Finance Committee on Sept. 19th, 2006

[Linda Silas]

I agree with respect to the tax cuts. I think the public health system has proven itself. It went into difficulties in the 1990s, and we've had Romanow, and we've had Michael Dechter, who were all agents of the cutbacks. I haven't heard Frank McKenna—and I was there in the 1990s—say that it was a mistake to balance the budget on the back of health care. Now we're trying to fix it.

Also, the finance department—I'm trying to recall the year, but it was about four years ago—had P.J. Deveraux do a study of the sustainability of the health care system in the future, on a comparison with the GDP. It's about 10% of it now, and economist Deveraux said it was going to be like that for the next 10 years, the way we were going. So it was stable.

With regard to funding for education, there are two parts to it. Yes, you need to continue helping the provinces, helping the education programs, but I believe you have to give credit where credit is due. The federal government needs to give students notice, in the future of education, that they're giving the money. I'm a true believer, in a bursary system, in showing a student in New Brunswick or a nurse from Saskatchewan that the money he or she is getting is directly from the federal government, directly from being part of this great country. It's two avenues.

The schools of nursing, the medical schools, and CMA, the Canadian Medical Association, presented to you last year on the $1 billion fund over five years, and we supported that. We need some kind of initiative, without telling the provinces what to do. They need to be appropriately funded, and then we need this initiative overall to help the humungous shortage we have in health care professionals.

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

I agree that the federal government has a role. Mr. Paquette and Mr. St-Cyr may not necessarily agree that the federal government has a role, but I do.

On child care, your recommendation is long-term federal funding to create a not-for-profit child care system for families across Canada. Would that look something like the plan that was introduced under the previous government?

[Linda Silas]

The previous government made the first step, we believe, and you have the expert here. But as nurses we're still at 93% women in this country, and 75% of our members are mothers. I have a 17-year-old and used to pay $35 a day for child care in New Brunswick. It is $70 a day in Ottawa. At 17, I don't need this, and shouldn't--probably a security guard more than child care, but I won't go there. I made a fairly good salary for New Brunswick, but $35 a day to guarantee that my son.... And that was just child care; it wasn't child care with an early initiative in education. We know children need to be boosted in their education in the first five years, never mind when they're 17.

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

I agree with you. I also agree with you that we have the expert. I'm not going to waste my time asking questions, because I agree with what she says on child care.

I want to ask the Canadian Lung Association.... I come from Nova Scotia, Ms. Sobolov. We have good news and bad news on the lung association front. The bad news is I think we have the highest rates of asthma in Canada, and a lot of work needs to be done. The good news is we have people like Bill VanGorder, who I'm sure you know, who is a real champion of better respiratory health. I think that's a good thing. It's activated in Nova Scotia, and he certainly was very involved in the anti-tobacco crusades. He is very involved in these new challenges that face Canada.

I want to ask you about the plan you mentioned, which in some ways looks similar to an ask I used to make on behalf of the Heart and Stroke Foundation when I came to Heart on the Hill day. We were looking for a national cardiovascular strategy; you're looking for one for a national framework on respiratory health. I understand the $3 million is not for research and education so much as it is to set up this framework.

Is that what I am to understand, that this is the cost of bringing together surveillance and partners across the country so that we can go to the next step?

[Nora Sobolov]

Yes, in part.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Madame Sobolov, I'm sorry to interrupt. There will be about 30 seconds for your response.

[Nora Sobolov]

Okay.

Partly that's true. Partly there will be research to look at what everyone is doing right now and to be able to have a clear map of assets and gaps. One of the things that happens in the beginning of these processes is that we think we're starting from scratch, and we never are. You need to take full advantage of what's out there and have a clear picture to be able to really have a good impact of all the pieces that are there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Paquette, for seven minutes.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your presentations.

I'd also like to thank Mr. Savage for his comment, which I would have made anyway.

The Bloc Québécois is not alone in opposing the direct transfer of federal funds to areas under Quebec jurisdiction. May I remind you that when the millennium scholarship program was introduced, even students and student federations were opposed to this initiative. I'm convinced the same feeling applies with respect to other institutions under provincial jurisdiction.

Among other things, you recommend in your submission that child care legislative measures be introduced, although you emphasize that the right of Quebec and of First Nations to set up their own child care systems should be respected. I congratulate you on clarifying this point. It's not something I'll do every time. For us, it's a given, even though the federal government has financial responsibility for transferring to the provinces the funding they require to meet their obligations.

That being said, I have a question for you. There has been some discussion of a legislative measure respecting child care which would set a number of conditions. University professors and students who have appeared before the committee have also called for legislation to establish pan-Canadian standards in education. The Canada Health Act ostensibly sets out universal principles, but this has never stopped the federal government from withdrawing unilaterally from health care funding.

I'm wondering if perhaps your proposal should include--and this is true of other very generous proposals calling for pan-Canadian standards--an obligation on the part of the federal government to fund child care services to legally established levels.

