FINA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Finance

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, October 29, 2003

·

1300

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.))

Mr. Mark McCullough (Executive Director, Alberta Building Trades Council)

·

1305

The Chair

Mr. Herb Holmes (Labour Relations Representative, Construction Labour Relations in Alberta)

·

1310

·

1315

The Chair

Mr. Daniel Preece (Co-Chair and Vice-Chair of Research, Graduate Students' Association of Canada)

·

1320

The Chair

Matthew MacNeil (Principal, Housing Stratecgies Inc., Calgary Community Land Trust Society)

·

1325

The Chair

Mr. Matthew MacNeil

The Chair

Mr. Matthew MacNeil

·

1330

The Chair

Mr. Matthew MacNeil

The Chair

Mr. Norm Mcleod (Alberta Association for Community Living)

·

1335

The Chair

Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Matthew MacNeil

·

1340

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. Matthew MacNeil

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. Matthew MacNeil

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. Matthew MacNeil

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. Mark McCullough

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. Mark McCullough

The Chair

Mr. Herb Holmes

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. Herb Holmes

·

1345

The Chair

Mr. Mark McCullough

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. Mark McCullough

Mr. Rick Casson

Mr. Mark McCullough

The Chair

Mr. Herb Holmes

The Chair

Mr. Rick Casson

The Chair

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Daniel Preece

·

1350

Mrs. Elaine Ho (Co-Chair and Vice-Chair Communications, Graduate Students' Association of Canada)

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Daniel Preece

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Matthew MacNeil

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Matthew MacNeil

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Matthew MacNeil

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Matthew MacNeil

Ms. Sophia Leung

·

1355

Mr. Norm Mcleod

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Norm Mcleod

The Chair

Mr. Norm Mcleod

Ms. Sophia Leung

The Chair

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Mark McCullough

The Chair

Mr. Mark McCullough

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Mark McCullough

The Chair

Ms. Sophia Leung

The Chair

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Mark McCullough

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Mark McCullough

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Mark McCullough

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

¸

1400

Mr. Mark McCullough

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Mark McCullough

¸

1405

Mr. Herb Holmes

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Herb Holmes

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Herb Holmes

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Norm Mcleod

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Daniel Preece

¸

1410

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Matthew MacNeil

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Matthew MacNeil

The Chair

Mrs. Elaine Ho

The Chair

Mr. Daniel Preece

The Chair

Mr. Daniel Preece

¸

1415

The Chair

Mr. Daniel Preece

The Chair

Mr. Daniel Preece

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Finance

---

NUMBER 091

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, October 29, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

·  (1300)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): Order. Pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), we are in pre-budget consultation with the third panel of the day in Edmonton. This panel has witnesses.

    We have, from the Alberta Building Trades Council, Mark McCullough, executive director. Welcome to you, sir.

    From Construction Labour Relations in Alberta, we have Herb Holmes, who is the labour relations representative, and I understand Mr. Tackaberry is delayed or won't be able to make it because of the weather. So welcome to you.

    From the Graduate Students' Association of Canada, we have Daniel Preece, co-chair and vice-chair of research. Daniel, welcome. And we have Elaine Ho, who is the co-chair and vice-chair of communications. Welcome.

    From the Calgary Community Land Trust Society, we now have Matthew MacNeil, the principal for Housing Strategies Inc. Thank you for joining us. Two of your colleagues, I guess, are unable to join us today due to the inclement weather, but I know you can represent them admirably.

    Then we move to the Alberta Association for Community Living and Norm Mcleod. Welcome to you again.

    And for the Canadian Association of Science Centres, Mr. George Smith is apparently on his way. We will start now with our testimony, and when he arrives at the end we will add him in.

    So we'll go in the order of the agenda. We'll start with the Alberta Building Trades Council. For up to seven minutes, this is your time now.

    Mr. Mark McCullough (Executive Director, Alberta Building Trades Council): Thank you. Good afternoon.

    The Alberta Building Trades Council represents about 40,000 members in our affiliated organizations, so we'd like to thank you for this opportunity to make a representation about issues important to Alberta's construction workers.

    This is also in conjunction with and supplementary to and in support of the representation made by our national office in September, as contained in the material I have for you. We encourage the government to continue to work with our national office. They have a good relationship and we'd like to see that continue.

    We have a few subjects we want to cover today: mobility, training, and the tool deductions cost.

    Now, to explain about Alberta, we're a very small population here in Alberta. We don't have the population of Toronto, as an example, but we have an awful lot of work. We've seen in the tar sands an unprecedented amount of work, to the point where, as it says in my material here, with one employer alone, Shell Canada, between their mine site and their upgrader site, we had over 14,000 tradespeople on their project at one time, at peak. We've had other jobs, such as at the NOVA Chemicals Joffre site. They had 5,000-plus people there at peak. At Suncor's millenium project they had over 7,000 people at peak. And it goes on.

    The point I'm making is that with this small population base here and the job demands that are created by these projects, as a community we rely extensively on workers from elsewhere.

    As an example, at Fort McMurray we have, at any given time, people from right across Canada. One of the barriers to bringing people in is that currently the only way a person gets to deduct their travel expenses is if they do not have a permanent residence in the province they come from. So if you have to come from Ontario or Quebec and you have a home there, unless you've sold your home, you can't deduct your costs to come out here to work.

    Construction jobs are not permanent jobs, and that's why we have a very mobile workforce. Jobs last anywhere from weeks to months, and occasionally for years for the same person, but it's not the same kind of circumstance. So we are urging the committee to look at making it easier and removing that barrier.

    We make a couple of suggestions in here. We suggest a direct grant to cover travelling expenses for people who are currently, at the time, on employment insurance, or an employer subsidy program that would reimburse an employer of an EI beneficiary from another province for the expenses incurred in getting the worker to their worksite.

    At a minimum, we suggest allowing workers who accept temporary work in another province to deduct their traveling expenses without having to go through the hassle of selling their permanent residence. We go through peaks and valleys. It suits everybody in Canada that the peaks can be handled by people from elsewhere, and when it's over they can go back or on to the next place that has a boom.

    Another issue we would like to talk about is training and national standards. This is again the way the current structure is, and this is not a fault situation; it's just the way things are. It would remove barriers if we had the ideal situation where everybody trained to the same standards right across Canada. Right now we don't have that. And we encourage the federal government to continue their support for the Canadian Apprenticeship Forum and the Construction Sector Council so that we can continue to work towards a common national standard that would be beneficial for everybody in Canada.

    Another one that we would like to cover off is the deductibility of tools and personal equipment. We feel that our people are disadvantaged, that they are not able to deduct the costs of the tools and equipment and the special clothing they have to use in their livelihood. Just as a salesman is allowed to make a deduction, we think the same consideration should be given to workers.

·  (1305)  

    Just to give you an example, I refer to the coveralls the workers have to buy. We're talking about coveralls that cost more than $100. If you have to have a flame-retardant jacket, that's $400. Other things like that are the tool belts, which are well in excess of $100 for a number of the different trades—and that's not even counting the tools they have. A very small number of trades, such as machinists or mechanics, can deduct for tools, but not any of the others.

