Finance Committee on Oct. 6th, 2016

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Can I just stop you there and ask, would an organization like yours, for example, work with community colleges, the University of Manitoba, and The University of Winnipeg, and say, “Look, here's where we're falling down”? Is that the kind of thing that goes on?

[Greg Dandewich]

Absolutely. When we bring a collection of people around the table, it is all those different players talking about talent. It's not about where we are with steady state. It's where we're going to make sure we can identify that pipeline, so it is working with the post-secondaries. It's critical.

You have to do that in line with respect to what the industry is looking for. What you have is this balance between quantitative and qualitative, and somewhere in the middle gives you the sense of where the real challenge exists.

Fundamentally, if you take a look at the province of Manitoba, we grow through immigration, as I indicated before. How do you ensure that the skill sets that are coming in are reflective of what's required by the industry? When I talk about information, evidence-based information allows companies and it allows jurisdictions to make good decisions in how they can perpetuate the need for skilled labour in the key sectors that act as the underpinning of our economy.

This is an ongoing conversation with the post-secondaries at the provincial level and at the federal level because of the oversight they have with immigration and being able to ensure that there is good dialogue taking place with the individuals who are consistently on the ground working with companies to say, “You know what, I don't know if I can make another $30-million investment because I don't think you have the skilled pool here over the next 10 years.”

Steady state is where you start, but it's really about what the pipeline looks like. It includes a variety of different constituents, including provincial and federal governments.

I don't know what the answer is. It's a challenge, but you need to be able to understand what that challenge looks like from both quantitative and qualitative...you blend it together. Then you can start to identify how you best move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

To Dan, I think you wanted in. We'll give you 30 seconds if you could, and then we'll have to turn to Mr. Liepert.

[Dan Mazier]

Okay. I think part of the challenge is this. I farm out in the Brandon area, two hours west of here, and we have Assiniboine Community College. They have trades there, and what I couldn't get over, especially during the boom from 2012 to 2014, was how the trades were full. There were people lined up to get into school, to try to get their trades, to get their apprenticeships, and to get working in the workforce. They could not get into school. Yet the workforce and everybody in industry were screaming for skilled people. Where's the barrier?

I went back and I asked the community college, why are there so many barriers? Why don't you open up an empty school, or an empty industry place, and get the trades going, like welders, for heaven's sake. It doesn't take rocket science. You're talking about primary types of skills. In agriculture, we're full.

I don't know where the breakdown is. Identify where there's a need, get those institutions up to speed, and get them training.

We have people screaming from the north. There are skills that are needed up there to live. How come they're not getting educated? Why not? We need an infrastructure to support that as well, and that's why we talk about digital infrastructure. If we're not going to move away from our rural areas, we need that fundamental support and that backbone to support Canada in 2016.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Mr. Liepert.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you all for being here.

Like Mr. MacKinnon, I'm going to try to focus on a couple of the same questions that I asked the previous panel. As I said earlier, as a Conservative I'm sure it's no surprise to any of you that our belief is that it's the private sector and not government that will drive the economy and create jobs.

One thing I'm seeing happening in my province, as an Alberta member of Parliament—and I don't know if it's to the same extent here—is “piling on”. Whether it's federally or provincially, you have carbon taxes coming. In our province, we have an increase in the minimum wage. We have municipalities doing things like putting a head tax on feedlot operators. There's only one taxpayer paying for all of these things.

First of all, I'd like to get a bit of a response from the two of you. I don't know if the farming community would like to make a comment on this, as well. I think there's been a lack of recognition across the country on what the energy industry has meant to this country for our GDP. It's somehow always associated with the production end of it and what Alberta and Saskatchewan are going through. I believe that every part of the country is, in one way or another, feeling the effects of low commodity prices and the lack of ability to get product to market.

I'd like to get your comments on how it's affecting Manitoba and the manufacturing sector in your province. That's what I'm asking.

[Don Leitch]

What I would like to say is that in Manitoba we have benefited significantly from the Alberta energy sector. We are experiencing significant impacts right now from the Alberta energy sector. This is a sector that has driven a lot of inward investment. It has driven investment in facilities in every other province. We have manufacturers here. We have truckers here who have done enormous volumes of business, and that has dropped off dramatically.

I'll give you a statistic I picked up while reading The Globe and Mail. They were interviewing the Premier of New Brunswick, who said that either 12% or 14% of the declared personal income in his province in the previous year was attributable to incomes earned in the oil fields in Alberta. We know that happens in every province, and it's significant. When that sector suffers in Alberta, then the country suffers and every provincial jurisdiction suffers.

