Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 47
View Leah Gazan Profile
NDP (MB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a jurisdictional question. My colleague, Adam Vaughan, was speaking about provinces and the feds. In Manitoba, we often miss out on a lot of the funding opportunities due to the cost-matching requirements—something that our current Pallister government doesn't want to do. This has negatively impacted Winnipeg, for example, in terms of being able to secure adequate housing investment even when we are experiencing severe issues like trench fever—diseases of poverty—and losses to life in our community, which are becoming a regular occurrence in my riding.
How can this be changed to ensure that cities in dire need of housing dollars are not disqualified from funding when provinces aren't willing to participate in cost-matching programs?
Yves Giroux
View Yves Giroux Profile
Yves Giroux
2021-02-16 17:46
That's an interesting question. I would probably make the parallel with infrastructure programs. The federal government partners with provinces and territories for cost matching when it comes to building infrastructure, and some jurisdictions don't have the same means or policy priorities. In these cases, direct federal investment—going it alone—is usually the best way to ensure that some pieces of infrastructure are built that do not require cost matching and that there are federal programs that don't need or require cost matching by provinces.
It also means that the federal spending does not leverage provincial funding, but it's an effective way of ensuring that some needs are met despite what provinces want or do not want to do.
View Michael McLeod Profile
Lib. (NT)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the minister for appearing before us.
I have a couple of quick questions. The first one is around housing.
One of the greatest areas of concern in the Northwest Territories—one that has been made even clearer during the pandemic—is access to safe and affordable housing. Is the government prepared to take further steps in budget 2021 to properly address the housing needs of northerners?
The second question is around an issue I've heard from territorial, indigenous and community governments. They're struggling to meet the cost-sharing requirements of existing federal programs, and COVID has made it even harder. Is the Government of Canada open to providing greater flexibility to ensure that very important projects for our regions are able to move forward?
View Chrystia Freeland Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much for the questions. I'll start with the second then move on to the first.
I do want to thank the deputy—I'm looking at you on the screen right now—for his hard work representing the north. I think we are all aware that the north faces particular challenges always, but especially now in fighting the coronavirus.
In terms of cost-sharing programs and government programs to support the north in the fight against the coronavirus, I'm really glad to be able to say that the Northwest Territories received $30.7 million to support a range of measures that the territories have put in place to protect northerners. This includes, critically, the isolation centres, which are expensive but have—and I will be interested in the member's point of view—been, I believe, a critical element in the defence of the Northwest Territories against the coronavirus. Overall, in the fall economic statement we were able to say that the government has provided $272 million to northern communities and businesses.
Let me just say quickly on housing that it is a key area and it's something that we very much support. We realize there is an acute need in the north. The coronavirus, which of course requires us to be able to have space, has drawn particular attention to the housing need and the housing gap in the north, and as the member knows, our government has also committed to a very strong program to support rental housing construction across the country.
View Catherine McKenna Profile
Lib. (ON)
Good afternoon.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank my team, including my deputy minister Kelly Gillis, and everyone who has been able to put this together virtually.
I am pleased to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities to answer any questions on the 2020-21 main and supplementary estimates (B).
Without doubt, the COVID-19 pandemic continues to have a profound impact on our country, on our health and welfare, on our economy and on the work of the government. Many things have changed since the pandemic began. Although we have tailored our programs at Infrastructure Canada to better respond to it, our priorities and responsibilities remain the same and we are working very hard to achieve results for Canadians.
The supplementary estimates (B) for the 2020-21 fiscal year include items that required adjustments for a variety of reasons, and we are seeking a net increase of $52.9 million.
For example, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we launched the new Canada healthy communities initiative to support community-driven solutions that improve quality of life. To accomplish this, we are seeking $4.9 million of unused 2019-20 funds from the smart cities challenge program for this new initiative. Canadians are adapting to the realities of COVID-19, and this program will help us keep people safe and healthy, support economic recovery and build pandemic-resilient communities.
