keddy.

We'll go to Mr. Brison, for up to seven minutes, please.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Ms. Cobden, do the provinces and municipalities have the climate change data they need to assess public infrastructure needs and to design public infrastructure to withstand extreme weather events? Do we have enough data now?

[Catherine Cobden]

It is a changing scale of need. I'd say the magnitude of need now is far greater than we thought. I think we need to keep adapting by looking at how we ensure that we all—frankly, I think we all need this—have the right tools to make smart decisions. Businesses do as well. We do need the right tools for decision-making, and frankly, we also need the right questions to be answered by the scientific community, so there's a duality there.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Data and scientific information, a collection of good science and good data on climate change, is that an area where the federal government has a compelling role in terms of national leadership?

[Catherine Cobden]

Yes, I think in the existing program they've acknowledged that. The thing is there is such a demand that, as you heard in my remarks, we've already subscribed to that program. It was five years and we're three years in and it's fully subscribed.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Federal funding for the tri-councils isn't keeping up with inflation. In fact, accounting for inflation, NSERC funding is down 6.4%. What's the impact of these cuts on climate research at a time when you acknowledge we need more data?

[Catherine Cobden]

I really can't speak to how the cuts have been operationalized within NSERC. I can't even speak to the high level of the cuts. What I can say is not only do we need to have the right science, and there is certainly a good core starting, but we could do better and more for sure. The magnitude of the problem is great, and I think we see the cost is great.

We also need to be able to use the data in a smart, intelligent way. That's part of what we are talking about around synthesizing the information and connecting decision-making with that science. I don't know about you, but the last time I looked at a scientific report out of some of our researchers it was hard to understand what are the right policy tools. You need somebody in there to do interpretations. That's where we come in and why we offer our support to help do that.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

You give the data to politicians.

[Catherine Cobden]

No, to all Canadians, not just politicians.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I know.

Mr. McKenna, the Obama administration has significantly increased international tourism promotion in the last several years post the financial crisis. During the same period of time, we reduced our national tourism promotion. I know you have a specific proposal, but has the increase in the U.S. government's efforts to promote the U.S. as a tourism destination played a role in terms of the resultant Canadian industry?

[David McKenna]

I would say it has somewhat. The U.S. has invested a great deal of money, and they have an automatic mechanism through their visas to be able to fund that program. Brand U.S.A. is very strong, and it has attracted a lot of international attention, but I think, similar to my presentation, as the strength of the U.S. dollar dropped, that allowed many more people to come in and experience.... What we're finding for a lot of people visiting North America from overseas is that the borders are little blurry for them, and a two nation vacation is something we are currently seeing from the Chinese market. They're exploring North America as a whole.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

In my riding there has been a negative impact on tourism as a result of Parks Canada cuts and the reduction in hours of, for instance, Grand-Pré National Historic Site, a UNESCO world heritage site in Grand-Pré, Nova Scotia. Are the cutbacks at Parks Canada having an impact on tourism in areas contiguous with the national parks?

[David McKenna]

Yes, they have. Across the country the cuts have been felt, as you have experienced, and certainly here in central Ontario, along the waterways where Parks Canada also had to make some cuts, and out west. We're finding now with visitation on the rise that Parks Canada has increased operating revenues through the increased gate counts and has been able to start putting some of those services back in. I would say that in Banff and Jasper we were very fortunate this past year, after the tremendously poor year previously due to the floods, that we would be back to a more normalized operating season in our parks.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Have you had any effect in terms of your operators from the Mexican visa requirements brought in by the government? How did that affect tourism in that segment?

[David McKenna]

The Mexican visa requirements, although we understand why they were required, had a devastating effect. The Mexican source market was something we had all invested in quite heavily for a number of years, and it was growing in double digits annually. That is in the process of starting to rebuild, but more work is definitely required to allow us to go back there in any significant way.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

What about taxes and associated fees with flights originating in Canada? We understand that the way we pay for our security in Canada, and the billing to users, is having a deleterious effect on tourism. Could you expand on that?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

It will have to be a short answer, Mr. McKenna. We're almost out of time.