Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 46
View Anju Dhillon Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you so much.
My next question is for Ms. Lalande. You spoke very eloquently about the need for immigrants and the importance of immigrants. I'd like to cite a few statistics. There are currently four Canadian workers for every retired Canadian, but by 2035, there will be only two workers for every retiree. Without immigrants to help support the needs of an aging population, younger Canadians will end up paying more per person to provide the same benefits.
Could you speak to this a bit, please?
Lisa Lalande
View Lisa Lalande Profile
Lisa Lalande
2021-06-07 16:59
It is at the heart of why Century Initiative was established as a charity. It was to raise awareness of the connection of population growth and immigration with our long-term prosperity.
I'm going to let my colleague, Jon Medow, speak on that point a bit more.
Jon Medow
View Jon Medow Profile
Jon Medow
2021-06-07 16:59
Thank you very much.
The dependency ratio, which you referred to, is something we speak about a lot, that is, the number of working people in Canada supporting each person who is retired. Immigration is very critical to address that issue. The topic we're speaking about today, the retention of immigrants in rural communities, is even more significant. What we see is that an aging population and a population in decline is advancing much more significantly in many smaller and rural communities. In fact, there's a divide that's growing between smaller and rural communities and Canada's large cities.
One of the things that's quite important and this committee is addressing is how do we make sure that immigration is really going to benefit the whole country? How do we make sure that the growth in the workforce that we need across the whole country will not just be occurring in Canada's large cities?
We've had a great opportunity today to hear about the implementation of the rural and northern pilot project in Thunder Bay, and I'm really grateful to the CEDC representatives who have walked us through that.
One thing that is good to point out is that these kinds of programs are quite unique in Canada. Internationally, there aren't that many national governments that want to share responsibility for selecting immigrants. Canada's really out ahead in involving communities in the selection of immigrants, and Century Initiative believes that this is a really important trajectory to continue and keep building upon. The opportunity to hear from those who are on the ground doing it is extremely valuable.
View Anju Dhillon Profile
Lib. (QC)
Thank you for that.
I'd like to continue with your organization, Ms. Lalande or Mr. Medow. I have less than a minute to ask you this question. There are some people out there who say, “There's too much immigration; they're taking jobs away.” According to statistics, 26% of people in Canada are immigrants.
Could you please talk to us a bit about this?
Jon Medow
View Jon Medow Profile
Jon Medow
2021-06-07 17:01
Public opinion and public sentiment research that Century Initiative has commissioned has shown a consistent increase in support for immigration. There is an understanding among Canadians of how critical immigration is to the country's future.
Similarly, an analysis conducted by organizations like the Conference Board of Canada is consistently showing the effects of immigration on GDP growth and government revenues, including that critical measure of the dependency ratio, which you highlighted initially. Those are very much supported by immigration. We think there's a recognition of the facts by Canadians.
View Dean Allison Profile
CPC (ON)
The minister said that he'll stay.
Minister, thanks for being here.
Obviously you know about the study we are doing on temporary foreign workers, and agriculture has been raised over and over again in that context—food processing. Food security I think should be key for our country in many ways. COVID just showed us how vulnerable we are when it comes to our food security and our food supply chains.
I met with a group of farmers this week, and I hear over and over again about access to temporary foreign workers, when it comes to the program. My question is not on that. If I had five minutes, that would be the second part.
When we look at 400,000 permanent residents coming in, one of the things I'd like to ask is whether we could get you to champion a national economic immigration program. I believe we need strategies for our critical sectors, and food is one of them. I'm talking to farmers who say, “Listen, we need three people. We're getting one. It's not happening quickly enough.” If we don't plant the food, we can't possibly harvest the food.
I guess my question to you is whether there is any way, when we talk about permanent residence of 400,000, that we could be looking at economic streams. I know we have pilot projects, but I am talking about working specifically with sectors. There are a number of sectors that have said they need strategies so they can make this happen. I would like to know your thoughts on that.
