Finance Committee on Oct. 6th, 2016

[Marianne Hladun]

I'll just add one thing. When you are quantifying the numbers or the people affected by this, if you've not had an opportunity to go up to northern Manitoba and to be in the northern communities, the reality is that they don't have any other options. For 30 people in a small community on the edge of Nunavut on the bay, that is their only point of entry, other than flying stuff in. For 20 people in Winnipeg, we can quantify the number. I think you have to also acknowledge that they have no other options. At this point, they're being held captive by a corporation, for all intents and purposes, and everyone is saying it is not a good corporate partner. They've demonstrated that with us at the bargaining table. They're demonstrating that by, literally, giving no notice to the community that rail service was being shut down, by laying off the workers literally with 20 minutes' notice to the union—we had no opportunity to get there to be with our members when they received the news—and by not speaking to the community and not listening to the community.

Literally, the grocery stores are empty. That is the point of entry for essentials. I know your government does have a northern food strategy and has talked about it. The actions of this one corporation have put this back up on the priority list.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Mazer wanted to add a point.

I've been in Churchill. It's interesting just to pull it up on your iPad and see how far it is from here and how big that region is. Even when you've been there and you go and look at it now, it's interesting.

Mr. Mazier.

[Dan Mazier]

It's quite astounding, that's for sure.

This is a point, as far as the cost to Canadians. For agricultural commodities to be grown on the prairies, it's been estimated that about 30% of costs are to transportation. By the time I grow it on my farm and get it to port, for every dollar, approximately 30% of that cost is towards transportation. That makes us less competitive.

When you start shutting down ports, I like your comparison to how many more kilometres.... That's one of our biggest disadvantages, especially in Manitoba. We're landlocked, so we're very reliant on exports to the U.S. We can get to Minnesota.

The other thing is that when we had the grain debacle in 2013-14, there have been some estimates that it cost the Canadian economy $7 billion. I don't know how you quantify that.

We're being asked how many more dollars we can generate out of that. There was the whole infrastructure.... Those were planned. Those are known railways. CN and CP basically ripped $7 billion out of our economy that year. We didn't need it at that point in time.

Those are the things to consider when we talk about port authorities and giving Canadians the opportunity to develop. We need that federal leadership.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Constant.

[Carolynn Constant]

On the empty shelves, I travelled around up north for a year and a half. Here, a four-litre jug of milk is nearly $5. Well, a four-litre jug of milk is nearly $15 up north.

I mean, in these remote communities, even if the shelves were full, they still couldn't afford it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, thank you.

I have one question that never came up, and maybe, Greg, it might go to you, on Western Economic Diversification. Nobody mentioned their role.

We did have meetings with all of the federal economic development agencies across Canada from each province. Strangely, when we asked them the question on what new resources they need, most said they didn't need any. I think they were wrong on that; they were just shy to ask, I guess.

What's your view on WD? How could it be improved? Does it need to be improved? Is it doing its job?

[Greg Dandewich]

I would say that it absolutely needs to be improved, and I'll put it within this particular context. As for the regional development authorities across Canada, that process is broken, from our perspective. There is no consistency in terms of what happens in western Canada with Western Economic Diversification Canada, what happens on the east coast to ACOA, and what happens with respect to FedDev. I think it's broken.

We used to have a fairly good relationship with WD in terms of partnering with them on a variety of different activities, and as an organization I would suggest that we probably haven't been that active with them for the last 10 years. It's an issue of clarity. What is the process? What are the programs that have been identified so that economic development agencies and jurisdictions can tap into those resources? When we speak with different individuals who are part of, in this instance, Western Economic Diversification Canada, we never get a clear understanding of what the requirements are for agencies such as ours in order to be able to qualify for certain types of support, which are critically important for us.

There are federal objectives that need to trickle down in terms of giving agencies on the ground the capacity to deliver on federal economic policy objectives, and we can't because we don't have the resources to do that. Our typical resource structure has been through the regional development authorities, yet when I talk to my colleagues from the Halifax Partnership or from Invest Toronto, they're dealing with a completely separate set of rules and allocation of resources.

