Finance Committee on May 7th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll call the meeting to order. We're dealing with Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures.

We have four organizations as witnesses before us.

We'll start with the Canadian Labour Congress, Mr. Roberts, national director.

Mr. Roberts, the floor is yours.

[Chris Roberts, National Director, Social and Economic Policy Department, Canadian Labour Congress]

Thank you very much, Chair, and good morning, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

The Canadian Labour Congress is Canada's largest central labour body advocating on behalf of three million workers across Canada. In the brief time I have, I will focus on divisions 5, 6 and 7 of part 4 touching on the guaranteed income supplement, the Canada pension plan, changes to insolvency rules and amendments to the Canada Business Corporations Act. I will also touch on the Canada training credit.

I want to begin, however, by commending the government for a budget measure that is not contained in Bill C-97, namely its initial steps toward the implementation of a national pharmacare plan for Canada. Canada's unions are eager to see a universal single-payer system introduced in this country to address significant coverage gaps and the drug affordability crisis facing Canadians.

Turning to retirement benefits, Bill C-97 allows the proactive enrolment of CPP contributors aged 70 and over. The CLC welcomes this initiative as a very positive step. The bill also amends the Old Age Security Act to make improvements to the guaranteed income supplement and allowance for low-income seniors.

Extending the GIS earnings exemption to self-employment income, increasing the full exemption and introducing an additional partial exemption are important improvements that will make a meaningful difference in the lives of low-paid working seniors.

However, the GIS clawback will continue to apply to the first dollar of CPP and pension income, RRSP income, EI benefits and other income in retirement. On these income sources, a 75% or higher effective marginal tax rate continues to apply. For this reason, the CLC urges the government to undertake a comprehensive review of the GIS clawback in the context of all income sources in retirement.

With respect to changes to insolvency rules, in our view, Bill C-97's amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and Companies' Creditors Arrangements Act are inadequate and represent a missed opportunity to prevent the injustice of defined benefit plan members and retirees suffering benefit cuts when sponsors enter insolvency.

Bill C-97 will amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to allow a bankruptcy court to determine whether a share redemption or a payment of dividends in the year prior to the date of bankruptcy was made by an insolvent company or had the effect of making the corporation insolvent. If so, the court can now allow the trustee to recover these amounts. However, this would not have prevented the $1.4 billion in dividend payments approved by the directors of Sears Canada in the years prior to entering insolvency and liquidation in 2017, despite the windup deficit in the pension plan.

There is still no requirement for corporations to notify the pension regulator, much less seek the regulator's authorization if a sponsor with a pension deficit makes a dividend payment or engages in a share repurchase that represents a risk to benefit security.

To address this risk, Ontario introduced the disclosable event regime last year, and regulators in the United States and the United Kingdom have similar powers. The federal government can and must do far more to protect plan members in insolvency. Labour movement has been urging the government to either grant pension claims superpriority status in bankruptcy or introduce mandatory pension insurance in conjunction with provinces and territories.

Turning to continuous learning, Bill C-97 enacts the Canada training credit, part of the new Canada training benefit. The CLC welcomes this lifelong learning benefit; however, we are concerned that the four-week limit on training programs, the 600-hour eligibility requirement and low replacement rates of the EI training support benefit and the fact that the training credit can cover no more than half of tuition and training fees will limit the benefit's effectiveness and reach for low-paid precariously employed workers who most need training opportunities.

With respect to pay transparency, Bill C-97 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act to require federally registered public companies to disclose prescribed information regarding the well-being of employees, retirees and pensioners and the diversity of directors and senior management.

The CLC believes that this information should include the ratio between director and senior management compensation and median employee earnings. It should also include total employee compensation and median pensions and pay received by pensioners as well as the funded status of the pension plan.

Thank you, Chair. My time is up. I welcome any questions the committee might have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Mr. Roberts.

We're now turning to Chief Marlowe, of the Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation, and Mr. Nitah, lead negotiator. Welcome.

[Chief Darryl Marlowe, Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation]

Good morning.

I'd like to thank you, Mr. Chair, and the committee, for giving us the opportunity to speak today, regarding Bill C-97.

I'd like to mention that this has been Lutsel K’e's main objective and mission. We have a mandate set by our elders to create and protect our traditional territory around our community within the Northwest Territories.

