Finance Committee on May 9th, 2019

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

We're here to focus on the BIA of 2019. What happened under Mr. Mulroney or the senior Mr. Trudeau is really...we can get into a seminar discussion about these things but maybe at a different time.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

I want to speak to that point of order, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

I think it's a very relevant point of order, so I'll argue for relevance.

It's obvious that this Liberal government will learn nothing from history. They clearly don't even think that deficits or debt run up by previous Liberal governments in Canada's past or Ontario's past are relevant to this debate so—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Guys, I think we're into a debate. We can get into a debate on the deficits run by Trudeau, a higher deficit by Mulroney or one of the highest deficits by Harper, but let's try to stick to this subject where we can make progress.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

That's fantastic. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is very relevant to what we're talking about today. Maclean's magazine from 1996 referencing the Chrétien-Martin Liberal government at the time said:

Between fiscal years 1994-1995 and 1998-1999, Ottawa will have sliced almost $80 billion cumulatively from federal spending. The bulk of those cuts are to come: $19 billion in the year ahead; $23 billion in the following year; almost $26 billion on the brink of the millennium. Almost everything and everyone will be affected. Between last year and the 1998-1999 budget year, annual cash transfers to the provinces for health, postsecondary education and welfare will drop to $11.8 billion from $18.3 billion—

—that's annual, a drop from $18.3 billion to $11.8 billion—

—which may prompt tuition increases and cuts to insured health services and welfare payments.

So there is a consequence to spending right now. When you take a look at the McGuinty government and then the Wynne government and the Ontario debt situation, from 2002-03 to 2008-09, before the economic crisis, they increased spending—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, but I have a point of order once again.

The honourable colleague is talking about the 1990s and now he's talking about Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne. We're here to talk about the BIA.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We are, but, look. On some of these discussions we've got into the Ford government, the Wynne government and the Harper government. I'm going to let him continue on and see where it goes. I would hope we can get back to the BIA eventually and where we're going with it, but I will allow the train of thought.

I hope there's a question in it at the end of the day.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

The Ontario debt under the McGuinty Liberal government went from $132 billion to $169 billion, from 2002-03 to 2008-09, before the global meltdown. When the global meltdown happened, it accelerated exponentially, to the point where there's now a $350-billion debt in Ontario, because of steps taken with manageable deficits during those years. We see the effects right now, where Ontario's interest payments are $13 billion a year. Half of the amount they can spend on education, they're spending on interest:$13 billion a year.

Yes, I do think that's concerning, when you look at the context we're in today and the context we're in today is we have another Trudeau government that said it would have the budget balanced by this year, and it's running its fourth deficit in a row: $80 billion. You're already starting to see some of the effects of that government.

Wendy spoke a little about work integration. The ready, willing and able program helps developmentally disabled Canadians find work. That program was originally funded at $15 million, over three years. The Liberals didn't fund it for two years in a row, and then cut it from $15 million to $12 million, which is a 20% cut, because they can't afford to fund it to the extent that it was funded in 2015.

Look at Canada's international development spending. It is the lowest it's been in years, as a percentage of GNI, and the international development community is starting to notice these things. We're starting already to see the consequences of the measures they're taking.

We have a demographic situation in this country where, right now, we have four people working for every Canadian senior, but by 2030, it will be two and a half people working.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there a question here, Mike?

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

I'll go to Mr. Cross, to see if he might want to comment on any of this.

Adam, you might want to comment on the fact that this government has increased the debt by $2,000 right now for every single student you represent. Ultimately, those students are going to have to pay this off a generation later, just like Canadians had to do in the late 1990s.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We're not going to have much time for answers.

Who wants to start?

Mr. Brown.

[Adam Brown]

I can answer quickly.

CASA doesn't have any formal stance on government debt. It is up to a government to decide how they make their budgets and allocate that funding. What we are here to continue to push is the mentality that we need a post-secondary system in this country that is affordable, accessible, innovative and of the highest quality. Certainly, we could get into some of these debates, but we don't have any formal position on government debt.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Can I just ask—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

No, you're way over time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Does Mr. Cross want to make a quick point?

[Philip Cross]

I'll make a small point. Olivier Blanchard, former chief economist of the IMF, has said that one of the lessons we learned in the 2008 crisis was that levels of debt that seemed sustainable before the crisis suddenly became unsustainable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. We'll go back to Mr. McLeod, and then over to Ms. Kwan.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wanted to speak to the comments of Mr. Milligan on the GIS exemption.

