Evidence of meeting #165 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was beer.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Peter Fragiskatos  London North Centre, Lib.
Raymond Massey  Interim Executive Director, Canadian Apprenticeship Forum
Athana Mentzelopoulos  Vice-President, Government Relations, Canadian Credit Union Association
Geneviève de Breyne-Gagnon  Advocacy Coordinator, Canadian Federation of University Women
Stephen Laskowski  President, Canadian Trucking Alliance
Toby Sanger  Executive Director, Canadians for Tax Fairness
Beth Woroniuk  Policy Lead, MATCH International Women’s Fund
Sarah Watts-Rynard  Past Executive Director, Canadian Apprenticeship Forum
Luke Harford  President, Beer Canada
Jack Froese  President, Canadian Canola Growers Association
Ron Lemaire  President, Canadian Produce Marketing Association
Dan Paszkowski  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Vintners Association
Louise Bradley  President and Chief Executive Officer, Mental Health Commission of Canada
Ed Mantler  Vice-President, Programs and Priorities, Mental Health Commission of Canada
Jan Westcott  President and Chief Executive Officer, Spirits Canada
Kim Rudd  Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.
Blake Richards  Banff—Airdrie, CPC
Rick White  Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Canola Growers Association

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Can we come to order, please? All our witnesses are here.

We thank everyone for coming. We are doing pre-budget consultations in advance of budget 2019.

We have votes tonight. Bells are at 5:45 p.m., and we're in a room quite far from the Hill, so that creates a problem. I'm wondering if we can be fairly tight on this. If the witnesses are here for the next panel, can we end this panel at 4:45 and complete the next one at 5:45, rather than having witnesses wait around while we go and vote?

We'll try that. At 5:45, we'll see where we're at on the next six witnesses.

Peter, go ahead.

3:30 p.m.

Peter Fragiskatos London North Centre, Lib.

It's my understanding, Mr. Chair—and I could be wrong on this—that the bells are at 5:30.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Is it 5:30?

3:30 p.m.

A voice

Yes.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Yes, that's when the bells are, but usually at this committee we get co-operation to go on even though the bells are ringing.

3:30 p.m.

London North Centre, Lib.

Peter Fragiskatos

Okay. Hey, I'm the rookie. Thank you.

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

We usually stay until about seven minutes before, but we're not in the room next door this time. I think we can get there in 15 minutes. We'll try for that. Thanks, all of you.

We're starting with the Canadian Apprenticeship Forum.

Mr. Massey and Ms. Sarah Watts-Rynard, the floor is yours.

3:30 p.m.

Raymond Massey Interim Executive Director, Canadian Apprenticeship Forum

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the invitation to appear today as part of your pre-budget consultations.

The Canadian Apprenticeship Forum was happy to submit a brief to summarize our recommendations for your budget as you consider designing the upcoming economic competitiveness piece of it.

Apprenticeship was offering young people work-integrated learning well before it became fashionable. It is the most intensive example of employer engagement in skills development and is entirely responsive to workplace demand. Apprenticeship prepares young people with a talent for problem-solving for a long-term, well-paid career in more than 300 occupations. It is a practical solution to the talent shortage that keeps Canada's employers in sectors such as construction, manufacturing, forestry and mining awake at night, yet apprenticeship isn't well understood.

Parents, youth and many government decision-makers believe apprenticeship to be a last-resort post-secondary pathway for non-academic students. While many Canadians know that employers deliver apprenticeship in the workplace, few grasp the challenges of work-based training. The reality is that apprentices in most trades need strong essential skills and advanced knowledge in math and science to be successful. They rely on consistent employment in order to progress, to complete and to become certified. Because our system treats apprentices like employees rather than learners, apprentices are vulnerable to economic conditions. This also serves to place the majority of the training burden on small and medium-sized employers.

Lately, the federal discussion around apprenticeship training has been quite narrow. Yes, there is room for more women, indigenous people, newcomers and at-risk populations in apprenticeship training, but there remain important advances for these groups in all aspects of Canadian life and work, from corporate boardrooms to research labs. The Canadian Apprenticeship Forum urges you to consider a number of broader opportunities to assist apprentices and their employers, because, frankly, Canada needs more tradespeople.