The first time the government invited the former chief and elder, Pierre Catholique, to come here to do a presentation like the one I'm doing today.... It's been well over 40 years. At that time, the community and the elders weren't ready to pursue a park. Now, after educating ourselves, doing due diligence on behalf of our community and our people and creating a partnership with Canada and GNWT, we're willing to create a national park reserve on our traditional territory. That's why we are here today.

Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation has been working to protect Thaidene Nëné for over 40 years.

Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation has the following objectives with respect to Thaidene Nëné: to recognize and affirm indigenous rights, responsibilities and our treaty relationship with the governments of Canada and Northwest Territories; to protect the natural and cultural landscape of Thaidene Nëné for all time, and for future generations; to share the stewardship and management authority with Canada, using a leading model in the country and in the world; and to foster a sustainable economy, based and rooted in conservation, culture and tourism.

The main reason we want to protect our land is that we want our children's children to have, and to continue to practice, our Dene way of life. This gives them certainty that they are going to be protected in that way, for our culture and our identity

We have done everything that needs to be done on our end to establish Thaidene Nëné, and achieve these objectives. We have concluded establishment agreements with Canada and the GNWT, grown our own management capacity, started local community tourism planning and obtained public and private commitments for long-term sustainable funding for our stewardship responsibilities, including guardianship.

Recently, we had a ratification vote to determine whether our community supported us to go ahead. We had a very high voter turnout. On February 18, 2019, 88% of our membership voted in favour of the establishment of Thaidene Nëné.

We want to get Thaidene Nëné established now, so we can sustain our forward momentum, and fulfill our shared objectives. Bill C-97 is consistent with our vision and objectives, and we encourage smooth passage of this bill, to enshrine Thaidene Nëné in law in advance of the uncertainty of the coming election. LKDFN's long-term funding commitments and the creation of long-term jobs and economic opportunities associated with Thaidene Nëné are dependent upon it.

I want to thank Steven Nitah, our chief negotiator, and our negotiation team, as well. They've been at this for quite some time—over 10 years, or maybe it's closer to 17 years. I want to congratulate him and the team on all the hard work they're doing on behalf of our community members. I'm speaking on behalf of my community, Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation in the Northwest Territories.

I would like to give Steven the opportunity to say a few words.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Steven, the floor is yours.

[Steven Nitah]

Mahsi cho, Mr. Chairman, and mahsi cho, Chief and committee members.

I also would like to thank you for giving us the time to share the good news that is Thaidene Nëné. As Chief Marlowe indicated, we have been diligently working with both levels of Crown governments over a number of years to create Thaidene Nëné together. Thaidene Nëné was a mandate and vision given to us by the elders, most of whom have passed on since that mandate was given to us. As chief negotiator, I was mandated to take the leadership role on behalf of the community over all these years.

We first started the work in earnest in 2000, once we initialled the Akaitcho lands, resources and governance agreement on July 25, 2000. The elders at that time asked us to move forward to protect the heart of our homeland—not the entire territory of our homeland, but the heart of our homeland. At that time, they identified 55,000 square kilometres as an area of interest.

In 2006 then chief Addie Jonasson signed an MOU with then minister of the environment Rona Ambrose of the Conservative Party. That allowed us to do further research and due diligence on best practices at the global level and down into Canada. We could have chosen different partners in our relationship in the creation of Thaidene Nëné, but we chose Canada because we have a treaty with Canada. We agreed to share the lands and resources and the responsibility to share them and to benefit from them. In 2010, when I was the chief, I signed the framework agreement with the late Jim Prentice, who was then minister of the environment, to start formal negotiations. In our culture we've never really had a political structure that would have a grand chief, per se. Leaders are chosen for specific purposes. At that time, the elders and the community appointed me to take the leadership role to usher in the negotiations and build the relationship requirement to create Thaidene Nëné.

Thaidene Nëné today is a model of conservation. It's a model of reconciliation between indigenous and Crown governments, collectively between us and the land, and as a form of economic reconciliation. Significant investment will go into our community, where 18 full-time jobs will be created. We will work alongside Parks Canada in the management and operations of Thaidene Nëné equally, as a shared responsibility. An amount of $32 million will go into that area for the first 12 years, and approximately $3 million annually after that for the operations and management of Thaidene Nëné.

