Finance Committee on Oct. 5th, 2006

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I appreciate that.

Mr. Javed, you raised a number of concerns.

Obviously, being in government is a difficult thing. You have difficult choices. We did increase spending by 5% this year. We have refocused priorities, which I think is very important.

You've proposed a number of things that would be very costly for the government. What I would like to ask you is how you would propose that the government finance them. Where could we cut from?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, Mr. Del Mastro.

We'll move to Mr. McKay now.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

You're going to have to hold that answer, Mr. Javed.

Mr. Graham, when my colleague Mr. McCallum asked you whether you thought emissions should be voluntary or mandatory, you danced around for a while, but I take it you came down on the voluntary side. Is that correct?

[Clyde Graham]

The critical thing is to have an understanding between government and the people in the industries as to what is feasible, what could be done—

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I don't disagree with you.

[Clyde Graham]

—and I would say that once that agreement is reached, if we come up with a plan whereby industry and government agree on levels of reductions that are feasible, doable, protect the competitiveness of industry, and would have real results for the environment, then I think industry and government are going to move forward. It doesn't really matter too much to industry whether or not you put a regulatory backstop on that, as long as it's doable. So I think the first thing is to see what we can do.

To us, on the targets or the guidelines or the performance, it's the details that are more important than the regulatory aspects. And I would also mention that your government did put greenhouse gas into CEPA, and the government does have regulatory authority to move forward in that.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

But industry to industry, presumably the government has been negotiating in good faith, and presumably all of the industries have been negotiating in good faith. Yet for some bizarre reason, this particular government wishes to single out the auto industry and mandate their legislation.

[A voice]

[Inaudible—Editor].

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Order, please.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Well, it's simply true.

I don't understand your position. You either have to be one way or the other. You have to either agree that all emissions reductions in all industry sectors are voluntary, or you have to take the position that all emissions should be mandated in legislation and regulation.

Where's the point? Is the point now that your industry should be mandated? Or do you think all industries should still be under voluntary compliance?

[Clyde Graham]

I can't speak for how the government wants to achieve its aims. All I can say is that if the government comes to us and says there is a public priority and that priority is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we can look at our plants and our mines and we can say “These are the constraints we're operating under right now. This is what we could do in terms of the capital stock turnover that we have, in terms of revamping that, and in terms of what technological change may be available. We don't have a lot.”

We also have to look at what we can do in terms of remaining competitive. Right now we face tremendously high natural gas costs, for example, which are critical to our industry. And then we can say this is what we can do.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Let me finish you there, because I have very little time, as you know. I apologize.

Mr. Steeves, I'm rather surprised the FCM has wanted to extend—I actually agree with Mr. Wallace on this point—the infrastructure money and the gas tax money to parks and hockey rinks, etc. That seems to be far away from what the intention was, which was roads, sewers, and basic infrastructure. I'd be interested in your comments on this, because to me it seems that would be totally offside.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

You have a very brief time for a response.

[Gord Steeves]

That's a fair comment, and as I said before, it remains as an emerging issue in terms of infrastructure funding. The primary request, sir, would still be the traditional hard infrastructure that we've requested all along. I certainly don't want the fact that we've included it as a potential to in any way offset our emphasis on traditional hard infrastructure in our cities and communities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

I recall a rather stress-filled discussion around the allocation of certain infrastructure money in the city of Winnipeg prior to the last election as well, which we could reference in some detail at a later point.

In any case, we'll move now to Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thanks.

I'm going to focus a little bit on the infrastructure issue and where things currently sit. One of the things that is in this budget is a five-year outlook on $16.5 billion in infrastructure funding. I hear your need and your request and the will to want to obviously do more, but the fact is, the budget sets out $1.3 billion in support of public transit initiatives; $400 million transferred to provinces for investment in additional public transit infrastructure; $900 million to provinces for a public transit capital trust; and $2.4 billion for highways and infrastructure.

I don't want to go through the whole list, because I think you know it. But to me there is a sense—and I wanted to get your reaction on this—to building a bridge, that there is a relationship there and it continues to be developed. The fact is that there were significant investments made in this budget.

[Gord Steeves]

I hope I was clear in my comments. If I wasn't, I apologize. We certainly didn't mean to allude that we have been ignored by the federal government. That was not my intent. We do feel bridges have been built—no pun intended—and we feel we've come a long way. Within the context of some of the agreements you mentioned, there certainly is some room for some adjustment of the agreements to make the ease of transfer a bit better. And obviously we feel the infrastructure deficit has some way to go to be addressed. But certainly we would like to acknowledge the efforts of the federal government on our behalf, absolutely.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Likewise, I did want to get your thoughts on the whole issue of affordable housing. You noted it in the brief and also spoke to it quickly.

I look at Saskatchewan, for example. Of the new $800 million committed in this budget, about $108 million or so is coming here specifically for off-reserve aboriginal housing , $26.4 million and $24.2 million direct to Saskatchewan. There's obviously a need for discussions with the province in terms of where those funds are going to go, but I'd just like to get your thoughts on that type of commitment as well. Also, are the municipalities in Saskatchewan, for example, prepared to commit the same types of dollar amounts to help build on the number that's already there?

[Gord Steeves]

I'm from Winnipeg, not Saskatchewan, so I can't comment in much detail on the Saskatchewan programs.

Candidly, in terms of our file at FCM, housing is one of the most difficult because provincial and territorial legislation is different right across the provinces. There are differing needs for differing municipalities.

If I could crystallize it, the message to convey today is that there are existing programs. The sense is that there might be some evolution, and perhaps some of those existing programs may or may not be under threat. We want to emphasize that they have worked and have been good for municipalities. Our members have expressed that, and the hope that they continue would be the overlying message I'd like to leave today.

I don't know if you want to comment on that further, Jim.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

No, we'll continue with Mr. Pacetti now.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one quick question of Ms. Smadu.

I didn't know the federal government had any hospitals and that we had to employ nurses. What's our being the fifth-largest employer of nurses in this country all about?

[Dr. Marlene Smadu]

You employ nurses through First Nations and Inuit Health Branch right across the country, the Department of National Defence, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I think those are main areas, but First Nations and Inuit Health Branch is where you have most of your nurses employed.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

That's interesting. What standards are they under? Are they under the other provincial wings? Do they fall under the same criteria in terms of work requirements and work restrictions as the other nurses in the provinces?

[Dr. Marlene Smadu]

Currently they're required to be licensed in whatever jurisdiction they're practising, so even though they're employed by the federal government, those who work in Saskatchewan are licensed with the Saskatchewan Registered Nurses' Association.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

And are these nurses actually working in the field?