    In conclusion, the Building and Construction Trades Department of AFL-CIO has already made a submission to this committee on the underground economy; health care; debt reduction and tax relief; employment insurance and skills development; national security; sustainable communities and infrastructure; and a federal fair wage. We would like to advise you that the Alberta Buildings Trade Council supports the department's position on these issues, and it asks the federal government to work with the building trades to address the concerns relating to these issues.

    Thank you again for taking the time to hear us. We appreciate that, with the weather and everything else, you have made the effort to come out here.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Now, I'll go to Mr. Holmes from Construction Labour Relations, Alberta. The floor is yours, sir.

    Mr. Herb Holmes (Labour Relations Representative, Construction Labour Relations in Alberta): Thank you very much.

    As I mentioned, Mr. Tackaberry is not able to attend, so I'll try to handle this on my own.

    What you're going to hear from me is going to be very supportive of some of the comments made by Mr. McCullough of the building trade. It may be unique and perhaps surprising to you that the Alberta Building Trades Council as well as Construction Labour Relations, which represents the employers that employ the members of the building trades, agree on most of the positions Mr. McCullough has presented.

    We are an association of 150 member contractors employing union members in the province of Alberta in the general construction sector.

    Construction employs approximately 900,000 workers in Canada. In Alberta, we employ over 150,000 of those workers. In a province with approximately 10% of the population in Canada, we employ almost 20% of the construction workers in the country. This is due to the number of megaprojects we've had here and the spinoff effects they've had on residential, commercial, and institutional construction. Although those megaprojects in our tar sands and petrochemical industry have caused shortages, shortages in construction are certainly not unique to Alberta. They are a countrywide phenomenon.

    As we all know too well, in the construction industry, an area that's booming one year may be suffering from high unemployment the next year. Unlike static industries, such as manufacturing, retail sales, etc., where the workforce reports to a fixed work site, the construction work sites move to where the structure is being built. To stay employed, the construction worker must move as well. Often these sites are very remote, and frequently we have to build camps to house the workers because there simply are no facilities for them in the area.

    This has led to a phenomenon in our industry where construction workers are very mobile, and it's also led to their developing skill sets that are quite consistent across the country. We can usually count on a pipefitter from Halifax who's experienced in industrial construction to be able to come out and do the same job for us in Alberta, or for that matter in any other province in Canada.

    The ability to attract workers from an area with depressed employment to an area where workers are in demand is critical to the construction industry. It's critical not only to the construction industry, but also, we would submit, to the continued economic development of our province and of Canada.

    Continued development of the province may be very dependent upon assurances that the workers capable of constructing a project are available during the time the investors wish to make an investment in that province and in Canada. If not, the investors may choose to either delay making the investment or, much more disastrously, to make the investment in some other part of the world. Then we lose not only the construction jobs but also the permanent jobs that would have been created by the development and its spinoff effects.

    Construction workers, fortunately, are generally prepared to relocate on a temporary or permanent basis from an area of low employment prospects to an area of high demand, providing the opportunity is very lucrative for them and the project will be of sufficient duration to employ them and make it worthwhile, and depending on how long it will be before an opportunity for employment will arise in their own current location as well as their economic circumstances at the time.

    The last is the one we consider to be the most critical. They need to have the financial resources to make the move. If they have been unemployed for some time, they may be already drawing employment insurance benefits, or possibly welfare, or they may be relying on some other form of social assistance to get by.

    Large periods of unemployment cause other problems with construction workers as well. Their skills may deteriorate, their fitness for work may suffer, they may not keep up with changes in their trade, and if they're union members, they may find that their health and welfare benefits have run out and their pension contributions may not be kept up.

    It's our position that it makes far more sense from both a social and an economic standpoint to provide construction workers with financial assistance to relocate to an area with work available than it does to support them with social assistance while they remain unemployed in an area with few employment prospects.

    This not only benefits the workers, it also provides substantial benefits to Canadians. It fosters development in Canada by providing the assurances of worker availability to construct new projects and related infrastructure. It saves on the cost of training additional workers when fully trained workers are available in other areas and are prepared to relocate. It saves on the cost to employment insurance to support both the workers who remain in an area where there is high unemployment and to maintain a surplus of workers in an area where there is the potential for periods of high employment followed by periods of unemployment.

·  (1310)  

    In other words, if we could maintain a lower inventory of permanent workers in Alberta, providing we can count on significant numbers of workers coming from other areas in times of peak demand, it would provide more year-round, long-term stability and continuity of employment and earnings for workers in the construction industry, which in turn would assist us in attracting new workers to the industry.

    It helps to contain wage costs that can be driven up during periods of peak worker demand, sometimes to levels that are unsustainable in periods when the demand falls off, thereby hampering economic recovery.

    It helps workers keep up their skills and physical fitness for work and provides opportunities to learn new skills or become familiar with work on different types of construction projects.

    It allows more opportunity for union construction workers to maintain their benefit coverage and to improve their pension plans, thereby reducing some of the strain on social programs that would need to step in to replace those programs.

    It would help to keep Canadians working in Canada rather than increasingly working overseas or our having to attempt to attract foreign workers to meet our needs during peak demand.

    It may also help to reduce the social problems that are often exacerbated by long periods of unemployment in a region, such as gambling, drug and alcohol abuse, crime, etc.

    It's our submission that it would be highly beneficial to Canada and to the construction industry in particular to introduce a program that provides financial incentives to skilled construction workers to encourage them to move, either temporarily or permanently, to other areas within Canada where their skills are in high demand, rather than to remain in an area with diminished job prospects in their chosen trade.

    I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to express our positions.

·  (1315)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    From the Graduate Students' Association of Canada, who would like to start? Mr. Preece.

    Mr. Daniel Preece (Co-Chair and Vice-Chair of Research, Graduate Students' Association of Canada): First I'd like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to present to you. The Graduate Students' Association of Canada feels that graduate students are central to the future economic growth, social cohesion, and community development of Canada. However, the current financial environment is not entirely conducive to maximizing the potential gains.

    We feel that the federal government needs to support graduate students at the highest possible level and provide the financial and political support necessary to ensure both high-quality education for graduate students and the continued success of graduate programs in Canada. Toward this end we have six recommendations for you at this time.

    The first concerns the taxation of scholarships. Scholarships are primarily awarded on the basis of merit and are focused on enabling students to pursue their education. By exempting a portion of the award from taxation, Canada has recognized that scholarships are designed to help students offset the costs of their education and allow them to focus on achieving excellence in their studies.

    However, because of rising costs, the current exemption level of $3,000 is no longer sufficient. In the last year, the average tuition level for graduate programs in Canada increased by 6.8% to $5,199. Coupled with the rising cost of living, the expense of pursuing a graduate degree is quickly becoming unsustainable for the vast majority of Canadians.