Thaidene Nëné is a great example of reconciliation in this country. In fact, Thaidene Nëné has been used by Canada and by many indigenous nations across the country as an example of how to develop their relationships with Crown governments. Together we've created a model of a relationship that's been utilized and emulated by many right across the country. In fact, it's helping speed up the relationship building between indigenous governments and Crown governments and the creation of marine and terrestrial protected areas to help Canada reach its Aichi targets of 17%.

With Thaidene Nëné we're ready to go. The conditions are good. We're in a position to sign and establish Thaidene Nëné in July this summer. As the chief indicated, we have secured funding to allow LKDFN their independence and to be a true partner in the management, operations and governance of Thaidene Nëné. We have the capacity to move forward and diversify our economy. We are in a place in the Northwest Territories where our traditional territory is 280,000 square kilometres. A national park of 14,000 square kilometres, with an additional 12,000 for a protected area, is just a small piece of our territory.

We are not anti-development. We have a relationship with all the mining industries in our territory. We have agreements with Diavik, BHP and De Beers.

Thaidene Nëné went through an extensive HMIRA assessment that informed the final boundaries that we see today. All the highly prospective mineral potential has been taken out of the area of interest. Areas that are unknown geologically have been excluded from Thaidene Nëné as well. We've taken great care to ensure that Lutsel K’e has positioned itself to participate in both the non-renewable and the renewable resource economy.

Thaidene Nëné will provide a long-term, stable, consistent economic base for the community and at the same time create certainty for investment outside of Thaidene Nëné within our territory.

It's a great model for reconciliation in this country, and it's a great model for conservation relationships among indigenous governments and Crown governments, whether at the federal or the provincial level. We have an establishment agreement with the Government of Northwest Territories, and we've helped develop the legislative proposal that has been reviewed by the people of the Northwest Territories through public hearings by the Northwest Territories Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment. They're doing that as we speak. We hope they will turn that legislative proposal into law in their next legislative session in May so we can all sign off on the establishment agreement and celebrate the creation and establishment of Thaidene Nëné.

With that, I will answer any questions you may have.

Mahsi cho.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, both. I know you submitted a brief. It's only in English, and will be distributed when it's translated. It has a lot of the history in it, so it will be valuable information for members.

We'll turn to MNP LLP, Ms. Lidder, senior vice-president, taxation services, and Ms. Drever, regional tax leader. Go ahead.

[Amanjit Lidder, Senior Vice-President, Taxation Services, MNP LLP]

Good morning, Chairman, and members of the finance committee.

The fall economic statement and budget introduces measures to address competitiveness and affordability and signals that the government has taken first steps to addressing taxpayer concerns. We believe, however, that Canada must do more.

For over 60 years, MNP has been dedicated to our clients' success. Today we proudly serve more than 180,000 businesses and 19,000 farms throughout Canada. We are the third-largest tax filer in the country.

Our clients are concerned with how their businesses can stay competitive. In addition, they struggle to cope with the increasing complexity and administrative burden of the tax system. They're worried about how affordable Canada will be, especially for the next generation.

In terms of competitiveness, we note that the budget and Bill C-97 contain several improvements to capital cost allowance, scientific research and experimental development, legislative changes to section 143 that promote tax fairness, and small business deduction relief for farming and fishing businesses. These are important changes and initiatives on competitiveness. Of note, however, is the fact that the new accelerated capital cost allowance lacks parity with the recent tax reform in the United States. It does not go far enough to provide Canadian businesses with a competitive advantage.

Further, we continue to recommend lowering the combined corporate tax rate to a more modest 20%, and a combined personal tax rate below 50%. With a top marginal tax rate of 53.5%, Canada's is the fourth highest among OECD countries, which hurts our competitiveness.

In terms of the small business deduction, we are pleased that the government corrected the unintended consequences to the agriculture and fishing industries related to the 2016 legislative changes. However, there are other industry groups that were also inadvertently affected. We urge the government to ensure that Canadian start-ups and private enterprises are not subject to the proposed employee stock option cap. These businesses rely on stock options to attract and retain talent in their formative years, and removing access to stock options would severely impact their ability to compete in the global marketplace.

Affordability is clearly a growing concern for Canadians. It's an issue that dominates the daily headlines. MNP has a quarterly national study on affordability that shows that just under half of Canadian families are within $200 of financial insolvency every month. To try to address this issue, the budget and Bill C-97 include the following: targeted support for first-time homebuyers, a Canada training credit and an incentive to make zero-emission vehicles more affordable.

