Publication Search

Thank you very much.

First of all, let me say that my community in Surrey, B.C., in the Lower Mainland, and the Punjabi-speaking community across the country from coast to coast to coast are very disturbed and quite angry at the cuts they are seeing. The chat shows or the talk shows that you've just mentioned do not cut it and do not replace the news items that have been cancelled.

I also want to quote from a statement made by you on March 5, 2015:

Holding a...television licence is a privilege that comes with important obligations that are in the public interest, especially in regards to high-quality news coverage and reporting. An informed citizenry cannot be sacrificed for a company's commercial interests. Canadians can only wonder how many times corporate interests may have been placed ahead of the fair and balanced news reporting they expect from their broadcasting system. We expect Canada’s broadcasters...I'll save the rest. You can imagine the rest. We can send you the letter as well.

It is very clear that you have abandoned the very principles you put forward in there, where you specifically talk about news and how that cannot be sacrificed for commercial interests. What changed?

Sorry, Mr. Pelley—

I'm sorry, Mr. Pelley, but we only have seven minutes and we have a number of people.

My question was specifically on what had changed, but as you said, I am going to pass it on to Mr. Sullivan right now.

Thank you very much, and it's good to be here, especially as I have two of my favourite mayors presenting today: my mayor, Linda Hepner, and my dear friend Derek Corrigan as well. Both are recently elected, so congratulations to both of them.

I have a question first for Mayor Hepner. I don't think it comes as a surprise—we have been talking about this for the last number of years—that the City of Surrey is in dire need of infrastructure development, especially when it comes to public transit. We're a city that is fast growing, and we're also a city that is surrounded by bridges. Often in the morning and in the late afternoon and evening, we are in a gridlock. Because of that, I think the timeliness of the projects and getting things moving now is really critical.

We're hearing from cities across the country that they need money for big transit projects now, and that the back-loaded funds provided through the new public transit fund in budget 2015 don't actually address the current needs.

For me, specifically for Surrey, is there an immediate need for transit funding in Surrey or would you consider the back-loaded funds, which will only come two years from now, enough to improve Surrey's ability to meet ongoing transportation challenges? Also, can you comment further on the importance of getting transit infrastructure money out of the door now for big transit projects in cities like Surrey?

Thank you, Linda. I know your passion for the light rail project and your commitment to improving the transit system. As you said, we need it to prevent sprawl but also to address the quality of life for those who live in Surrey and have to travel. I've found that quite challenging even moving within Surrey, because we do have that lack of investment.

Linda, I have a question for you around the P3 infrastructure projects. Do you agree that the rules governing P3 infrastructure projects keep infrastructure investments for shovel-ready projects from getting out of the door in a timely manner?

Thank you for that.

I also want to thank you for saying that each project needs to be assessed, because in B.C. we've seen some P3 projects not being so stellar, where temporary foreign workers were brought in and paid $4 an hour. I know in Surrey our mayor won't let that happen, because we need the jobs for those living in Surrey, and there is a need there at this time.

Linda, with regard to biofuels and clean energy, what other kind of support could the city use so that we can move towards clean energy and protecting our environment? What are some specific projects you see that would really advance moving towards cleaner energy right in Surrey?

Thank you for that—

Thank you very much.

Derek, my first question this time is going to go to you.

I've done a fair bit of research on P3s and their effectiveness. As you know, there is a wealth to read out there and not all of it is good, though. As you pointed out—and Linda did as well—there can be some projects that specifically because of their high tech or their specialization could benefit from such a partnership.

Budget 2015 announced new investment in infrastructure, with funding set to flow through PPP Canada, and a requirement that municipalities use alternative financing and funding mechanisms involving the private sector. It seems to me the federal government is putting down some very, I would say, strict criteria that you're only going to get the money if you do P3s.

Do you think forcing municipalities to exclusively adopt P3 funding models for funding eligibility is the right approach for the federal government to take? Is it the best way to maintain and grow that infrastructure?

Thanks, Derek.

Would you agree that the rules that govern P3 infrastructure projects keep infrastructure investment for shovel-ready projects from getting out of the door in a timely manner?

Thanks, Derek.

My next question is a very short one, and I'm hoping both of you will answer.

Is the process the government's adopting a better mechanism than direct federal funding to support public infrastructure projects?

Thank you.

Do you have a comment, Linda?

Thank you to both of you.

Thank you very much.

I want to thank all of you for coming here to put forward your perspectives.

I'd like to know what each of you thinks of the idea of “[m]odifying the Income Tax Act to allow non-profits to generate revenues not directly related to their core mission”. In the brief we received from the Credit Union Central of Canada, this is one of their recommendations. It has been suggested that:

Current income tax interpretation significantly restricts the ability of non-profits to earn such income and, instead, requires any such revenues to be unintentional, unanticipated and incidental to carrying out its core purposes. This makes it difficult to generate revenues to put back into a non-profit's mission, and it restricts the cash reserves they can build and maintain.

Who would like to start? What are your thoughts on modifying the Income Tax Act in this way?

The Chair: Would you like to choose one of the witnesses?

Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims: Let's start with Donald Meikle first, please.

Thank you very much.

Would one of you gentlemen like to jump in?

Thank you.

Did you have anything to add?