View Marco Mendicino Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Chair, I think there is much merit in what my colleague has put by the way of a question, and I thank him for his advocacy.
What I would say is that we do indeed work very closely, not only with the agricultural sector and farmers—I just recently met with a number of them in Quebec—but right across the economy to create those opportunities, those pathways. Yes, there are some pilots like the agri-food pilot. However, I would also point to the essential workers pathway, which offers an opportunity for many essential workers, in the sectors that my friend referred to, who may otherwise have a harder time staying here.
Of course, we embrace that. We believe that immigration drives the economy forward. It does create jobs. It does create opportunity.
I'm always happy to collaborate with my friend to talk to any of the leaders in his community.
View Dean Allison Profile
CPC (ON)
My final thoughts are on the temporary foreign worker program—and this will come out in our committee report—which has been difficult, challenging and not always timely. I mentioned to the minister that any way we can simplify that to help our ag workers—as has been mentioned today by my colleagues from Quebec—would be greatly appreciated.
I'll leave it there.
Stephen S. Poloz
View Stephen S. Poloz Profile
Stephen S. Poloz
2021-05-18 12:58
Thank you very much, Chair.
Good afternoon to you and to the committee. Thanks for asking me to participate in this study of Bill C-30.
I would offer three points by way of introduction. The first point concerns the context in which we find ourselves. The impact of COVID-19 on people and our economy has been massive. There will be some permanent damage. However, the damage has been mostly limited to sectors that have been shut down. In a typical recession, bad news in one sector usually infects the other sectors through lower confidence. This has not happened this time. I think this is the main reason that the economy has significantly outperformed most forecasts during the past year.
This economic strength has generated a debate around the appropriateness of fiscal stimulus. It has given the government far more fiscal room to manoeuvre than previously expected. However, any major economic trauma will scar the economy. These scars will run deeper the longer it takes for the economy to heal. Scarring manifests itself as a level of national income that would be lower than it otherwise could be—literally forever—and so I therefore subscribe to the view that it makes sense to push the economy harder during the early stages of recovery, because this will encourage business investment and create new economic growth.
My second point concerns fiscal sustainability. A credible fiscal plan in which the level of government debt relative to national income stops rising and debt service costs are manageable meets the minimum—or, we should say, perhaps technical—standard of sustainability. I draw your attention to the table on page 328 of the budget, which shows that these criteria are met. By the way, comparing this table with a similar one from the 2019 budget two years ago demonstrates that this budget does not represent a sharp turn toward big government, as many have said. The planned budgetary expenditure trend line returns to about 15% of national income, just as it was pre-COVID. The budgetary revenue trend line does exactly the same.
There is a legitimate concern that this minimum standard of fiscal sustainability would leave the economy vulnerable to future shocks. Well, that issue is for broader political debate, a debate that I think should acknowledge the challenging fiscal situation in our provinces. When we combine federal and provincial debt together, as we should when considering Canada's future resilience, our fiscal picture is not very different from that of other major economies.
My third point is that there are many ways to build future resilience without government austerity or higher taxes. If we put our minds to it, we can grow out from under our COVID debt burden, just like we grew out from under our World War II debt when I was young. There are many ways in which we could boost our long-term economic growth rate and grow our way out of our indebtedness.
First of all, immigration is Canada's most important economic growth engine, just as it was in the 1950s and 1960s. Anything we can do to make that process more efficient will be a good investment in future growth.
Second, a national child care program, as announced, can also help boost labour force growth. I do hope it can be deployed without delay. This is the sort of program that can literally pay for itself. If we can boost the level of national income by a mere 2% in this way, which amounts to $40 billion to $50 billion more national income every year, then $6 billion to $8 billion will automatically land in government coffers, also every year.
Third, as I've argued before in this committee, one of our biggest untapped sources of future economic growth is to harmonize provincial regulations across the country to reduce interprovincial business frictions. This initiative has about twice as much economic growth potential as the child care proposal, and in fact would cost nothing to implement. It seems to me that finding innovative ways to boost economic growth and avoid raising taxes should be at the top of our list, at this most precarious time, at both the federal and provincial levels.
