Evidence of meeting #39 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was programs.
A recording is available from Parliament.
October 26th, 2010 / 11:35 a.m.
Researcher, REAL Women of Canada
Some ideologies are funded by the government, while other pro-family groups are disadvantaged.
11:35 a.m.
Researcher, REAL Women of Canada
It is for that reason that we mention other groups.
11:35 a.m.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
I wanted to ask the representatives from the Green Budget Coalition a question. I have only five minutes, I'm afraid; I do not have half an hour. I also agree with Mr. Mulcair's comments about the good work you are doing.
However, when I read your presentation, the perspective seems a bit rosy to me. You give an example of a problem that exists elsewhere: the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Since it happened elsewhere, it is easier to talk about.
The big problem, as was said earlier, is the contradiction between economic development, which we all want, and protection for our environment, which is not always obvious, when it comes to our prosperity and our lives.
What is your take on this? In Alberta right now, there is the problematic development of the oil sands, which is even encouraged through tax credit. A company has just been sentenced to pay a fine for having caused the death of thousands of birds. As a result of this situation, people are talking about Canada everywhere in the world.
In Quebec, we are hearing about the gas that would be extracted from shale by injecting water and chemicals into the soil. Many people see this as a good potential source of income, but the public is concerned about sound and environmental pollution, to begin with, as well as contamination of the groundwater.
Although no study results have been released, companies are in the process of drilling. So I think there is a shortcoming with respect to the type of operating plan that the government should put in place before developing natural resources, in order to be able to predict the short- and long-term negative impacts on our environment.
I would like to hear your comments on that.
11:35 a.m.
Manager, Green Budget Coalition
Thank you very much for the question and for your kind words.
You mentioned some of the many unfortunate environmentally damaging events that have been happening, such as the oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico. We have seen the flood of toxics in Hungary, which is just deplorable. These are the kinds of things that could happen in Canada, but worse so, if we don't resist the temptation to cut Canada's environmental programs in the coming federal budget. The payoff is not worth it, so please encourage the minister to maintain Canada's environmental protection funding.
On the specific energy issues, I'll defer to Mr. Weis.
11:40 a.m.
Director, Renewable Energy and Efficiency Policy, Pembina Institute
I'll just make one really quick comment. I think the one thing we should put back on the table is this question: what is the strategy for Canada's energy development? We talk about the shale gas opportunities in Quebec and the oil sands development in Alberta. We don't have a strategy in terms of why we are developing these resources and what our ultimate goal is.
I think that's something that needs to be put back on the table: what is Canada's energy strategy going forward? There's a lot of support for that within private industry as well as within the green movement.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
My first question is for you, Ms. Watts. Thank you very much for your presentation this morning.
Recently I had the opportunity to meet with a constituent to discuss his financial situation. He expressed his desire to see income splitting or joint farming introduced into the Canadian tax system. What struck me the most about the meeting, however, was that right now his stay-at-home wife and his children are, in his words, merely a tax credit. I'm wondering if you'd like to share your thoughts on that comment, and then perhaps just expand a little bit on your recommendation for income splitting.
11:40 a.m.
Researcher, REAL Women of Canada
In terms of taxation, we feel that the family has been neglected for quite a few decades now. This is why, when we examine the taxes paid by families, we notice a tremendous discrepancy, in that the single-income family pays several thousand dollars more than the two-income family earning the same amount as a unit. We want some rectification of that, so that the single-income family is not punished for making that choice.
There are a lot of pressures, on women especially, to work. Many women try to work part time to alleviate the difficulties that the trend to the double-income family has created for the single-income family. Income splitting would be an important solution for that, an important recognition of the work done by the parent who cares for the children.
The children are our next generation. They need to be cared for. It's a very profound thing that can't always be described. Even the psychologists and social workers don't always understand the entire functioning. There are many studies, of course, that indicate--and previous generations have recognized this--the importance of parenting, the importance of mothering, the importance of fathering.
It's not just a matter of taxation. It's a matter of preserving an important institution that affects the educational system, the health system, the economy, and the entire country.
11:40 a.m.
Researcher, REAL Women of Canada
We're hoping for some consideration for the family on every level.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Thank you very much.
My next question is for CHRA.
Our government understands that having a safe and affordable place to live and to call home is important to all Canadians, which is why, as you've pointed out, we've made historic investments of $2 billion last year and going forward in this year.
I've had the opportunity to attend a number of groundbreakings, and then grand openings, of some housing projects that have been completed in my riding. I have to state how impressed I've been with the quality of the affordable housing projects that have been built in my riding, and I'm sure that's happening across Canada.
You've highlighted that the funding will continue to 2014, but that the CMHC suite of renovation programs is coming to an end as of March 31, and you mentioned that you will be meeting with Minister Finley to discuss this with her.
What will you be telling her?
11:40 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Housing and Renewal Association
We'll tell her quite a bit of what we've told you. These programs have made a phenomenal difference across the country and they're absolutely needed, especially the ecoENERGY retrofit. That made a huge difference. It really matters to low-income Canadian to have to decide between rent and food. These are real issues for them, so it makes a difference to people.
We'd even like to see a bit of a screen on any future ecoENERGY program, as Mr. Szabo has mentioned, to ensure that a certain portion of it is made available to social housing and affordable homes. It'll make the most difference there, in that the money will go right back into the economy.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Kelly Block Conservative Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK
Do you mean that you'll be telling her to continue with this suite, but you won't be recommending any changes to the suite of programs or to the funding levels?
11:45 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Housing and Renewal Association
We would like to see the stimulus funding continue. There's no question about that. That sort of capital funding into the system is absolutely needed, but as to the rest, we would say, “Please continue as is”. With funding, of course, more is always better, but what you're doing now is working, so please don't stop those programs.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses.
I'll ask the money question first, and then I'll go to the Green Budget Coalition.
Mr. Toye or Ms. Kean, in your brief, you have six recommendations. Not one of them is asking for money. Am I reading the brief properly?
11:45 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Community Economic Development Network
I think recommendation 3 involves some of the existing funding programs, especially Industry Canada's community development program, which funds community futures development associations across the country and community economic development corporations in Quebec. That's currently up for renewal, so we would encourage that to stay in funding.
11:45 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Community Economic Development Network
In that particular program? I'd need to check .
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
The reason I'm asking is that in Quebec the development agencies are getting money, but it's on a yearly basis and there's no planning, so the money is getting transferred too late and it's not being as effective as it should be. The fact that it's such a small amount...it should be distributed earlier, perhaps over a three- or five-year period.
11:45 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Community Economic Development Network
My understanding is that the original agreement was a three-year funding commitment and that it has been renewed for one year.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
So now we're back to square one and it takes forever to get a commitment from the government. I'm wondering why it wouldn't be more predominant in your brief.
I look at the first point, which is, “Improve the regulatory and investment climate for community enterprises”. What would be the barrier for you to not be able to promote community enterprises?
