Finance Committee on Feb. 16th, 2016

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Right. On that point, Mr. Macdonald, I guess my concern is that I think if we only take a look at what's happening on a federal level that we may be making a mistake on fiscal policy, because we have provinces out there that have significant amounts of debt, and we may be at 31%, but if you go to Quebec, it's 87%, when you add in the provincial debt. In Ontario it's 76%. It's a whole different ball game when you take a look at adding in the provincial debts on those kinds of things.

What would be your response to a combined federal-provincial analysis on debt to GDP, as opposed to just a singularly federal analysis?

[David Macdonald]

Certainly, and I think that was one of the points I wanted to make was that the provinces have actually taken the mantle up from the federal government, and they now have more debt than the federal government for the first time in history. The provinces are actually taking more of that burden in terms of driving economic growth.

The fact is that with high household debt largely tapping out the household sector and the corporate sector being in quite good financial shape but unwilling to spend on capital dollars, given the oil rout, for the foreseeable future we're seeing the end of monetary policy with interest rates effectively at 0% now. The only actor left in the economy to drive growth is the federal government, which is why the argument is that the federal government should be spending those deficits instead of the provinces.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Milton, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both.

Mr. Caron.

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

I would like to begin with Mr. Forest and Mr. Garon.

You talked a lot about infrastructure. Correct me if I am mistaken, but I think that the main point is that the municipalities are in a better position to define their priorities than the federal government.

[Éric Forest]

Mr. Caron, municipalities are local governments. It is crystal clear that when it comes to knowing the needs of local populations, they are certainly in the best position to identify their priorities.

As I said in the beginning, between 2008 and 2014, when we took part in the Building Canada Fund recovery program, in Quebec alone, we invested $30 billion. We accelerated our investments in the aqueduct and sewer service sectors. Today, however, we are lagging behind in other types of services.

The Small Communities Fund lists 14 intervention sectors, but none of them involve sporting, cultural or community facilities. Some of your colleagues around this table have sat on municipal councils. It is clear that the two shovel-ready projects we have presented to you complete the service offer. Their objective is to create attractive living environments that promote an active lifestyle and encourage our young people to get involved in healthy activities.

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

Mr. Garon could answer my next question.

Much has been said about the fact that federal government investments in infrastructure should provide a return, increase productivity and be profitable from an economic perspective.

What would you reply to those who might say to you that a sports-related project, for instance, will not further economic growth in Quebec, Canada or in the communities?

[Gilles Garon]

We are trying to create leverage through our sports facilities. That is what is important to us. Often people have a tendency to say that an upgrade is an expense or a burden on taxpayers. And so we are trying to create financial leverage through that. We are trying to attract private investment through this project and trying to bring capital into the region. The idea is to generate business for enterprises in the surrounding areas.

Let's talk about tourism. We are located on the Trans-Canada axis. We are very well located. Our natural environment is very popular.

We have been working on this project for five or six years. People are ready. We want to see a project that is ecologically responsible, which means highlighting the use of wood, since we work in that sector. We want to create a technological showcase highlighting the use of engineered wood and new trends in insulation. We are leaders in eco-construction in the Lower St. Lawrence. We really want to create a showcase.

All of this is going to create jobs. It will be an extraordinary asset. The ultimate objective is to reduce the bill for taxpayers as much as possible, so that bringing things up to standard does not constitute a burden. Instead of that, we want to create an extraordinary leverage effect.

[Éric Forest]

I'd like to add something. Like the provinces, municipalities are the federal government's partners in the economic recovery. Globalization and population demographics are forcing our communities to make themselves more appealing places to live. We want to attract the young families who will form the succession for our businesses. There is absolutely no question that we need to diversify our services.

Since 2008, we have invested heavily. In Rimouski, a town of 50,000 people, we've invested $60 million in waterworks and sewer systems. We aren't asking the government for more funding; we are simply asking for the recognition that local governments are in the best position to make a difference. As long as we are adhering to the government's environmental standards, we should be left alone to implement our priorities.

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

Thank you very much.

