Finance Committee on Oct. 16th, 2006

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Okay.

Let me ask you about your third recommendation, the dedicated transfer. We've heard this from an awful lot of people who have testified, whether they be on the research side or certainly the student side, as well as CAUT and others who have presented to us.

You've raised a point that is important to me, and that's the issue of whether the transfer funding should be based per capita or per student. I come from Nova Scotia, where we have the highest percentage of students from other parts of Canada as a total makeup of our students. This is a big issue for us, and I haven't seen a lot of people raise that point. I thank you for putting that in there.

In terms of the dedicated transfer, how do we best serve students and the whole university and community college environment? Do you have any concern, if it were determined that the way to put money into post-secondary was through the dedicated transfer but the provinces and the federal government couldn't agree on how to do it, that the money, if it went to the provinces anyway, wouldn't go to the right purposes?

It's a cumbersome way of.... I know we want to put conditions in, or some of us do.

I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on that.

[Dr. Donald Fisher]

Very much so.

The position we've taken--it's one that's been taken by other groups, AUCC and CAUT and so on--is very much one of looking toward an era, I suppose, of collaborative federalism. Without that sort of collaboration between the provinces and the federal government, I think it would be very difficult to put in place the accountability criteria that I do believe are essential with regard to the dedicated transfer, and essential for both sides. It's positive accountability for both the federal government and for the provinces, and indeed for the general public at large.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

You obviously would leave the granting councils in place as a federal institution. Would you leave direct assistance to students--for example, the millennium scholarships, the learning bonds, things like that? Would you leave that alone and then focus on the balance of the money being in a dedicated transfer?

[Dr. Donald Fisher]

As you know, the support for students is patchwork, quite complicated between federal and provincial jurisdictions. There are different models. I think we would put that to one side....

Let me put it differently. I think the dedicated transfer should be very much a transfer of cash, and it should be tied to very specific criteria. One could work out a proportional formula where you take into account the number of full-time-equivalent positions in the universities and the number of students who are enrolled and then work out proportions across the country.

If we can get collaboration happening here, I think the details will be worked out very well.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I appreciate that.

In the limited time I have left, which is one minute, I want to ask Ken Delaney a question. You mentioned a survey by KPMG done for Industry Canada, which indicated that Canada has the lowest business cost in the G-7--or was it the G-8?

[Ken Delaney]

It was the G-7.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I'm not aware of that. We often have business organizations coming to us saying that the government doesn't do enough for business. I'd be interested in your comment, if you have further information on that, or whether you might table that so I could have a look at it. I'd be most interested.

[Ken Delaney]

It can be downloaded from the Industry Canada website. It's exchange-rate-sensitive, so it may look a little bit different now from when it was done in 2005, but you can just download it. I don't know what else you want me to say about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

The second question will be from Mr. St-Cyr.

Mr. St-Cyr, you have seven minutes.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank all our witnesses for coming here today.

I would like to begin by talking about the environment with Mr. Van Iterson. The Conservative government recently announced that it was at last planning to continue with consultations and to push back the implementation of the measures that will have to be implemented.

I would like your view on how Canadians are seeing this. When I talk to people, I get the impression that Quebeckers and Canadians are ready for environmental action. In my view, the time for consultations is over. Your report contains suggestions that could be applied today.

Do you think we should continue the consultation process and postpone the genuine decisions, or have we come to the point where we need to take action?

[Andrew Van Iterson]

That you for your question.

I fully agree with the great importance of climate change. It is really the challenge of our generation. We've had a good decade of consultation and it is clearly time to act, to take measurable actions, to use legislation that is in place, and to take real actions that will lead to real reductions in emissions from Alberta, from Ontario, and across the country in all sectors. We would like to see an emissions targets and trading system put in place that would put a price on emissions and that would create additional profits for the leading businesses and put in a price that would stimulate the laggards to take action.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you.

We are asking the government to apply the Kyoto Protocol and implement measures to meet Kyoto targets. We are being told that this will cost too much, that the measures would be too heavy a burden for the economy and the government to bear. On the other hand—and you mentioned this in your brief—oil companies are receiving significant tax breaks that make it possible for them to save billions of dollars in taxes. We are told that we have no money to fund existing programs that work well, such as EnerGuide but we have enough money to give tax credits to oil companies.

Have you costed out that 100% accelerated capital cost allowance? Have you calculated what amount that represents annually? In your view, are there other similar measures in our tax system? For example, does a company that implements environmental measures have the same right to this accelerated capital cost allowance, or is it only the oil companies that have it?

