Finance Committee on Sept. 19th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I'm sorry, Mr. McCallum, we've run out of time.

Thank you, Mr. Myers.

Next up is Mr. St-Cyr.

You have five minutes.

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

Thank you for joining us.

As I was saying this morning, it must be frustrating not to have more time to address the committee. You can take some solace in the fact that we find it equally frustrating not to have more time to ask you questions.

My question is for Mr. Fisher.

As I understand it, innovations and developments in the railway sector would mean quieter trains in the future. Is that correct? Is it possible that in the near future, we'll be able to reconcile the operation of railways with day-to-day life in residential neighbourhoods? Is that a realistic expectation? What kind of timeline and costs are we looking at? What progress is being made on this front?

[Glen Fisher]

Thank you, Mr. St-Cyr. I was hoping for a question from you, considering where your riding is. I also live in the Montreal area and am familiar with the area.

There are a lot of things being done. It might surprise you to know that even a deaf person, in every province in Canada and every state in the United States, can have a driver's licence. So it's a little hard to understand why, in 2006, we depend on a loud air whistle to warn people at crossings. That was appropriate in the 1890s when there were horses. But there is a lot of work being done by suppliers; the government's research agency for transport, the Transportation Development Centre; and some of the consultants who work in testing and innovation. I would say that within about three to five years, maybe even sooner, we'll have some very good products on the market that will make it much more peaceful in the residential areas.

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

My second question is for Mr. Pekeles.

Overall, your submission to the committee is quite interesting. However, I think you're speaking to the wrong people. As I see it, your focus is primarily on issues that fall under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction. Let me just give you a few examples. In your submission, you mention a federal, provincial and territorial injury prevention strategy. That is an area that comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The same is true of childhood immunization programs as well as the national mental health and mental illness strategy in Canada. Further on in your submission, you recommend that the federal government get involved in school-based strategies. In my opinion, these recommendations do not take into account the way in which government jurisdictions have been defined in Canada.

Wouldn't it be simpler to address the fiscal imbalance, so that all provinces can meet their obligations? In the process, jurisdictions would be better respected. Instead of recommending that the federal government take action in these sectors and increase the complexity of the administrative structure, wouldn't it be more effective for the provincial government to assume responsibility for these matters, given its expertise in the health field?

[Dr. Gary Pekeles]

Thank you very much for your question. As a practising pediatrician in Montreal, I spend far more time in Quebec than I do in Ottawa promoting childhood health programs. Without question, health care is a provincial, not federal, responsibility.

A number of joint federal-provincial initiatives have been carried out. The results were far more convincing that if the provinces had acted alone. The provinces have expertise that they can share. We're talking here about dialogue, about round-table meetings of provincial health ministers.

Take immunization programs, for example. Clearly, the federal initiative has had a significant impact. Each province takes a different approach and a Toronto family relocating to Montreal will have to contend with a different immunization program. A move to harmonize all immunization programs will benefit all children in Canada. That is the approach that we are advocating. We are not suggesting that the government administer the programs directly. However, all provinces can stand to benefit from certain federal initiatives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

The final questioner will be Mr. Turner, for five minutes.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Myers, first I'd like to apologize for my sneaky, underhanded colleague across the table, who was successful in putting a bunch of words in your mouth. I'd like to give you the opportunity to spit them out.

Let's just clarify. Are you actually saying the budget had nothing in it for the manufacturing sector to enhance competitiveness in this country?

[Dr. Jayson Myers]

No, I did not say that.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

And here he is not to benefit from that.

[Dr. Jayson Myers]

I think it was important that the budget made clear that the business tax reductions, especially, were going to be put in place. Companies make investment decisions now for investments that will be put in place five, eight, ten years down the road. So that certainly is especially important.

I think the other thing that the budget did--and this is what I hope will be the main focus of this committee and certainly what I think is an opportunity to really put Canada on the map in terms of our competitiveness position--is the commitment to review the competitiveness of our effective tax rates. I think that's key.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Quite so. And also, do you feel that our moves towards training and apprenticeship programs and apprenticeship credit, etc., were positive moves?

[Dr. Jayson Myers]

I think that's important as well. I was only talking in the tax sense.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

And do you agree with your CEO, Perrin Beatty, who said, “This is a better budget for business than we've seen in the last five years”?

[Dr. Jayson Myers]

Yes, that was my quote, actually.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Okay.

Will you call Mr. McCallum later and tell him all of this?

[Dr. Jayson Myers]

If he were here, I'd say it.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

All right, thank you.

I have a question or two to Sara Landriault.

Sara, thank you for being here--we've only communicated digitally before this--and thank you for the contribution you've made online to your cause. It's been very good indeed.

Two questions. First, I'm wondering if you can just characterize the universal child care benefit for us. Is that actually something of substantive value to your cause and to parents who are at home?

[Sara Landriault]

It helps. It doesn't cover everything. Of course, I don't think we'd ask for you to cover everything anyway, but it's a comfortable start. It's like they say, $100 won't keep your home and it won't cover day care, but on the other hand, in the other way, it wouldn't have helped me in my situation at all. I have two children under six, so I get $200 a month and it goes towards my child care. It won't keep me home, but that added to other things, as I mentioned, is a possibility without paying me fully to stay at home. I don't want you to subsidize me to stay home. I don't want you to pay for me to take care of my own children. I'd like to keep our own money to help go towards child caring my own children, just the same way as a day care would do for their children.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

I'd also like to ask you if you feel that the tax change involving income splitting, in the context of single-income families, is one of the things that you're advocating.

[Sara Landriault]

Oh, majorly. If I had to think of everything under funding the child...and this is why I brought it today. It is because income splitting is the most important for me, in my personal situation. As I said, even a double-income family that does not use outside child care is still nailed with this.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

In your own words, why is our current tax system unfair and why should we look at changing it?

[Sara Landriault]

Why would you tax somebody else, another family, less than you tax my family when we both make the same amount? I mean, it doesn't make any sense. It really doesn't. You have another family that makes the same as we do, the only difference in what we're doing is in the child care. Therefore, by doing this, you're telling me that financially I can't do what I do because you're not going to help me. So when the government says something to you financially, it generally tells you that they don't want you doing it or it looks down on you for it. And I know you don't, none of you--not the Liberals, not the NDP, not the Conservatives, not the Bloc--has turned around and is going to say that stay-at-home parents are bad, but financially, the way we're looking at it in the tax system, it's hard on us.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

All right, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We have time for one quick question, so I'll let Mr. Savage have his one minute.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

You're a very kind chair.

When we came here this morning, I didn't think I'd get the opportunity in this committee to discuss one of my favourite topics, the issue of health promotion, twice in one day.

I was delighted to see in the Federation of Medical Women of Canada presentation your recommendation specifically concerning preventative health care and setting aside funding for an educational campaign.

We met for a couple of seconds before this meeting, Ms. Beck, and you mentioned Bill Tholl. I had the opportunity to work with Bill when I was on the board of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and we've made a lot of progress on tobacco.

It's widely held by a lot of people now that obesity is the new tobacco. We need to make sure, particularly with our children, that we're promoting healthy lifestyles and healthy choices in schools.

In my own riding—