I am now going to turn to Ms. Blackstock. I think I have about a minute and a half.

You were critical of the fact that money was being transferred between programs without any new investments being made. And recent departmental documents show that was very clearly the case.

Could you summarize for us how it was done? Could you also tell us what the repercussions were on total funding for child and family services programs at the community level?

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

The Auditor General, in her review in 2008 of the child and family services program, specifically cited the fact that these transfers from the infrastructure budget, which funds housing, needed to stop, and the department agreed with it. Although it was agreed that the department would stop that practice, it continued, with vigour, and they transferred half a billion dollars out of that budget to try to cover the shortfalls in child welfare, education, and health.

The problem with that, which is what we tendered at the tribunal, is that there are three key drivers to the dramatic overrepresentation of first nations children in child welfare care: poverty, poor housing, and caregiver substance misuse related to multi-generational trauma.

By deepening the housing crisis, you're actually putting children at greater risk. The answer is not to shuffle deck chairs on the Titanic in a department that's completely underfunded. The answer is to ensure adequate funding across all program areas, as the Auditor General recommended back in 2008.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That will be it, Mr. Caron.

Mr. Ouellette.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you very much, Chair. I really appreciate it.

Cindy, thank you very much for coming here today. I was really moved, actually to tears, and I think it's absolutely disgusting to believe that I live in a country that saw our children and first nations people as throwaway people. I think that was the very first stage. Then it became a people who were ignored for far too long, and then a people who we were going to fight with in order to somehow...because we thought it was a zero-sum game. I really hope we've entered a new age where it's about working together, about really trying to build communities between different peoples.

From the bottom of my heart, I thank you for that personal sacrifice, as do, I know, a lot of people right across this country. I know that governments have tried to discourage you in every possible way: have followed you, have tailed you, and have done everything in their power to stop you from bringing forward this case. I am excited to realize that perhaps we do live in a country where the supremacy of law, the rights of people, and justice actually will ring true.

But I don't think your work is done, unfortunately, because I think this is just a very small segment of the issues going on in aboriginal and northern affairs, or in Indigenous Affairs Canada. There are the issues related to schools and the funding of schools. I've often heard the federal government say that we just don't have the expertise to understand these departments. Well, there is expertise in this country like you wouldn't believe from people who are educators. I just can't believe that.

We can get up and debate about ISIS and about governments and how we're going to accept our responsibility on the world stage, yet we don't accept our responsibility here. What do you see as future developments, even for first nations education, which is extremely underfunded and ill serves all Canadians?

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

I think one of the important pieces to remember is that there are documented reports showing the inequalities in these education areas on the books already. Not only have they been documented, they've moved to talking about what the harms are for children. It doesn't take a rocket scientist; you don't need a study to do that. If you don't give a child a fair opportunity....

Shannen Koostachin, the little girl who fought her entire life to try to get a school, said that if children don't receive a proper education they can't grow up to become someone important. They can't become the person of their dreams. There are recommendations on the books going back....

In my office I have a report. It's dated 1967. It was a report commissioned by Indian Affairs to document the inequalities, and to identify the reforms necessary to rehabilitate first nations education. Those reforms were never implemented. More recently, we have seen the education panel and I've certainly seen PowerPoints that were disclosed to us through the tribunal process identifying what those shortfalls are, at least $800 million for building new schools.

I think that where the block has always been and what the tribunal points to in its decision is doing it. You have the solutions. You just need to do it. These kids only get one childhood. They can't wait.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you very much.

My next question is for Warren Everson.

I just wanted to have a bit more of a cost-benefit analysis on temporary foreign workers because I think “temporary” means it's a stopgap measure. It's not meant to be permanent.

For instance, we heard from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association earlier, but I also think that in the areas in which a lot of these industries are looking for people—there are so many, for instance, in the agricultural industry—there are Canadians in indigenous communities across this country who are looking for work but haven't been given that opportunity because they've been seen as throwaway people, ignored, people to be fought with. Hopefully, one day they will be people we can actually work with.

[Warren Everson]

Okay. Let me start with that last point.