Thank you, Chair.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Dwivedi, for your great presentation.
You have already mentioned that the amendment would enable funds to be used for infrastructure and economic development purposes.
Are you able to speak a little bit more about how this amendment would help with economic growth and creating jobs?
Garima Dwivedi
View Garima Dwivedi Profile
Garima Dwivedi
2021-05-17 14:44
For example, if a first nation wanted to build, let's say, a gas station or some other economic development type of activity, it could build that using the revenues from FNGST or FNST, and it could get a loan to build that through the First Nations Finance Authority and through the capital markets at reduced rates.
That would generate economic activity.
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank Mr. Watton for his patience and for answering all of our very detailed questions.
My question relates to the intention of this program and these amendments, as it relates to to economic growth and creating jobs. Can you speak to that, please?
Steve Watton
View Steve Watton Profile
Steve Watton
2021-05-17 15:28
Yes, this program is designed to increase access to financing for small business owners who would not otherwise be able to get this sort of financing. A lot of these small businesses are modernizing. We're in a bit of a digital economy. It is a knowledge-based economy, and a lot of the assets and financing, if you will, are softer sorts of costs like intangible assets, start-up costs, inventories, marketing, promotion and websites; those sorts of things. In the past, this program has been used for real property, equipment, leaseholds and improvements.
We're trying to modernize the program and make it possible for more small business owners to access the types of financing in the amounts they require to start up, scale up and modernize. As a result of these changes alone, the expectation is that we would facilitate an additional $560 million and help on the order of an additional 2,900 businesses over and above the $1 billion, and the 5,000 to 6,000 small businesses, that we already do. As a result of that, you would get additional employment, additional economic impacts, etc., and additional positive benefits to society.
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-05-11 16:39
Minister, I do not want to rain on your parade, but many of us had hoped this would be a historic growth budget.
I sent a letter to you, suggesting that we needed comprehensive regulatory and tax reform. We asked you to address the flight of foreign direct investment from Canada. We needed a new comprehensive innovation strategy, not just the same old, same old.
As you know, many economists have lamented the fact that this budget is more about short-term benefit than positioning our economy for long-term success.
I am glad you referred to outside validators, because I have a few of those.
For example, Mark Carney, someone you know well, a former Bank of Canada governor, said, “What we’re seeing in some other jurisdictions is that the focus is more squarely on the growth.” David Dodge, also a former Bank of Canada governor, highlighted “a lack of growth-focused initiatives in the budget.” Robert Asselin, a former top economic adviser to your government, described the new spending as “unfocused and unimaginative.”
Finally, today, a former Clerk of the Privy Council, the highly respected Kevin Lynch, made so many different points. I will just summarize a few of them. He said that the budget “misses an urgent opportunity to rebuild our longer-term growth post-pandemic.” He added that “It does not set a clear fiscal anchor.” Furthermore, “Despite the extraordinary emphasis on stimulus, there is little focus and few measures to rebuild Canada’s longer-term growth.” He went on to say, “Our potential growth will drop...due to weak productivity, tanking competitiveness, and labour force challenges.” He ended by saying, “This budget’s intergenerational transfer of debt and risk is unprecedented.”
Minister, your own fall economic statement and budget betray the reality that as you raise more money through tax revenues and otherwise, you're simply going to spend more and borrow more, but there is nothing to position our economy for long-term growth.
This is a huge let down. Why?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Fast, as you know, I have a great deal of respect for you, as a person, and as a former minister, but I have to very respectfully say that I disagree very strongly with all of your contentions just now.
Let me take them in turn. First of all, when it comes to outside validation of the budget and of the fact that our budget is on a sustainable and responsible fiscal track, from my perspective, there is no better judge than the credit rating agencies, which are paid to assess the credit worthiness of borrowers.
