Finance Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2007

[Jeff Friedrich]

Yes, absolutely. I can confirm exactly that.

I applaud your regard for the CPI adjustments in that as well, because loans, grants, and most programs haven't really kept pace with inflation. Tuition, of course, is always acknowledging CPI.

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

Good. Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Mr. Dhaliwal, for five minutes.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Chair, my first question will be for Mr. Garrison.

Mr. Garrison, I can understand your frustration, because I have a similar frustration in my community of North Delta, because we are pushing that outdated perimeter road through the neighbourhood.

The way I see it, Canada is a vast country. We travelled to Europe and saw that the transit system worked there. I am fully in favour of having a transit system.

If we have billions of dollars in the fiscal surplus, why do you want to cancel the $1 billion for the Pacific gateway project, especially when it will help the climate? I can see the trucks parked for hours in the lineup, emitting pollutants and hurting the economy as well.

In fact, I personally believe that people from Abbotsford, Langley, and Surrey want to travel across the bridge. Twinning the bridge, I personally don't see as a negative either. Why can't we have that and probably also have money to deal with public transit? Can you comment on that?

[Randall Garrison]

I guess I would say—with respect—that the problem is, build it and they will come. So when the Alex Fraser Bridge was built, it was expected to reach its capacity in about four years, and I believe it reached and exceeded its capacity in four months. So the problem with the gateway project as it stands is that it consists of old solutions.

Yes, I think we have to do something about congestion , and, yes, we have to do something about the trucks, but making them move faster is not the solution. The solution is to move to rail, a much more efficient means of transit. The solution for the river crossings is not to bring more cars into downtown Vancouver but to extend rapid transit across the river and to build rapid transit in the valley. These are the things that will help us avoid the congestion and the threat of global warming.

To me, it's not that we don't need a gateway project; it's that this project reflects the old thinking that's brought us to where we are now.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

My next question is back to Jeff.

We brought in the millennium program, and I am a strong supporter of that. Some members have raised questions on that time and time again.

We both agree, but what will it take to convince those people who still do not agree with your approach?

[Jeff Friedrich]

The worst way of convincing people would be to see the money go into less effective forms of assistance, like tax credits, or to see a reduction in the amount of money and see it sent directly to transfers.

A lot of the debate that's happened around it is a result of the political legacy of the program--the fact that it has a strong Liberal brand. I think that has discouraged people from taking a step back and asking whether the program is doing what we want it to do.

I haven't heard a lot of convincing arguments that the research, the displacement issues, or those sorts of things, are so substantive that we shouldn't be talking about ways to mitigate those concerns that are fair and still renew the program, instead of just scrapping it and starting over with something new.

The other way I would try to convince people is by saying that even if you're going to bring in something new next year--if you're going to give it to HRSDC or have a new system of national, needs-based grants--it took the millennium partnership program two years to negotiate effective agreements with the provinces so money coming in would be new money that went to people who needed it, and that's just not where we're at. The decision needs to be made this year if it's going to be available to students in 2010.

The urgency to look at it is really key. I applaud efforts to view the system more holistically, but if I were you I would encourage my colleagues to ask what the alternative is going to be next year. Even in the event that it's not perfect to them, how can we have an interim solution so students aren't going to miss that $350 million, and how can we work to improve the concerns people have?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.

Monsieur St-Cyr.

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

Thank you very much.

My next question is for Mrs. Anna Tores of the BC Association of Magazine Publishers.

I welcome your presence here today because your issues are not much of a topic of discussion in Quebec. Quebec magazines have the advantage of being mostly protected from US publications by the language barrier.

However, there is in your brief eighty statements that intrigues me. It is about the matter of price and of abandoning the national distribution model. I was not aware of that. I know that for letters and regular mail, Canada Post must set the same price throughout Canada, this policy being aimed at helping remote areas. As a matter of fact, it is a condition for its exclusivity privilege.

Am I to understand that from your brief that this uniformity does not exist, or does not exist anymore, or exists less and less in the case of commercial distribution? What is the maximum range of prices, perhaps in percentage, between the, commercial distribution in urban areas commercial distribution in remote areas?

[Anna Tores]

I'm afraid I can't give you specifics on what the price difference between urban and rural would be, but I'll be happy to get that information to you.

On your question about a single price Canada-wide, it's an important thing to continue, given that urban Canadians deserve the same access to their Canadian magazines as rural Canadians.

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

All right. Once you know the price differences, I would appreciate your sending that information to the clerk who will then distribute it to the members of the committee.

Mr. Hackney, I would like to your presentation relating to climate change. I got the point when you said that we should be an example for other countries by taking leadership of the climate change issue. At this time, that is not quite the situation. Our government is a saying that it won't do anything if the others don't do anything either. This seems a bit childish. A country as rich and wealthy as Canada showed on the contrary be an example, especially since we produce a much more greenhouse gases, on a per capita basis, then the Chinese, the Indians or the inhabitants of several other countries which do not produce more per capita because their populations are much bigger.