In the last couple of years in the Chamber of Commerce I've seen more encouraging co-operation between business and aboriginal communities than has ever occurred before. We're doing a major project right now on the duty to consult. As I've consulted with band leaders I've been quite taken aback by their approach, which is very progressive, very focused on economic development. It's been an unusual experience for me, not what I had expected.

A lot of members, especially the larger companies in the Chamber of Commerce are quite involved in outreach and trying to improve the situation.

I'm not sure if that exactly answers your question.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Glad to hear it.

[Warren Everson]

I don't want to forget your temporary foreign workers issue either.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, I know. But I have just one final question for everyone here on the committee. I have thirty seconds, I think.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Sorry, we're out of time. You're right down to two seconds over, as a matter of fact.

Now I wonder if we have permission to juggle the deck a little bit as we start the first round. Would there be consent to allow Ms. May to have five minutes? Is there any disagreement?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, you have five minutes. Then we go to Mr. McColeman.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I appreciate that, Mr. Chair. This is a precedent-setting moment for me in the 42nd Parliament, and I appreciate it. That's to all members of the committee.

Just to give you a head's up, my questions will be to Dr. Pedersen, but I must stop and say how indebted all Canadians are to you, Cindy, for your bravery.

Robert-Falcon has made the point that she was persecuted by our federal government in the past and literally followed and snooped upon for standing up for children. I do hope that this government will not be filing a judicial review of the Human Rights Tribunal decision.

I just want to thank you.

Turning to Dr. Pedersen, I find your proposal intriguing. The reason I wanted to probe it a little bit is that I'm not sure I'm aware of some university work. I know McGill is doing good work on climate solutions. The University of Ottawa has a deep decarbonization group. Certainly I know the work that's going on at the University of Victoria.

Your proposal, as I see it, suggests that you could network and harness all the different university groups and NGO think tanks, and so on. Do you have any idea right now—or has anyone collected a basic database—of who's doing what, so that we know what the intellectual capacity you might want to harness is at the moment?

[Thomas Pedersen]

No, there is no such database, to my knowledge. It's a necessary first piece, but it would have to be done very quickly because the issues are compelling and we must respond very quickly to the commitment we've made as a nation. We only have 14 years to get our emissions reductions down by at least 30%, if not more. There are pods, centres of excellence across this country, but there's no coordinating body that is integrating them, tying the threads together. What we foresee doing is inviting those people to the table and having them work with the other disciplines that have a perspective that could shed light on the same general question, the same general area.

Let's bring all of those perspectives together so that the economists at McGill, the Chris Ragans of the world, the Ecofiscal Commission, would work with the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions, with the knowledge mobilization people at Waterloo, with the centre for international governance at Waterloo, with the ice people in Manitoba.

But you put a single question in front of them. This isn't just a hodgepodge where you throw people into a room. It has to be structured. You give them a challenge, and the challenge might be transportation. I mentioned transportation earlier. It might be energy efficiency in the built environment. How do we attack that when you have a very warm climate in Victoria where the rhododendrons are blooming today, record low temperatures in Ottawa over the weekend, different housing styles to accommodate those different needs, and then we have the north where we have other issues, where the permafrost is melting and foundations are crumbling?

Yukon College has a very active program now working on cold environment housing construction, that sort of thing. But we need to put all of that together. There needs to be a national coherence on what we do with our building stock. The turnover time for buildings is very long, half a century or so, maybe longer, but we don't have the luxury of waiting half a century to let things adjust. We have to get going now on a national front.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Yes, and to your point on urgency, the current target for Canada, 30% below 2005 levels by 2030, was the one put in place by the previous government in May of last year, and I don't think we actually know what the current, new Liberal government will commit to as a target. As Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna, has said, the current one is a floor. I would suggest it's somewhere nearer the basement and we have a real urgency to put in place a new plan and target, the target perhaps first and the detailed plan of every element of how we get there. We would know in broad strokes we can get someplace, but then the transportation question is specific. The adaptation question also harnesses a lot of universities.

Given the urgency, how long, realistically, do you think it would take to assemble a networking advisory function such as you're proposing here today?