As a business council we have met with various industry groups and sectors from Alberta coming across the country. We are supportive of infrastructure investments, and those include roads, highways, airports, and pipelines. We do believe you have to get commodities to market. We have members who have colleagues on the west coast who say, “We don't want a pipeline crossing here, it's bad, but we'd like to have more rail expanded capacity. We'll haul your lumber. We'll haul your coal. We'll haul your grain. We'll run it through our ports, but we don't want a pipeline.” To us, national infrastructure is national infrastructure. We have to do it on an environmentally conscious basis and everything else, but we believe we have to work together to provide greater market access for our products. That's part of the answer.

In terms of piling on, I talked about the collective impact of CPP and EI. Some provinces, Manitoba in particular, have a provincial payroll tax on top. That all compromises our competitive ability and it just squeezes and squeezes. My opening comment was that we're a trading province. We really are a trading province. We wouldn't have some of the companies here, such as Richardson International, if we weren't. It's a massive grain-trading company headquartered here. If they weren't trading internationally, then we wouldn't have the thousand employees in their head office here, and we wouldn't have the thousands of employees across the west. That goes for every other agricultural outfit.

There's a large hog industry here that trades internationally. When they get level after level, and requirement after requirement, it just compromises the industry. All we ask is to have a conversation between governments and stakeholders. Let's have a conversation between levels of government to make sure you're not overdoing it. That's part of the problem.

[Brian Innes]

I would like to make a brief comment, just to build on what you said about being export based. We in the food sector are highly regulated, whether it's with canola oil processing from James Richardson International, which bottles canola oil and makes margarine, or with processing plants in Manitoba here, that crush the canola seed to make oil for humans and meal for livestock. One of the single biggest things we see is that as an export-based sector our regulators are not just regulating for Canada, but it's very important that they interface with their counterparts internationally.

The question I'd ask the committee is, are the health needs and the food safety needs of those 100 kilometres south of here any different from those of us sitting around the table? We have two distinctly different food safety systems in the U.S. and Canada.

From our perspective, it's really important not just to prevent the piling on, but to ensure that regulations are risk appropriate and do what they're supposed to do, and that our regulators interface with their international counterparts to align those where possible.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Did you want to make any comment, Mr. Dandewich?

[Greg Dandewich]

Yes, absolutely. It's all about being competitive. We deal with companies day in, day out that are looking to either expand their operations here or move their expansion somewhere else. There are companies that are comparing us to other jurisdictions, particularly in the United States, but also internationally.

When we start to talk about what is the underpinning for our economy, we take a look at where we are as a city, where we are as a province, and where we are as a federal jurisdiction. When you start to take a look at all the different things that are being put on as an overlay, then it becomes extremely difficult. It has certainly been displayed at the federal level that we want to be able to heighten awareness of Canada as a good place to invest in. There have been some fabulous things done for corporate income tax and the seamless ability for companies to set up operations. When you're trying to compete internationally, there is a plethora of issues that don't really address the opportunity for us to be more competitive. I'm talking specifically down from a municipal level. Once again, we're the first points of contact, and we marshal them through the process so they can make their decisions.

It's all about competition. When I say competition, I'm not talking about incentives. I'm talking about creating the right economic base and making sure that all the different pieces fit, so we can get out into the international marketplace and make sure we can put forward a good value proposition to compete on a level playing field. That's become a bit of a challenge for us. It's about collaboration. It's about understanding where everybody needs to participate. We as an organization are limited in that scope, because we're the ones who take the tools that are being presented, or the economic environments that are being presented, and then sit across the boardroom table to negotiate expansions or attract opportunities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll turn to you, Ms. Hladun, on this question as well.

[Marianne Hladun]

Thank you. I know your question was directed over there, but in light of some of their comments, I wanted to mention one thing. One of the major shippers through the Port of Churchill was James Richardson International, JRI. We believe that OmniTRAX was charging an additional $3 per tonne surcharge to anyone to ship through the Port of Churchill. That was an overall surcharge on anything that went through. That is why we believe that JRI did not sign any contracts to ship grain through Churchill, and that is why our workers after less than two months for some of them to be back on the job were laid off when the grain season was closed and they could not get contracts.

Had it been a port authority where profit was not a factor, we believe the Port of Churchill could be a major player in being competitive and opening up those other waterways.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, before I turn to you, while we're on Churchill, you also presented us with a second paper that wasn't read out, and I want to ask you a question on this.

In the requirements for a port to be port authority, there are two areas that the Port of Churchill doesn't meet. One is having diversified traffic and the other is being financially self-sufficient. You make this point in the paper. You said that one could make the point that these conditions are not currently met, but they could be met if the Government of Canada, Manitoba, and local stakeholders were committed to the port.

