Finance Committee on Dec. 10th, 2020

[Steven Nitah]

If Canada is going to reach its international commitments and reach 30%, that pretty much means we have to double the size of our protected areas across the country. I would liken that to a quantity of land the size of Manitoba.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I have a point of order.

The interpreter is indicating to us that the sound quality is making it hard to interpret.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, Mr. Nitah, could you just hold your microphone fairly close there again to make it clearer.

[Steven Nitah]

Okay, I am sorry to the interpreters.

If Canada is going to reach its commitment to protect 30% of the country, we're at about 15% protected area now, so we need to double that, and that's a quantity of land the size of Manitoba.

I would say that every indigenous community in this country should be able to protect its special places, which are usually highly biodiverse areas, and every one of them can create an economy around that, which supports a local economy and works toward the reconciliation agenda that Canada has.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Sheppard and Ms. Formsma, you talked about the next couple of years, but we know from past pandemics like the Spanish flu that it had a particular impact on lower income people, poor and more marginalized populations, which lasted for over a decade.

Are you worried that the federal government is starting to cut back already on program expenditures at a time when we actually need to be looking over the next 10 years at expanding, providing the supports, as Ms. Tiessen talked about, and ensuring that nobody is left behind?

[Jocelyn Formsma]

Yes. I think a lot is in our submission, but what I will say is that there is always this jurisdictional gap between urban and on-reserve population, and the Inuit in the north as well—anybody who is not.... Métis settlements are covered by the Métis government as well. Each level of government tends to think that it's the other level of government's job to come to take care of the urban indigenous population. Especially during the pandemic, we've had so many conversations along the lines of, “For urban, isn't it the province's job?” Then we've had our network directly talking to the provinces, and they've been saying, “Well, you're the federal government's job”.

We really need to have a national conversation about how we're going to make sure that nobody falls through the gaps. Each level is assuming that the other level of government is taking care of this population.

I just want to ask if Chris has anything to add on that, but that's my main point.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

I'm sorry, but I have just one question left, so I'm going to have to—

[Jocelyn Formsma]

Okay, I'm sorry.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much.

I'll move now to you, Mr. Arango. You talked very eloquently about pharmacare. There's going to be a historic vote—this will be the first vote ever on pharmacare legislation in Canada. It will be NDP Bill C-213 in February, which would put into place the legal framework around pharmacare, including universality, public administration, portability, accessibility and comprehensiveness.

Is the Heart and Stroke Foundation supporting that legislation so that we can put in place the legal framework that would allow us to bring in national universal pharmacare?

[Manuel Arango]

In terms of the policy, yes, we support that. I have to be careful, because the CRA says I can't be partisan toward a particular bill, etc. In terms of the policy that's being promoted through that bill, absolutely, we support that. It's important to put the appropriate legal parameters in place so that this can be done. We're absolutely supportive of anything and everything that moves pharmacare forward in an expeditious fashion.

As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, one of the first really critical steps, in addition to establishing this legal parameter, is allocation of dollars in the next federal budget. We need to have some money in there so that we can allow those two or three provinces—whoever is keen to get out of the gate on this first—to actually implement it. That's a really critical step, in addition to the legal parameters—having some money in the budget.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay, Manuel, we'll have to end it there.

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

We have been given the authority to go with two more five-minute blocks before we get kicked off the line.

We'll start on a split with Mr. Kelly and Mr. Falk, and we'll conclude with Mr. McLeod.

Mr. Kelly.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thank you.

My question is for you, Ms. Tiessen. In your presentation you spoke about many broad economic goals. One of them was ensuring that Canada's current energy needs are met, and also that the jobs of energy workers are protected.

In a previous panel, in response to one of my colleague's questions, the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors pointed out that under this government's regulatory regime, no company would likely ever propose a large energy project with any expectation of success. He was referring to pipelines and oil sands projects and things like that.

These projects are typically built by unionized workers; they use steel that is manufactured by unionized workers and they tend, on completion, to provide some of the highest-paying jobs out there. Could you comment on any concerns you have about the government's policies that are driving investments and the jobs that go with them—which in many cases are unionized jobs—out of the country?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Tiessen.

[Kaylie Tiessen]

That's another very big question.

We do have folks who are experts on the energy industry and the specific policies of this government and previous governments. What I will say is that the prize for us is that people have good jobs, and those good jobs come in many different forms and in many different industries.

We're calling for an industrial support package for the energy sector so that we can continue to meet the energy needs that Canada currently has, and also recognize that we're moving toward some net-zero targets. Those are in place, and we support those targets.

As we're moving through that, we need to make sure that people who work in the energy industry are able to access training and access the same or higher-quality jobs that are available and move toward them. And then, looking at all of the different ways we can produce energy, we need to make sure that investments are made there as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Easter and Mr. Kelly for this time.

I'd like to direct my question to Mr. Arango. In both your brief and your presentation, you mentioned how important the charitable sector is to your organization and how reliant you are on charitable donations. Several years ago I presented a private member's bill that would have given the same favourable treatment to a charitable donation as a political donation receives. It didn't get the support of the House at that time, but you've indicated how important it is.

Can you tell us a little bit about how you think the government could model a charitable donation scheme that would really complement your association?

[Manuel Arango]

For sure.

One thing we have mentioned in our brief is that we need direct support in addition to incentivizing charitable giving. I talked a little bit in my speech about that, about the direct subsidies that we need.

It terms of incentivizing charitable giving, there are many different ways to do it. You mentioned a very important way, which is to treat a charitable donation like a political donation. That would give a significantly better tax credit to donors. There are also many other different ways, including exempting capital gains tax on the donation of private shares and real estate to charities. There's also matching of fundraising by the government. The government could match fundraising by the charities. That's another way to incentivize giving as well. If the government says it will match every dollar you give to charity, that's another way to do it.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

It's a little bit similar to our foreign aid schemes.

[Manuel Arango]

Yes.

There are about six or seven different ways, and the bottom line is that any form of incentivizing giving is something that we deeply appreciate, in addition to direct subsidies.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

You've already mentioned that there's currently a private member's bill on the floor that would exactly address the issue of donating privately held shares of stocks to charity.

Can you tell us roughly what percentage of your income is received from the charitable sector?

[Manuel Arango]

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure I understand the question. Could you just rephrase it, perhaps?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Could you tell the committee what percentage—

[Manuel Arango]

I think I know what you mean—what percentage of our donations come from individual donors?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

That's correct.

[Manuel Arango]

Roughly 95% of our revenues come from Canadians who donate say $10 or $20. It's roughly 95%. The other 5% would be either government or corporate donations. Those really are a small part. It's really the individual donor, the individual Canadian, that we rely on in a big way.