We commend the government for focusing on these areas and believe measures could be further enhanced. We find that many first-time homebuyers rely on their parents to help them with their down payments. Parents often take a tax hit in order to do so. We suggest that further incentives be contemplated to provide relief for parents, such as using their RRSPs for their children's homebuyers' plan. Alternatively, the government could consider simplifying related party loans specifically tied to the purchase of a home.

Governments are striving to make education affordable. The Canada training credit helps build our future workforce and ensures workers get the training they need. However, education costs remain a burden to many families. We recommend full tuition credit transfers, rather than the current $5,000 annual cap.

Regarding zero-emission vehicles, the incentive helps businesses but could inadvertently impact their employees. These vehicles are generally more expensive, and the standby charge for employees who drive them could become an affordability issue.

We are pleased with the government's commitment to consult on intergenerational transfers of businesses while protecting the integrity and fairness of the tax system. In our practice many families struggle with how to transition their business. In our brief we've shared Tracy and Marc's dilemma of selling their bakery to their daughter versus a third party. The tax system unfairly penalizes them if they sell their business to their daughter.

In summary, we ask that the government commit to introducing policies and tax measures to make Canadian businesses more competitive and improve affordability for Canadians. At the same time, we need to ensure that these measures are simple and do not increase the cost of doing business in Canada.

Tax policy should be fair, certain and predictable.

Together, we have much work to do and we look forward to working with you to ensure Canadian competitiveness and affordability.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lidder.

We turn now to Vivian Krause, researcher and writer, who is appearing as an individual.

The floor is yours.

[Vivian Krause, Researcher and Writer, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the committee and fellow panellists.

My name is Vivian Krause and I am here as a citizen.

I would like to speak to the changes in the legislation that specifically affect registered charities.

For most of my work life, I have been involved in charity, a decade with the United Nations and more than a decade with registered charities here in Canada. I have also done extensive research on the funding of environmental charities and their campaigns. It is my personal experience in the charitable sector and my research that inform my comments today.

In the 2019 budget, several changes are introduced to the law regarding the conduct and privileges of registered charities. The main changes are the removal of restrictions on the extent to which charities are allowed to engage in political activity, and the introduction of a new category of organizations that will now have the privileges of charities—journalism organizations.

I would like to offer some context to the discussion of these changes. To sum up in a few words, the main point that I would like to make is that these changes tinker at the edges of minor issues, meanwhile major issues are not addressed. It's to those major issues that I would like to speak.

Several years ago I first testified to a House of Commons committee on the U.S. funding that environmental organizations were receiving, and continue to receive, for their participation in a well-funded, anti-pipeline initiative called the Tar Sands Campaign. In response, the federal government allocated several million dollars in the 2012 budget to enable the charities directorate to conduct audits and education to improve compliance with regard to the conduct of political activities by registered charities.

What initially concerned me wasn't the anti-pipeline activism. It was what I saw as “garden variety” corruption. In one case, the president of a charity had paid more than a million dollars into his personal company.

As part of my first testimony in 2012, I urged that changes be made to the Income Tax Act to increase the disclosure requirements with regard to the revenue and expenditures of registered charities.

Over the past seven years I have continued to keep an eye on what is going on in the charitable sector. I am now even more concerned that changes need to be made to our charitable system to make it more robust to fraud. I've come to this conclusion based on my analysis of the grant making going on in a network of charities run by a lawyer in Vancouver. This individual claims publicly at his website that he has created 650 charities and executed more than two billion dollars' worth of charitable giving.

During 2017 and 2018, I went through the Canadian tax returns on about 130 of these charities. The revenues of these charities totalled $1.1 billion. By my analysis, less than 10% of that was actually spent on charity. Of the $1.1 billion, $600 million was tax-receipted donations. As far as I can tell, the amount of charity that has actually been conducted falls short of that by about a half a billion dollars.

In the fall of 2017, I provided my research on this file to the Globe and Mail. One of their investigative journalists, Kathy Tomlinson, reviewed my work and did further research of her own. Her findings were reported in a front-page story that ran in the Globe and Mail in October 2017.

As the Globe and Mail reported, the charity that is at the centre of this monkey business is the CHIMP foundation. My analysis of CHIMP's tax returns finds that CHIMP has granted roughly $100 million to a network of charities. If that money had been spent on charity, that would have been good, but that's not what happened. Instead, those charities regranted most of the $100 million amongst themselves and back to CHIMP.