    In response, the Graduate Students' Association of Canada recommends that the current tax exemption level on scholarship income be raised to $10,000. Please note that this second number is different from the one supplied in the original brief. After further analysis, which included further discussion with our constituents, we determined that merely doubling the existing number would be insufficient.

    The second recommendation concerns an effective tax regime for graduate students. As an integral part of their studies, graduate students from across Canada perform innovative and original research that often results in a considerable personal expense on the part of the student. Moreover, as the development of knowledge becomes increasingly specialized, the financial cost of performing such research rises and increases exponentially.

    There are significant problems with the current taxation system that serve to provide a disincentive to pursuing a successful graduate career.

    First, we are troubled by the fact that research expenses incurred by graduate students are not tax deductible. A large proportion of a graduate student's yearly income is spent on research costs that are essential for the generation of new knowledge and the completion of his or her graduate program.

    In response, the tax category of educational expenses must be expanded to include research costs. Graduate students must be allowed to use legitimate research expenses to reduce all types of income, including scholarship and personal employment income.

    Second, to recognize the intrinsic role that research plays in a graduate program, the graduate fellowships provided by the federal tri-council must be correctly identified as a research grant in the federal tax code.

    The third recommendation involves investing in the social development of Canada. The splitting of the Canada health and social transfer into two separate packages provides an unprecedented opportunity for the federal government to invest in the future development and cohesion of Canadian society.

    The Graduate Students' Association of Canada recommends that the federal government restore social funding to the level it was at prior to the funding cuts of the 1990s. Moreover, the value of the humanities and social sciences to the future success of Canada needs to be recognized. While almost 50% of all research in universities in Canada is being performed in these disciplines, only a tiny fraction of federal research funding is devoted to these endeavours. As a result, we also recommend that the federal government invest a disproportionate increase in the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council base budget, in the amount of $100 million.

    The fourth recommendation calls for increasing graduate support. While both the Canada graduate scholarships and base budget increases to the granting councils will indeed help the graduate student funding situation across Canada, there still are areas of concern.

    First, the disparity in programs between the three granting councils has yet to be remedied. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the centres for innovation in health research should be given the resources they need to implement a master's-level program separate from the CGS initiative.

    Furthermore, with only five percent of graduate students in Canada receiving funding from the federal tri-council, the investment of the federal government needs to be increased. Additional funding must be allocated to all three granting councils that is specifically earmarked for graduate student support, in order to ensure that a greater proportion of Canadian graduate students are receiving adequate funding to complete their programs.

·  (1320)  

    Fifth, restructure the Canada student loan program to provide effective assistance for graduate students.

    The current structure of the Canada student loan program does not serve the needs of students in advanced studies, and it must be overhauled to become more sustainable. First, the period before which a loan goes into default must be reviewed and extended. Second, the interest-free status for graduate students must be extended beyond current limits. As well, graduate students continuing as post-doctoral fellows or interns should be granted interest-free status as they complete their training. Third, interest rates on Canada student loans must be reviewed and lowered.

    Finally, the needs assessment for graduate students does not reflect a realistic cost of living. Therefore, GSAC recommends the federal government develop a parallel program to the existing Canada student loan program that is exclusively focused on students in advanced studies.

    Our final recommendation is to develop incentives to encourage graduate enrolment in Canadian universities. If the goal of increasing graduate enrolment is to succeed, the federal government must actively participate in the development of incentives and encourage highly qualified people to both attend and complete their graduate programs. One mechanism would be to remit $5,000 of a public student loan upon completion of a master's degree and $10,000 upon completion of a doctoral degree.

    Similarly, programs must be developed that provide research opportunities before an individual undertakes a graduate program. As a positive correlation exists between engaging in research at an early age and success at a graduate level, the youth of today must be given opportunities that will allow them to become leaders of innovation tomorrow.

    Finally, the federal government should also conduct a multi-pronged public awareness campaign to raise the profile of graduate studies and graduate students.

    By implementing these initiatives the federal government will ensure that Canada will develop the numbers of highly qualified personnel we will need for our future's economic and social success.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    From the Calgary Community Land Trust Society, we have Mr. MacNeil. Go ahead, sir.

    Matthew MacNeil (Principal, Housing Stratecgies Inc., Calgary Community Land Trust Society): Thank you for the opportunity to present before you.

·  (1325)  

[Translation]

    Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today.

    The Chair: Welcome to the committee, sir.

[English]

    Mr. Matthew MacNeil: I'd like to first talk a little bit about the Calgary Community Land Trust Society. Our purpose is to acquire and manage donations of land, land and buildings, or money to purchase land for the exclusive purpose of providing affordable housing and homeless facilities, both emergency and transitional housing.

    I believe you've been given our notes.

    Our target clientele are households that are currently earning below the Statistics Canada low-income cut-off, the LICO, which CCRA deems to be appropriate for charitable activities.

    Our founding sponsors are the Calgary Homeless Foundation and the Alberta Real Estate Foundation, and we've received additional support from the Government of Canada, both CMHC and HRDC, for the initiative.

    We've just started. We went through a long study period, and now we're formally incorporated as a non-profit society. It has been about two years now.

    We're governed by a local board of community representatives, listed on page 7 of our brief. A wide segment of the community is involved in this initiative. Our first project is a 28-unit affordable housing development for families earning below the low-income cut-off. It's a partnership between the land trust and Calgary Habitat for Humanity.

    Our first donation of land, thanks to the federal government, came through the SFRPHI program, the surplus federal real property for homelessness initiative, and that was donated to the land trust through an exchange with the City of Calgary.

    As to how community land trusts work to promote affordable housing, there are basically three things they do.

    One, they reduce the land cost of the total cost of housing. If you think of the cost of a home, you have the construction, the actual building, and the land. The land trust pulls the land cost out, so it lowers the cost of housing.

    Two, it promotes affordable housing by preventing the loss of current affordable housing stock, from being redeveloped and turned into other uses or more expensive housing.

    Three, because the land trust is a community organization, it owns that land. It owns that land in perpetuity, so that land will always be available for affordable housing or homeless initiatives.

    Community land trusts are a vital component of promoting affordable housing in communities, either those that are experiencing rapid growth, such as Calgary, Toronto, and so on, or communities that are experiencing significant inner-city neighbourhood decline, such as Winnipeg or Edmonton.

    Community land trusts fill two vital gaps in the housing continuum. If you think of going from homelessness to stable housing, you have emergency shelters, then transitional housing, social housing, near-market, and then market housing. Right now, the two biggest gaps are in transitional housing and near-market housing. Because of those gaps, people who are in the shelters can't get out of the shelters, and people who are in social housing can't get out of social housing into market housing.

    For organizations in communities such as Calgary, land is the biggest hurdle. They can't find the land they need in order to develop a project that is economically viable. That's the niche the land trust is trying to fill.

