Evidence of meeting #5 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was industry.
A video is available from Parliament.
1:40 p.m.
Manager, Green Budget Coalition
This sounds more like industrial tax policy.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Dave Van Kesteren
It's not tax policy; it's a problem. It's a fundamental problem that we have in the economy.
1:45 p.m.
Manager, Green Budget Coalition
I certainly see the problem. I think there are a lot of brilliant people in Canada, and if we can bring in the kind of tax policies that will help drive the emergence of those technologies, it will certainly put us in a lot better place to compete and to make better use of renewable energy across the country.
Also, I think that a comprehensive program would realize that a good energy system will use renewable energy but also fossil fuels, to some extent, and so the tax.... When class 43.1 and class 43.2 are amended, it should be done in a broad enough way that fossil fuel energy and even co-energy costs would be stored as part of that system.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Dave Van Kesteren
I'm not saying this to be critical. I guess what I'm saying is that if you approach the government—and I think you guys do a wonderful job and have come up with some great ideas—it's always helpful to have something in place such that you say, “Here, if we do this....” And I don't think you have that yet. I suggest that maybe, if you went back to the drawing board....
This is something that I think we all struggle with, with governments.
I'm going to go to Mr. Lortie, because we left with such a sour note. I'm a bridge builder. I don't want the folks at home thinking that there's no love here at the table. But there has been a little bit of antagonism towards the Conservative government from your group.
This is a simple question. Our government has—Mr. Davidson will tell you this—spent an enormous amount of money on research. Let's face it: Quebec, as well as the rest of Canada.... I have 300,000 workers—whom you represent—in highly skilled professions, who benefit enormously from this. I'm thinking in terms not only of wages.
Do you support those actions? I'm trying to find some good common ground here so that we all come to the same table. Do you support those actions of the government?
1:45 p.m.
Corporate Secretary, Confédération des syndicats nationaux
What I would support is a government that supports a strong middle class, working in a good economy in which productivity is high, with highly trained skilled workers and a social environment that provides good working conditions for people: the right to organize, the right to negotiate, and the right to strike or use whatever means are necessary to obtain gains, which was recognized by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is, for me, a good government. If your government does that, I'll acknowledge it as a good government.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Acting Chair Conservative Dave Van Kesteren
Good. I can't argue with that.
I have a few seconds and I want to be fair to everybody.
Would you support the lower taxes, especially for the middle classes, which you mentioned. Would you support the government's actions on lower taxes for the middle class?
1:45 p.m.
Corporate Secretary, Confédération des syndicats nationaux
I am middle class, and taxes are good. Taxes allow us to have good schools and good universities, hospitals, roads. It is taxes that do that, and I'm in favour of that.
1:45 p.m.
Conservative
1:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
1:45 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Is it my turn? Thank you, Chair.
Welcome to all of our guests. I have a very short time and I want to start with Mr. Van Iterson of the Green Budget Coalition. First, I want to commend you and the 16 prominent environmental and conservation groups that you represent for a very constructive contribution to this process. Thank you.
I want to focus on a couple of your recommendations. The first involves reference to the natural areas conservation plan. You referred to it with respect to the Speech from the Throne. Yesterday—or the day before, I guess—the environment commissioner, an independent officer of Parliament, said that there was a serious problem with biodiversity and species at risk. He said, for example, that there's a more than ten-year backlog of species at risk recovery plans.
Now, you recommend a science-based framework for conservation action, and you say that “Federal investment in completing well-managed networks of marine and terrestrial parks and protected areas” and conservation of “working land and seascapes” is something you would get behind and promote.
What about the natural areas conservation program of the government? Is it working? What is your take on that program to date?
1:45 p.m.
Manager, Green Budget Coalition
Thank you for the question. I'll clarify for everyone. There is the national conservation plan that the government has committed to in two Speeches from the Throne, which would be a comprehensive conservation effort. And there is a natural areas conservation program, which you mentioned, that this government has financed and that the Nature Conservancy of Canada has played the lead role in implementing.