As a starting point, we would urge government to ensure that programs do not inadvertently value one post-secondary pathway above another. This means that programs under the youth employment strategy banner and those focusing on supporting school-to-work transition should be inclusive of all learners. We urge you to take into account the unique nature of apprenticeship training as you consider deepening commitments to work-integrated learning. For example, platforms designed to connect students to employers should also be mindful of the critical need for the apprentices to remain gainfully employed.

We also ask the committee to reflect on the value proposition that a small investment in apprenticeship research would have for Canada's skilled trades community. An annual investment of $5 million would ensure that employers understand the return on their investment in apprenticeship training, would give parents and youth insights into employment outcomes and would collect feedback from today's apprentices about the realities they face. When young apprentices understand the economic value of their trade certification, they will be more inclined, we believe, to complete their training. While research and data collection have been priorities of the federal government, the apprenticeship community has not yet been a net beneficiary of these investments.

Our submission also speaks to more tangible opportunities.

CAF is calling on the federal government to work with its public sector unions to hire apprentices across federal operations and to implement contracts protecting employment to the point of certification. If there is an expectation that small and medium-sized businesses must invest in training the next generation of tradespeople, the federal government must set the example.

Further, we recommend a review of the employment insurance system, which for too long has been ill-equipped to deal with apprentice training.

Finally, from among our ideas to enhance apprenticeship training, I would like to highlight a couple of examples that appear on page 5 of our submission. Initiatives in B.C. and Manitoba address the housing crisis and employment shortages among indigenous peoples by engaging local youth to build energy-efficient homes and community buildings. These programs support skills development, offer sustainable employment and lead to trade certification. With funding support from the federal government, these initiatives stand to have a generational impact.

It is an economic certainty that we need young men and women to become skilled tradespeople. In your deliberations about innovation and productivity, I encourage you to consider how we can best support apprenticeship learners on their journey to become certified. It will be this group that will make up the next generation of builders, fixers, operators and creators.

Thank you.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you very much.

I neglected to mention at the beginning that we do have all the briefs. I know all of you presented briefs, and I want to thank you for the concise way they've been put together this year. I think we have over 500, so when they're concise it makes it a lot easier for committee members. Thank you all for that.

Turning to the Canadian Credit Union Association, we have Ms. Mentzelopoulos and Mr. Denney.

3:35 p.m.

Athana Mentzelopoulos Vice-President, Government Relations, Canadian Credit Union Association

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

Our association represents the 252 credit unions and caisses populaires that are outside of Quebec. We contribute $6.5 billion to Canada's economy. We have 5.7 million members. Collectively, credit unions and regional centrals employ almost 29,000 people, and we manage over $225 billion in sector assets. Last year alone, we contributed $62.3 million to communities. That's 5% of our after-tax income.

Credit unions are owned by the people who bank with them, which puts customer service at a premium. That's why, for the 13th year in a row, CFIB has ranked us first for customer service excellence, ahead of federally chartered banks. I'd also like to note that in 380 communities across Canada, credit unions are the sole financial institution. Mr. Chair, I would underline that this includes six communities in Prince Edward Island.

These are just some of the things that enhance our competitiveness. I would speak to workforce diversity, as well.

Unfortunately, disproportionate regulation and uneven taxation rates take away from our competitive ability. That brings us to our recommendations for the next federal budget.

First of all, I'd like to thank you all for your help in getting us the Bank Act exemption, which allows credit unions to continue using generic banking terms. It was a big win for us. You may have noticed that the budget said that regulated financial institutions could use those terms, subject to disclosure.

That brings us to our first recommendation for the next budget. Really, it's a red tape avoidance recommendation. In our sector right now, we're working on a voluntary market conduct code. I'll call it the MCC. We're looking at some of the work that's emerging from the federal government and some of the work that already exists in Saskatchewan, where they've had a voluntary code in place for more than a decade, and comparing that to institutionalizing credit union values and the high level of service that already exists.

We would like to avoid new federal regulation in this sphere for credit unions, and in particular we'd like to avoid any new regulation for banking terminology disclosure. We ask for the committee to support that work and to avoid any costly new regulation for credit unions.

Moving on now to financial sector regulation, I think everyone would agree that over the decades policy has helped to cement the dominant position of banks in the financial sector. In our view, that results primarily from two policy dynamics. The first is a one-size-fits-all regulatory approach, and the second is a trend toward the internationalization of financial sector policy-making.

You may have heard of Basel III. It is one example. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision started developing the Basel III standard in 2010 in response to failures of large banks during the global financial crisis. I think we just celebrated the 10-year anniversary. I'm always quick to point out that credit unions played no role in that crisis.