    We have two current initiatives that we see are vital for the success of community land trusts across Canada. The first one is our application for charitable status. We submitted our application on October 2, 2002. We still don't have word on that. Right now, we understand it's in a policy committee being reviewed. We're receiving absolutely no feedback from the policy committee despite continued requests for information and requests to meet with the committee in person. Our activities are clearly revolving around the relief of poverty, and we're having some trouble understanding why our application isn't at least being decided on.

    The second initiative, which is the brunt of what we're asking the standing committee to support, is a proposal to amend the Income Tax Act to extend provisions currently in section 38 to donations of land designed for affordable housing.

    We have a number of arguments in support of that proposal. First, these section 38 provisions are already being extended to donations of land for ecological purposes. Therefore, it makes sense to extend them to other donations.

    Our proposal is consistent with previous federal Standing Committee on Finance recommendations. We understand that two years in a row the committee has recommended the complete elimination of capital gains and....

    The Chair: Recommendation 35 last year.

    Mr. Matthew MacNeil: It's consistent with recommendations from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities around exploring tax incentives for affordable housing development. It would provide additional support to communities to solve their own affordable housing and homelessness problems, so it fits with the hand up rather than the handout view.

    It supports, we believe, the SCPI and the affordable housing agreement proposals. The affordable housing agreement is designed specifically for low-cost rental, so it's that near-market housing gap, and the SCPI, the round two of the surplus...sorry, the supporting communities partnership initiative is designed around promoting more transitional housing.

    We also find that in the United States land trusts are much more viable. They're much more active and sustainable, because they can acquire a 501(c)(3) designation. Once a land trust has that designation, not only do they not pay any federal income tax, but any donations to the land trust do not incur any capital gains liability and the market value of that donation is 100% deductible.

    So a precedent, while it's an American precedent, has already been established. If we look at land trusts in the States, as I said, they're significantly more viable. Land trusts in Canada continue to flounder. A number of them can't get off the ground, and others have been reduced to filing-cabinet portfolios.

    We've written a number of letters to the federal government. We've received some arguments against the proposal. One is that the federal government cannot circumscribe donations to specific charities. The counter-argument is that those donations are already being circumscribed to ecological organizations, so we fail to see the logic in that.

    There's also the challenge of overcoming or preventing overvaluation of these properties that are proposed to be donated. We understand that in terms of ecological donations there is already a protocol established, so that is readily transferrable to our case.

    We also anticipate an argument about the cost to the federal government because of the lost tax revenue by extending these provisions.

    In terms of the counter-argument--it's the third bullet on 2.2.3--we've done some research, and there are a number of societal costs of homelessness and the lack of affordable housing. What we're saying is yes, the federal government will lose revenue, but it's already spending significant moneys on dealing with the downstream effects of the lack of affordable housing, and those are listed there.

    In conclusion, we believe our requests are consistent with other initiatives currently under way. The benefits of our request are supported by current research and the U.S. example, and we would be more than happy to work with the standing committee to address any concerns or answer any of the questions that are outstanding.

    Thank you.

·  (1330)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    As a point of clarification, before I let somebody else go further, I think I know what you mean by “near market”, but I'd like you, in a couple of sentences, to explain to the committee what you mean by “near market”.

    Mr. Matthew MacNeil: In market housing there is a bottom threshold of what's actually being sold or rented in the community. Near market is just slightly below that. It's housing that the open market cannot provide because of the current economics in a community. A land trust helps to adjust those economics. So it's basically expanding the market.

    The Chair: Now we will go to the Alberta Association for Community Living. Mr. Mcleod, go ahead.

    Mr. Norm Mcleod (Alberta Association for Community Living): Thank you, Madam Chairperson and honourable committee members, for the opportunity to be here to speak with you this afternoon.

    Zuhy Sayeed, my co-presenter, has asked that I express her regrets at not being able to be here this afternoon. Mrs. Sayeed is the president of the Canadian Association for Community Living, and I understand she will be presenting to this committee along with Michael Bach, the executive vice-president of CACL, on November 6 in Toronto. So you'll have an opportunity to hear from Zuhy in November.

    The Alberta Association for Community Living is a family-based non-profit organization representing thousands of children and adults with developmental disabilities and their families. Together we share a dream that began over 45 years ago, a dream of meaningful family and community life for our sons and daughters. This dream lives on today, and people with developmental disabilities and their families remain at the heart of our association.

    More than 40 non-profit community organizations from every corner of the province of Alberta belong to our organization. We are a member of the national federation of over 400 community, 10 provincial, and three territorial associations, together forming the Canadian Association for Community Living. We are also a member of Inclusion International, an international association of 110 countries. We believe families are at the heart of the community, and children and adults with developmental disabilities should have the opportunity and support to grow up in a family, have a home in the community, learn together, work together, develop friendships, and participate in and contribute to the life of their community.

    We are committed to supporting children and adults with developmental disabilities and their families. We strive to ensure families have the support they require or need to care for their sons and daughters with developmental disabilities, that children and adults have access to quality inclusive education, and that adults with developmental disabilities have access to the supports they need to live, work, and participate in community life.

    I'm here today on behalf of the Alberta association to support the submission of the Canadian Association for Community Living. Our organizations applaud the efforts of the Government of Canada that were made in the last budget to assist persons with disabilities and their families. The budget reflected several of the issues the disability community has been calling for. The development of the child disability benefit, the creation of the technical advisory committee, changes to the medical expense tax credit, and investment in early learning and child care are all important steps on the road to inclusion and citizenship.

    There are four priority areas that the CACL submission addresses. The first one is supporting families; the second is a social innovation strategy for community citizenship; the third, a national labour market strategy; and fourth, disability supports.

    The first priority area is supporting families. Over the past several years CACL has been developing and promoting, in collaboration with many other national family related organizations, a national family agenda. The national family agenda proposes improvements to the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Labour Code, the employment insurance plan, and the caregiver/family tax benefit. We believe the Government of Canada should adopt these proposed improvements.

    The second point is a social innovation strategy for community citizenship. There is a need for federal transition funding to renew efforts in all provinces and territories to support people with developmental disabilities to move out of institutions and live as productive and equal members of our society. All provinces have shown that people with developmental disabilities can be more appropriately served in the community at a lesser cost than institutional care. Transitional funding is required to develop community services to enable individuals currently living in institutions to move to the community. Once a community service has been established, moneys that funded the institutions can be freed up to pay for community services at a lesser cost and be freed up to pay for other services.

    The third point is investment in the infrastructure. We encourage the Government of Canada to ensure that new infrastructure investments include provisions for affordable housing and accessible transportation. A number of people with disabilities require accessible and low-cost housing in order to live in the community, as well as accessible transportation to enable them to be successfully employed in the marketplace. We call on the government to ensure that its infrastructure investment includes requirements for accessibility to ensure that this funding benefits all Canadian citizens.