For me, it is therefore really important to underscore for Canadians that S&P, a week after the budget, came out with a very strong endorsement, reaffirming Canada's AAA credit rating, and reaffirming that the outlook for Canada was stable. It really doesn't get better than that.
I would also like to refer members of this committee, and you, Mr. Fast, to the comments of the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz, who was appointed by former Prime Minister Harper. He gave an interview, published today, in which he talked about the budget as being sustainable. He spoke about the conservatism in the numbers that he saw in the budget, and he spoke about the fact that this sustainable plan was put together without a meaningful increase in taxes of any kind. I couldn't agree more strongly.
When it comes to growth and innovation, let me point to three elements in the budget that, to my mind, are absolutely critical.
One is early learning and child care. We have heard from the IMF, Bank of Montreal, Scotiabank, TD, and from economists across Canada and around the world that investing in early learning and child care is a powerful long-term driver of jobs and growth. That is what this budget does. I think that is well understood across the country.
A second really important investment in long-term growth in this budget is the Canada workers benefit. In fact, BMO picked up on how that investment, which supports the lowest paid Canadians, is going to increase labour force participation.
Finally, I want to mention a third really important element, the unprecedented investments this budget makes in Canadian small businesses, allowing them to invest in themselves and giving them support to become more innovative.
View Peter Fragiskatos Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Chair.
Governor, thank you for being here. You shared with the committee in your remarks that you and the bank are foreseeing very robust economic growth in the year to come.
What are some key sources of potential risk, things that could stand in the way of that, things you worry about?
I know it's hard to predict that, but sources of risk are important.
Tiff Macklem
View Tiff Macklem Profile
Tiff Macklem
2021-04-27 17:03
I couldn't agree more, and as I said previously, there is a lot of uncertainty.
As I highlighted in a previous answer, the biggest uncertainty is the course of the pandemic itself. We're assuming this is a very nasty third wave. We are not through it yet. In our base-case projection, we have restrictions being lifted toward the end of May through June. If that gets extended, if there are new variants, if there are problems with vaccines, those will all have consequences for our economic outlook.
Beyond the pandemic itself, there are a number of uncertainties. I highlighted, in a previous answer, that the U.S. economy is doing well. We expect we will get some positive spillover effects from that. That will boost our exports, but there are risks to our exports. To be frank, we've been disappointed in the past.
Certainly, if the Canadian dollar were to be materially stronger, that could undermine the competitiveness of our exports and create a new headwind for our exports. There are also some risks with respect to protectionism. The U.S. has a buy America program. Hopefully, Canada and the U.S. can sit down and work this out, so that we can have an integrated North American market, but if there were new protectionist measures that limited our access to the U.S. market, for example, that would also dampen our exports.
To date, corporate bankruptcies have actually been quite low. That has a lot to do with the various supports that have been provided, but there's no question that there are many companies just hanging on. It gets back a bit to my earlier risk with respect to the pandemic. The sooner we can get through this and we can gradually reopen the economy in a safe way, those businesses can restart, but if that gets delayed, there are risks that bankruptcies could increase.
There are a number of upsides, as I mentioned. There are a lot of accumulated savings. That creates some upside risks. The U.S. economy is strong, but there are downside risks, and we're certainly weighing both of those. We will be assessing how those evolve going forward. I look forward to coming back to the committee and updating you.
View Peter Fragiskatos Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Giroux and your officials, for being here.
I want to ask you the same question I asked Governor Macklem a few minutes ago, and that relates to impediments to growth posed by risk.
At the end of March, I saw that you and your office forecast that this year, 2021, 5.6% is what's predicted in terms of economic growth for the country. In 2022, that drops a bit to 3.7%, but it's still robust. Those predictions are roughly in line with where the Bank of Canada forecasts things, as we heard earlier today.
My question to you is this: What sources of potential risk do you see that we all need to be mindful of and that could stand in the way of that strong growth?