For the Samuel De Champlain Bridge Corridor project, we’re seeking $48.3 million of unused funds from 2019-2020 to be used for 2020-2021. We are also seeking to transfer $310,000 to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to support mobility and public transportation.
All of this work supports our long-term infrastructure plan for stronger, more inclusive communities and lasting economic, environmental and social benefits for years to come. These are the same objectives as those of our historic Investing in Canada plan.
This plan will be key to getting out of this economic crisis, ensuring our long-term prosperity, and to building a cleaner and more resilient future for all Canadians, who are the foundation of our departmental plan.
Since March 1, under the largest program led by my department, the investing in canada infrastructure program, we've approved over 700 projects representing a federal investment of over $1.2 billion. This contributes to good jobs across the country from planning to design to construction to businesses all along the supply chain.
We also launched a new COVID-19 stream within that program. These projects will benefit from an increased 80% federal cost-share in the provinces, and a 100% cost-share for indigenous projects and projects in the territories. These are projects like upgrading schools or long-term care homes with things like HVAC and physical distancing measures, or building new parks, and cycling and walking paths to help Canadians get outside and stay active.
We're also pleased to see the Canada Infrastructure Bank hitting its stride under new board chair, Michael Sabia, and new CEO, Ehren Cory, with projects like the $815 million irrigation plan for southern Alberta as part of the bank's three-year $10 billion growth plan.
However, it's not enough for governments to simply shovel out infrastructure dollars. It's about the outcomes Canadians get in return. Every taxpayer dollar that is spent will do triple duty creating jobs and economic growth, making communities cleaner and more resilient—meeting our goal of net zero by 2050—and making communities inclusive, so that everyone has a fair shot to succeed.
Every taxpayer dollar that is spent will do triple duty—creating jobs and economic growth, making communities cleaner and more resilient in order to achieve our objective of net-zero emissions by 2050, and making communities inclusive so that everyone has a fair shot to succeed.
In the Speech from the Throne on September 23, we set out our government's ambition to create a million jobs as we recover from the economic shock of the pandemic. Investments in infrastructure are key to that ambition.
We are contributing to our country’s recovery by helping communities get back on their feet, supporting them to get more infrastructure built, creating jobs and building a stronger, cleaner, healthier and more connected country.
Thank you for your attention. I look forward to answering your questions.
Brian Gilroy
View Brian Gilroy Profile
Brian Gilroy
2020-06-19 15:07
Thanks, Jan.
It is clear that the business climate for fruit and vegetable growers has never been riskier. To mitigate some of the risks that our growers take on year after year, the Canadian Horticultural Council is pleased to provide its recommendations for improving the federal suite of BRM programs.
First and foremost, changes to the AgriStability program would have the most meaningful and far-reaching impact for growers. We recommend that the AgriStability program be amended as soon as possible to raise the coverage level to 85% of reference margin, and the compensation rate to 85¢ on the dollar of loss beyond this trigger, and eliminate the reference margin capping.
Secondary measures, such as ensuring that federal, provincial and territorial governments increase their share of the AgriInvest contribution, and program caps need to be increased to reflect the current realities in agriculture.
The effectiveness of the AgriRecovery program needs to be improved. Where catastrophes with long-term business impacts are concerned, the program should be streamlined to provide a timelier response. Narrowing the gap between AgriRecovery compensation and that of other business risk management programs will also help growers effectively recover from disaster situations.
Additionally, the federal government must examine options for enhancing access to production insurance for commodities that currently do not have traditional insurance programs, such as greenhouse growers. Some other crops have available production insurance programs but very low participation rates, and enhancements are needed. CHC has been proactive in working on a concept of recognition of risk mitigation. Many growers actively spread the risk or, in other words, diversify their operations through growing a variety of different crops, multi-season harvests, or growing in different geographic areas. These are just some examples.
Currently, under a whole farm program like AgriStability, diversified farms may not receive adequate coverage for a drop in the value of one or more of their crops if the value of one or more of their other crops has increased in the same program year, in other words, offsetting the risk.