If I may, I just want to illustrate this because it's hard to understand. CHIMP gave $100 million to a bunch of charities, and that's fine, except that what then happened is that those charities regranted the money, road-tripped it around and around, and then the money went back to CHIMP.

I found another example of this. In fact, the first one I found was actually just $3 million. It was with Tides Canada, a charity in Mississauga that I would characterize as a fake charity because all it did was receive money from another charity in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, road-trip the money to Vancouver, then to Tides Foundation in San Francisco and back to Pawtucket. In the process, this charity in Mississauga issued tax returns for three million dollars' worth of charity in Canada that never happened.

Our whole charitable sector is subject to this type of abuse because of what I would call shell charities. When charities are audited just on a one-on-one basis, this goes undetected, basically. You have to look at the bigger picture to see what's really going on.

I would like to suggest that increasing the disclosure requirements and transparency would be a cost-effective way to reduce the risk and to discourage this type of abuse within the charitable sector.

Another cost-effective measure to discourage fraud would be an online searchable database accessible to the public. In fact, several of these already exist, notably one provided by Mark Blumberg and another by a company called Ajah. Blumberg's is free, while Ajah's is not. While it's very good, it's quite costly and accessible for a fee that most Canadians would find cost-prohibitive. A combination of increased disclosure requirements and a publicly available searchable online database would go a long way to preventing the type of tax fraud scam that, under our current system, is all too easy.

Last, I just want to take a few moments, if I may, to flag for the committee that there are some significant issues with regard to the ultimate outcome of the controversial audits of political activity, which were initiated in 2012 under the previous government, and how these have been handled subsequently by the current government.

In 2016, the CRA reported that 42 charities were audited as part of the so-called political activity audits. In its report the CRA reported that, out of those 42 charities, 41 were not fully compliant. I have a reproduction of the CRA's own diagram. In only one case no problem was found.

When the current government came to office, the Prime Minister characterized these audits as “political harassment” in his mandate letter to the national revenue minister, and the finalization of the political activity audits was suspended. The law regarding limits on political activity has since been changed retroactively. As I understand it, the audits have been or are being finalized under the new law.

In practice, what this means is that some of the charities that would have had their status revoked will be off the hook because the law was changed retroactively. Back in 2012, when the fuss first broke out over the foreign funding of anti-pipeline activism, the charity in the hot seat was Tides Canada, based in Vancouver. Tides Canada has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, but according to its own financial statements, the CRA audit of the Tides Canada Initiatives Society is still unresolved seven years since it began in 2011. This suggests to me that the CRA did not give Tides Canada an all-clear, as it has suggested. Furthermore, according to Tides Canada's financial statements, it was only audited for 2008 and 2009. This raises questions in my mind about why the charity at the centre of the fuss was apparently not audited for any of the relevant years.

One of the findings the CRA reported was “serious non-compliance” unrelated to political activity, including “undue benefit”. This was what I was concerned about with regard to a payment of roughly $400,000 to the president of an environmental charity. Subsequently, the individual who received this payment, Mr. Gerald Butts, became the principal secretary to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Mr. Butts has confirmed via Twitter that he did receive this payment as severance after he voluntarily resigned.

If the political activity audits were carried out as a form of “political harassment,” as the Prime Minister has characterized them, then of course it would have been correct for the Prime Minister to characterize these audits as such. But as we now know from the results of these audits, as reported by the CRA, this was not the case. This raises questions about why the Prime Minister characterized these audits as something that they were not and why the audits were suspended until the law was rewritten retroactively. From the way these audits were handled, some charities and individuals may have benefited. Some of these charities and individuals have very close involvement with the Office of the Prime Minister and his former principal secretary. Therefore, I believe the handling of these audits raises serious questions that merit answers.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Thank you all for your presentations.

We'll start with a seven-minute round, and Mr. McLeod, is up first.

Mike.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all who came here to present to us today.

I wanted to, first of all, mention the members who are here from my riding, presenting on Thaidene Nëné.

This has been a park that's been in the making for quite a long time. My involvement through former chief Felix Lockhart was many, many years ago. It's always been amazing to see the number of players who were involved, but the number of governments that had to come together has been really amazing, even from the time of Rona Ambrose's involvement, as the Conservative government representative of the day, to Jim Prentice, and I think John Baird was also involved.