Yves Giroux
View Yves Giroux Profile
Yves Giroux
2021-04-27 17:26
Like the governor said, I will probably identify the same risks as he did. The biggest risk, by far, is how the pandemic evolves and, flowing from that, how Canadians behave. What I mean by that is how secure they feel to resume what will be the new normal if it is back to where we were pre-pandemic. The recovery will be highly dependent on Canadians' confidence that they can go about their daily lives with travel, going out, etc., without getting sick. A lot depends on how the pandemic evolves.
Another big risk or uncertainty is the level of recovery in the U.S. If the pace of recovery in the U.S. is faster, as many expect, then it will have beneficial impacts on Canada.
Another risk is the risk of faster-than-expected rising interest rates. Faster interest-rate rises could dampen growth by weighing on households and businesses that then have to support a higher burden of debt servicing costs—and governments as well.
I could go on. There are upside risks and downside risks, but these are the main ones that come to mind.
View Peter Fragiskatos Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much.
I don't usually ask the same question twice. It's simply because we had the governor here today and you, and I think it's important to get on the record where both of you think the risk is, how both of you judge it and the sources of potential risk. The fact that your answers line up almost entirely with each another—you gave virtually the same answer, Mr. Giroux, as Governor Macklem did—says a great deal about these factors. They are the key things to pay attention to for us as a committee, so I appreciate it.
With that, I'll turn it over to my colleague Mr. McLeod.
View Annie Koutrakis Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Annie Koutrakis Profile
2021-04-27 17:52
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Giroux, for being with us this afternoon. It's always a pleasure to see you.
We know that economic growth is the best way to deal with rising debt after a crisis.
Do you think the federal government's policy response throughout the pandemic, as well as the measures announced in the 2021 budget, will be effective in generating the economic growth needed to address the pandemic-related debt?
Yves Giroux
View Yves Giroux Profile
Yves Giroux
2021-04-27 17:52
Thank you for the question.
This is a very risky question for me as a non-partisan officer of Parliament. It's difficult for me to answer this question.
My team and I will certainly focus on determining the economic impact of the measures announced in the budget. In particular, we'll be looking at the impact it will have on the economic growth as well as the level of employment.
However, it isn't for me to determine whether or not the measures are appropriate from a public policy perspective. These are eminently political choices. If you ask people of different views, they will have different opinions on how best to generate economic growth. It's a question to which, unfortunately, I can't give a clear and definitive answer.
View Ted Falk Profile
CPC (MB)
View Ted Falk Profile
2021-03-18 11:33
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Giroux and Ms. Yan, for your testimony this morning at committee.
I think that penalizing the individuals who have become wealthy is very short-sighted. I think the government should be focused on creating initiatives and plans for individuals to become wealthy, for our country to prosper and for there to be economic growth and abundance here.
I'm wondering if you can comment on that. Have you seen anything at all from this government that would indicate they have plans for people to prosper and to become wealthy?
Yves Giroux
View Yves Giroux Profile
Yves Giroux
2021-03-18 11:34
That's a broad question. Generally speaking, the best way to increase wealth across a country is to increase the productive capacity of an economy. That could be done in a few ways, but not that many ways.
One way is to increase the number of people who participate in the labour force, by providing incentives to work and join the labour force. Another good way is to provide incentives to increase the capital, the machinery and equipment. Finally, there are measures that increase productivity, and these take a variety of ways, depending on the sector that you are targeting or looking at. These are generally the main ways of increasing the wealth of a nation.
As to whether we have seen that many initiatives from the government, that's an area that's probably highly sensitive politically and policy-wise, so I'll let each and every one of you be the judge of that, because different persons may have different perspectives on that. By that, I mean that some investments that are socially oriented might increase productivity in the economy, while others could be reducing the productive capacity of an economy, and not all investments are created equal.
Ian Lee
View Ian Lee Profile
Ian Lee
2021-03-18 12:11
Thank you, Mr. Easter.
I apologize for the technological hiccup. I do have a very high-speed connection, I assure you. I have Bell Fibe.
I want to thank the finance committee for inviting me to appear.
