Finance Committee on Sept. 19th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I would encourage you to do that now, sir.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Well, I will.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Address your remarks to the witnesses, not to committee members.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is to Ms. Lysack.

Certainly a lot of families welcome the taxable $1,200 relief to families, but do you think that many of those, if they had known that it would come at the expense of cancelling the first steps of building an affordable and high-quality accessible child care program, would have accepted the taxable $100 a month?

Also, does it really offer a choice, or does it really take away choice from working families or parents who want to go to school to pursue a higher education or pursue a better career?

My other question is to Ms. Silas. I commend you for your recommendation and your suggestions. I don't want to miss this opportunity to ask this question with an objective health care expert here. If you were to rate or compare your recommendations to the last budget, do you see any signs in the last budget that come close to addressing those recommendations?

The reason it's important is that you are a non-partisan, objective health care expert, and Canadians certainly rank health care as a top priority.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. Alghabra.

Madam Lysack, would you like to respond to the first question?

[Monica Lysack]

In response to your first question, which asked whether people would have made the choice had they known, certainly the Environics poll--paid for by donations--confirmed that in fact they wouldn't have made that choice, and the public focus groups that I believe the government paid for, highlighted in The Globe and Mail last week, also confirmed that families would not have made that choice.

It's not a real choice. Do families need income? Absolutely. Should it be in this form? No. There are experts with far more ability to comment on this than I. The Caledon Institute has made some good recommendations. We absolutely agree with Dennis's comment; it should be part of the Canada child tax benefit. It's a much more equitable way of disbursing funds and would address poverty and so many other issues.

Does that provide choice? Why are we fooling ourselves by even calling it child care? Even their own website doesn't call it child care anymore. They say you can invest it in your child's post-secondary education, in groceries, in whatever you like. It's family income and it's important and families need it and it's absolutely critical. Does it do anything to address people's issues around child care? No. Families are still struggling.

I got an e-mail, completely unsolicited, from a parent who is not part of our organization, saying they hadn't even cashed the cheque. They said it made them sick, that they didn't want it, that they needed child care, and that this $100 didn't help them; it didn't give them child care. It could help them pay for it, perhaps, if they could get it, but they don't have it.

So this is what parents are saying about it. It's not that the funds are unwelcome; it's just not child care.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Excuse the interruption, but save some time for Madam Silas.

Please respond, if you would, to the second question Mr. Alghabra asked.

[Linda Silas]

We have to realize that the previous budget dealt with the 10-year health care plan, which we saw was $41 billion. I was there downtown looking at the hard negotiation between the premiers and the Prime Minister until 1 a.m. It was really hard and rewarding for health care advocates, especially as it was looking 10 years down the road.

This budget looked at wait time guarantees, but didn't put any direct money to the guarantees. I always use the anecdote that it's like the guarantee on my car--if I don't have a mechanic to work on my car, the guarantee's not worth the piece of paper it's written on. We need to work with this government on this.

The federal government needs to be a leader in research, regardless of whether it's on wait time. It has to be a leader in research in regard to pharmaceuticals. In regard to transport--our four panellists here are thinking they'll never go with health care or child care again--we have to be leaders there, as well as on foreign credentials, at which this government is looking a lot, but also on child care options, and I think that's what this organization is doing.

The federal government--Minister Finley--just approved a smart project for Cape Breton and Regina---Qu'Appelle to try to match continuing education and a retention of health care workers, especially nurses. That's building on research, building on innovation, and I think that's the role of this great federal government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Ms. Silas, I'm sorry; the time is up.

I think it's fair to observe as well that in terms of the thrust of the comments Madam Lysack is putting on the record today, those same comments have been put on the record for a number of years, many of them, certainly back to the early 1990s. On balance it is important to understand that too, to put it in context.

We'll continue with Mr. St-Cyr. You have five minutes, sir.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you.

Thank you for joining us today.

I'd like to continue on the subject of day care. The issue was discussed at considerable length by us last spring and will likely continue to be a topic of conversation for some time to come. The Conservative government's decision to cancel funds earmarked for the provinces, including Quebec, for improvements to day care was ill-advised from the outset. The problem existed under the previous Liberal regime and continues to this day. Quebec parents are confronted with the inequity of the tax system. They cannot claim the same tax credit as other Canadian parents. Let me explain to you what I mean by this.

When filing their federal tax return, parents can claim a tax credit corresponding to the amount paid in child care fees. This amount is not taxable. Quebec parents with children in day care can claim $7 per day. Previously, they could claim $5 per day. Yet, parents living elsewhere can claim much higher amounts. Therefore, the tax credit represents a much larger sum of money for them.

There are those who will argue that there is nothing unusual about this because parents in the rest of Canada pay more for day care services. Quebeckers pay more as well, albeit through their taxes. Basically, the Canadian taxation system penalizes Quebeckers for having an affordable, universally accessible day care system.

My question is for either Ms. Lysack or Ms. Silas. Mr. Howlett may also wish to respond.

In your opinion, should the federal government acknowledge and respect the choice Quebec has made, a choice that has been praised across the country and even abroad? Should the federal government remit to the Quebec government the savings realized year after year--these savings have been pegged at approximately $250 million per year, or $1.5 billion since this program's inception--, so that it can make improvements to its system, or should it continue to take advantage of Quebec's initiative, continue channelling this money into the consolidated revenue fund and continue using it for other purposes?