My first question is to ask about how you were able to bring everybody together. We have so many other issues that this model could work on. If this is something that is well supported, it should be able to work in other areas. We have many other things we're working on with indigenous governments, the federal government and the territorial government.

Maybe just in a short answer you could tell me how you were able to bring the interests of everybody in line to get this done.

[Steven Nitah]

Thank you, Mr. McLeod.

A good thing always brings people together and Thaidene Nëné is a good thing. Thaidene Nëné has certainly brought, from the indigenous side anyway, the descendants of the ancestors together to pursue the protection of the land of the ancestors. Thaidene Nëné means land of the ancestors.

The process has brought people together, not only for Thaidene Nëné and what we're doing with Thaidene Nëné. We're going to create Thaidene Nëné together and we're all going to benefit from Thaidene Nëné and create a conservation economy around that.

This relationship also translated into a working relationship between the Government of Northwest Territories, the Government of Canada, the Akaitcho Territory—of which Thaidene Nëné is a side table—and the NWT Métis Nation. We are currently in the process of developing the land use plan for the southeast of the Northwest Territories collectively.

We're very close to finalizing the terms of reference for a public planning process, which will build on a draft plan that will be developed by both Akaitcho Territory Government and the NWT Métis Nation. We're developing and building on Thaidene Nëné on what I like to call a land relationship plan for the southeast of the Northwest Territories that will create certainty for all: certainty for investors and certainty for the indigenous governments and their roles and responsibilities. There will be the creation of a management board under the Mackenzie Valley to make decisions on behalf of all in that region.

We are hoping to have a finalized land use plan that's going to contribute to both the finalization of the Akaitcho lands and resources government agreement and the NWT Métis Nation lands and resources government agreement.

Thank you.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you.

I have one more quick question. I'm very supportive of the work that Minister McKenna has been doing on this file.

I know that the Akaitcho people have been under a lot of pressure over many years through the potential hydro expansion project on the Taltson, and with the many diamond and gold mines in the area. It has brought a lot of employment. It has brought an economic boom into that area and has created actually the backbone of our economy.

Do you feel that with this Thaidene Nëné now—and I think it's the only project of its kind in Akaitcho territory—we are now at somewhat of a balance between economics and conservation areas?

[Steven Nitah]

In the Northwest Territories, we don't export anything. We are small in population. We are a resource-based economy that's dependent on the world's economic cycles. Boom and bust is an issue.

Thaidene Nëné will stabilize that boom and bust environment. It will create a stable economic environment for not only Lutsel K'e, but for the region around Great Slave Lake. It's going to be designed as a tourist destination, so that a tourist economy can be built around it. It will benefit the city of Yellowknife, the businesses that support tourism, and not only the traditional tourist providers. We are looking at providing opportunities for exchanges between our youth and the youth from the inner cities across the country, where we're going to create space inside Thaidene Nëné for them to experience nature in its glory.

For that, you need support from logistical companies. You need support from airline companies that provide the same type of support for the exploration type of work, so that it's not only stabilizing the economy for Lutsel K'e, but it's stabilizing the economy for the region in those years like we see today where there's very little investment in exploration in the Northwest Territories. Outside of the operating diamond mines, there has been no investment in the Northwest Territories from the exploration side of the economy. The mining industry, of which I've been a member, has been talking about creating certainty through the finalization of lands and resources and government agreements. We have four land claims from the Inuvialuit, the Gwich'in, the Sahtu and Tlicho. We don't see new investment in those areas from the mining industry.

We need to balance resource extraction and a conservation economy. I think we're creating that with Thaidene Nëné.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Mr. Poilievre, you have seven minutes.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Ms. Krause, you mentioned links between these phony charities and members of the Prime Minister's inner circle. Could you elaborate on those linkages?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That would be former members, right?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

We'll find out.

[Vivian Krause]

I wouldn't say they're between the charities and the Prime Minister's Office, but a number of individuals who were involved specifically with Tides Canada, for example, are now employed in the Prime Minister's Office.

I will emphasize that's not where the real mess is that I talked about: the monkey business at the CHIMP foundation. There are no linkages that I am aware of to the Prime Minister's Office.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

At Tides, who are the members of the Prime Minister's Office who are linked to the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Poilievre, could we let Ms. Krause answer the question first before you try to drive the point home?

[Vivian Krause]

Do I need to name names, Mr. Chairman?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead. The floor is yours.

[Vivian Krause]

Do I need to?