My disclosure is that, first, I do not belong to or donate to any political party, nor allow lawn signs on my lawn at all. Second, I do not consult to any company. I am paid by Carleton; that's who pays me.
Approximately 50 years ago, a very distinguished liberal professor of economics, Professor Arthur Okun, adviser to President John F. Kennedy, wrote a small monograph that became very influential. I studied it during my Ph.D. studies 30 years later. It was called Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff.
Professor Okun argued that almost every last public policy decision involves a trade-off between these two fundamental values, which could be understood, he said, as—to use synonyms—rights versus markets or equality versus efficiency. While most understand the idea of equality or equity today, or what some call “social justice”, the idea of efficiency or markets seems to be less and less well understood with the passage of time. “Efficiency” was the catchword that Professor Okun used to signify markets, economic growth, productivity, standard of living, jobs, or what Adam Smith characterized 300 years ago even more succinctly as simply “the wealth of nations”.
Restated using Professor Okun's phrases—and to be fair, I may be contradicting Professor Okun a little bit—equality requires efficiency; equality requires markets; equality requires growth, just as efficiency requires equality or equity if markets are to succeed. To state it even more bluntly, rights need markets if rights are to be achieved, while markets need rights to succeed.
Some may disagree. You can see the fact that I have travelled and taught, for 30 years, over 100 times, in developing countries, and I have noticed that remarkable correlation. The countries with the greatest degree of rights are the wealthiest and most successful countries, the OECD high-income countries of the world.
Unfortunately, it's increasingly fashionable among populists to claim that rights and markets, or equity and efficiency, are opposed to each other, antithetical. I am directly challenging the simplistic slogan “people over markets”. You hear it regularly.
Professor Okun understood that equality or rights are not free. Indeed, from Professor Okun's time in the 1960s to our time today, we have developed a much deeper appreciation of how costly policies and programs are to try to develop and achieve inclusion, equity and social justice. This is why we are at a critical point in Canada. The costs of equity have become so very large, and the deficits even larger, that we must seriously discuss, once again, efficiency or growth if we do not want to unwittingly undermine or sabotage policies to continue to offer programs to support equity or social justice.
If that is seen as a little bit extreme by some people, I just want to remind you of the 1995 largest downsizing in Canadian history. I wrote what was, I think, the definitive article on that in How Ottawa Spends.
I turn now to these issues in Canada, and to my criticisms, in order to make my philosophical comments to this point much more concrete.
One, no budget or plan has been presented to Parliament to provide the analytical and policy justification for increasing the debt ceiling. I would merely note that many years ago, in the seventies and eighties, in my previous incarnation in a decade-long career as a mortgage and commercial lender, I lent millions and millions of dollars. If a business owner met me to discuss their borrowing needs and they didn't have a business plan, I told the owner to go away, create the plan, and then return to talk to me about the plan, which was, is, and always will be the foundation or basis for credit authorization.
Two, there is simply no justification for delaying the presentation of the budget. The Government of Canada has an excellent digital financial infrastructure for financial reporting and accounting. Indeed, if I may say so, some of my finest graduates from our program over the past 30 years—I've been teaching for 32 years—have entered into the Government of Canada as financial analysts and accountants, and have become very successful at modernizing the now excellent financial and accounting systems. As someone who has lived in Ottawa for over 60 years, and with friends and relatives inside the public service of Canada who are familiar with the financial reporting systems, it is simply inaccurate to suggest that the empirical data of daily, weekly and monthly expenditures in the Government of Canada is unavailable to produce a budget.
Three, there is an urgent need for a fiscal anchor, per the IMF, the OECD, David Dodge, Don Drummond et al. There are many others. Contrary to those opposed, a fiscal anchor is not a lockbox that prevents government decisions. It is a tool of evaluation and accountability for all stakeholders. I understand that no one wants a bad report card. I can tell you that I hate student evaluations if they say bad things about me. I love them when they say nice things about me. But the genius of liberal democracy lies in the myriad of checks and balances that go far beyond mere elections. A fiscal anchor is a critical check and balance of fiscal policy.