Basel III has been finalized as of last December, and while the increased regulatory burden of Basel III may help to improve the safety and soundness of Canada's financially complex and internationally active big banks, it will do nothing or very little, we believe, to enhance what is already a high standard of safety and soundness for credit unions. In short, members, we believe that you get what you regulate for. If we see regulation only for big banks, we will ultimately only have big banks.

We are fortunate that the federal Department of Finance has acknowledged these emerging trends or challenges. We saw that acknowledged in budget 2018. Specifically, the government has suggested that the upcoming 2019 review of financial institutions will be an opportunity to address these issues. Last year, our association provided several recommendations during the second stage of that consultation, and several of the recommendations link directly to enhanced competitiveness. Others were related to governance recommendations. These are actually about the regulation of federal credit unions, and they would really help to advance regulation into the modern age. For example, we support amending the Bank Act to allow for electronic voting in advance of annual general meetings.

To summarize, this recommendation is to ensure, first of all, that the government institutionalizes the perspectives of credit unions. Second, we recommend that you consider the input of CCUA's prior recommendations to the Department of Finance regarding membership thresholds and other governance matters aimed at increased diversity and competitiveness by credit unions.

Finally I'm going to talk about taxing credit unions as co-operatives.

The fair tax treatment of credit unions as co-operatives remains an evolving policy matter in Canada. The Government of British Columbia has recently signalled that it will enhance the lending capacity of credit unions by making their co-operatively oriented tax status permanent. We used to have a similar treatment at the federal level, but it was eliminated in 2013, and it left credit unions with a framework that imposed higher taxes, suitable perhaps for joint stock banks but not for co-operatively structured credit unions.

Our association asks to re-establish the competitive balance in the tax system, and we recommend that the committee and the Department of Finance consider new ways to do so.

Thank you for your attention.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you very much.

From the Canadian Federation of University Women, we have Ms. de Breyne-Gagnon.

3:40 p.m.

Geneviève de Breyne-Gagnon Advocacy Coordinator, Canadian Federation of University Women

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the committee for giving us an opportunity to appear before its members today. I am speaking on behalf of the Canadian Federation of University Women, a non-profit organization with more than 100 clubs across Canada that has been working for nearly 100 years to improve the status of women in Canada and elsewhere.

Current statistics show that Canada's economic system does not work for everyone. Canada has the seventh largest pay gap among the OECD countries. Women, representing half of Canada's population, are underemployed and underpaid, and their work is undervalued. This is especially true for women with disabilities, immigrant women, indigenous women and racialized women.

To ensure economic competitiveness, Canada must implement social and economic policy that actually works for all women to ensure their economic security. Our brief contains several recommendations that align with this goal, but today I will speak to the recommendation related to early learning and child care.

We recommend that the government commit to universal child care, a publicly funded, high-quality, affordable, accessible and inclusive early learning and child care. Additionally, we recommend that the government allocate $1 billion for the next fiscal year and plan for total annual child care spending to reach 1% of GDP. The reality is that for many Canadian families, child care fees are unaffordable and child care spaces are unavailable and inaccessible. Forty-four per cent of Canadian families live in child care deserts with fewer than one licensed child care space for every three children. In addition, there are large discrepancies in services and fees from one province to another, as well as low wages for educators in this sector.

The reality is also that both funding and the policy framework around child care are inadequate. Budget 2017 designated federal spending of $7.5 billion over 11 fiscal years starting in 2017, with an average spending of $540 million in each of the first five years. This represents only half of what was promised more than 10 years ago by Paul Martin's government. At just 0.3% of the GDP, Canada's current annual spending on child care falls significantly short of the UNICEF international benchmark spending of 1% of a country's GDP.

Also, the ongoing three-year bilateral agreements established by the multilateral framework present parameters that are too broad. Federal transfers must be conditional to evidence-based practices and provincial-territorial plans, timetables and measurable targets that focus on accessibility, affordability, high quality and inclusivity. Right now, provinces can use the federal transfers for parent fee subsidies or tax credits, which does little to build public not-for-profit systems affordable for all.

We know what Canada-wide universal child care can do for women, children and our economy. We know that universal child care can have a strong, positive impact on women's economic security by increasing their ability to get a job, to pursue education and skills training, or to increase their work hours and advance their career. We know that universal child care can guarantee the best developmental outcome for children, and that higher pay for educators will result in higher quality.

