Finance Committee on Nov. 16th, 2023

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I know that, but there is also a power struggle going on between the government and Facebook. Departments prefer to buy advertising on Facebook rather than encourage community media, even though they are on the brink of shutting down and play a hugely important role in the social fabric, as you so clearly said.

You talked about an internationalization strategy. I would like to hear your comments on that subject, but also on the subject of immigration. Is francophone immigration sufficient to maintain the weight of your important community in Alberta?

[Nathalie Lachance]

Our capacity to attract and retain immigrants is not high enough. In all honesty, we need to bring more immigrants to Alberta.

However, I think it is important to point out that Alberta has a capacity to attract people, as we can see. The population in Alberta is growing very significantly, as is Alberta's francophonie. I think the faces of Alberta's francophonie have changed a lot in recent years. In the last 20 years, the schools have become more diverse; they really need to be connected and they need inclusion.

Alberta's francophonie, the old-stock francophones, represents about one quarter of our population. Second is Canadian migration, people like me, who came from Quebec or elsewhere. There is also international migration, which really represents the vitality of the francophonie. We therefore need to continue this momentum and work with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. We also have to put more effort into francophone Africa, since Africa is the continent where French is most commonly spoken on the planet.

The people who come here integrate into our community well. We really have great partnerships. I think a lot of work could be done on this.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

You were talking about keeping the language clauses: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has that obligation, does it not?

[Nathalie Lachance]

There are language clauses in all the agreements, particularly regarding healthcare, where we have made major gains. Obviously, education is extremely important as well. The schools, from kindergarten to grade 12, play a key role in integrating newcomers. They have to be able to play that role properly.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

I want to come back to the internationalization strategy, particularly in relation to francophone Africa, where we need to have more visibility to make sure we admit an equitable proportion of francophone immigrants. Is that right?

[Nathalie Lachance]

That's right.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Good.

In conclusion, I was impressed to see that your organization was founded in 1926. You are approaching your centennial year and I want to congratulate you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

We'll now go to MP Blaikie, please.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McGowan, in your opening comments you said that you would be interested in seeing the finance minister ask the chief actuary to outline some of the impacts on retirees of the proposal by the Alberta government with respect to the CPP.

Can you say a little more about that? What are some of the metrics that you think the chief actuary might use in order to better articulate that potential impact?

[Gil McGowan]

Thanks for the question.

The Government of Alberta has asked the federal government to task the chief actuary in coming up with a number for the transfer amount. With due respect, we think that is too narrow a scope. We would like the finance minister to ask the chief actuary to do what actuaries do, which is to measure risk. There are all sorts of risks associated with a big change like the one that the Alberta government is proposing, not just to workers here in Alberta but workers elsewhere. We feel very strongly that the scope of the project being handed to the chief actuary should be expanded to talk about risks associated with the viability of the CPP, the viability of an APP—an Alberta pension plan— and the impact it might have on contribution and benefit rates. They're opening a huge Pandora's box, and we think it's very dangerous. We need more information on the table, not just the transfer amount.

I would draw the committee's attention to a column that was published in the Financial Post yesterday. It was written by two actuaries, one based here in Alberta by the name of Doug Chandler—he's from Calgary. We in the labour movement agreed with what Mr. Chandler is recommending in that column.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Yedlin, I understand that you recently had somebody from the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board in town.

Can you share with the committee some of the thoughts that your own members have, and that the chamber has, about the proposal for Alberta to leave the Canada pension plan?

[Deborah Yedlin]

Thank you for the question.

We just hosted John Graham, head of the CPP, in Calgary on Tuesday. What we've said the government needs to be mindful of is respecting that the Alberta government can make the decisions it wants to proceed with. We're concerned about certainty, about portability and about the fact that this represents generational change. We look at it from the perspective that, when you have a pension plan that has generated annualized returns of 9.6% over the last 10 years, we think there would be a lot of people who would like to be able to do that, given the last 10 years of significant volatility in the markets. We have a very solid pension plan that protects Canadians from coast to coast and gives people dignity in their retirements. We don't know what the portability would look like, and from a retirement standpoint, what that would be.

Alberta is also a province where we rely on people coming from away, from the Atlantic provinces mostly, to work in our energy sector. We're definitely hearing that this is concerning.

Finally, it's an issue of certainty. We want to be a jurisdiction where we could attract capital, because we need to do that. As a country and as a province, we've relied on attracting capital for growth, and anything that causes uncertainty means that the risk premiums go up and that capital will go somewhere else. Capital goes to where it can get the best return with the least amount of resistance. Anything that causes any uncertainty, whether provincial or national, is not helpful from an investment standpoint going forward.

That's what our concerns are, and that's what we're hearing.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. McGowan, I would like to circle back to the conversation on the temporary foreign worker program. A couple of things that I've heard in conversations about the program that would be helpful would be to have work permits that are tied to industries rather than employers, and to have a clear path to citizenship for folks who do come to work.