Four, concerning the post-pandemic recovery, I urge the committee to debate and discuss whether the stimulus that has already been provided over the past 12 months via income support programs—I strongly supported them, as I think every Canadian did—and that drove the savings rate from roughly 2% to just under 30% is stimulus. I'm referring to the $200 billion. It can be argued that the Government of Canada, perhaps unwittingly and perhaps wittingly, engaged in post-pandemic stimulus with the plethora of income support programs.
Restated, there is approximately $200 billion—per the TD Bank and their economic analysis of only this week—in bank accounts in Canada, waiting for mass vaccination and confidence to return to individuals and businesses before they start spending. What I'm suggesting is that I don't think we need to stimulate the stimulus. However, although I don't think further stimulus is needed, I recognize that a good number of people out there do think that.
If we do proceed with stimulus, I urge the committee to recommend to the finance minister that we shift from consumption and income spending to investment. If stimulus is decided upon, it should refocus from general consumption and income support to infrastructure, and I mean real infrastructure, not mislabelled consumption spending on day care centres or hockey arenas, but investments that enhance the productivity of the economy: ports, roads, rail, airports, pipelines and digital infrastructure.
The economy has not underperformed due to lack of resources. Large numbers of Canadians, and I am one of them...I have been sitting in this house since last March, and 99.999% of my life has been in this house, because I am waiting for a vaccine, along with millions—
View Tamara Jansen Profile
CPC (BC)
I think these are for the finance officials here.
The Business Council of Canada said, “The pandemic ignited an explosion in public spending and debt. The federal debt-to-GDP ratio was 30 per cent before COVID-19 but now [is over] 50 per cent.” They're clear that what we need is an economic growth strategy, rather than a stimulus strategy.
Since we were told by the finance minister that the stimulus package was pre-loaded—that's why we spent so much more than the rest of our G7 partners—are we going to be growth-focused going forward?
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
I will turn to officials, but if it's a policy decision of the government, officials can't answer that. They can answer questions on things that are in Bill C-14, but if it's a policy position of the government, we can't expect officials to answer to that, and I think that's one.
Go to your next question, Ms. Jansen.
View Francesco Sorbara Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Longfield.
Welcome, Deputy Minister, to the committee again, and thank you for availing yourself.
I wanted to get to the aspect of digitization. You came back today, and we wanted some clarification on the finance department's estimates on numbers with regard to digitization, in one aspect. In terms of looking at the overall economy, and even looking at the NextGenerationEU fund that's been set up with a heavy focus on digitization of not only the European economy but how that's paramount for all economies, how important is it that we take a whole-of-government approach working with industry, private sector, charitable and non-charitable sectors in terms of how we view digitization?
Michael Sabia
View Michael Sabia Profile
Michael Sabia
2021-03-09 12:51
It's very important. If we've learned one thing in this pandemic, it's that digitization and digital access is not a “nice to have” anymore; it's an absolute fundamental. I'd go further than that. In terms of the future economic growth of the country, not just digital access in the sense of broadband connectivity but digitization of businesses, the adoption of digital technology across small and medium businesses is absolutely fundamental.
It should be a national priority, because that's where the jobs and Canada's economic growth will come from in the years ahead. It's an area in which, if I can speak personally, I'm particularly interested, in terms of finding the new locomotives of growth for our national economy. This one is hugely important.
It starts with expanding broadband connectivity, because that's intuitive and important. It goes beyond that. It's the capacity of small and medium businesses to adopt these technologies, to have access to the people who can help them do that. There's a whole range of issues here that are important to the future economic growth and well-being of Canadians.
This issue applies very much, and I agree with you, across governments. It very much applies to an earlier question that was asked about how government interacts with organizations outside of government itself. This is something that Canadians have to get serious about, more serious than we've been.
I say that because the challenge of growth facing our economy is the biggest economic challenge we'll have once we get our way through this pandemic. This is something that warrants a lot of time and attention. It warrants a serious look in terms of government policy as to how to enhance what we're doing in this area.