    The fourth point is the national labour market strategy. Persons with disabilities are not included to any great extent in the labour force. Some 70% to 80% of people with disabilities are either underemployed or not employed. They are often not equally considered for employment programs, and frequently programs are designed in such a way as to exclude people with disabilities from participating. There is a wealth of undeveloped talent that people with disabilities could bring to the workforce. The Government of Canada needs to ensure that employment programs are available to enable people with disabilities to receive training and support to enable them to participate as productive members in the workforce.

·  (1335)  

    The last one is disability supports. We have recognized the imminent termination of the current Canada health and social transfer payment and expect that a new Canada social transfer will be announced shortly. We support CACL's request to be involved with the Government of Canada in the development of this new transfer mechanism to ensure, to the greatest degree possible, that this new transfer mechanism appropriately meets the needs of citizens of Canada who have disabilities.

    In closing, in 1997, the federal government, through Human Resources Canada, began providing $3 million annually to fund the community-inclusive initiatives through the Canadian Association for Community Living. This initiative aims to strengthen the capacities of communities to include and support people with developmental disabilities and their families in all aspects of community life. This initiative has supported over 600 projects across Canada. Funding for this initiative is scheduled to stop in 2005. We respectfully request that the Government of Canada renew its commitment to this initiative with appropriate funding.

    Madam Chairman and honoured committee members, thank you very much for the opportunity to present to you today.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    As Mr. Smith has not yet arrived, I think, committee members, when we obtain the brief, we'll circulate it, unless he shows up in the next 15 minutes or so.

    I think we will go to 10-minute rounds, starting with Mr. Casson, followed by Ms. Leung, and followed by Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

    So go ahead, Rick.

    Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you all very much for your presentations.

    Mr. MacNeil, I have a question for you. You say you try to find lower-cost land or you try to lower the component of the land cost in building homes. Are you able to take a donation from somebody who has a very high-priced piece of land? Are you able to take that and broker it, to trade it or to find land suitable for what you are discussing, or can you not do that?

    Mr. Matthew MacNeil: Is the question can somebody donate land and then I can either sell it or...?

·  (1340)  

    Mr. Rick Casson: Yes.

    Mr. Matthew MacNeil: Yes, that is a possibility, as long as the whole agreement between the donor and the land trust is whatever land is in question, whether it is brokered or that particular piece is used, is only used for affordable housing for homelessness.

    Mr. Rick Casson: Do you work with the real estate boards on projects like urban revitalization of some of the older sections of cities that are falling into disrepair? Is that the kind of area you're looking at to get--

    Mr. Matthew MacNeil: Not our land trust, because Calgary has just been booming, and trying to find inner city land is near impossible. But in cities like Edmonton, the Central Edmonton Community Land Trust is focused around the Boyle McCauley area. That is inner city revitalization.

    In Winnipeg it's the West Broadway Development Corporation. They're working in the West Broadway community on just that purpose.

    Mr. Rick Casson: So that's the style of thing if it was.... In Calgary it's not the case, but in others it's used.

    Mr. Matthew MacNeil: Right.

    Mr. Rick Casson: Thank you.

    I'd like to ask questions of Mr. Holmes and Mr. McCullough.

    There's the whole issue of portability and recognition of different standards of apprenticeship, or different provinces recognizing another province's apprenticeship program, and in regard to the issue you mentioned the red seal program. Is that a big issue right now?

    Can just about any trade move around this country and move into another province and work and be recognized as a journeyman?

    Mr. Mark McCullough: There's not an easy answer, and the barriers vary from province to province. For example, the Province of Alberta says if you're going to be a welder in this province, you have to have an Alberta welding ticket. They will allow you to weld for a period of time, such as 90 days. At the end of that time you have to have done the government test.

    It varies from province to province, which is one of the issues, and I use that as an illustration. Can workers come? Yes, basically they can come, but depending on the province they are held accountable to a certain standard. The red seal really helps with that kind of issue.

    Mr. Rick Casson: Is this red seal program being recognized more and more, or is it something that's been there for quite a while? How is it developing?

    Mr. Mark McCullough: It's been around for a long time. It was there when I took my apprenticeship back in the 1960s and 1970s. The problem with the provinces—as a fed, you understand this—is it's like trying to herd chickens: everybody wants to go their own way. There are still a lot of issues around it, so standardization is really important to us.

    The Chair: Mr. Holmes, did you want to add something?

    Mr. Herb Holmes: I just want to say that I think it's a chicken and egg thing. If we can make additional mobility of workers from across Canada part of the financial policy of this government, then I think there will be more incentive for workers to achieve the red seal designation.

    On the other hand, if there is no ability to move from one part of the country to another, they don't have the incentive to get the red seal. If something is developed, I think this will become much more popular.

    Mr. Rick Casson: One of you also mentioned that you felt there are enough qualified tradespeople in the country to meet the demands of the near future, if this movement were allowed to take place and were encouraged. We've heard there's going to be a shortage; the panel just ahead of you indicated there's going to be a huge shortage of trained, qualified people.

    Do you have numbers that back up that kind of statement?

    Mr. Herb Holmes: I just recently read an article—I can't remember the name of the economist—that debunked some of that position that there were not going to be sufficient tradesmen available in the country. We're not absolutely certain, but we had demands in Alberta last year that far exceeded what any economist believed we could achieve. Nine years ago, when we first started doing forecasting in this province, we had about 80,000 construction workers. We believe we could peak out at 120,000 or so before we would run out of workers from across Canada. Last summer we got up to 167,000 workers.

    We continue to be amazed at the number of workers who are willing to relocate and come here as long as the economic conditions are such that they believe there's a sustained demand for them. Our belief is that with a bit of incentive we can draw huge numbers of more workers from other parts of Canada, if necessary, and bring them here.

·  (1345)  

    The Chair: Yes, Mr. McCullough?

    Mr. Mark McCullough: Let me add that one of the distortions is that a lot of people talk about a shortage, and what they're referring to is a shortage to service the plumbing in a house, or to do some framing for a house, or wiring for a house. They're talking about a shortage in the residential sector, which is a huge sector. The reason there are shortages in the residential sector is that their safety record is poor, their hours of work are quite onerous, and their pay levels are quite a bit less than in commercial, institutional, and industrial construction. You're taking a group of people with smaller skill sets, paying them less, and saying, “We can't get these people to come and do our work for us.” That is common right across Canada.

    Mr. Rick Casson: Are you saying that if the dollars were there, the people would be there?

    Mr. Mark McCullough: Yes, but safety is really important. Here in Alberta our safety statistics on an industrial project are 30 times better than the provincial average, and in residential—for example, roofing—they are far worse than the provincial average. So safety alone is a negative factor. You wouldn't want to encourage somebody close to you to go into residential construction, as an example, because of safety, job conditions, and because they work all kinds of hours. The employment situation is such that to get around a variety of issues, such as workers' compensation, they force individuals to become private contractors. It's stuff like that. It's hard to attract people into that environment, absolutely.

    Mr. Rick Casson: As an industry, do you have much input into the schools and training facilities, as to criteria or what the curriculum should look like, when you are training tradesmen? Does any of that go on in the industry?

