Evidence of meeting #31 for Finance in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was service.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

John McKenna  President and Chief Executive Officer, Air Transport Association of Canada
Marco D'Angelo  President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Urban Transit Association
Dave Wardrop  Chief Transportation and Utilities Officer, City of Winnipeg
Stuart Kendrick  Senior Vice-President, Greyhound Canada Transportation Corporation
Stéphane Lefebvre  President, Groupe Autocar Jeannois
Kelly Paleczny  General Manager, London Transit Commission
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. David Gagnon
Serge Buy  Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Ferry Association
Chris Reynolds  President, Air Tindi Ltd.
Maryscott Greenwood  Chief Executive Officer, Canadian American Business Council
Ron Lemaire  President, Canadian Produce Marketing Association
Diane Gray  President and Chief Executive Officer, CentrePort Canada
Bob Masterson  President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada
Veso Sobot  Board Member, Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada
David Sword  Board Member, Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada
Richard Fadden  Former National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister, Advisory Council Member, Macdonald-Laurier Institute
Ghislain Gervais  President, Sollio Cooperative Group
Jonathan Berkshire Miller  Deputy Director, Centre for Advancing Canada's Interests Abroad and Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute

6:05 p.m.

Jonathan Berkshire Miller Deputy Director, Centre for Advancing Canada's Interests Abroad and Senior Fellow, Macdonald-Laurier Institute

Thank you, Chair. I'm happy to be acknowledged as the closer today.

Thank you to the chair and the members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the standing committee during this extraordinary period.

This evening I would like to highlight some reflections, from my perspective, on how the emergence of COVID-19 has heightened some pre-existing risks to Canada's critical supply chains and consequently reinforced the need to deeply rethink not only the self-sufficiency of our supply chain, but also the sources we rely on for such materials.

As my background and expertise focus more on foreign affairs and security, I would like to tailor my remarks around that lens.

First, it is important to reiterate that while we are in an unprecedented time and grappling with a global pandemic, the crisis has also provided a moment of clarity for many countries, Canada included, on the importance of secure supply chains. Indeed, the lockdowns around the world induced by COVID-19 have revealed important weaknesses in supply chains for many multinational companies, including those that are Canadian and that Canadians rely on for critical supplies such as personal protective equipment, or PPE.

Indeed, acquiring PPE and ensuring a stable supply chain has been an enormous challenge for Canada since the pandemic was declared in March of this year. This has been particularly challenging because one of the main source countries for this PPE has been China, where the pandemic originated. Many Chinese companies have been engaged in horse-trading and often disingenuous auctioning of such supplies, in an apparent move to take advantage of an international market for PPE and other medical supplies that cannot be satiated in the near term as a result of the pandemic.

As some have aptly described it, the procurement of supplies in the COVID-19 era has turned into the wild west of procurement practices. Ethics and safety are often pushed to the sidelines in favour of rapid transactions and profit maximization.

Of course, China has not been the only challenge, as was mentioned earlier from other witnesses. There have also been critical strains in our procurement of materials from the United States—a key ally. There will be a time and a place to look back at procurement practices and particular episodes, such as Canadian planes returning from China empty-handed last month.

However, the more essential question that we need to think about, and think about imminently, is how Canada, both our government and our companies, can and should respond in order to emerge from this pandemic with stronger and more reliable supply chains. On this point, I would like to make a few observations and recommend guidance markers going forward.

First, we must prioritize safety in our supplies. This means, as others have mentioned as well, dealing with partners and allies who are committed to transparency, high-quality materials and unimpeded market practices. We can no longer wager bets on supply chain sources that are antithetical to our principles and our interests. More concerning, however, is when this reliance on questionable supply chains endangers our national security.

Second, the COVID-19 era has been instructive, not just as a moment of clarity on these vulnerabilities, but also on the opportunism of many other state actors—and often the state-owned or state-backed enterprises associated with them—that are intent on taking advantage of the economic stress that the pandemic has caused to a range of industries and companies, in Canada as well as our allies. Many such companies have found that their market share and value have plummeted over the past few months.

There are foreign state-backed investors who are voraciously looking at acquiring such companies in Canada and elsewhere at bargain basement prices. One such example would be the recent acquisition by the Chinese gold giant Shandong Gold Mining Co. of the Canadian company TMAC Resources.

Third, the geopolitical lessons from COVID-19—and there will be many that transcend our discussion today on supply chains—necessitate a robust, dynamic, engaged and interests-based rethink of Canada's foreign policy strategy. From my perspective, for example, we can't separate supply chain resiliency from other security risks, be it in the maritime realm, infrastructure building—which has been discussed a bit today—the cyber domain, or the nascent battle over technology, AI and the Internet of things.