I represent the Northwest Territories, which has a high indigenous population. Most of us live in small communities, including myself. I think I'm one of the few MPs who lives in a small indigenous community. I'm probably one of the few MPs who still lives in the community they were born in, and I do so for a reason. I like the wilderness. I like being able to put my canoe in the water and in five minutes I'm in an area where there are no other people. I also do like the society structure of our small communities. It's a structure where the elders, the seniors, are seen as very important. They have an important role and they're also very much respected. It's also a role that is being diminished for a number of different reasons. First of all, I think climate change has a big role. Migratory routes are changing. The best place to cross rivers and ice is changing. Google is also influencing our society because you no longer have to go to an elder to ask a question; you can just google the question.

Pension programs like the GIS have also influenced how the elders operate in our communities. Most of our elders don't have defined pension plans. They don't have government pensions. Most people don't have RRSPs in small communities, so they depend on the GIS and old age security. When they do work in the communities—in the schools or with youth groups—and they get honoraria or some kind of a pay, they're quite surprised at the end of the year when they get a tax bill. Because they're on fixed incomes and they don't have access to any other money, they're in a real financial bind for a long time. I think that for us in indigenous communities, and I think it's the same in most societies across the country, changing the exemption program gives the elders, or the seniors, a role to play in our society again, and I think that's important.

Would you agree with my comment that Canada has to not only recognize, but also allow seniors to play a role again in our country, and that this is part of how we could make that happen?

[Prof. Kevin Milligan]

I think the member is correct that the role and impact of measures like the guaranteed income supplement are different across different demographics and different communities. People have different backgrounds in Canada. That's one of the reasons I have always been in favour of the gender-based analysis plus that has been part of the budget process over the past couple of years. This is a perfect example. When you look at the legislation, it doesn't say people in rural indigenous communities this and people in urban areas that. It just has some numbers and some laws, but the impact of those numbers is felt very differently across different communities. That's where GBA+ is very helpful.

As the member mentioned, in rural communities there can be a different impact because of the different role of seniors there, but also the GIS has a really important impact on the older seniors who are predominantly female. When you look at the impact of expanding the GIS and expanding the possibility of working a bit longer to buttress one's own retirement savings, it is hard to look at that without understanding there's a big impact on females, who tend to be longer lived in older ages. Whether it's people in rural communities or the women of Canada, making sure that we analyze public policies through those lenses really helps to improve the policies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Michael.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

I have another question for Universities Canada.

We agree with your comment on expanded post-secondary options for the Arctic. We don't have any university in the north. We have colleges and we have a lot of education programs. We see our way forward for our younger people through education. We're also paying a price, I believe, by the way of missing out on research funding because we don't have a formal university or an institution such as a university in the Northwest Territories, Yukon or Nunavut. We see a lot of research happening in the north, especially as we see climate change progressing.

I want you to speak a little bit about that. Is that real? Are the Manitoba and Alberta universities benefiting because we're missing out?

[Wendy Therrien]

Thank you for the question.

I think there is a lot of interest and there's a lot of conversation happening around the potential to have a university in the north. There are a lot of different possibilities as to how that might happen and who—or who plural—that might be. It's something that we are watching very closely, and we are engaging in conversations with a number of different institutions that currently exist, as well as thinking about how our current institutions partner and work in the north and how they do research.

I know that we've been actively involved in a strategy and in consultations that have been held through the granting councils about how research is done in the north, how that might be done differently in the north and how we might even need to think about evidence differently and peer review differently to value different forms of knowledge. There's that whole conversation, not just about what institution might exist in the north and how that would change the dynamics, but even about how research needs to be adapted and changed, and how participatory research needs to be done differently to value the communities, the perspectives and traditional knowledge.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses.

I have a question for you, Mr. Mohammed. Thank you for your testimony. As you know, this bill brings forward a substantive change to the refugee determination process for asylum seekers.

Yesterday at the immigration committee, we heard groups such as Amnesty International, the Canadian Council of Refugees, and CARL, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, say to the government that they need to withdraw this bill, that there is no way to fix this bill, because it puts in jeopardy the lives of asylum seekers.

I'm just wondering if you would comment on this. Is there any way to fix this bill to ensure that asylum seekers would not be put in jeopardy?