We know that universal child care can have a significant impact on Canada's economic growth. The IMF recognized that if the current gap of seven percentage points between male and female labour force participation with high educational attainment were eliminated, the level of real GDP could be about 4% higher today.

We know all this because there is an abundance of research and reports accumulated throughout decades that support increased federal public spending and federal policy on child care. Women's organizations, child care advocates, and unions, and now financial organizations such as the Bank of Canada, the IMF and the OECD, all agree. Last year, this committee also recommended that the federal government fund universal child care, a recommendation that was echoed over the summer by a report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women.

With budget 2018 depending primarily on the mass entry of women into the workforce to generate economic growth, we really fail to understand why no additional funding was given to build universal child care. We no longer want to see these reports being disregarded, and we really hope that this committee will continue to push on this issue this year.

Thank you.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you very much, Geneviève.

We'll turn to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, with Mr. Laskowski, president, and Mr. Blackham.

3:45 p.m.

Stephen Laskowski President, Canadian Trucking Alliance

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the members for having us here today. As mentioned by the chair, my name is Stephen Laskowski. I'm president of the Canadian Trucking Alliance. I am joined by my colleague Jonathan Blackham.

By way of background, the Canadian Trucking Alliance is a federation of the nation's provincial trucking associations. We have approximately 4,500 members, a cross-section across the country of different commodities. We employ a membership of around 150,000, and we move about 70% of the nation's freight.

As noted, the committee is looking for topics that are related to economic growth and ensuring Canada's competitiveness. While there are a host of issues in CTA's documents—and we had to shrink them even more due to your word count requirements, which kept our wordiness down a bit—I'm going to keep our opening remarks to three main topics. There are others in our submissions. We're happy to take questions, but we'll deal with the top three we're going to highlight: what we refer to as Driver Inc., which is an underground economy issue; Canada's competitiveness compared to that of the United States; and the truck driver shortage in Canada.

I'll start with what is known as Driver Inc. A number of drivers and carriers are entering into agreements whereby drivers incorporate themselves and then sell their services to the carrier. It is important to note that these drivers are not traditional independent contractors, known as owner-operators in our industry, as they do not own, lease or operate a vehicle. These drivers drive the carrier's vehicles and are virtually indistinguishable from a normal employee. In this scheme, no source deductions are made, and often drivers will be claiming small-business deductions they are not entitled to. In fact many, we believe, are just not paying taxes, period.

It is difficult to pinpoint the exact percentage of misclassified drivers or those who are not paying taxes. We believe that we are probably looking at an underground economy of close to $1 billion. At even a fraction of the driver population—and we're looking at probably 20%—that $1 billion continues to grow.

We need action. If this practice continues unchecked, CTA expects the entire industry will move to this model, given the competitive savings and the driver shortage. Quite frankly, people are using this as an incentive to get people to come to work for them in a tight labour market. It's costing the real trucking industry—those who are compliant—people, and it's costing the taxpayers of Canada $1 billion in an underground economy. It's time for action.

On Canada's competitiveness compared to U.S. competitors, at the U.S. border this year there will be around 11 million two-way truck movements. Those trucks will carry $400 billion in Canada-U.S. trade. In the past, around 68% of these movements were related to Canadian registered trucks. However, we must always remember that the Canadian trucking industry competes internationally. What do we mean by that? There are U.S. trucks up here and they compete for our members' business, those 150,000 people.

Competition with large U.S. fleets with natural advantages related to economies of scale is an everyday reality for Canadian fleets. A large fleet in Canada is 1,500 trucks. In the United States that's probably not even mid-sized. You're looking at fleets of over 10,000 to 15,000 trucks.

One area Canada could improve on is capital cost allowance rates. U.S. capital cost allowance rates are far more advantageous, allowing U.S. carriers to write down trucks in half the time. While this advantage has existed for well over a decade now, the tax advantage for U.S. trucking companies over their Canadian counterparts has hit new levels with the corporate tax reductions introduced by President Trump. In the past, we have been told that, due to the competitive advantage we had on corporate tax rates, this was, in essence, a wash. It no longer is, with what Mr. Trump has done.

Canada must address this growing tax inequity between Canadian and U.S. fleets. As a possible step, the government could provide an accelerated CCA rate for carbon-reducing trucking equipment, as identified by Environment and Climate Change Canada's phase 1 and phase 2 heavy truck regulations, which were introduced this year, the details of which could be worked out between government and industry.

