Agreed.
Evidence of meeting #7 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was infrastructure.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #7 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was infrastructure.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Raj Grewal Liberal Brampton East, ON
You talked about targeted infrastructure, which makes a lot of sense—
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Raj Grewal Liberal Brampton East, ON
—and there were comments about how infrastructure spending that moves goods has a better return on investment, which I agree with.
However, there's also a need for affordable housing and for retrofitting these homes, because a big percentage of the Canadian population needs access to this stuff.
In a similar way, your other slide said that 83% of Canadians don't really need CPP, right? Well, there's still—
9:10 a.m.
Assistant Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
That was additional CPP.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Raj Grewal Liberal Brampton East, ON
Yes, additional CPP. Right. But there's still the 17%, in my opinion, that need benefits from the Canadian government. The government will take a proactive targeted approach to ensuring that we help all Canadians across the board. The mandate letter talks about growing the economy while helping the most vulnerable Canadians succeed, and I fully agree with that.
I'm sorry, but I have to move on. I have one last question.
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'm going to have to cut you both off there and go to Mr. Liepert. We're only about a minute over.
Mr. Liepert.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Lee, I can't help but spend a couple of minutes challenging you on some of your comments.
While I agree with an awful lot of what you say, I have to go back to the beginning of your presentation, where you talked about the number of people who work in the oil and gas industry or in the energy industry or natural resources.
9:10 a.m.
Assistant Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
Natural resources, yes.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
If I used your analogy of who worked in what industry, the only people who would work in the airline industry would be the guys who drive the airplanes.
When you talk about a 5th Avenue high-rise in downtown Calgary being a service sector, the guys who actually are drilling the holes for oil wouldn't know where to drill if it weren't for the guys sitting in the 5th Avenue high-rise. The facts are that in 2014, with 10% of the population, Alberta was responsible for 20% of the GDP. If you're going to go out and make these kinds of statements....
As I say, I agree with an awful lot of what you say, but my view is so coloured after hearing the beginning of your presentation that I would ask you to briefly respond to that.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
Then I want to give Mr. Kobly an opportunity to respond to what I just said, because I think he's going to agree with me and not you.
9:15 a.m.
Assistant Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
I appreciate the question.
My best defence, of course, is this is StatsCan data, using the input-output data as the basis of setting up the NAICS codes. The NAICS is the North American Industrial Classification System, which chops up the Canadian economy into all of the different sectors and subsectors and industries and so forth. This is not my data. This is StatsCan's data. That's point one.
Here is point two. I hope nobody's eyes glaze over at this word “methodological”, but you did raise an important methodological question. If you're in a high-rise tower in downtown Calgary working for an oil company, are you classified in the oil sector, or are you classified in the services sector?
My understanding, and I'm not a statistician at StatsCan, is that if you are working for an oil company with an NAICS code for oil and gas, every last one of you, even if you're a finance accountant in that company, is classified in oil and gas.
It's just like General Motors is in manufacturing. Even though many people might be in marketing or sales rather than on the production line, they're still considered manufacturers.
To answer your question, and to come back to you, the StatsCan data show that 370,000 Canadians, a third of one million, are all employed in upstream areas. That's timber, that's all natural resources, molybdenum, gold mining, the whole bit.
I'm not suggesting that there aren't spinoffs downstream. If you want the full figure, natural resources is 12% of GDP, but remember that 80% of Canada's GDP is in the downstream services sector—banks, education, health care, and so on.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
I come back to the point of who pays for that. It comes out of the fact that the revenue is generated. Your salary is certainly not paid 100% by tuition fees at Carleton.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
It's paid by the taxpayer revenues that come from that kind of industry.
9:15 a.m.
Assistant Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
But I'm not suggesting that gas isn't important.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
I have a couple of other questions. I want to go to Mr. Kobly briefly to ask which one of us he agrees with.
9:15 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Alberta Chambers of Commerce
Since Mr. Liepert is a former cabinet minister in the province of Alberta, I would definitely agree with him.
If you want to take a look at how many people's jobs are affected by oil and gas, look at the unemployment rate currently in the province of Alberta. We are sitting north of 7% in a province that two years ago was sitting at 4.9% and where we had areas in the province that were sitting at an unemployment rate of 2.9%. That's your answer right there.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
I'm not going to take time from you, Mr. Liepert. I'll give you the time back, but I want to comment on that point, because I hear all the time about the unemployment rate in Alberta.
If you look at our unemployment rate in Atlantic Canada, you will see that it has jumped as well, and it's because of what's happening in Alberta. It isn't only the numbers in Alberta that matter. It's also the numbers in the other areas where those workers come from.
Mr. Liepert.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
I have a brief question for Mr. Arango.
You mentioned the sugar tax. I'd like to turn it the other way around. There has been a lot of talk over the years about our doing a lot more to encourage activity, and I think I'm probably correct that as much as heart issues are caused by the wrong foods, they are also caused by the lack of ability to be active.
What's your view on using incentives through the taxation system to have Canadians be much more active?
February 19th, 2016 / 9:15 a.m.
Director, Health Policy and Advocacy, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
For heart disease and stroke, nutrition and physical activity are both equally important. For obesity, it's a bit more on the nutrition side, because if you're overeating, it's very difficult to compensate with physical activity.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Ron Liepert Conservative Calgary Signal Hill, AB
But it's not just overweight people who have heart attacks.