You also make the point, and it has been made here before, that it's the only Arctic deepwater port, and it could be the best port location for the Canadian Coast Guard and the Canadian Navy as the north opens up more.

How would you see that happening with those stakeholders, local, Manitoba, and Canada? How would you see them committing to the port, in what sense and in what way?

[Marianne Hladun]

I think that through the establishment of a port authority, one of the most critical pieces is the makeup of the board, because I am not going to speak for the local residents of Churchill, just as I'm not going to speak for the indigenous communities that are affected by the current corporatization of the port. Putting it into the federal realm allows the community to determine its own fate.

I have to back up. I'm from Canora, Saskatchewan, which is right on the rail line. My dad shipped grain to Churchill, which is 1,100 kilometres away. Now, if he was not retired, he would be shipping 3,800 kilometres on his own dime. This has been a critical port since the 1920s when it was built. We believe if the people who were operating the port had the authority to be able to look at other commodities and other industries, then it could be economically self-sufficient. It could be diversified. Is there an opportunity for the military to come back? Research is huge. Parks Canada is doing some significant research on the permafrost and the environment. If you're talking about clean economies, then shipping through this port is a lot greener than going through other ports.

With the right group working together—local community, province, and federal—we believe all of these conditions can easily be met as they were back in the 1970s, and in the 1920s when the port was built.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, thank you. That's certainly something for us and others to think about.

Ms. O'Connell, five minutes, and then we'll have to draw that to a close.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

My first question is to Mr. Mazier. We've heard this idea of support for family farm transfers in our pre-budget consultations already. Any type of national change might have unintended consequences. I fully support this idea of ensuring that future generations can take over the farming business. Where I'm from, in the GTA, the biggest problem we face with the loosening of regulations around farms and farming is that younger generations are not interested in farming, and it's not viable for them. The family might transfer the property, but then they sell it to a land developer for millions and millions of dollars because in the GTA the housing market is absolutely huge, and there's a land shortage.

In trying to deal with the objectives that you and others have raised, how do we do that while ensuring that the land being transferred is truly used to keep farming going versus it being a tax break to then sell it or no longer farm it, whether it's in the GTA or in other provinces that might have other needs or barriers for continued farming?

[Dan Mazier]

One of these resolutions came from Manitoba. It was from a senior. With the aging population, we're seeing siblings who started farming 30 years ago, and they have a younger sibling who wants to take over the family farm. The younger sibling was in a different job and came back to the farm at 30 years old. That sibling wants to take over from the oldest sibling, but can't. It's possible to buy it from the parents, and there's a hand down from there. The sibling can be actively farming right beside a brother or sister, but can't take over the farm with that break. It has to be parent to child and not sibling to sibling. If they are actively farming, and that's the caveat, then they should be viewed as the same thing, so it's that back to that family farm. I guess that has changed, right? The laws were made back in the fifties and sixties when there were a lot more families and smaller type farms. Mechanization has brought us huge operations, but the family.... Now it's sons-in-law and people who have never even.... They have married into the family as husband and the wife. The daughter and the son-in-law want to take it over because they're part of the farm.

That is what we're talking about, with the true family entity. That's why in my notes I was maintaining that family type of entity.

We've always been criticized, you know, because the corporate farms are not family farms, but I think 90% of the farms in Canada are family owned.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Just to summarize, your point is that it's not an opening up altogether, and so those protections are there. It's the opening up of the definition of “family”, essentially?

[Dan Mazier]

Correct.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.

Part of my next question has been answered. Are you able to quantify the very real and positive impacts, and not only for those 800 people losing directly in the community with the port? When I heard you say things like grocery stores are getting empty and about the price and the cost of groceries, I think that if my colleague, Robert-Falcon Ouellette, who is also on the committee, were here, that's something he'd be raising and be deeply concerned about. Can you quantify how those other communities could be connected? Whether it's groceries or businesses, do you have any statistical information on how many people could be reached if this port was...?

[Teresa Eschuk]

We don't have the numbers. It's something we have on our list to do, but we haven't gotten to that yet.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Sure, fair enough.

[Teresa Eschuk]

I do know that the port does reach the arms of the north. If you want to look at all the communities up there that it could service, then I would say it's the majority of them. Does that help?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Yes, that's fair enough. Like I said, a lot of this question was somewhat answered in response to Mr. Easter's question about the full diversification of it.

[Teresa Eschuk]

The security of the north needs to be looked at. I want to push that they do need a Coast Guard base there. I hope you'll make it a separate entity, but that's another argument. I think it's very strategic that this committee look at the sovereignty of the north, the security issues, and who it services, because that is the bigger picture of the Port of Churchill.

I also want to mention that our campaign was not geared around just our workers who were laid off. It was the community as a whole and the outreach from there.