The comments that we have received were, “Well, that's the way we do it in the west, and that's the way they do it in the east.” I said, “Hang on a second here. Is this not a federal program that has been designed to create greater capacity at the local and regional levels in order to execute economic development, thereby creating greater prosperity for the country? If it is, then why is there such a great discrepancy in terms of how programs within the regional development authorities are designed? What are the criteria that have been set?” It's extremely frustrating, to the extent that we were dealing with a variety of industry associations and organizations that are in the same situation. There isn't that clarity, and so what ends up happening is it becomes dismissed as a valuable asset supporting regional and local economic development.

I think it needs to have a review. I think there needs to be a better understanding of how the federal government looks at this from a national perspective, and I think there needs to be a conversation with the organizations that it was set up to support, because that level of dialogue, certainly from our experience, has not taken place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. I now have Mr. Leitch and Ms. Constant. Then, we'll have to close.

[Don Leitch]

I'll be very quick.

I support Greg's comments. I spent 12 years as a provincial deputy minister here in Manitoba. I can tell you that WD used to be the go-to place in all dealings with the federal government. They were empowered to be the window, the door, through which we could interact. The utility to the Government of Canada that WD can provide is that western perspective, that western lens. When you have to go to half a dozen places in Ottawa and you get bounced around, as someone said, it doesn't work. They worked very closely with the provincial ministers and the provincial members out of the provinces. They did it in Saskatchewan as they did in Alberta and in B.C. That system worked extremely well. I think you do have to have some national requirements, but something has gone amiss. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but they have to be empowered to be your collective asset in the provinces, because we do have some differences. We do have some distinctions. They can interpret that for Ottawa. Something has just gone amiss, and I think a fundamental rethink is essential.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much for that.

Ms. Constant, your arm nearly hit the ceiling when we mentioned WD.

[Carolynn Constant]

I just want to make a comment. As far as the elected representatives, their deputy ministers, and their advisers, their hearts are in the right place, but then when it trickles down to the bureaucrats who deliver the programs and make the decisions, that's what happens. We've had a lot of negative experiences from that, so we could take a look at how your bureaucrats interpret an application of the policies that are sent down.

Appointees and the people who made up...should be stakeholders for western diversification. Maybe, if it's not working, it should be people who have a direct interest or a strong interest in the west.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

With that, I think we've had a fairly healthy discussion.

Thank you all for your presentations and your efforts in coming here today. We will be tabling a report in Parliament at the end of November, early December.

I thank each and every one of you for coming. We will break for seven or eight minutes and go to open mike.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll start with Mr. Moist. The floor is yours for three minutes.

[Paul Moist, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Paul Moist. I've been a CUPE member for 40 years. I am recently retired, and I commend to you one of your 400 written submissions that came from CUPE National in August.

It talks about three themes in budget 2017. The themes are diversifying, innovating, and making a more sustainable Canadian economy; public spending, improved public services, and a fairer tax system; and quality jobs and employment protections.

We commend your moves on EI to date, but there is much more that should be done.

Budget 2017 should also eliminate, in our view, PPP Canada. You shouldn't be giving incentives toward so-called public-private partnerships. The $1.25 billion in there should go to the building Canada fund. Manitoba is the only jurisdiction in Canada that has PPP accountability and transparency legislation. The federal government should look at that, and budget 2017 might make that indication.

CUPE's submission talks about the multiplier effects of investment in early childhood education. For every dollar you invest, two dollars in benefits will circulate in the economy.

In addition to a new health accord, we say that federal leadership is needed for a national pharmacare plan. It won't happen without federal leadership, and we could bring costs down for Canadians.

With tax fairness and reform, if federal revenues today were the same percentage of Canadian GDP as they were 50 years ago, then you'd have $40 billion more to allocate to the citizens of Canada. We know people don't want to talk about taxes, but the revenue derived by the federal government is at its lowest mark in 50 years.