    Mr. Mark McCullough: Yes. Herb can also answer.

    We have provincial advisory committees and we have input into those advisory committees to talk about what should go into the curriculum. The unions in the industry we represent are also, in the province of Alberta, second in training commitment only to the province. We have over $30 million in infrastructure among our affiliates. Our average training budget fluctuates with our economy. It's from a deduction off the workers' wages and it varies from union to union. It's over $8 million a year that we put into training, so we have quite a bit of input into it that way.

    The Chair: Mr. Holmes, did you want to add something?

    Mr. Herb Holmes: I was going to add that in Alberta we pride ourselves on having a bottom-up apprenticeship program. It's very much influenced by the people on the tools and in the industry.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Rick Casson: There's just one thing more. I think one of you mentioned that mechanics were allowed to deduct their tools. That I think is only for apprentice mechanics, so far. I don't think it applies to all; it's only partially there. It needs more work.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: That was a situation of going partway or no way in. We chose to go partway.

    Go ahead, Ms. Leung.

    Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I want to thank you all for your very interesting presentations.

    First I will go to the Graduate Students' Association, to Ms. Ho and Daniel. As a former foreign student, I always sympathize with students and take an interest in education. You made a very good presentation.

    You talk about developing incentives to encourage graduate student enrolment. I certainly think it's true that it's very important to have more graduate students. Then we have more educated academics prepared for professorial and research work.

    In the meantime, on the other hand, we also know there are a lot of PhDs who, after they finish their studies, tend to leave Canada. Would you like to comment on how we can provide incentives for them to stay to serve this country, where they received their education?

    The Chair: You can start, Mr. Preece.

    Mr. Daniel Preece: I can start.

    One of the things I have mentioned to the National Advisory Group on Student Financial Aid—and it's similar to the remit of $5,000 to $10,000 that I have in my presentation—is to work some sort of remitting of the public student loan after a graduate stays in Canada for a certain period of time.

    I've been talking with NAGSFA about this, and neither of us can think of a good time period. But that's the first measure that comes to mind. It inspires people to stay, especially those who graduate with a high student loan.

    One of the reasons I say this is, I know myself—I have American citizenship—that when I complete my PhD, one of my considerations is to make American dollars to help pay down my student loan quicker. I may or may not come back to Canada. If my wife has anything to say about it, I will be coming back to Canada.

    That's the first idea that steps into my mind, and it's definitely one of the financial issues that I think are probably strongest.

·  (1350)  

    Mrs. Elaine Ho (Co-Chair and Vice-Chair Communications, Graduate Students' Association of Canada): In addition to the financial aspects, of course, international students face several other barriers while trying to come to Canada. One of the problems we've seen is with the Canadian immigration council, who don't go in the same direction as the rest of the government would like to see in terms of importing graduate students to do their studies and potentially stay in Canada as highly qualified personnel. It might be interesting to see what we could do to make sure the same mission is distributed clearly to all aspects of government.

    Another point I'd like to add is that when graduate students come to Canada, a significant percentage of them choose to stay in Canada. Similarly, a number of graduate students who go to study in the United States who are Canadian citizens will stay in the United States as well. Therefore, it's not only important to make sure that international students are able to come to Canada in a very seamless way, but also to make sure that Canadian students are interested in staying within Canada.

    Some of the incentives we've described would, I feel, benefit both parties.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you.

    I know of many cases where the individuals are first generation—maybe the parents are immigrants—but they receive their education in Canada. They feel very patriotic, very loyal. The financial factor is important, but they feel they owe this country. Others go to the United States for their advanced degrees or education, then repeatedly they will come back here. I think that sentiment should be nurtured, and I don't think we should expect young people to be shopping for the best dollar. I don't know. I think young people have different values.

    Mr. Daniel Preece: And I do agree with that. My wife is actually a first-generation Canadian and she is working on her PhD as well. She does feel the exact same thing.

    I think one of the other things that we do have to be aware of is that we need to make sure there are enough positions for PhD graduates upon completion. I understand that we need approximately 10,000 new PhD graduates or faculty members.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: Yes, we should create more opportunity for advancement for PhD students.

    I'm going to move on to Mr. MacNeil. I find your presentation very interesting. You are trying to help to develop more affordable housing for the homeless group. I think you are on the right track. You mentioned your application for charitable status. I guess you applied to the CCRA.

    Mr. Matthew MacNeil: Yes.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: I think you just applied a couple of weeks ago. Did you say October 2?

    Mr. Matthew MacNeil: In 2002.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: Oh, 2002?

    Mr. Matthew MacNeil: Did I write 2003 on there? I'm sorry. It's 2002.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: Okay. That makes a difference. But still, if you are concerned, you have a local MP.

    I help organizations to get charitable status because I believe in the cause. So you're from Calgary. You have whoever is yours.

    Mr. Matthew MacNeil: We've been dealing with Ministers McLellan, Bradshaw, and Mahoney on this initiative. Actually Minister Manley has recently done a round table, and we've spoken with him as well.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: But the CCRA is the one that will issue it. That's Minister Elinor Caplan. It's a different minister.

    So I would suggest that sometime your local MP could write a very supportive letter and in the meantime could call. The office can do all that too. That may help you to push a little bit.

    Now I'd like to talk with Mr. McLeod. I think your talk about disabilities was very interesting. You know this government is very interested in this issue and shows strong support. We have a subcommittee on persons with disabilities.

    Also, your talk about the community transition investment fund was very interesting. You were talking about preparation for disabled individuals and their families. Yesterday in Vancouver we had a very interesting presentation by a group called Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network. I don't know if you know them or not.

·  (1355)  

    Mr. Norm Mcleod: No, I don't.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: We found them very interesting.

    They made some suggestions that perhaps you'd like to comment on. First, they suggest rollovers of RRSPs from a family, and then they propose a registered disability savings plan.

    I just want your comments. These are other suggestions on how to do that.

    Mr. Norm Mcleod: I think there were some changes recently to the rolling over of RRSPs, weren't there? I think there's a limit on the amount, but I thought it was the.... I thought in the last budget there was a....

    Yes, I think that's a good suggestion that families could roll over their RRSPs to their child with disability.

    As to the other one, I'm not sure. I would have to give it some thought, I think. But that would be a good question to raise with Michael Bach.

    The Chair: They were also talking about annuities. They didn't want to go into annuities. They wanted to have lump sums available.

    You may want, as an organization, to consult the finance committee's website and take a look at that testimony perhaps prior to the next week in Toronto. You may want to take a look at that for input, because it was an unusual and novel idea, so it might be worth looking at.

    Mr. Norm Mcleod: What was the name of that group again?

    Ms. Sophia Leung: It was called PLAN—Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network.

    The Chair: They were here yesterday afternoon, when you're looking at our Hansard. They were on October 28 in the afternoon in Vancouver.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: To the Building Trade Council, regarding the deduction of tools, I think that's been discussed in Parliament.