From an economic point of view, many people told us in committee that the Kyoto Protocol and the environmental issues are not only an environmental concern but also an economic concern. It is in the interest of our companies to become greener and more environmentally conscious. In this context, do you think it would be preferable for our companies to be at the forefront of this trend or would it be better for them to wait that others have made the first step?

[Tom Hackney]

Thank you. My answer will be in English.

In principle, certainly companies should go green and as quickly as possible.

I am aware there has been controversy about whether a company that goes green now is going to capture the appropriate credit, as we expect rules may come in that will limit their greenhouse gas emissions, and if a company has taken a hard choice early on, they may receive no credit for that and in fact have increased penalties put on them. So that type of problem obviously—

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

If I understand correctly, you are saying that to we should act as quickly as possible without waiting in 2020 or 2050 and that absolute and maximum emissions targets should be established to let our businesses know what the future operating framework will be.

[Tom Hackney]

Yes, absolutely. We need definite targets now. They need to be allocated to the sectors of society, and in particular large final emitters.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you, your time is up.

Ms. Savoie, it is your turn.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll raise a question to Monsieur Ruel.

I've been participating in an employability study in Ottawa, looking at some of the issues, specifically how it impacts Canadians with disabilities.

You're quite right. They're overrepresented in the unemployment area. There seem to be some real barriers in the private sector to hiring perfectly qualified Canadians who happen to have certain disabilities. You suggested promoting, assisting, and giving concessions. Can you be more specific? What kinds of concessions and incentives could we give to the private sector to overcome some of the barriers that are present right now?

[Albert Ruel]

In our estimation, a great deal of the resistance to hiring persons with disabilities is the cost of accommodation, particularly. This is an issue that the federal government must wrestle to the ground. It's employers who are purchasing software that is not accessible to screen-access technology and thereby creating a brick wall in front of a person who is blind or partially sighted.

We need the production sector of software to be aware of the need for access technology to be able to get at the software they've created, the spreadsheets or the databases, and so on.

I know of a blind woman here in Victoria, working for an employer, and she's working in a total different system than all of the rest of her colleagues because the system that company decided to purchase cannot be made accessible to screen-access technology.

We need building ramps and ensuring that buildings are accessible to persons with disabilities. We just need an awful lot more help.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

So make that kind of investment in equipment, or new software, or ramps tax deductible in some way.

[Albert Ruel]

Absolutely. When I buy a computer, I pay the same price as you, but to make it work for me is another thousand dollars.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you. That helped.

I'd like to come back to the issue raised on climate change. The indifference of this government to the magnitude of the issue is nothing less than shocking. You mentioned the cap and trade earlier in your comments. We may have to adopt all the measures you've suggested, but in terms of tackling the problem in its biggest form, to get the biggest bang right now, because there is a feedback loop that's accentuating the problem, what would be the first measure that you think this government should take?

[Tom Hackney]

Certainly the first measure would be a policy measure directed at the energy strategy that we have now, which seems to be to maximize the production of fossil fuels for export. That needs to change.

[Denise Savoie, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you.

Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. Savoie makes some interesting comments. Of course, she does disagree with our government's approach on this. The NDP would prefer to shut down the economy of our country to make sure that the environment is taken care of. We don't agree with that approach. It's very one-sided. We think we need a balance, making sure that we continue to have a strong economy and a stand on the environment.

Mr. Hackney, I want to get your thoughts on this, because we as a country make up 3% of the overall impact on emissions in the world. The Prime Minister just came back from Uganda, and one of things he insisted on, and a core group of other countries insisted on, is that we take an approach that isn't just about the developed world, in terms of their approach to climate change and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, but that every single country in the world has to play a role in this, whether they are a developed nation or whether they are a developing nation.

I want to get your thoughts on that, because I certainly would like to think that countries like China and countries like India will not be excluded from having to participate and play a role in the climate change reductions that are necessary with respect to greenhouse gas emissions and obviously all pollutants.

[Tom Hackney]

Thank you.

As a matter of physical reality, I believe the United States is the largest greenhouse gas emitter, soon to be surpassed, according to projections, by China. India is a very significant contributor as well. Clearly, all nations in the world should cooperate to reduce greenhouse gases, but the largest would certainly have to be there. That said, I'm aware there's been a lot of controversy around the Kyoto Protocol, because some people have said we shouldn't comply with Kyoto because China is not on board. China was indeed a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, and, as we know, the Kyoto Protocol represents, I would say, the first installment of a process toward achieving sufficient cuts to address climate change. The thinking then was that the developed nations should take the first step. This first step was 2008 to 2012, so going on to the next step, certainly, events are proceeding, and we should do everything we can to get everyone on board.