As my last point, I want to thank the earlier questioners who asked about labour market devolution. We were the only G7, and probably the only G20 country, devolving labour force development to regional or provincial entities in a time of rampant globalization. It made no sense in a policy framework. The employers across Canada that I dealt with at CUPE for decades all have the same issues. We have devolved labour force development, and the results have been not just mixed, they've been horrific.

Budget 2017 could strike a task force that should include organized labour to talk about a labour force strategy for the 21st century for Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Mr. Moist.

We will turn to Ms. Taylor Anne Livingston.

[Taylor Anne Livingston, As an Individual]

Good morning, everyone.

Thank you, first of all, for the opportunity to speak here today.

My name is Taylor Livingston, and I am a student who is part of the University of Manitoba chapter of Engineers Without Borders Canada.

Engineers Without Borders Canada is an NGO that invests in people and ventures to create a thriving and sustainable world. We have a community of 40 university and professional chapters, and 2,500 active members. We provide seed funding, talent, and mentorship to social enterprises throughout sub-Saharan Africa.

I'm speaking to you today because the Government of Canada has committed to restoring and renewing international assistance to refocus on the poorest and most vulnerable people, particularly on women and girls. Canada has already taken steps to actively re-engage on the world stage.

These announcements are welcome, but Canada's recent levels of development assistance are the lowest for any modern Canadian prime minister, and slight in comparison to our G7 counterparts. They impair our ability to implement the 2030 agenda for sustainable development.

In budget 2017 I'd like to ask that Canada commit to predictable increases to the international assistance envelope of 10% annually to the end of the 42nd Parliament, with a publicly available timetable to double the envelope by 2023 to ensure Canada can deliver on implementation of the 2030 sustainable development agenda.

Making a strong ODA commitment aligns with the ministerial mandate, and ii is a decisive stepping stone toward early progress on the sustainable development goals.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Taylor.

Mr. Josh Levac.

[Josh Levac, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the committee, for hearing me.

My name is Josh Levac. I'm speaking on my own behalf, but with experience as a financial aid manager in post-secondary education in Canada.

I would like to start by acknowledging that the government has already gone to great measures to support access to post-secondary education for Canadians, specifically through increases in grants available to high-needs students, and has promised an increase in support for indigenous students attending post-secondary institutions.

I'm hoping to spark a further interest in you to support our future generations by asking you to consider funding a federal work-study program. A federal work-study program would provide high-needs students with the ability to gain practical work experience throughout their education. The primary focus would be on work to supplement the student's schedule. This focus would allow for a small amount of additional resources to our students in order to alleviate some of the financial stresses that accompany getting an education or degree.

Other countries run programs such as this, and they provide an excellent means to ensure that our future generations are work-ready once they graduate and that they graduate without a significant debt load. I strongly encourage you to consider this opportunity, and I'm more than willing to discuss this opportunity with you at length.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Josh.

Ms. Althea Guiboche.

[Althea Guiboche, As an Individual]

Thank you, all.

My name's Althea Guiboche. I'm the founder of Got Bannock? I'm also known as “the bannock lady”. I'm a regional consultant to the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness. We are collaborating to write the Canadian indigenous homelessness definition. I'm also the manager of housing supports for End Homelessness Winnipeg.

When it comes to homelessness, I understand that the Canadian government is embarking on a national housing strategy. Outside today, it's 3°C. Every year in Winnipeg homeless people freeze to death on our streets or under bridges. It's estimated that there are several thousand people who are homeless in Winnipeg, but in this city of over 700,000 there are an estimated 100,000 who are housing insecure. They are couch-surfing or living with someone else, and they could be on the street in a moment.

We know that it costs more to keep someone homeless than it does to house them. It costs more in health care, emergency room visits, paramedics, and ambulances. We know what improves mental health and addictions: housing first.