[Monica Lysack]

I think the federal government would do well to follow the example of the Quebec government and respect Quebec's jurisdiction over that and concerning the $250 million in tax savings. I don't know if you are aware, but the net cost of Quebec's child care system is now at only 60%; there's already a 40% recovery. If this federal government would follow the same example of moving towards a universal, high-quality, accessible child care program—as Quebec has done—the economic return would be at least two to one. We've seen the evidence from a C.D. Howe report that identifies this 40% return. Aside from your own smart investment and a two-to-one return, the tax savings should absolutely belong to Quebec, in our view.

[Linda Silas]

Sir, I'm by no means an expert on taxation or tax fairness, but there is one reality that must be acknowledged. When I left New Brunswick, I had to decide whether to move to Quebec or to Ontario. My son was 15 years old. I chose Ontario because of the substantially lower taxes.

Another fact of life is that the vast majority of Canadians do not receive a tax receipt for day care when services are provided by an individual. That is a major tax problem. I would prefer to have you point that out, not me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Is that all, sir?

Madam Ablonczy, five minutes.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I have a question for Ms. Silas. She pointed out the labour shortages in the health care field. I suppose we can extrapolate that there would be the same labour shortages in the child care field, the elder care field, and in all the caring professions, so to speak, and a lot of need for foreign workers.

The concern I wanted to pinpoint was the one you raised about the absolute shortage of doctors and nurses, and the fact that we need to increase the number being trained. I think you're aware that there has been an increase in the admissions to training programs for doctors and nurses in Canada. I wondered whether you think these new entry numbers are sufficient—you probably have that data, and I think it would be helpful for us to know—or whether we need to try to expand the programs even more. They were cut back substantially some years ago—foolishly, as it turned out, but here we are today.

In your recommendation, where do we go in supporting training for doctors and nurses in Canada?

[Linda Silas]

It's a very good question. Thank you.

We have to realize that in the early 1990s, 12,000 nurses were graduating every year. We went down to 4,000 across the country by 1999, and we're now up to 8,000. I don't have the numbers for doctors offhand, but the numbers are very similar. Why? Because of budget cutbacks; this big report came out saying that too many were graduating.

We're going up, but what's also happening is that at the university level they don't have the funding to educate those with master's degrees or doctorates in terms of preparing them to help the faculties of nursing. The average age of a nurse is 45 or 46, and for a nursing teacher it's 48 or 49. Those are the average ages.

So we have a lot of work to do at the university level, and then to help the hospitals' long-term care facilities. Training of a nurse is done not only behind a desk; it's done with direct patient care as well.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Those are excellent points.

I wish I could spend time with all of you, but I was interested in the presentation from the airlines association with regard to airport rents. I was a little cheesed off, because it only talked about the Toronto airport, and I'm from Calgary; we have met with the airport authority there, and they have the same concerns.

I wonder whether you've done any studies or can give us some idea on this. If the rents were substantially reduced--some even argue that they should be eliminated, and the land should simply be transferred to the airport authority--how would that impact on our competitiveness in a realistic way? Can you give us some idea of the benefit that might flow from that?

[Fred Gaspar]

I have to admit, I was enjoying the debate; my daughter just started day care last week, so I was pretty enthralled.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

And she'll be a nurse.

[Fred Gaspar]

Maybe she'll be a nurse, yes.

Thank you for your question. As a matter of fact, we are committed to doing such a study writ large across the country. The only reason we had been focusing on Toronto was that there was a particular need there in terms of the way the new formula was applied. I'm not suggesting it was purposely so, but it left them with an inequity treatment that resulted in an impact of hundreds of millions of dollars.

That said, you're absolutely right, every airport across the country needs relief on that front. We are going to do a study in the field, which we expect and hope to have done by the end of November. We have done one for Toronto, through the international association of airlines, and it's shown that if the Toronto solution were implemented, 300,000 passengers annually would be the expected increase, with $300 million in additional economic activity for southern Ontario, 3,000 jobs annually, and $62 million annually in net tax revenue gain.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I'd like to see that. I think that would be very helpful.

I have a quick question for Ms. Lysack, who is so popular today.

I think we all agree that we need to invest in children. They are our future. But you didn't say that parents caring for their children and training and teaching them was not a good investment.

[Monica Lysack]

You know, it's so sad to see this being polarized. I see mothers everywhere struggling to do the best thing they can for their children.

When I was a stay-at-home mom, I had three children relatively close together. I didn't send my children to early learning and child care because I was a bad mom. I stayed at home with them. I was a good mother. I did many things with them. But I also recognized that there were programs that could offer things that I couldn't, and I made those choices because of my circumstances.

Families who choose not to send their children to any early learning and child care programs--all power to them. That's wonderful. But the reality, and what the research says, is that even for stay-at-home parents, they make that choice. More than 90% of children attend some kind of early learning and child care program, regardless of what their parents are doing.

So it's not just about good mothers and bad mothers; it's about families being able to make choices.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

It about choice. You're certainly aware of that, and I think that's an important point to make.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I'll use my prerogative as chair to ask a couple of questions, if I might, of Madam Sobolov.

You may be familiar with the smoking ban that the NDP government in Manitoba brought into play approximately a year and a half ago, exempting Indian reserves. A court decision was just rendered saying that this was essentially a charter violation. I'll simplify the court decision and say that the government legislation was overthrown. I'm sure your organization is pleased with that. Exempting some Canadians from the protection they deserve to have against smoke and second-hand smoke is to me a ridiculous mistake.

How many provinces now have anti-smoking legislation in place? Could you share that with the committee?

[Luc Lapointe, Director, Public Issues, The Lung Association]

Currently, we have eight provinces that have legislated smoking bylaws in place. The other two, and the territories, are about to implement full smoking bylaws.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

To your knowledge, do any of those bans not actually apply to aboriginal people?