View Catherine McKenna Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much.
I'd like to start by acknowledging that I'm in Ottawa on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe peoples. I'm really delighted to be here with my deputy, Kelly Gillis, and her amazing team.
Good afternoon to everyone on the committee. It's great to see you again.
Thank you very much for inviting me to discuss the importance of investing in infrastructure for Canadians and the role that the Canada Infrastructure Bank plays in our infrastructure plan. I want to thank the committee for undertaking this really important study.
First, I'd like to say that our government is committed to making critical infrastructure investments across the country that will help us build back better, create good jobs, grow our economy, create inclusive communities and tackle climate change.
There is no question that the Canada Infrastructure Bank plays an important role in our plan. The bank has already committed to infrastructure projects that contribute to creating jobs and growth, building inclusive and resilient communities, and helping us meet our climate targets.
By attracting private sector and institutional investors to infrastructure projects in the Canadian public interest, the Canada Infrastructure Bank brings a new approach that will impact how infrastructure in Canada is financed.
There is no question that the Canada Infrastructure Bank plays an important role in our plan. The bank has already committed to infrastructure projects that contribute to Canada’s economic growth, building inclusive and resilient communities, and that help meet our climate targets.
By attracting private sector and institutional investors to infrastructure projects in the Canadian public interest, the Canada Infrastructure Bank is taking a new approach that will impact the way infrastructure is funded in Canada.
The pandemic of the last year has challenged Canadians in countless ways. On top of the impact of the illness, death and public health measures to stop the spread of infection, we're now facing the challenge of building our economy back. The work we do and the decisions we make in the coming months and years will define our country's path for decades to come.
This is why the government is undertaking Canada's first national infrastructure assessment. By mapping out where we need to go, where gaps exist, what needs to be prioritized and how we will finance the investments in infrastructure that we need, we will enable provinces, territories, municipalities and indigenous communities to identify projects of key importance and get them built in the best interests of Canadians.
Let me take a couple of minutes to talk about where the Canada Infrastructure Bank is today. It has entered a new phase of development under a strong and capable leadership team. The bank is committed to developing and executing $35 billion in investments to get maximum long-term benefits for Canadians in five priority areas: clean power renewable generation, storage and transmission; broadband in underserved communities; building retrofits; agriculture irrigation projects to help prairie farmers; and zero-emission buses and charging infrastructure.
As the CIB is an arm's-length Crown corporation, the government sets the policy priorities and the CIB's board of directors is responsible for the organization's management and investment decisions. To ensure the organization's priorities remain aligned with the government's, last month I updated the CIB's statement of priorities and accountabilities. It now includes a target for the bank to invest at least a billion dollars in total across its five priority areas in revenue-generating projects that benefit indigenous peoples.
Additionally, last fall, our government joined the Canada Infrastructure Bank in announcing its growth plan, a clear plan for the crucial next three years. The three-year, $10-billion growth plan will be a key driver of our plan to build back better through its five major initiatives: clean power, broadband access, energy-efficient buildings, agricultural irrigation, and zero-emission buses.
The CIB has taken immediate action to implement its growth plan, first with a $407-million investment towards the largest agricultural irrigation project in Alberta. Recently, it announced an engagement with what is anticipated to be the largest battery storage facility in Canada, working with an indigenous community. The bank is also backing the REM, the largest public transit project in Montreal in half a century, and it's looking at how to expand the capacity of the New Westminster rail bridge in B.C. to boost trade and transportation.
The CIB now has priority sectors, an investment plan and a strong leadership team to play significant role in getting more and better projects built for Canadians across the country.
I am confident that the Canada Infrastructure Bank's investments will help to drive Canada's economic recovery and build the infrastructure we need, in all communities, for Canada's long-term success.
Canada's infrastructure plan is investing in thousands of projects across the country, creating jobs and building more inclusive communities.
Thank you.
Results: 1 - 30 of 46 | Page: 1 of 2

1
2
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data