What do you think about those proposals, and what else do you think might be useful to introduce into the TFW program so that it's not just a program for temporary, cheap labour but is actually about a longer-term workforce recruitment?

[Gil McGowan]

We, in the Alberta labour movement, support both of those suggestions: open permits and a quicker path to citizenship. However, we're concerned that the program is being used as a replacement for real immigration. We humbly suggest that this government should reconsider the low-wage, low-skills stream, because we think it is being badly abused.

I would remind members of the committee that the temporary foreign worker program, as originally conceived 40 or 50 years ago now, was about high-skilled workers who were in a better position to defend their interests in the labour market. There was never a low-wage stream, and that's the problem.

Employers in the low-wage service sector have been abusing that stream. Even during the boom years, between 2004 and 2014, wages in that sector didn't go up despite wages going up everywhere else. We are convinced that was because the temporary foreign worker low-wage stream gave them an alternative to responding to market conditions by increasing wages.

The final thing I'll say is this: I just want to remind members of the committee that the labour market is a market and the government should not be in the business of intervening in that market to help employers defy the economic laws of gravity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We're going to get into our second round of questions, members and witnesses.

If there's any time left, we'll allow each party one last question at the end for a final third round.

In this round, we're starting with MP Hallan for five minutes.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

My first question's for Mr. McLauchlin.

It's picking up after what my colleague, Marty, was talking about with Ms. Yedlin. It's about the carbon tax.

We saw that 3% of Canadians in Atlantic Canada, where the Prime Minister's poll numbers are tanking, got a carve-out for the carbon tax on home heating.

Does it seem like it's fair to leave out people in rural Alberta who sometimes don't have the option of using different forms of energy?

[Paul McLauchlin]

When you think of raising your children, fairness is always the measure of whether you're doing a successful job and your kids are always going, you're being unfair, you're picking favourites.

In regard to our good friends in Atlantic Canada, I respect and understand the economics of heating oil and I understand the pressures.

I think that you nullify the spirit and intent of a carbon tax by having a carve-out. If the messaging is that this is actually a tool to modify behaviour when behaviour cannot be modified, then your alternatives get quite narrow.

Rural Albertans spend a tremendous amount of energy per capita as it relates to the drying of grain or heating of buildings. My energy consumption as an individual is much greater than others'. That being said, I've invested in renewables and there are opportunities available for helping Alberta agriculture, but we are in a global market. We're in a global competitive market, and we need to really have that lens.

We're also competing with the 800-pound gorilla in the south that's used a different mechanism. Competing with incentives by taxation is counter to where I think we need to go, especially from a commodity production standpoint.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

You would agree that a carve-out for rural Albertans would also be fair right now, or a pause on the carbon tax.

[Paul McLauchlin]

My members would unequivocally ask for a carve-out as it relates to agricultural, and ultimately the conversation should also be about heating. We live in a cold, northern country on the planet Earth. We have a disadvantage. I think it's good because we have a lot fewer bugs than other parts of the world.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

My colleague also brought up Bill C-234. Are you familiar with that bill?

I wanted to ask if it would help, in your opinion, to lower prices.

[Paul McLauchlin]

Yes—a hundred per cent. It's a brilliant policy decision. We need to talk about food security in light of climate change conversations.

A third of this province is in a one-in-50-year moisture drought. A third of this province was on fire. We need to recognize that. That is the trend that's occurring. Really, we have reservoirs in southern Alberta that are at 2% of full supply level. We have an issue.

Food security and food production should be one of our core pillars and priorities as it relates to our climate change response.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

If you had a message for those senators who are holding it up in the Senate, what would that message be today?

[Paul McLauchlin]

I think we need to realize that we need to feed ourselves first, and we're being asked by other countries to help feed the world. We need to recognize that and I think that's an important conversation for us to have as a national strategic conversation.

We need to be able to feed ourselves and feed the world.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Norejko, you've talked extensively about the luxury tax. Can you sum up the negative impacts of the luxury tax for us?

[Anthony Norejko]

The way I would frame the luxury tax is that it's important to first recognize the work of this committee. This committee understood that aviation should be separate and studied, but that did not happen. There's still an opportunity.

The luxury tax triggers at $100,000. Any aircraft with wings qualifies then for the luxury tax, no matter the purpose. On matters related to jobs, we talked earlier in this session about high-skilled jobs and the income that Canadians earn because of their skill level and their desire, whether it's on environmental initiatives or on safety initiatives. We see it. On the direct impact, 25,600 Canadians are employed, broadly speaking, across the country. Just related to the business aviation operations and manufacturing, there are 53,000 jobs across the country.

Decisions on luxury tax mean that potential buyers are either making decisions to avoid a new aircraft, putting at risk other environmental initiatives and safety initiatives, or they are putting Canadian jobs at risk, ultimately, by choosing to find some alternative. That isn't an incentive structure that benefits everyone.