The last issue is driver shortage. As a result of growing industry demand and a stagnant supply of drivers, the truck driver supply and demand gap is estimated to reach 34,000 people by 2024. Today, it is estimated the industry is short between 10,000 and 15,000 drivers. On the ground, this is evidence of the struggles carriers are facing to find qualified drivers to fulfill current contractual obligations. Many fleets have unseated trucks, which means that those trucks could be on the road but, because there are no qualified drivers, they sit by the side of the fence. What this means to the economy is that eventually freight is going to sit at their doors and not make it to customers, and the growing threat of NAFTA will be increased by not fulfilling north-south trade.

Not only does our industry have one of the oldest and most rapidly aging workforces, but it simultaneously struggles to attract new drivers. That's something our industry needs to deal with, but there's also a role for government.

We are already starting to see customers and shippers affected. It won't be long until customers, the general public, will start to be affected. In fact, I am somewhat happy to say that customers are calling the Canadian Trucking Alliance asking, “What are we going to do about truck driver shortage?” I have to tell you, I've been in this business for 20 years and I've never had those calls before.

As for the silver bullet for driver shortage, there really isn't one. There's some responsibility on the part of our membership, and we're doing that. I'd be happy to take some questions on how we're addressing it, but, as with everything, there's a role for government as well.

The industry has recently completed a report on the temporary foreign worker program. CTA would like to see those recommendations acted upon, including the creation of an expedited program for trucking. Currently, if we wanted to bring over immigrants from across the world—and there are many qualified truck drivers who would love to be Canadians—we simply can't do it. It's much more difficult for our industry, compared to others. We also want to attract Canadians who are here in Canada looking for a job. We're going to have 34,000 vacancies soon, so there's opportunity.

What would we like to see the government do? CTA would like to see funds made available for training in the trucking industry, as in other sectors. Currently, we do not have the same sort of access to funds that other sectors do, particularly the skilled trades. Unfortunately, our government has referred to truck drivers as unskilled. That holds us back, not only with training, but with immigration, and we'd like to work with the government on resolving that.

We'd be happy to take questions when the appropriate time comes. Thank you.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you very much, Stephen.

On the report, I'm not sure if we've received a report. If it went to the government, we might not have. Can you send the clerk a copy of that report?

I have a neighbour who has 70 trucks in his fleet. Last weekend, 18 of them were sitting idle for no other reason than no drivers.

We'll turn to Canadians for Tax Fairness. Mr. Sanger, the floor is yours.

3:55 p.m.

Toby Sanger Executive Director, Canadians for Tax Fairness

Good afternoon, and thank you very much for inviting us.

Most come here asking you to spend more money, whether through tax cuts or increasing spending in particular areas. We're coming here with ways for you to generate more revenue so you can pay for some of those other recommendations. I hope you welcome our suggestions.

As you are well aware, there is much pressure from business lobby groups, including the Business Council of Canada, the Chamber of Commerce, the C.D. Howe Institute, and the Fraser Institute, to respond to Trump's tax cuts with additional cuts for business and high incomes in Canada as well. I strongly urge you not to succumb to this pressure. The reality is that Canada has had declining rates of business investment for the past two decades. Deep cuts to corporate and business taxes have done nothing to stop that, as you can see clearly from the chart included in our submission.

Instead, business tax cuts have contributed to over $700 billion in corporate surpluses, dead money that isn't being reinvested in the economy. More of the same tax cuts that primarily benefit larger profitable corporations will not change this. The tax cuts south of the border are primarily benefiting top incomes and shareholders, with much going into unproductive share buybacks.

I'm also skeptical of the economic wisdom of allowing full immediate expensing of capital investments, for reasons I would be happy to explain later. Instead, we should focus on measures that will improve productivity and competitiveness for all businesses—for example, a national universal comprehensive pharmacare program. This could save employers approximately $4.5 billion annually, not to mention many billions for households as well.

As a top priority, the federal government must eliminate the tax preferences it provides to foreign e-commerce companies at the expense of Canadian businesses, producers and workers. It has been five years since the OECD first identified this as a top priority in their BEPS, or base erosion and profit shifting, action plan. Over 50 nations, including the overwhelming majority of G20 and OECD nations, have adopted rules in accordance with the OECD guidelines. Despite the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and the closure of dozens of media outlets, our federal government has been missing in action on this issue. Why are we giving tax preference to foreign digital giants, the largest companies in the world, at the expense of Canadian businesses, Canadian workers, Canadian culture, and also at the expense of federal and provincial revenues?