Product diversification and having farms mitigate their own risks should be encouraged rather than penalized through program design. We therefore encourage the government to establish comprehensive and equitable insurance coverage by considering the individual risk profiles of farms.
CHC has submitted a proposal under the AgriRisk programs to explore developing a whole farm, grower paid, top-up insurance product for horticulture growers, which would address the gap in coverage and serve as a complement to AgriStability and AgriInsurance.
To ensure the long-term stability and growth of Canada's agricultural sector and edible horticulture in particular, a stronger partnership between the federal government, provinces and territories, and industry experts is needed to develop meaningful business risk management programs for growers. It is time for the Canadian agricultural partnership to become more than words.
Current funding envelopes hinder imaginative discussions to changing program policies and structures. If the Canadian government is serious about prioritizing agriculture as a key economic driver, then it needs to be prepared to make program changes based on demonstrated needs and gaps, rather than limiting itself to small adjustments with rigid existing funding allocations.
We look forward to working with the federal government on solutions for our sector. The agricultural sector plays a critical role in Canada's economy, and we believe it can be a big part of the economic recovery.
Thank you.
View Tim Louis Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you. I appreciate it.
Here's a quick question for you, Mr. Slade, in the same vein. Provinces are stepping up in different ways as well. We know that this is a cost-sharing program. Can you say whether certain provinces are stepping up, more and less? Is there a bit of a scale there as well?
Peter Slade
View Peter Slade Profile
Peter Slade
2020-06-17 17:49
Obviously, we'll be seeing certain provinces.... In terms of AgriRecovery, most western provinces are stepping up to match the federal government's spending on that. There seems to be a fairly wide degree of buy-in from all provinces.
Mr. Bourgeois has perhaps a different perspective on that. I'm not too familiar with the Atlantic provinces. In western Canada, certainly, I think there's broad provincial support.
View Adam Vaughan Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you very much.
I have a couple of questions for Mr. Richter.
There has been discussion about not imposing standards on provinces when federal and provincial agreements are signed. You're from Alberta. The Alberta government has refused to spend federal dollars because they have to match them, and as a result, no dollars are being spent.
Is there a risk to not demanding federal standards to add new money to housing systems to create new housing? If we don't put that in place, is there a risk that we simply displace provincial housing and we sustain the status quo?
Tim Richter
View Tim Richter Profile
Tim Richter
2020-06-08 14:57
Yes, I think there's a risk that federal dollars would end up displacing provincial dollars, and then that benefit is negligible.
View Brad Vis Profile
CPC (BC)
Okay. Thank you for your testimony today.
I will turn Big Brothers now. Mr. Chater, thank you for being at this committee today as well.
I'm very concerned to hear about the $21-million shortfall that Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada has. Like all Canadians, we really honour the work you do.
In my riding, in 2017, we had a flash flood and there was some federal matching involved in donations to the Red Cross. Would Big Brothers Big Sisters be open to the idea of a federal matching program to incentivize Canadians with the means to support charities such as yours and other similar charities?
Matthew Chater
View Matthew Chater Profile
Matthew Chater
2020-06-04 17:01
I like that idea, and yes, we're certainly open to it.
View Michael McLeod Profile
Lib. (NT)
As we move to economic recovery, we in the north are going to need more flexibility on cost-sharing of projects. We're going to need allocation of recovery programs that are focused on a base-plus type of per capita formula.
Are those things something that you would consider?
View Mona Fortier Profile
Lib. (ON)
Currently we're still providing emergency supports to businesses, Canadians, to weather this crisis and make sure we continue to flatten the curve. I know that in northern communities it's a good story for now, but we can't let that go. We have to make sure we are in the best position possible when we start recovery.
I believe that at this time we are concentrating on making sure we support all Canadians, businesses and workers, and when due time comes and we have better certainty of what will be the next steps, we will be able to bring different options to make sure that we support northern communities.
View Cathay Wagantall Profile
CPC (SK)
Has the minister worked with her provincial counterparts to secure a short-term cost-sharing agreement to reduce premiums where price insurance already exists?
Results: 1 - 15 of 47 | Page: 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data