Finance Committee on May 31st, 2012

[Dave Van Kesteren, Chatham-Kent—Essex, CPC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for appearing, Ms. Dubois. I want to ask you a quick question. You said in your opening statement that you thought the government should work towards tuition being paid.

There are countries that do that. Do you think, as those countries do, that we here in Canada should streamline students at an early age? In other words, by the time they're in grade 9 they know they're going to university or they know they're going to a trade school. That's what they do in other countries. Do you think we should do that in this country?

[Roxanne Dubois]

Actually, I think we should recognize that education is a fundamental part of building a sustainable and strong economy and society in Canada. Providing accessible education by reducing tuition fees is part of that, and I think—

[Dave Van Kesteren]

Should we streamline kids at an early age?

[Roxanne Dubois]

I think there are various ways of doing it. It may be an option, but there are also models where people decide to go to college or university, and there's a diversity of means—

[Dave Van Kesteren]

If we're going to pay for education, should we, at an early age, start to recognize that these kids have aptitudes in this area and that area? Should we do that here in Canada?

[Roxanne Dubois]

I'm sorry. There are various models of doing it, so—

[Dave Van Kesteren]

I'm asking about that model. Do you think we should do that?

[Roxanne Dubois]

It may be a way, but I think it is not necessary to do that to provide accessible education.

[Dave Van Kesteren]

But to understand correctly, those countries that do offer free education do that.

Mr. Fried, we've met a few times. You're a little bit critical—and I understand that—of the government's position and how it has handled aid in the past. But you do know, of course, that I believe our aid has doubled in the last five years.

We're undergoing a study right now in the foreign affairs committee about the role of the private sector. We've recognized, for instance, in Africa, that after 40 years of aid it's still wretchedly poor, possibly even in worse shape than when we first started to help a lot of these countries.

We had an interesting guest with us from USAID yesterday, and she gave us a quote from President Obama who said that unless we develop economies, we're going to be ineffective in aid.

We partner with organizations like yours, and you've done wonderful work, as have many other NGOs. Do you agree with the government's position of starting to look at new ways to help economies grow, and that would be to partner with the private sector that is working in these countries?

[Mark Fried]

Our understanding of development is that the primary actors are not foreigners, be they companies or development agencies or Oxfams; the primary actors are citizens and their own governments.

What we can do, as outsiders, is to help them.

[Dave Van Kesteren]

Help them grow their economies.

[Mark Fried]

The economy might be part of it. Certainly it's a piece of it, but it's not all of it. The role of aid and private investment can be positive and it can be negative. When there is citizen activism and government guidelines that guide it to development priorities, it can work.

The role of aid could be to help strengthen citizen participation in government and to help governments develop the proper policies to strengthen the institutions to be able to make the best use of foreign investment.

[Dave Van Kesteren]

But a country like South Korea, for instance, which was poorer than a lot of these African countries, has developed its economy and it no longer needs aid. So I think you'd probably agree....

I want to just—

[Mark Fried]

That's a terrific example, actually, and I'd love to talk more about it.

[Dave Van Kesteren]

How much time do I have, Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

About a minute and a half.

[Dave Van Kesteren]

When I was first elected, and I guess I was a little green, I had somebody come into my office who had immigrated to this country about three years ago—don't quote me on the three years. She was very frustrated that she didn't have gainful employment at that point. She was actually coming in to talk to me about wanting a job. She felt she should work in the government.

Coming from an immigrant family, that was completely foreign to me. My response was, “You know, it's tough. As immigrants we have to accept that we're in a new country. But our kids are getting a great education, and there's a great future for them.” I don't think she heard a word I said. When I was done, she said, no, I want that job.

Am I getting something wrong, or are we giving the impression, at the other end possibly, of something that might not materialize?

I leave that open to anybody.

Mr. Kurland.

[Richard Kurland]

That's precisely the challenge, and for the first time we've seen solutions on the ground that provide real options.

I take issue with some of the testimony you've heard today about reducing foreign workers to Canada. It's the opposite. Remember, a young foreign worker who is retained is precisely the demographic we're targeting—70,000 working holiday visas for young people have been offered now.

In addition, the settlement and integration costs to the government are zero when you upgrade the status of a foreign worker to permanent resident.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Caron, you have the floor.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Ms. Dubois, Ms. McLeod asked you whether you were aware of previous budgets or budget implementation bills. She referred to several lengthy bills under the Conservatives. Do you recall the figure she gave for 2009?

What was the number of pages for the 2009 BIA?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Are you asking the chair?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

The question is really for anyone.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

[Inaudible—Editor]...for 2009 it's 552 for BIA one.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you.

I'll take 2009 as an example.

In fact, if you're looking at the BIA of 2009,

I think you will agree with me that the problem is not the number of pages, it is what is inside.

When we're looking at it, we're looking at amendments to the Income Tax Act, the income tax regulations, sales and excise taxes, customs tariffs, and so on. There is no mention of immigration. There is no mention of a complete reform of environmental evaluations. There's no reform of CSIS. There's no mention of the creation of an act about the interoperability of police forces in navigable waters.

I think you will agree with me that the difference with this bill, compared to previous bills, is

its scope, the number of areas it affects. I see you agree.

I have another question. Since 1995, the Liberal government and the Conservatives both increased the budget for health and social assistance transfers by 3%. You are probably familiar with the major reductions that resulted from the reform of social programs in 1995.

Can you draw a comparison between the transfers today, in real terms, and the ones from before 1995?