We also urge the federal government to take additional specific actions to crack down on international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, consistent with the OECD recommendations. There should be a cap on the interest payments that corporations can expense to offshore subsidiaries, and corporations must be required to demonstrate that their offshore subsidiaries carry out actual economic activity.

The federal government should also invest more in training and technology at the CRA to better combat sophisticated tax evasion, which the Professional Institute of the Public Service has called for.

We were pleased this summer that federal and provincial finance ministers pledged to improve Canada's corporate and beneficial ownership transparency rules, another area where we rank poorly in relation to other G20 countries. Canada is increasingly a destination for money laundering, including through real estate and casinos, with billions lost through tax avoidance. To combat this, we need a publicly accessible registry of the beneficial owners of companies. More details are included in our submission.

We also urge the government to follow through on its election commitment to conduct a wide-ranging review of tax expenditures and cancel unfairly targeted tax breaks. Some action has been taken, which is appreciated, but more needs to be done. Most tax expenditures provide greater benefits for top incomes. Eliminating just a few of these could raise billions in additional revenues and make the tax system fairer.

Finally, we support the federal government's proposal for a national carbon price backstop, but it should be progressive, with measures to ensure that lower and middle incomes are fully compensated for their increased costs, and with border adjustment tariffs so Canadian producers remain competitive.

Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions or comments.

4 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you very much, Toby.

Next, we have Ms. Woroniuk from the MATCH International Women's Fund. I'm not sure if I got that right.

4 p.m.

Beth Woroniuk Policy Lead, MATCH International Women’s Fund

You did a pretty good job.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for the invitation to appear before you today as part of the pre-budget consultations. Our message to you is very simple: Canada's international assistance program should invest significantly more in women's rights organizations. Specifically, we are asking the federal government to invest $2.2 billion of our international assistance spending over 10 years.

The MATCH International Women's Fund is Canada's only global fund for women, girls, and trans people. Working at the intersection of women's rights and innovation, we fund creative and courageous women and their organizations to dismantle barriers, challenge perceptions, and change the world.

Our recommendation is not new. In fact, increased support for grassroots women's organizations was a recommendation from the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development in its 2016 study on women, peace and security. Furthermore, the G7's Gender Equality Advisory Council recommended new and substantial financing for women's rights organizations, including long-term, predictable and core support to build organizational capacity.

Our dollar-figure ask is also not unprecedented. In previous years, Canada has made significant global investments in maternal, child and newborn health. In fact, these programs totalled approximately $2.2 billion over 10 years. We urge you to make a similar commitment to women's rights organizations globally.

Why would this be an effective investment? First, these organizations are the ones that drive change on the ground. For example, the MATCH fund supports HarassMap in Egypt. This small organization originally used a geo-mapping technology to document rape and harassment on the streets of Cairo during the Arab Spring, but it didn't end there. The initiative was so popular that it grew to cover the whole country.

These activists started participating in national conversations. They engaged universities, developing the first-ever sexual harassment policy for Cairo University. They recruited teams of men to hold conversations with other men. They worked with Uber to train drivers on appropriate conduct. HarrassMap is just one example of how women's organizations work at so many levels—policy dialogue, social norms, delivering services to women—all the while developing new and innovative approaches.

A second reason is that despite their effectiveness, women's rights organizations in developing countries lack the funding to put their plans into action. Global resources are just not invested in these organizations. A survey conducted several years ago found that, on average, these organizations operate on less than $20,000 U.S. per year.

Third, to date, these groups have not received Canadian support. In the last year we have data for, women's rights organizations received only 0.3% of Canada's gender equality-focused assistance. That's not 0.3% of overall assistance, but 0.3% just of the funding going to gender equality issues, already representing a small percentage of the entire development budget.

Recently, we have seen some positive moves to reverse these trends. The 2017 announcement of the women's voice and leadership initiative was a key first step. As well, earlier this year Minister Bibeau signalled her government's intention to invest up to $300 million to leverage new resources to support these grassroots organizations.

These two announcements are a good start. However, additional investments are needed to put Canada in a global leadership position.

Increasing overall ODA investments would allow for more funding flexibility. We also recommend improving the current Global Affairs Canada funding structures so that resources to women's rights organizations can be delivered more quickly and effectively.