    Now, I have a question, actually. A lot of professional groups—dentists, MDs—they invest a lot in equipment. Does that apply? Would you support them to have a tax deduction on that?

    Mr. Mark McCullough: Are you telling me that dentists—and my brother is a dentist—cannot write off their office equipment? Is that the case?

    The Chair: No, they depreciate it.

    Mr. Mark McCullough: They depreciate it, so they do get to deduct it.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: They don't get to write it off as part of their expenses.

    Mr. Mark McCullough: So if they spend $100,000 on equipment and it depreciates, they get a return based on the depreciation?

    The Chair: It's a deferral.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: It cannot be written off.

    The Chair: It's not an expense, but a depreciation. There's a difference.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: This is what I have constantly heard.

    I have friends who are professionals who say they can't afford to even go into practice. I share the same sentiment. They already have student loans to get their professional degrees.

    I just throw that out as a question.

    Mr. Mark McCullough: I wish I had known that you would have that question, because I would have asked my brother, who I saw yesterday.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: Maybe he has already paid off all his debt.

    Mr. Mark McCullough: He started off with a huge debt as a dentist.

    Ms. Sophia Leung: You see, I'm just saying that we should treat every Canadian equally or fairly.

    Mr. Mark McCullough: That would be a great idea.

    The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.

    I'm going to go to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

    Let me just jump right in on this issue, because I think, Mark McCullough, you've identified an issue that is of critical proportions on a national scale. We've heard about the skills shortage on numerous occasions.

    I think what you're suggesting is some sort of a nationally coordinated policy, almost going back to the days that we used to have, with national apprenticeship and training. Right? Can we go back? Can we make the case that the federal government made a mistake in devolving this jurisdictional power to the provinces, and go back to the idea of a national employment training and apprenticeship program?

¸  (1400)  

    Mr. Mark McCullough: We, as the representatives of workers, would strongly support that. The fiefdoms that have been created and destroyed in different provinces might want to argue against that, but you've seen the results. When they devolved that program, some of the provinces picked it up and others did not, so we have a real hodgepodge across Canada right now.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I think you're absolutely right, and I think you've identified a very important issue for us as a committee.

    What can we recommend? But it may be hard to convince the government of the day to go back to the way it was, because they in effect were the architects of this problem. We've got to somehow convince them that there needs to be a national program, and that there's a role for the federal government in common standards and financial support for ensuring that kind of mobility among the skilled tradespeople in this country, so that we can deal with a pretty serious situation.

    A lot of the time we're talking about focusing on immigration, which is fine. But it seems to me that what you're saying is we might have the capability now within the country, but we don't have the mechanism to transfer people from one region of the country to the other to support them.

    So I think it is a little different from dentists and doctors and professions of that sort. I think we're talking about needing to use public policy as a way of meeting the needs of the nation.

    What will it take? What are we talking about? You say in your paper that it's preferable to have a direct transfer, rather than using the tax system. Are you talking about a lot of money? What are we talking about here, and how could we make it work?

    Mr. Mark McCullough: Typically, using Alberta as an example, the people coming here would be coming from British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and the Maritimes. If you're talking about support to get them here, we're not talking about them needing a first class airfare, because very few people travel that way if they're not on business expense. So we're talking about a reasonable amount of money.

    The people who are travelling and who do come out are people who need work. By definition, they're people who are already unemployed and already facing hard circumstances. So it's a burden on them speculating that they can go to another province, hope that they can find work, and while they're waiting get employment.

    As Herb mentioned, we build a lot of camps in Alberta. But if you're not working in a camp, you have to provide your own accommodation. You will, in any event, until you get a job. So we're talking about laying onto the individual a bunch of up-front costs, yet the reason they have come to another province, whether it's from B.C. to Ontario, or Ontario to Alberta, or wherever, is that they are already facing circumstances forcing them to make moves. So they're already disadvantaged that way.

    So a direct transfer would be much preferable, of us somehow giving a person an allowance to go from Newfoundland to Ontario, or wherever the location of the project is that requires people at the time, or where the demand for people is. That would be much preferable.

    We agree with you on immigration. Here in Alberta, we have a thing called the Congress Board, and we focused last year on people with disabilities and this year on using our aboriginal communities. The latter is our fastest-growing population in Canada, and on the reserves there is typically 80% unemployment, which is a very common number. As a society, we are looking at ways to integrate them, to get them trained and into the kinds of jobs we're talking about. There are a few initiatives.

    We're not opposed to immigration. The way this country is going, we need immigration. But we also need to employ the people who are already here. That is one subset that is really disadvantaged at this point in time.

¸  (1405)  

    Mr. Herb Holmes: If I could comment on that as well, in our industry, both employers and workers have contributed huge amounts to employment insurance in excess of what is actually paid out in employment insurance in this country. There are huge surpluses as a result of that.

    I think it would be an extremely appropriate use of those surpluses to provide incentives to workers to move from one part of the country to another part of the country, rather than continuing to pay people to stay unemployed in an area where they're not needed. For example, providing two weeks of employment insurance payment to them as an incentive to come to Alberta, or whatever part of the country they're needed in at that time, would make a lot of sense.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: You are talking about the $45 million dollar surplus in EI.

    Mr. Herb Holmes: I think there should be a “b” in front of that, shouldn't there?

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, $45 billion. Let's get the number right.

    That money actually came from cutting back on benefits to workers, and it's now going to the general revenue to perpetuate the pretty high level of unemployment and lack of economic activity across the country.

    You make a good point.

    Mr. Herb Holmes: It seems to make sense to us.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It seems to me there's a common theme on the panel this afternoon, and that is the question of national programs, federal programs, national standards, and federal cash transfers for important areas of social programming.

    So to Mr. McLeod, I've heard the national organization you represent talk about the need to ensure that within this new Canadian social transfer, there is a recognition of the obligation of the Canadian government for people living with disabilities. Do you sense that you're getting through and that there is recognition of that, because you're also forging new territory? We now don't have the federal government directly involved in the cash transfer, or the establishment of national standards for people living with disabilities who need training or supportive housing.

    Mr. Norm Mcleod: I think we're making some progress, particularly around the changes that were made in tax policy last year, which we commented on. But when you look at the unemployment rate for people with disabilities, 70% to 80% are either unemployed or underemployed.

    A lot of programs that are established for people with disabilities have limited time periods for people to receive the training, and they automatically exclude a number of people if they have problems with learning disabilities. So I think there's a need to extend some of those programs to make sure they can target people who have different learning strategies or who require job coaches.

    There are some excellent programs taking place, where employers are seeking people with disabilities and reaching out through projects like the Rotary Club, for example, and hiring people with disabilities at their own cost. But these are very limited.

    There's an overall need, I think, federally to provide some incentives to make sure people get the appropriate training within appropriate timeframes.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I see the possibilities here in terms of a national employment training apprenticeship program, which really does touch on the issues the representatives from the Graduate Students' Association have been mentioning.