We need to understand who the homeless are. The image of them is of someone you don't know. Often we will blame people for their own poverty or homelessness and think that they didn't work hard enough, didn't get an education, or that they don't want to work. People want to work, but the work is not there to be had. It's hard enough for university graduates to get jobs today; imagine being 50 years old with a grade 8 education.

There are homeless seniors, men, and women. There are homeless families, mothers, and children. There are people with addictions and people with mental illness.

There are three areas where we need investment and federal leadership. One is in building housing that is actually accessible to the people who need it; another is in funding job creation programs so that the people who are homeless can earn some money; but one of the most important is mental health funding. We have a public health care system in Canada, but we do not have a mental health care system, and this is critical to homelessness.

There is virtually no public funding for mental health care treatments, and mental health care is critical to homeless people, first because people who have untreated mental illness can lose their jobs and find themselves isolated from family and the community and end up on the street, but also because homelessness makes mental illness much, much worse. The suffering and trauma associated with homelessness can cause a form of PTSD. This is why the federal government needs to dedicate funding to mental health care, both for young people and for the homeless.

Meegwetch. Ekosani. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Althea.

Mr. Anders Bruun.

[Anders Bruun, As an Individual]

Thank you and good afternoon. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the committee and make some very brief remarks.

I am a lawyer in Winnipeg. Yesterday in Regina you heard from two of my client groups, Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance. They made very substantive comments to you at that time. I simply want to echo those comments, as they apply in full measure to Manitoba's agricultural situation. There is no change in environment at the Manitoba-Saskatchewan border, so the comments apply here.

There is one additional point I'd like to make. The Canadian Grain Commission is located in Winnipeg. It employs about 1,000 people. Its mandate historically, since it was set up around 1910, was to ensure that farmers were paid fairly for the quality of grain they delivered and to ensure that Canadian grain was a high-quality product being delivered to our export buyers. This issue is becoming far more important today than it was in the past. No major grain-producing location in the world is further from tidewater than the Canadian prairies. At the westernmost part of Alberta, it's 1,000 kilometres to Vancouver. Going east from the easternmost region, it's 700 kilometres to Thunder Bay and then a trip down the lakes.

Ukraine can sell wheat into Montreal more cheaply than prairie farmers can. That's how crucial that transportation difficulty is. It is so much cheaper if you can ship by ocean vessel and you don't have very many on-land costs, either by railway or trucking. Australia, Argentina, the Ukraine, and the U.S. are the primary grain-producing areas that export substantial quantities. Every single one of those areas has a far shorter distance, two or three times shorter, than Canada has. We're in a difficult position, because the costs of transportation end up all flowing back to the farmer.

The only way to overcome that historic cost disadvantage has been to deliver a high-quality product that can earn a premium. It's rather like Germany; German salaries are such that they cannot afford to make cheap cars. They have to make the Mercedes-Benz and BMW. It's essential for them to maintain their society by producing quality and earning that higher income. Our farmers are facing the same situation. They can't produce wheat that sells for $3 a bushel and that has to be shipped to Vancouver and not go broke. Quality is the driving engine here. If it's maintained, then you can get into markets like Japan, the U.K., and other high-priced markets.

I have two final points. The Canada-China canola issue that seemed to be an annoyance at the beginning of the Prime Minister's visit to China at the beginning of September was an entirely avoidable one. Canada has a habit of adding dockage to its canola. It's valuable for the trade. It's not valuable to the buyer. It's not a good thing for the customer. It's not a good thing for the farmer, either, who is maybe seen to be selling a lower-quality product.

My last point is on Churchill. You've heard everything you need to hear about Churchill from Ms. Ashton.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll have to stop it there. We try to keep these to about three minutes.

I thank each and every one of you for making your presentations from the floor. If you want to have a discussion following, you can do so once we formally close the meeting.

This has been our first week of hearings on the road. I want to thank all of the members. As well, on behalf of the committee, thank you to all of our support staff: the analysts, the clerk, and the people doing the translation and the organization here at the front desk. I do think they've put in fairly busy days this week.

With that, we'll adjourn.