Finance Committee on Oct. 25th, 2016

[Chris Bloomer]

The submission reflects the potential capital investment from third parties. It reflects the GDP growth and so on. It is an engine of growth for Canada and it will fund a lot of the things that have been talked about today in terms of the tax revenue, royalty revenue, and so on. It is an engine of growth, and we desperately need it.

Where we are now, capital is not coming to the country to invest in these things; it is leaving. We need to be very clear, and that's the recommendation. In this budget we need to be very clear that we're in this business and we need to move it forward.

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

Thank you. I hope somebody was listening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Go ahead, Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I think he was looking at me when he said that.

On that point, the IPCC has said that countries that basically generate the most wealth are able to have the best outcomes when it comes to dealing with climate change because they have more options and more room, so I certainly appreciate your point, sir, and I hope that the government is listening.

Changing gears, though, I would like to first of all thank Mr. McKenna, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Bruyea. Mr. Scott, thank you for your service, and also it reminds me to thank Mr. Ouellette for his service as well. We should be mindful that veterans play a meaningful role in a variety of ways outside of their career service.

I would like to ask you this as a parliamentarian.

This is my second term. In the last Parliament we basically put in a change that would allow for Veterans Affairs to have a more liberal interpretation when they were inclined to not give a benefit because there was a doubt whether that particular benefit was owed, or a doubt as to the amount. I mean that, of course, just in terms of the amount, not the political philosophy.

From your experience, Mr. McKenna and Mr. Scott, in speaking to veterans, has there been any material change in the way that Veterans Affairs Canada conducts itself with people on that marginal line? Mr. Bruyea, you can also jump in there.

[Jim Scott]

I'll take this one.

At the end of the last term with the last government, with Erin O'Toole as the minister, great strides were made to close the gap between veterans and Veterans Affairs Canada. With the new government in place, it's been a huge step backwards.

The civil service is back in control. The Department of Justice has convinced the government to go back to court. I think it's just an evolutionary process of new governments. They have to take command; they can't let the courts be the moral compass. We see a backwards motion, but it took the previous government years and years to get to the same place. I'm not blaming one or the other; it's just a process. New governments listen to the civil service until the civil service bites them, and then they start to direct civil service.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

One of the challenges we have as parliamentarians is that oftentimes we will have hearings such as this, and then we'll ask for solutions. Sometimes it's passing another law, sometimes it's revoking an old program, sometimes it's adding more money to the budget, and we want to be supportive of it. I think one of the key points you've laid out today in both of your testimonies is that even though elected officials such as parliamentarians may want to see these things happen, ultimately their execution of those goals is paramount.

Is there anything else you would add, Mr. McKenna?

[Brian McKenna]

In regard to your question, sir, we're very distinctly aware of one thing. Take, for example, how many times I've had to listen to “there's $5 billion of new spending in the budget”, and that just keeps getting flogged back and forth, but when you study it, you realize it's spread over many years. I can do the math.

On top of that, when we don't adjust the goal posts, it doesn't matter what's behind it. If you can't get through that doorway, if you can't get through the goal posts, all you do is increase the size of the pot that's unattainable on the other side, which then gets returned to the national treasury. When you have $5.4 billion or $5.6 billion over five years, that doesn't mean it's going to be delivered to veterans: it means it goes into the pot that is still as unattainable as it was in a previous administration.

I've heard about the culture change that keeps being talked of, so I'll tell you what I said when I was asked this by the department. I told them that one of two things is going to be true here. If you've changed the culture so much that things are being seen in a new light, then all my brothers who have been previously denied should get a new shot. If they've been denied under the previous culture, then they should get another crack if it's different with this new, more liberal culture, for lack of a better term.

That's what we're dealing with here, but the department is silent on that. I asked that in May, and then the senior ADM who said he would answer it at the last stakeholder meeting didn't attend. That's what we're up against here.

Does that answer...?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

I think all parliamentarians want to see good things happen, but it's just a question of how we do it. You've raised a number of points, and Mr. Bruyea has made a number of points. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I have to cut it off there and turn to Mr. Caron.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I will begin with Mr. Saillant.

Thank you for talking about FRAPRU's expectations. We have actually met with the representatives of the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, the CHRA, and that meeting has helped us see that some proposals, including Permaloge, are quite worthwhile. I learned a lot at that meeting.

There are a lot of expectations with respect to the National Housing Strategy. We are waiting to see what will come of it.

Investments were already announced in the latest budget—$200 million out of the planned $2.5 billion. However, one element has been overlooked, and I would like to hear your comments on it.

In past discussions on affordable housing, it was a matter of ensuring affordability over a period of 35 years or 40 years. With these investments, the government seems to be announcing a change in direction, with affordability being guaranteed only for a period of about 10 years.

What will be the repercussions of that change in direction?

[François Saillant]

The change in direction you are talking about is very real. It happened on January 1, 1994, when the federal government withdrew from long-term funding for new social housing. Afterwards, in 2001, there was a turning point in affordable housing.

I am talking about so-called financially accessible housing, but my big question, in addition to the length, is about for whom the housing will be accessible. What is accessible for you may not be accessible for someone, for example, with a retirement pension or the guaranteed income supplement. What is accessible for you or me is not necessarily accessible for someone working for minimum wage.

The notions of accessibility and affordability are extremely vague. In the past, it was clear that social housing was not for profit, and low-income people would have to pay a set percentage of their revenue—for example, 25%. Now the rules are much more vague. We hope that the National Housing Strategy will put an end to that vagueness and will get back to using much more clear concepts of what housing assistance is.

