Finance Committee on Oct. 24th, 2006

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I wasn't aware. It's rather strange.

Mr. English, at the beginning of your presentation, you referred to the fiscal imbalance. In Quebec, on December 19 of last year, Mr. Harper made the commitment to find a solution to the fiscal imbalance issue in the first budget of his government, that is to say next February or March. Obviously, there's no agreement among the provinces on the appropriate solution.

On December 19, the federal government knew very well that the provinces wouldn't agree on a solution to the fiscal imbalance issue. Despite that, do you think the government has the duty to come up with a solution in the next budget?

[Dan English]

Through you, Mr. Chair, I would hope that the whole fiscal imbalance issue will be resolved. In Nova Scotia, our premier has committed to continuing any dialogue that may be necessary to resolve it. But nobody can resolve it except the federal government at this point in time. How it's going to shake out in the final analysis will depend on further dialogue. I know there are some areas of the country that don't seem receptive to discussing it any further. But in talking to our provincial officials, I know there's still interest in pursuing it.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I asked the same question this morning. I would like to know what the Halifax region expects from the federal government about what is called the gateway, the Atlantic Gateway. In Quebec, we refer to the St-Lawrence corridor which we would like to see better used than it is at this time because it is underused.

What kind of proposals do you expect from the federal government?

[Dan English]

The province is currently undertaking an analysis of the whole gateway concept, and the Halifax Regional Municipality is working very closely with them. At this point in time, we haven't articulated exactly what we'd be looking at, but that's the idea of preparing our proposal and that's what we're in the midst of.

But obviously it all has to do with transportation corridors, integrating all our transportation initiatives, and so on. So both Halifax and the provincial government are hopeful that the federal government will see fit to support the initiative, similar to what they did with the Pacific gateway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We'll continue with Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to correct a misstatement or certainly a misunderstanding. My colleague, Judy Wasylycia-Leis, said that research funding was cut from the budget. That is not the case. In fact, we're going to be investing $200 million into support for university-based research, and some of that is for indirect costs.

I wanted to ask you this question, William: have you been consulted? Is this the type of funding you were talking about, in terms of trying to address the issues you face?

[William Maes]

Yes, I think so, and any other funding we would hope would be on an ongoing basis, as it is now, rather than just that envelope. The regional indirect costs program was for three years, I believe, then it was extended. I don't know what the future of it is.

We are looking at how we can be competitive with our neighbours who are reaping the benefits of a program that's been in place in the United States, for example, since 1947—and ours was instituted only four or five years ago.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you.

I did want to ask Riley a question. I was looking for you to comment on the forest industry and the difficulties it has faced over the last number of years, and the fact that we were able to secure a softwood lumber deal with our counterparts in the United States. What positive impact will this have on the industry? Also, how will that translate into a more viable and positive outlook on the industry itself?

[Riley Pye]

There's no question that our company was one of the companies that supported the lumber deal that was recently reached by the Government of Canada, particularly with regard to getting an exemption for Atlantic Canada or the Maritimes, which historically we've had in many other past agreements.

The returning of the duties will have some impact on us as well. I think the biggest long-term impact is the certainty that we now face in the regime when we cross the border. It makes for a better environment for being able to make capital investment decisions.

Capital investment decisions in sawmills have been very problematic over the past four or five years, as we had no idea what we were going to face, and whether we were going to have access to the U.S. market. So having some peace on that front certainly gives us some stability.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I'm sorry that all the members of Parliament from the east couldn't support the deal, but I appreciate hearing what you're saying.

Mr. Creber, I have a question for you. You intrigued me with the comment about 80% of direct sellers being women and running home-based businesses. I wondered if you could comment a bit on the benefit of the child tax credit for those who are working from their home and obviously looking after their children there as well.

[Ross Creber]

I think it certainly enables the family to make their own choices in terms of where they're going to use that credit. I think it also takes a lot of the strain off the day care facilities as well, with that number of women who are working from home. They're able to spend portions of their day at home with their children, as opposed to having them in day care.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you.

We continue with Mr. Massimo Pacetti of Montreal.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Busing, I understand you're looking for an increase. I think some of my colleagues have already asked the question, but in terms of practicality, how do we evaluate what we're getting?

I know you asked us to have a vision, but how do we evaluate, after a year or two years or ten years, whether it's worth putting money in CIHR or some of the other research councils or foundations? How do we evaluate? What is our objective with that increase in money? It's not a typical business of the kind that will give a 10%, 20%, or 30% return on our money.

[Dr. Nick Busing]

No, I appreciate what you're saying. There are some very specific evaluators you can look at, and CIHR has developed some outcome measures that are flagged on their website.

That's why I say you need a long-term vision. This is not about something you can measure in a year or two; this is about the health of Canadians. For instance, let's take our aboriginal population. The state of their health in terms of diabetes is, as you know, incredibly poor; they have significantly high suicide rates--

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I understand that, but is the goal for CIHR to reduce sickness among Canadians, or is to find better ways for medication to be lower, or is it for our health care system to be more efficient? What is the ultimate goal, or is it a factor of all of those?

[Dr. Nick Busing]

You've named three of them. There's a significant component about improving the efficiency of our system and how it works. There's a significant component around basic research. There's a significant component about population health and how we improve population.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

That's done in conjunction with the CIHR and who else--stakeholders?

[Dr. Nick Busing]

CIHR is one of the organizations that's funded, and other organizations have appeared before you; the Heart and Stroke Foundation does funding, which should hopefully impact on heart disease. The other agencies will do some funding that has indirect impacts on health, if you're looking at the social determinants of health or other determinants of health. It's a real combination of all these factors.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I just wanted to get an overall view of where we're going with this.

I have a question for Mr. Ferguson of Sport Nova Scotia. You asked for two different types of money. You asked for 1% of the health budget, and then you asked for infrastructure. You didn't state how much it was, but it's written in your brief. Do you want to put on record how much you think the requirement is across Canada?

[Jamie Ferguson]

Do you mean the requirement for infrastructure?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Yes.

[Jamie Ferguson]

Well, I think we mentioned we were looking at what's been estimated in the CPRA study. The Canadian Parks and Recreation Association estimates there is a $14 billion deficit right now for sport and physical activity infrastructure.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

So we have an infrastructure deficit for hard infrastructures. What is the 1% going to be used for?

[Jamie Ferguson]

We would hope the 1% would be used to increase the number of Canadians who take part in sport and to improve the quality in the delivery of sport programs for all Canadians.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Would that go to volunteers? It wouldn't touch infrastructure.