Evidence of meeting #8 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rate.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
National President, Canadian Union of Public Employees
I've answered the question, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
November 20th, 2013 / 4:30 p.m.
NDP
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Chair, thank you very much for protecting my time, like my colleagues'.
I will be rather harsh right off the bat.
Mr. Thomas, are you claiming that your organization and the people it supports are representative of Canadians as a whole?
4:30 p.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
No. We always say that we represent those who support us. Last year, 24,000 people offered us financial support and 84,000 people even signed petitions in addition to showing their support. Those are the people we represent.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Thomas, I should point out that we have been bumping into each other for over two years. The document you submitted is in English only, which is really deplorable. It is not like you didn't have time to translate it.
4:30 p.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Unfortunately, Mr. Côté, it is just a question of money. Two months ago, our president and I drove to Montreal to hold a meeting and to gather the support of francophones. Our organization is funded by donations, and our budget is not sufficient. Nick and I are alone here in Ottawa. This year, we translated most of the website, but our goal is to have dynamic translation.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I do not really buy your excuses, but let us go back to your first recommendation.
On the issue of employment insurance fund, you talked about a waste of $1.8 billion in administration. I do not agree with that view, but I am curious about the individual employment insurance system. You must have assessed the administrative costs for millions of individual accounts designed to protect the income of workers if they become unemployed.
4:35 p.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Yes, that is what is happening with the pension plan in Canada.
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
No. I am sorry, Mr. Thomas, I was talking about the employment insurance system.
4:35 p.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Yes, but everyone has their own account with the Canada pension plan. You and I can go on the Government of Canada website and see all our contributions for—
4:35 p.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
You can go to the government website and see every penny you've paid into the Canada Pension Plan your entire working life, and it will tell you what your pension would be today based on all the funds that have been put aside for you, and that's the pension—
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
NDP
Raymond Côté NDP Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Suppose that, overall, your proposal will be more costly because of the individual administration fees. Let's say that the fees will be twice as high. Would you still keep your first recommendation? I gather that you have not looked at the issue of administration fees. An independent study should be carried out.
4:35 p.m.
Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation
The Canada Pension Plan is much more administratively efficient than the employment insurance plan.
Let's remember that the government plans to run a $16-billion surplus between now and 2016, and they ran a $57-billion surplus on EI. Our point is that the money isn't going to the people who need it, nor to the people who are paying for it.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you all for attending. Some of you have been here before, for others it's your first time.
In Mr. Thomas' defence I say to the opposition, the Canadian taxpayers are many times a thorn in the government's side, too. I don't think you guys pick any sides, and I commend you for that. I think that's a commendable thing, because you do represent taxpayers and taxpayers feel, sometimes, they don't have a voice. What you do, I think, is to prod us on, sometimes in directions we oftentimes don't like to go, so I'll give you that little tip of the hat because I think you're well deserving of it.
Having said that, I want to go to Ms. McGuire. I am intrigued with what you said about the issues you are confronted with on residential property. I say that because we had a witness here from the Whispering Pines/Clinton Indian Band in B.C. The chief there recommended—didn't so much recommend as say that this is absolutely necessary—that they need property rights on Indian reservations.
I'll give you a few minutes to talk about how much of a difficulty that presents for you as an organization. Would you endorse what the chief—I apologize, I forget his name—recommended, that property rights become entrenched in our constitution for first nations people?
4:35 p.m.
Controller, Talasa at Sun Rivers, Cambri Development Group Inc.
Yes. We believe that very strongly.
The way it is now, they can't do anything on their land. They can't improve it. They can't sell it. They can't make any money. They can't generate revenue for anything to do with their land. Basically, they're allowed to use it, but they can't improve themselves in the sense of being entrepreneurial, to increase businesses and to develop. If they don't have the ability to develop because the government is regulating them continuously, then they can't become more like the rest of society, right?
I think the younger generation on first nations land is very open and wants to move forward and become a self-sufficient society. They don't want to have to deal with the government anymore. They want to be able to take care of themselves. As an outside developer—and before I came to this company I had never been involved in residential development on first nations land—I could not get over the complexity and the difficulty and the constant need for consultation and legal advice and the costs involved. We had difficulties with the CMHC for mortgages. The banks couldn't understand it. The lawyers don't understand it. There's a constant burden, in every area, of doing any kind of transaction on first nations land. Outside developers would run away from this because there are so many more risks involved with it, over and above what a developer normally risks.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Okay.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I want you to tell me if I'm on the right track.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I found his name. Chief Michael LeBourdais was the chief.
What you're telling is that from an economic viewpoint—from the side that works within, as in your case, your business—it's a hindrance. It stops economic flow, and it hinders first nations people from developing their potential as well.
Do you agree with that statement?