    On this issue of education and federal responsibility, would you support the idea of a separate Canada education transfer, now that we've dismembered—or dismantled, I should say—the CHST and have the CHT and some form of CST? A lot of people have suggested that we need a separate education transfer. I'm wondering if you support that. Obviously, that would have to mean a specific and increased allocation of federal dollars.

    It has also been suggested that we need a Canada post-secondary education act, with principles to govern this area, as we do in the case of medicare.

    What are your thoughts on that approach?

    Mr. Daniel Preece: Yes and yes is the short answer. That is something GSAC has been looking at for quite some time.

    I titled it the “Federal Vision for Post-Secondary Education”. It's gone through different incarnations, but my personal favourite, and I think the one we're looking at right now, is the idea of a minister for education or a minister for post-secondary education at the federal level. That would mirror the Minister of Health, as well as creating a post-secondary act at the federal level.

    As for having an educational transfer, I do think that is an essential part of any movement of the federal government. I think that would be an extremely positive step—to clearly identify what dollars must be spent on education, maybe even to divide up among primary, secondary, and post-secondary.

    Actually I'm thinking of the metaphor that was said before about provinces and chickens. I think that type of an educational transfer would clearly identify this as a high priority for the federal government. This is something that is necessary for the nation as a whole.

    Do you have anything else?

¸  (1410)  

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Do I have time for one more?

    The Chair: If you'd like.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you for your indulgence.

    I know I'm way overtime, but I would like to pursue this thought with Mr. Matthew MacNeil as well, because we're talking about national programs. Social housing once was within federal jurisdiction and has been devolved. And now I think we're trying to go back to some form of a national housing program.

    Mr. Matthew MacNeil: Or achieve some kind of a balance.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Or achieve a balance.

    I'd like your comments on that general idea, but also I'm interested in this. You know that where I live in Winnipeg North Centre, for example, as my colleague in the Alliance mentioned, there is a need for action on housing. If there is one thing we should do in our recommendations to the committee in terms of the federal budget vis-à-vis social housing or dealing with the need to create housing in difficult, hard-pressed neighbourhoods, what would it be?

    Mr. Matthew MacNeil: Those are good questions.

    First, how do I feel about national standards? I think the importance of national standards is getting people to recognize that no matter where we are, we're still facing the same issues. One of the things I do with affordable housing is help communities understand that their affordable housing or their homeless problems are not their fault, but rather these are common factors that are occurring everywhere.

    The challenge with becoming too standardized is you don't allow for local sets of circumstances. But I think the SCPI and the affordable housing programs are doing a very good job around getting that balance between having certain national standards we want to achieve and then allowing for those idiosyncrasies.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Before I let you go, I just have a couple of quick short questions. To the graduate students, we're hearing an awful lot from different organizations about education ministers and in a sense creating silos again. Have you been talking to our provincial counterparts and raising this with them? And if so, what's the feedback? I would anticipate some push-back on the jurisdictional issues.

    Mrs. Elaine Ho: Yes. I actually was one of the executive members on the Alberta Graduate Council last year, which is a provincial version of GSAC, and we had discussed it. It was met with quite intense reservation from the provincial government. However, if the onus is taken off them to make the difficult decisions, I believe that perhaps they can be convinced that it's a good idea.

    I believe there could be at least, if nothing else, some type of council of all the ministers of education across the provinces that could probably come and make some more decisions and provide some input back to the federal government. If nothing else, that would be a great first step.

    The Chair: Also, I'm just curious. What I see every time I meet with student organizations is more and more people are taking longer to accomplish the same years of education, because they're having to work part-time at the same time.

    I'm just wondering, right now, whether you have any stats on what it takes nowadays to get a PhD. What's the average? Is it increasing, or am I just anecdotally seeing that?

    Mr. Daniel Preece: First off, we actually just published a document that we'll send to you.

    The Chair: Okay. Send it to my clerk and we'll distribute it.

    Mr. Daniel Preece: It's on PhD completion times in Canada. This was actually completed by a researcher in Dalhousie. I think it was finalized about four months ago. On average, I believe it's five and a half years across the board for a PhD.

¸  (1415)  

    The Chair: After a master's?

    Mr. Daniel Preece: After a master's. So in addition to a two-year master's degree, then five and a half years for a PhD.

    But that does range from, I believe, about four and a half years in the health sciences to an average of approximately six or seven years in the humanities.

    The Chair: I think we'd be interested in seeing that, because that's where, I take it, this feeds into the different needs for different types of student loans. Presumably they have marriages and children and all of those different types of expenses. They're not so likely to be in group housing, like my sons are in right now.

    I'm a little bit intrigued by your rebate situation on debt. You do it only on completion. The way you've put it to us, it's all or nothing. Given the length of time, what about doing it in stages? You get $1,000 for completing two years of your PhD—an incremental. It's not all or nothing, where the guys or women who cannot make it all the way because of whatever costs lose out on 100%.

    Mr. Daniel Preece: I've given that some thought. One of the reasons I think we were choosing at completion is.... The statistics are not as concrete in Canada. In the States we're at about a 40% completion rate for PhD students—40% of PhD candidates do not complete their programs. We believe it's approximately 50% in Canada as well. We thought that tying it to completion would help provide incentives for students to complete.

    The Chair: And the reality is Canada needs completed PhDs to go and do those 10,000 jobs that they're getting this decade in universities. So thank you for your input.

    Mr. MacNeil, I don't know the case of your file at CCRA, but perhaps the reason you haven't had the answer is because the ministers you are talking about are still dealing with the policy. That may be it. If that's not the situation, then the suggestion of Ms. Leung is very appropriate. All of us, as MPs, with permission, get involved from time to time.

    Mr. McCullough and Mr. Holmes, one of our recommendations last year had to do with the whole question of capital costs and depreciation rates. No matter what industry, whether a locomotive or massive pieces of machinery, CCRA depreciation rates need to be reviewed because of obsolescence. It's not so much on the nuts and bolts but because of the technology that's in there. Hopefully this is going to be done. That's a different matter from some of the smaller expenses you were trying to talk to us about today, but there happen to be both in your organization also.

    I was just up in the Northwest Territories at diamond mines, and the size of the machines up there to do construction just amazed me. A tire can cost $25,000, so you know what the truck's worth.

    Mr. McLeod, thank you very much for the contribution today on community living. We see the good results in all of our communities, and I think we all need to be engaged in the independent living of all of our citizens. I think that's a much better way for everyone.

    I'm going to thank you on behalf of all of us. I will tell you that Mr. Smith can't join us today, but we've rescheduled him in Toronto, so we don't lose out on his testimony.

    We enjoy listening to testimony. We also very much enjoy the exchange of ideas, and we will ensure that your briefs also make it back to our colleagues who are working in the House of Commons in Ottawa, because not all of us can be funded to travel. We do this in stages and we get the work done. We appreciate your contribution today.

    With that, we will adjourn, and I will tell my colleagues the bus will be outside in ten minutes to take us to the airport, where I understand our plane is delayed.

    We are adjourned.