Finance Committee on Oct. 16th, 2006

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

In addition, do you think mandating lower pollution or enhancing pollution restrictions is going to go hand in hand with reducing carbon dioxide emissions in general? Lower emissions in general should help us to cut back. Not only will that improve the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land we live on, it should also reduce carbon dioxide.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I'm sorry, Mr. Del Mastro, your time has elapsed.

This is the price of popularity, Mr. Van Iterson, unfortunately.

A couple of quick questions for you, Mr. Brant. You spoke eloquently about the challenges of economic development in Canada's native reserves. It seems there's more than compelling anecdotal evidence that the absence of property rights on reserves is an impediment to economic development there. It also seems to be emerging as true that those bands who have adopted quasi-private-property ownership plans on their reserves are achieving economic success ahead of those who are not doing so. Would you like to comment on that? Do you have some evidence you could present to the committee to make the case that we need to advance the cause of economic development by enhancing the ability of aboriginal people to control or have title to some property on reserves?

[Chief Daniel Brant]

That's a difficult issue in first nations areas. It goes to the heart of treaties and the treaty relationship between Canada and the first nations.

Property rights have certain significance and are really received in two different ways. Property rights in the Canadian mainstream means title, deed, etc. Property rights or [Witness speaks in Mohawk language] means it's our land, but it has a totally different meaning. That is where the disconnect is.

I can only speak from experience from my own home, which is on Tyendinaga Mohawk territory, where we have a cultural background where there is a sense of ownership of land that is not the same as what you would find in the prairie provinces. There is a significant cultural aspect that builds in there, but I know there is a large movement toward land recognition, instead of property rights. That is something where I see a sense of movement around the country, particularly in the business areas, where the lack of clarity in property issues has all kinds of implications in business, particularly construction bonding, etc., and those kinds of things. It's a very complex question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. Brant.

We'll move to Mr. McCallum, for five minutes.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to all the witnesses.

Mr. Van Iterson, I was the NRCan minister for a little while, and one of my favourite programs was the EnerGuide because I thought it did a great job improving energy efficiency, especially for lower-income Canadians, and now it's gone. Do you have a view on that program?

[Andrew Van Iterson]

We certainly appreciated it as well, and we would like to see the re-institution of a program or something that would achieve similar goals. As you know, it was effective because it had a program to certify that there were real emissions, real work was being done, and only then was the funding returned to the homeowner and the person who did the work.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

My understanding is that the government criticized it on the grounds that half the costs were administrative. I think that's a false definition, because to do house-by-house improvements in energy efficiency, clearly you have to do audits of the houses. It's a useless program if you don't do that.

Do you have any view on the efficiency of the program?

[Andrew Van Iterson]

We believe it was a very efficient program and deserves to be reinstated as it was or in an improved state.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Fisher, as I am a former dean of arts, social sciences, and humanities, what you said was music to my ears and I agree with it all. The reality is that in this world there is an argument put about--and I don't agree with it--that to be competitive we really have to change our focus to the hard sciences, engineering sciences, and some would argue in favour of shifting resources in that direction. How would you respond briefly to that view?

[Dr. Donald Fisher]

We must invest in the hard sciences—in the health sciences and applied sciences. But we must invest equally in the humanities and social sciences. If the balance is so out of kilter that we aren't able to tackle the major social problems facing our society, and we aren't doing the fundamental research that helps us to understand the demographic—the civic infrastructure, aboriginal issues, all of the range of social problems that face our society in the fullest sense—then it seems to me we're failing each other. We need to continue the high investment in all the sciences, and we need to increase the investment in the humanities and social sciences.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Dye, if I heard you correctly, you're making a case for the public service to be professional, able, and well trained. No one would disagree. But I didn't catch anything specific. Do you have specific views or recommendations, from a purchasing management point of view, on ways in which procedures, processes, or policies could be improved to make the civil service more efficient?

[Robert Dye]

We believe that through the Canada School of Public Service there could be mandatory programs for those who are involved in procurement and the supply chain, along with other professionals in the employ of the public service.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. Turner.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Andrew, tomorrow is billed as a big day around this place. What are your expectations for tomorrow's environmental announcement?

[Andrew Van Iterson]

The Green Budget Coalition represents our groups and their recommendations for the budget. But I can't speak on behalf of all the groups for all the environmental issues.

We'd like to see strong action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and smog across Canada. We'd like to improve the health of ourselves, our children, our grandchildren.

I might mention that a global conference on environmental taxation is being held next week at the University of Ottawa. I understand that you will all be on the east coast, but if you have any staff you could send, it would be a great opportunity to learn a lot about what's going on in Europe.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

You people have put forward a number of recommendations. Are there any particular ones the government might want to select for immediate action?

[Andrew Van Iterson]

The renewable energy and energy efficiency recommendations are critical. They can provide major environmental and social benefits. They'll improve health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will pay off for years to come. They can help to develop leading global technology. It's a prime opportunity for investment, and the sooner we do it, the greater the benefits will be.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Your recommendations about capital cost allowances with regard to the oil sands are interesting. While you've adopted one view and the government has another, I commend your stance on the issue. I believe it's time to look at this point of view. I think you've brought some valid points to the table.

[Andrew Van Iterson]

Thank you.

I'd like to mention that Amy Taylor, with the Pembina Institute, is more knowledgeable on this than I am, and she is trying to get in to speak to the committee later this week.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Blake--Fido, right?

[Barry Blake]

Absolutely. Regrettably, I'm no longer with Fido.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

I love your work.

I happen to have some experience in the production of episodic television programming. I founded a company that produced about 3,000 episodes of network television—and we didn't take one dollar in government funding.

[Barry Blake]

Congratulations.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Thank you. It's possible.

I'm wondering why in your brief we have this thread of “We can't do that without more government funding”. Is it not possible for our broadcasters to adopt some other models with more private sector involvement?

[Barry Blake]

In 1999, with the change in CRTC regulations, our broadcasters were freed from Canadian content and from minimum spending on drama. Unfortunately, they are now buying a dumped product at a few cents on the dollar from our American friends south of the border. Since 1999, when they were given the freedom to show how they would do things with fewer restrictions, they've done exactly that. We've gone from 12 prime-time dramatic offerings in the late 1990s to two at present, and we're lucky to hold on to those. So I wouldn't count on that as....