Finance Committee on Oct. 26th, 2011

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

No, there are many in there, such as the mineral tax exploration.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

All right, thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Mai, please.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for the Mining Association.

You've talked about the impact of decreasing the funding regarding the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Can you tell us what the impact would be in terms of reducing or cutting the funds?

[Pierre Gratton]

I think it's extremely important that it be renewed. We have finally reached a point now where environmental assessments are being managed well, where timelines are being met, and where the federal government is able to coordinate with provincial governments. We actually can now speak of harmonized reviews.

It's not like we've heard the funding is going to be cut or anything. It's just that the funding expires at the end of this year. I think it was a three-year or five-year funding envelope, and it ends. We need it renewed so they can continue to operate the environmental assessment regime properly. Otherwise, we think projects will come up and we'll be back to where we were and we won't be able to bring that private sector investment forward.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much.

This is for you and also the Prince Rupert Port Authority.

You've been talking about investment and infrastructure, and that's something we've been pushing for. I also understand that we need to have a long-term vision in terms of a plan in order to ensure that sustainable funding is being put forward. There was a request to index the gas tax fund and to increase the gas tax by one cent.

Do you think it's a good thing for the federal government to have a national strategy regarding infrastructure and assured funding?

I'll start with you, Mr. Krusel.

[Don Krusel]

I would absolutely encourage and support a long-term strategy. As is being noted around every corner of this country, most of the infrastructure was built back in the 1960s and such, so there's a dire need for both upkeep and replacement.

To be honest, the infrastructure that we talk about in the Port of Prince Rupert, everything is relatively new. It's not so much about sustaining old infrastructure, it's about having the funds, the plan, and the vision to build the necessary basic infrastructure to support the trade initiatives.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Gratton or Ms. Briño.

[Pierre Gratton]

I would agree completely. I think it would be a wonderful task for one of the committees of Parliament to undertake a longer-term view of Canada's infrastructure needs. I very much appreciate what my colleague has had to say about this area in particular. This is a huge area that's benefited a lot from infrastructure investment.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Ms. Sanchez, we've actually seen—and you mentioned it in your report—an increase in the gap between the rich and the poor. We've been telling the government that focusing on reducing corporate taxes doesn't necessarily help that issue and it doesn't help decrease the gap.

Do you think the way the government has been acting in terms of corporate tax cuts has an impact on the gap between the rich and the poor?

[Louisa Sanchez]

When I look at it, it continues to look that way to us. Actually, there's so much in the news today in terms of what's happening--just look at the big demonstrations we're having in our city. It didn't start in B.C., but it's here. I think those are some of the things we want to have a look at.

How can we work that out? How can we have a wise balance between what's happening for the rich and for the poor? I don't want to go to the 99% and 1%. But at least let's see what we can do, especially in terms of what we can do to help, especially the lower-income people. That's where our problem lies.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Do you think enough has been done on that by the government?

[Louisa Sanchez]

No, it hasn't been done. That's why we're recommending that we have some type of a balance, to make sure that happens.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Mai.

I'm going to take the next round.

I wanted to start off with Mr. Kariya. You mentioned a national energy strategy. I've supported this for about 11 years now. I think it's a fantastic idea. I know other colleagues have worked on it. I know Mr. Van Kesteren has worked on a natural gas initiative for a long time as part of that.

I just wanted to pose a question to you and to the mining associations. Our approach is for sector-by-sector regulation. You've outlined what's being done in B.C. If you look at the Alberta plan, it basically says that if you're a large emitter and you go above a certain amount, you pay a $15 price. It goes into a fund, and that fund is invested in transformative technologies to address carbon emissions.

Just as sort of an “open blue sky” question, for a national government, what approach do you see as better? You can compare the B.C. plan or the Alberta plan or the national plan. The challenge for us is that it's a divided jurisdiction, environment and natural resources. We don't have sole jurisdiction over that federally, so we deal with provinces with different plans.

Could I get you to just very briefly indicate what you would do if you were a national government in that situation?

[Paul Kariya]

One needs to recognize that because of the geographical differences between provinces, there are going to be different strategies at a provincial level. That's fine. We recognize that. It has to be that way. But on top of that, we are a federation. We need to have things that pull us together.

Take transmission lines, for example. A more national perspective rather than a province-by-province one would help with those. For example, in the case of British Columbia and Alberta, the ties between us are very weak in terms of electricity. We could not provide to Alberta. We can barely meet trading back and forth overnight.

If we had a robust inter-tie between the provinces, maybe we could help with the oil sands. We could help in terms of the gas sector and so forth. There are things that would come out of a national plan that would help those kinds of things.

Leave the provincial stuff to the provinces, but there are things that cut across, and infrastructure is one of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Would either of you want to make a brief comment on that, in terms of what plan would be preferable if you were doing it from a national perspective?

[Pierre Gratton]

I would say only that we would want to ensure that there wasn't any kind of.... It does happen that you have different levels of government in conflict with one another over policy directions and various instruments, so it can create confusion, and that's a challenge.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Let me put you guys on the spot. If you were a federal minister, what would you do? If you had sector-by-sector, the B.C. carbon tax, or the Alberta carbon price for large emitters, and you were the minister and you had to choose one of the three, what would you do?

[Pierre Gratton]

Honestly, I'm not familiar enough with Alberta's. I'm familiar with B.C.'s, because that's where I used to work. I couldn't really comment on it. Unfortunately, I can't shed light on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Kariya or Mr. Krusel, do you want to comment?

[Don Krusel]

I don't have enough background to be able to.

[Paul Kariya]

I'm going to speak in favour of what we have in British Columbia, and say it is a reasonable approach to go with a carbon tax. And I think related to that, over time we also need a cap-and-trade system.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I wanted to follow up with Ms. Sanchez on a couple of points.

You talked about growing inequality, but one of the challenging questions I have is a number of measures have been put in place by our government and by past governments to address this. If you look at our government, the working income tax benefit, in my view, is one of the biggest changes for working people in terms of assisting them to move up on the economic scale. The former government introduced the Canada child tax benefit, the national child benefit, which to me is very good policy. Our government has expanded on it because it is a very good policy.

When I see measures like this put in place and then I still see statements saying inequality is growing, are these measures...? I take your point: you said you would want additional measures. But are these measures, combined with the increases to the provinces for health care, education, social assistance for affordable housing...? What has been done is working. I think we need to take stock of all the programs that have been put in place, and if they're working, build on them, but if they're not working that effectively, maybe we need to have a closer look at them.

[Louisa Sanchez]

What we're looking at is the will of Parliament. When we look at the economic growth and prosperity in our country, we're dealing with a whole lot of children who are not prepared because of the economic situation they're facing.

I also want to draw your attention to the cost of not dealing with social and economic deficits that are caused by continuously high rates of child and family poverty. Recent studies estimate the cost of poverty to be between $8.1 billion and $9.2 billion in British Columbia alone, and I'm talking British Columbia because I live here. Nationally, the cost of lost revenue and remedial expenditures is even higher.

Acording to The Cost of Poverty: An Analysis of the Economic Cost of Poverty in Ontario, the annual cost of child or intergenerational poverty is very high, and if poverty were eliminated, the extra income tax revenues nationally would be between $3.1 billion and $3.8 billion. That came from an analysis we got in 2008. So—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Sanchez, unfortunately my time is up. As I cut off everyone else, I have to cut myself off.

I'll go to Ms. McLeod, please.