[Andrew Van Iterson]

Clearly, it makes no sense to be investing our subsidies in the oil sands. It was a tax subsidy that was put in place to get the oil sands going. Between 1995 and 2002, capital spending in the oil sands increased by a staggering 1,649%. That is a pretty solid indication that those subsidies have played an effective role and have done their job. Those moneys could be much more effectively invested in renewable energy through some of the recommendations that I laid out for you, and the cost of climate change will be much smaller if we act now to reduce climate change.

I have a six-month-old baby at home. I don't want to imagine the cost to her world and her grandchildren if we wait another decade to act. That would be beyond belief.

We clearly know that across the world--all climate scientists agree--it is time to act. We need to take action now, and we will save billions by doing so.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I have a last question for you. Can you give us more concrete examples relating to your first recommendation on the implementation of a renewable energy strategy? For example, I know that in many parts of the world—even in some Canadian provinces—residential geothermal systems are being funded. The government provides the systems to residents who wish to retrofit their homes. Residents who accept the offer reimburse for government by virtue of generating energy savings.

Do you think this system would have a place as pars of a renewable energy strategy? Could you give us other examples?

[Andrew Van Iterson]

Thank you.

We absolutely support the program along the lines of home energy retrofit programs. Designed well, they can help to ensure that energy costs are reduced, which provides savings year after year. It's great to see some of the provinces taking the lead on that.

There have been some multi-stakeholder forums in which we've talked about the consultation that's been going on for years, such as the Energy Sector Sustainability Table and the National Advisory Council on Energy Efficiency, which has come up with a number of ideas that could be implemented across the country. These are the kind of ideas that we would like to see the government pick up on. They're coming from industry, they're coming from the public, they're coming from the provincial governments, and they're ready to be implemented.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I have a question for Mr. Blake.

The government recently announced that $1 billion would be cut from a range of programs, particularly in culture. Will the cuts have an impact on members of ACTRA? If so, what will the impact be?

[Barry Blake]

Members of ACTRA of course work. That they are also members of other associations, like the Actors' Equity Association and the Association des professionnels des arts de la scène du Québec. So when I talk about my “parish”—ACTRA—I mean Canada's English-language media. That means we are multi-dimensional. According to what I see, where I am now, there will be an impact on the programming we talked about today in our nine recommendations. I am not an expert—I am a performer. I hope that this will not presage other, similar, trends. This is why we have come here today to urge you to continue providing this fundamental support, which is crucial to the future of our industry and our culture.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Unfortunately, your time is up.

Mrs. Ablonczy, seven minutes.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks, all of you, for your time and your briefs. I wish we had time to ask more questions, but I'd like to start with Mr. Dye.

You mentioned the training and certification that public servants need in this area of purchasing management. I would have thought civil servants who are hired in this area would already have those skills and that's why they were hired, so I wonder if you'd comment on that. Secondly, do you have any idea of what amount of funding it would take to do as you suggest—to provide training and certification required—if it isn't already there?

[Robert Dye]

I believe both the funding and the infrastructure for training are there. The infrastructure is there through the Canada School of Public Service. The government does have, presently through the Treasury Board, a certification program for those who are involved in the procurement field. And I believe there is some funding. Our encouragement would be that the funding continue and possibly be increased to address a broader range of the public service.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you very much.

I have a question for Mr. Brant.

Your background as an expert in this area of first nations entrepreneurs is very helpful to us. I wish we had more time with you as well. But you mentioned the overhaul of success measurement, and you made a good case for that, putting the emphasis not on process but on outcomes. If the government could do one or two things to really enhance, really help the aboriginal entrepreneurial community, what would be those one or two things on your wish list? I know there's this overhaul of success measurements, but how would that help? What would be the practical things we could do?

[Chief Daniel Brant]

Thank you very much for the question. It's a very good question, and I'm sorry I have to limit my answer to only two things.

Probably the first thing would be to enhance the existing aboriginal institutions that provide service directly to aboriginal entrepreneurs. That has been a success that has gone unnoticed.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Which are those, Mr. Brant?

[Chief Daniel Brant]

There are approximately 55 different aboriginal financial institutions in the country that provide loans directly to aboriginal entrepreneurs. They do so in areas that are considered high risk, places where banks won't go, and they have had huge success.

Those kinds of institutions need to be supported. They need to be supported with more capital and better support mechanisms to allow them to grow and enhance the aboriginal economy. They've been in existence for approximately ten years, and they have done a very good job.

One of the biggest things to be done is to enhance that kind of approach within the aboriginal community instead of developing more government programs. It means the difference between supporting the growth of a government program and the growth of a sector within the aboriginal community itself.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

But if there are already 55 institutions giving this kind of assistance, why would you need more?