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

You are probably familiar with Jacques Métras, who was part of the Comité logement Rimouski-Neigette. We had long discussions on the issue of affordability with regard to social housing.

Mr. McKenna, Mr. Scott, and Mr. Bruyea, thank you for your service. It's hard to know where to begin. What you're saying—and it's probably the most powerful phrase that I've heard during these pre-budget consultations—is “civil service has taken over.”

One of the key commitments that Liberals made during the campaign was to ensure that no veteran has to fight the government. That is exactly what is happening right now. That is a key commitment that has been broken. It is not for lack of trying on behalf of the veterans who have been injured.

I was reading an article back in May about the decision to go back to court. It said that the lawyer representing the six Afghan war veterans who initiated the class action lawsuit was ready to drop the lawsuit if there was a clear timetable given by the government. When the government and the minister refused to do that, then it went back to court.

What you're saying is that it's not necessarily the minister who is at fault directly, but the civil service that decided to go forward, and come hell or high water, they'll go to the end on this.

[Jim Scott]

I'll respond, and then turn it over to Sean.

We noticed with the previous government that they were fed information from the civil service and they believed it right up until the point where they took action to research it themselves, and then great strides were made.

I don't fault the new government. I just believe it's a process whereby you go and seek advice from experts, and then the experts will give you data and tell you a legal position. It has failed to work in the past.

I just think that from the lessons learned, we know that we must move on from this. If we were to give two commitments to the soldiers, the first would be a social covenant, so that they know they're wanted and respected. We've already had it in the House, and every member stood for it when the NDP made that motion here in the end days of the last House. The second would be a proper pension, and then I think everything would just disappear.

I will leave it over to Sean to maybe add some words to that.

[Sean Bruyea]

As Jim said, we have a situation of successive governments coming in and immediately running to the bureaucrats. I use the word “bureaucrats” in not the most pleasant of meanings, the definition of “bureaucrat” being someone who puts process over people. Unfortunately, what we have in Veterans Affairs, by their own admission, their own research, is a department of 3,000 employees, fo whom just over 100 had military service.

On top of that, how many of those bureaucrats have actually had any experience whatsoever in disability or rehabilitation? How many program managers or policy advisers have actually worked in those fields to understand what they are creating?

They are creating programs for fiscal convenience and not for addressing the needs of veterans. That's why we see a continual battle over successive governments. The only way we're going to do that is if we have a massive cultural change at Veterans Affairs such that we employ expertise, we employ veterans, and we actually go to the veterans in need and ask them to design a program in concert with government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, all. I will assure you that all of this discussion, these sections—I've noted them on my pad, in terms of the minutes as the discussion took place—will be hand-delivered to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. You can be assured of that.

[Sean Bruyea]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I do have to squeeze in a question here for Mr. Bloomer.

You, in an exchange with Mr. Liepert, talked about Kinder Morgan. What about Energy East? What would that pipeline do, from your perspective, in terms economic growth in New Brunswick, both in the production area and in the refinery area?

[Chris Bloomer]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Obviously, we need these pipelines. We need access to markets on the Pacific basin and the Atlantic basin. We can use Canadian crude to back out imports. We can create jobs, sustainable jobs, for the long term, so it's critically important. We don't need just one pipeline: we need pipelines. We need those projects.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Turning to Ms. O'Connell, and if there are others....

Fred, I know some of this discussion related to you. If you have a point you want to add, raise your hand and we'll let you in.

Go ahead, Ms. O'Connell.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I actually have a question for the Rick Hansen Foundation. I'm very intrigued with your discussion about the accessibility of spaces. I come from a municipal background previously.

I just have a couple of questions. I really like this idea, so I have more technical questions to just wrap my own mind around it.

How much specifically would you require for the fund? The certification is what I'm interested in. Obviously it's just like the LEED program. From your description, that's what it sounds like. Then how would you work with provinces?

I'm from Ontario. The Planning Act is very specific, so how do you actually work with the provinces to ensure that these standards, or whatever the certification program is, are actually upheld? I've seen municipalities try to put in their own scoring, and at the end of the day, if someone building the project doesn't want to do it, there are no real teeth unless it's in the Planning Act. Are you relying on mainly public spaces through municipalities? If that's the case, at least in Ontario, there is already legislation for that. We're already required to do that, and it's the larger public-yet-private spaces that I found were always the ones with the biggest barriers: malls, doctors' offices, plazas, those types of things.

Could you just highlight a little bit of that program for me?

[Brad Brohman]

Yes, we understand there's obviously a building code, and it varies across the country.

The certification program is designed to guide developers, building owners, and landlords to move beyond the code, beyond the minimums, and provide guidance in a uniform manner across the country above the code. In fact, we would look to use the existing world-class accessibility standard that has been prepared by the Canadian Standards Association as the minimum standard, and move beyond that into a tiered system of recognition for greater and greater innovation against inclusive design principles. It would be moving into things that we take for granted but that don't exist in a lot of places.

The idea is that you provide tiers above the code, but that we don't act as the enforcers of the code. That's a provincial responsibility, and they have people who do that Ontario, as you say. We work hand-in-hand with government, and we are working with the Government of Ontario and the Government of B.C. to pilot this. The intention is to work with the federal government to pilot it on a bigger scale across the country and establish the uniform standards.

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

Thank you.

Just for clarification, would the design be similar to the LEED program, in the sense that it's the applicant who pays for the certification process?

[Brad Brohman]

Exactly. We're modelling it the same way.

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

That's how it would be funded in the future, but you would need this pilot funding. I get it.

[Brad Brohman]

That's exactly right.