In conclusion, Canada's international assistance is a crucial reflection of Canadian values. How much we invest and where we invest it are vital indicators of the extent to which our actions in the world correspond to what we believe in as Canadians.

A national survey of Canadian millennials commissioned by the MATCH fund will be released on Monday. It demonstrates widespread support for Canada to play a lead role in bringing about global gender equality. Stay tuned for the details.

Ambitious new investments in women's rights organizations and feminist movements would truly allow Canada to claim the laurel and label of global leader.

Thank you.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you very much.

We'll have to go to five-minute rounds, starting with Mr. Fragiskatos.

4:05 p.m.

London North Centre, Lib.

Peter Fragiskatos

Thank you very much.

Thank you, by the way, to each and every witness who has testified.

My first question goes to the Canadian Federation of University Women. Your brief does focus on newcomers who arrive as refugees. I have an interest in immigration in general, but particularly in refugees. Your brief talks about integration, which is very welcome. All too often we've seen in this country and other democracies the idea emerge that refugees are some kind of burden. In fact, I think quite the opposite is the case.

I looked at your brief and it doesn't go on in this way, but it certainly implies strongly that there is an opportunity here. Refugees offer something to society, something positive. Since we are examining economic issues here, I wonder if you could put on the record your view and your organization's view on how refugees actually pose a positive for societies looking to grow, in particular communities that are small and have population concerns and/or communities that are experiencing labour shortages.

4:05 p.m.

Advocacy Coordinator, Canadian Federation of University Women

Geneviève de Breyne-Gagnon

We know that we have a shrinking labour force right now in Canada. We also have international obligations, human rights obligations, to uphold. The recent position taken by our members is that we want to see Canada do more and be a leader in welcoming refugees in Canada. We are faced with this global refugee crisis that keeps increasing, and yet in Canada we have this labour force that's shrinking. The position is that we have to share the responsibility and welcome more refugees.

This is what we're asking in a part of our brief, that we increase and match the funds to have adequate integration measures for refugees. In small communities, we've seen that it can be a really positive approach. We've seen that historically throughout Canada. We've seen that refugees have brought so much, not just economically but culturally and politically.

We've seen that they're ready to be part of the community that welcomes them, and that they create businesses that will be successful. They're just there to have a better life, and we have the obligation to provide that to them.

4:10 p.m.

London North Centre, Lib.

Peter Fragiskatos

If we had more time, I would ask for your thoughts on immigration settlement agencies. I think they have a unique role to play in all this and have done tremendous work helping to integrate newcomers and refugees in particular.

My second question goes to Canadians for Tax Fairness.

I read in your brief, Mr. Sanger, that you're obviously skeptical when it comes to decreasing corporate tax rates. The brief makes specific mention of the situation in the U.S. It says that "marginal overall economic benefits" are expected in the United States. This is in your analysis. You point to an analysis by TD Bank that says, "With an economy very close to full employment, a fiscal boost is likely to lead to higher inflation, and a slightly faster pace of rate hikes.” I'm quoting here from the TD Bank report speaking about the United States.

Canada is obviously in a similar position. We have the lowest unemployment rates since the 1970s. In addition, the TD report forecast that in the U.S. a massive corporate tax rate is likely to lead to larger debt burdens for future generations.

Could you focus on that and apply that insight to the Canadian context?

4:10 p.m.

Executive Director, Canadians for Tax Fairness

Toby Sanger

Absolutely. Thank you very much for that question.

Immediately after the U.S. tax cuts, quite a lot went into share buybacks and other types of things. I did find it interesting reading the commentary from the bank economists. These are people working for organizations that likely benefit considerably from tax cuts. A lot of them said that Canada should not follow the U.S. with rate cuts in those areas.

The economy is doing well. The economy is strong in the U.S. and it's strong in Canada. If you apply that extra stimulus at this time, it's not going to do much good. It's going to lead to more inflation. You also get the problem later on that if you have already done this—for instance, there's a lot of talk about full expensing of capital expenditures—you're not going to have that tool in the future, or you're not going to have that tool to apply in particular policy areas.

I'm skeptical of it, and I think most economists are skeptical of it, because when the economy is doing well like this, you don't keep pouring more fuel onto the fire in that way.

4:10 p.m.

London North Centre, Lib.

Peter Fragiskatos

Thank you very much.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you, all.

Mr. Poilievre, go ahead.