As I noted at the onset of my remarks, Canada is not alone in grappling with this challenge, and it will be imperative to work ever more closely with our friends and allies, such as the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the European Union. It will also be important to work with emerging partnerships such as India, ASEAN and so on. Moreover, Canada often underestimates its ability to build resiliency away from non-transparent markets. The imperative to diversify to our like-minded friends and allies in the Indo-Pacific, for example, has never been stronger.

In conclusion, this moment of challenge has brought clarity of purpose and should be seen as an awakening to reorient and rethink the nature of our partnerships and priorities overseas and to build an appropriate strategy to underpin this.

Thank you again, Mr. Chair and members.

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you very much for those remarks.

We will now go to the first round. We're going to have to go tight on five minutes.

Mr. Poilievre, you're up, followed by Mr. McLeod.

6:10 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Thank you.

My question is about the buzzword economy. The buzzword economy is something that has flourished over the last four years, in particular in Canada, where the government announces some buzzwords, and then a whole series of industry groups put those buzzwords in their marketing, PR and government relations materials and turn those materials into generous government subsidies.

We know the buzzwords of the recent past. They have included, for example, “innovation”. If you can put the word “innovation” in your application, you can get a grant from the industry department; you can be part of a supercluster, and you can feast on taxpayer money.

Then we heard the “green energy” buzzword. That was a very lucrative one. In Ontario, it has led to about $100 billion of subsidies for windmills and solar panels, which, ironically, have higher emissions in their entire life cycle than do other, more traditional forms of electricity like hydroelectricity and nuclear, but they had the right buzzwords so they got enormous subsidies.

Now, because, quite rightly, we're concerned about how dependent we are on foreign supplies, the new buzzwords are “supply chain” or “self-sufficiency”, so all kinds of industry groups will plow those buzzwords into their materials in order to get grants and subsidies.

The thing is, grants and subsidies and buzzwords don't make us self-sufficient; they make us more dependent. Anything that has to be subsidized costs more than it makes. Every subsidy the government gives out, it must first take away from productive workers and entrepreneurs.

My question is for Mr. Sword and Mr. Sobot. It sounds to me like the kinds of industrial proposals you're making do not require subsidies and handouts and don't build on buzzwords. Rather, they build on basic free market economics, whereby the businesses are capable of producing something that's worth more than it costs and selling it on the open market without a handout.

Do you agree with my characterization? If so, can you expound on how we can liberate our economy to produce real value rather than just buzzwords and government subsidies?

6:10 p.m.

Board Member, Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

David Sword

I'll take that. I'll go with that first. Thank you for the question. I appreciate it.

What the private sector needs is a clear path to bringing projects forward, and clear, definable goals and objectives. If I could put it in a different way—and everyone can relate to this—if you're going to build a deck in your backyard, there can be stringent regulations around when you bang the hammer, how you consult your neighbours in the neighbourhood, what type of wood you use and how deep the screws go in, but you should know going forward that if you have all the equipment and tools available to you, you can actually go ahead with it. That gets real money, because it's about $2,000 to $3,000 out of your pocket when that happens. We're talking about capital expenditures of $10 billion to $15 billion.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Right.

6:15 p.m.

Board Member, Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

David Sword

It's just a staggering amount of money.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Mr. Sword, you're quite right. In fact, our staff put together the inventory of all energy and resource projects awaiting federal approval right now, and the number is actually $20 billion. Most of it is natural gas-related; there's some oil and some other mining, but $20 billion is just sitting in the queue.

The investors are twiddling their thumbs. The workers are sitting there, waiting around for the phone to ring to hear that their project has been approved. Meanwhile, we hear that we need more industrial subsidies for this latest buzzword-filled idea, when what they could really do if they wanted stimulus is to approve that $20 billion of real projects. Do you agree with that characterization?

6:15 p.m.

Board Member, Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

David Sword

I worked on the energy east pipeline project in support of it. It was a $16-billion private sector investment. Apart from Alberta and the energy sector, the sector that would have benefited second to that would have been manufacturing all across the country. That was private sector money, coast to coast.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

Right. That's real—

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

This is your last question, Pierre. Go ahead.

6:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON

That's real self-sufficiency and real supply chain integrity. You don't need the buzzwords, because it's actually real economic activity.

Mr. Sobot, did you want to expound on that as well?

6:15 p.m.

Board Member, Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada

Veso Sobot

Yes, very much so.

One word that's been bandied about in the construction sector for quite some time is “green”, in terms of infrastructure. Well, the truth is, what we need to do is infrastructure that is necessary for economic efficiency.

What has happened with the term “green infrastructure” is that fewer people are allowed to compete on the same project, which essentially has increased the cost of infrastructure across the country. I urge the government to drop the term “green”, because in effect it has limited competition and increased prices and has not provided the value necessary to justify it.

6:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Mr. McLeod is next, followed by Mr. Ste-Marie.

Michael.

May 26th, 2020 / 6:15 p.m.

Liberal

Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the presenters today.

I was very happy to see Air Tindi and Chris Reynolds make a presentation. I'd like to ask Mr. Reynolds a question.