My impression is that it has been a really successful program. It could be a really key component of a successful national conservation plan. I think they have protected more than 3600 square kilometres of ecologically significant lands and waters across the country and have also found matching funds from private and other investors across the country, so that any investment in that program is really creating double the value.
1:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
In another area of your report, you have a recommendation on what you call “hidden liabilities in the Arctic offshore and nuclear power”.
I understand from material I've looked at that environmental liabilities have grown by $4.7 billion since the Conservatives took power in 2006, an increase of a staggering 80%. The government says that it's going to make polluters pay, but increasingly it has left taxpayers on the hook.
So how can the government best ensure that taxpayers aren't on the hook for such pollution? What steps should we take to do so?
1:50 p.m.
Manager, Green Budget Coalition
That's another great question.
We appreciate the commitment in the throne speech to enshrine the polluter-pay principle. There have been announcements from the government over the last few months, and we'd like to see new legislation on nuclear power and on Arctic offshore to ensure that operators of nuclear power plants and oil and natural gas drillers are fully responsible and fully liable for any accidents that take place and would have to put up a sufficient amount of money so that the taxpayer is protected and that they actually can cover accident costs. If they are liable but there isn't a protection fund set up, they can go bankrupt, and we're stuck in the same place.
1:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
The other area that I thought was interesting is your recommendations on protecting Canada's fresh water. You may know that the NDP has tabled a motion in the environment committee for the study of a national water strategy. What would such a study look like? What are the economic benefits of protecting fresh water, in your view?
1:50 p.m.
Manager, Green Budget Coalition
That's a great question.
Fresh water is one of those areas that have benefits right across the spectrum. It is critical for our health, critical for providing clean drinking water for Canadians or for anyone who lives near fresh water, which is most of us. It's fundamental for recreational opportunities for people who like to go to the beach in the summer and swim and sail. It makes us a lot healthier and it also creates for many of us, probably on both sides of the table here, fishing opportunities.
1:50 p.m.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
So what would you do in the budget to address that and improve our clean water for Canadians? What would you recommend?
1:50 p.m.
Manager, Green Budget Coalition
We have four recommendations: $60 million a year for alleviating land-based runoff of pollutants and nutrients in areas specific to federal jurisdictions involving a number of regionally important freshwater lakes; $25 million to expand and improve upon what the government is doing on aquatic invasive species; a similar amount for the Great Lakes water quality protocol; and about $5 million a year for the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River adaptive management plan.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Rankin.
I want to apologize to our guests, as I had to get our budget approved for this current study at another committee. Thankfully it was approved, so we will actually be able to fund this.
1:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I want to thank you very much for all of your presentations. I have a number of questions. I will try to get through them all.
Mr. Davidson, I've heard about indirect costs since being here in 2001, on the industry committee at the time. They have been a challenge.
Part of the reason they have been a challenge is that this is probably the least sexy part of research funding. You have the granting councils; you have the Canada research chairs, which fund people; you have CFI, which funds facilities; we had during the stimulus time the knowledge infrastructure program, which funds facilities.
It's very exciting to open a facility and very exciting to fund a researcher and talk about the work a researcher is doing. Indirect costs are the stuff that has to be funded, but even the phrase “indirect costs” is sometimes somewhat perplexing to people.
Can you speak to why it is so essential that we fund indirect costs at a level commensurate with funding people and facilities?
1:50 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada
Thank you for the question.
Yes, we have been around the mulberry bush on this several times. I would agree that the name of the program and the description of the program are difficult to explain and articulate to parents and families across the country and say why it's important.
It is critically important because these are real costs that are large and growing. They're the unmet costs, the costs that aren't funded by the federal or provincial granting agencies, the tuition costs or other costs in the university budget. They're the real costs, such as caring for animals or making sure that research ethics are done, or driving the translation of knowledge into the commercial space and engaging in international research. These are real costs, which are large and growing. When we look at how other countries address those issues, we see that they choose to fund them at a substantially higher level.
So we welcome the reference in Budget 2013 to having a look at this question. We're looking carefully with the industry department and others to see whether that provides the best vehicle to move forward or whether an excellence fund might be a way of addressing public policy issues and contributing to Canada's competiveness.