For example, the Canada Health Act could stipulate, as Mr. Romanow recommended, that the federal government must assume 25% of health care costs. Principles are all well and good, but it's not fair to offload problems onto the province's shoulders.

Would your association be receptive to the idea of a legislative provision requiring the federal government to fund child care? How would you feel about that?

The same goes for health care workers. Perhaps we could include this in our recommendations. Legislation alone isn't enough. We need legislation that assigns financial responsibilities to the federal government.

[Monica Lysack]

I apologize for my inability to respond in French.

Legislation is not a guarantee of anything, but it certainly solidifies and provides a structure that is more difficult to undo. So legislation is a good beginning where we have nothing else. I agree that other things have to be in place and we need to have some standards.

Quebec jurisdiction is recognized in the child care act that is being proposed, and the transfer of funds is meant to respect the significant progress that Quebec has made. The OECD report holds Quebec up as a model for North America in terms of early learning and child care. Federal standards have a long way to go to catch up to Quebec.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Howlett, you've also made a number of suggestions to which my previous comments also apply. Therefore, I won't belabour the point.

You call for improvements to the employment insurance program, a provincial responsibility, with a view to increasing the number of persons eligible for EI. I don't disagree with you. Today, only a handful of those who pay premiums are entitled to collect EI, which wasn't at all the case ten years ago before the Axworthy reform.

However, you haven't touched on the question of replacement income. In fact, benefits now only replace 55% of previous income earned, down from 60%. Moreover, the benefit entitlement period has been reduced, which means that many people fall into a black hole. Indeed, before they are able to go back to work, seasonal workers exhaust their EI benefits. This topic has been under discussion for several years now.

Could you elaborate further on your recommendation that the employment insurance regime be improved?

[Dennis Howlett]

I didn't go into the details, but basically we would support the recommendations made by the parliamentary committee two years ago that lay out the ways in which that program could be improved.

On the question of federal jurisdiction and the child tax benefit, I should note that there is a pre-existing Quebec program of a similar nature, and federal funds go directly to the Quebec government to help contribute to that program. Although it's not spelled out here in detail, we assume that if there is an increase in the child tax benefit amount for families outside of Quebec, a similar increase will be applied to federal funds going to the Quebec government to deliver a similar program, which is the principle already established.

The problem remains that neither the federal government nor the provincial governments on their own have all the policy tools needed. That's why we need some kind of collaboration and cooperation among different levels of government. I think that's why we need a national poverty reduction strategy. The Quebec government's anti-poverty law actually serves as a model for what we need in the rest of the country as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

You have just a few seconds to make a comment if you wish.

[Linda Silas]

Sir, you have to understand that Quebec is ahead of the game, so to speak, when it comes to community care and day care services, as Monica mentioned. It's also much easier to convince 308 MPs by stressing values and standards over financial percentages. Never in their wildest dreams did health care providers ever imagine that federal government funding levels would plummet to 16% during the 1990s. Levels are now around 25% and we want to ensure that MPs... Our democratic representatives agreed to allow federal funding levels to shrink to 16% during the 1990s. Never again will we allow that to happen. We will support you if you want to pass legislation setting these levels at 25% or higher.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Our next questioner is Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all of the presenters who have been here this evening and this afternoon.

In terms of the range of issues, I have some questions for Ms. Lysack.

I noticed in the presentation you submitted that we should be looking for three specific things. The third point focused on the current lack of clear accountability for public funds. That interested me in terms of getting a clear understanding of the CCAAC. It received substantial funding from the previous government over the last number of years, basically to produce reports that affirmed the previous government's position.

I wonder if you can tell me which departments provided funding for your agency, and how much you received from them.

[Monica Lysack]

Let me say first of all that we did not support the previous government's position. If you look at our long history, we have spent many years happily harassing whoever was in government. So no one should feel particularly picked on.

Our vision is a universal system of early learning and child care, and there are different ways to achieve that. There are many different avenues of research, and so on. The funding that our organization has received has been basically on a fee-for-service basis. We offer a service in exchange for a budget that allows us to do that.

A project that we're receiving funding for right now through the Human Resources and Social Development Canada partnerships program is to collaborate with provinces and territories to develop a public policy framework for curriculum.

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

Great.

I came with answers. I guess it's some good advice I got from my father, that if you're going to ask a question, make sure you have some answers. Since literally hundreds of thousands of dollars have been granted to your organization by the previous government, from all different.... Approved in March 2005, $454,000; in 2004, $29,000; in February 2003, $300,000; in August 2000, $260,000; from HRDC in 2004-05, $160,000.... I'd love to see clear accountability of exactly how many child care spaces the hundreds of thousands of dollars taxpayers have given to your organization have created.

[Monica Lysack]

I would hate to see you be confused about the purpose of different grants, and of course there are—

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

I thought your purpose was to create child care spaces in this country.

[Monica Lysack]

That's not our purpose.

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

Oh, it's not. Would you like to see child care spaces created?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Monica Lysack]

Our purpose is to support that vision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Let us get on with the question if we could, please.

Madam Lysack, you have a moment to answer the question.