As he mentioned in his presentation, in the north, air carriers are the lifeline of our communities. They're essential for the health of our people, and they're essential for the safety of our people and our economy. Last month, the government provided the three territories with $17.3 million for the northern carriers, which is a very good first step, but more is clearly needed, as I'm hearing from other companies, from other air carriers such as Landa Aviation.

In Mr. Reynolds' presentation, he mentioned a number of reports. I'd like him to maybe spell out the steps that he would like to see to ensure that northern aviation can weather the health and economic impacts of COVID-19 and keep northerners and northern goods moving.

6:15 p.m.

President, Air Tindi Ltd.

Chris Reynolds

Thank you for the question.

Out of the $8.7-million total grant that went to Northwest Territories airlines, Air Tindi was one of the five, and we were able to get a grant of $1.5 million because we're a scheduled service operator.

Our biggest competitor, next door to us, is Summit Air. They're not a scheduled service carrier, but they do very important work. They fly food up the Sahtu valley from Yellowknife. Because they weren't a scheduled service carrier, they didn't receive anything. They're hurting, as are the tourist operators, as is the land aviation. North-Wright Airways and Northwestern Air Lease, those operators are very much hurting, and food security is in jeopardy in the long term if another phase of airline relief for the northern operators isn't done properly. Really, it's a matter of survival for them.

In the long term—2020, 2021 and 2022—I see government subsidization of transportation costs as the key to getting the exploration industry and the remediation industry back. There's a lot of industry work in remediation programs. Probably as much as 6% to 7% of our revenue last year was from remediation projects, but they're all cancelled. The tourism industry is badly hurt. The air transportation costs in the north are some of the biggest costs, and subsidies for transportation for northern carriers are quite key.

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT

My next question is on the point you made about the wage subsidy. I'm very curious about your perspective on how your company can transition off the wage subsidy without compromising your ability to survive.

6:20 p.m.

President, Air Tindi Ltd.

Chris Reynolds

We can only do that through employment terminations, unfortunately. Right now, I'm expecting that as much as 40% of our workforce based in the Northwest Territories will lose their jobs when the wage subsidy program ends at the end of August.

For us to survive, we have to contract; we have to get small. We have to wait it out, unless there's something else. Unfortunately, you can't gain back the experience needed to fly an airplane to these remote locations; it doesn't grow on a tree. It's very difficult to rebound from that.

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT

I have one last question, Mr. Chair.

Prior to COVID-19, we had some real challenges when it came to pilots and getting pilots to the north. Everybody was trying to figure out how to do that.

What impact is this virus going to have on that? How much is it going to compound that issue?

6:20 p.m.

President, Air Tindi Ltd.

Chris Reynolds

It's not. I can say, from my perspective, that the global aviation shortage for pilots and engineers is over and there's a backlog again.

I'm hoping that some of the good changes the industry made to promote pilot growth and train pilots across Canada who were needed for the world—some of those changes that made conditions better for young pilots—remain. That's our goal. But there's definitely not a shortage anymore.

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT

Thank you.

6:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter

Thank you, both.

I'll turn to Mr. Ste-Marie, followed by Mr. Julian.

Gabriel.

6:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, everyone.

Mr. Gervais, first I would like to thank you for your presentation.

Regarding food self-sufficiency, what assistance can the federal government provide to move us closer to food self-sufficiency?

6:20 p.m.

President, Sollio Cooperative Group

Ghislain Gervais

Attaining food self-sufficiency will require investment in innovation.

It is important to know that operating margins are very slim in the agri-food industry. When something like COVID-19 happens, it is almost a perfect storm because the margins disappear.

We need innovation. To innovate, with robotics and modernized infrastructure, will need significant investments. However, when there is already no leeway, investments like that are more difficult because people cannot afford them. Whatever the situation, it will require innovation.

An agri-food innovation zone could be created. The potential for Canadian agri-food is immense. Canada has 37 million acres under cultivation. The Netherlands, with 2 million acres under cultivation, produces 11.2 times more agri-food value than Canada. An investment in this sector could increase that value and benefit the entire chain.

The potential is huge, and we could be part of the whole agri-food chain. It would have a major impact in all regions of Canada, build confidence in everyone involved and encourage them to invest more. It would have a snowball effect.

It could help to improve Canada's reputation as a supplier of safe and reliable food for its people, and help us continue to expand our reach into export markets.

6:20 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC

Thank you. That is clear.

You said you were hit hard by COVID-19 because your margins are slim. What impact would a second wave have on your industry?

6:20 p.m.

President, Sollio Cooperative Group

Ghislain Gervais

Some companies are already very vulnerable owing to COVID-19. If there is a second wave later this fall, I feel some companies may not survive. That would jeopardize the country's food self-sufficiency, in a sense. If fewer Canadian companies are producing the food that Canadians need, we are putting our food self-sufficiency in the hands of other organizations or other countries.