Finance Committee on Sept. 26th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Yes, very good. You may proceed then. The question will allow it.

[Diane Watts]

We have no problem with feminists, or for that matter anyone in a democratic society, expressing themselves, expressing views, and promoting whatever they want to promote for women and their views of equality and dignity, etc. But we object to the government funding an organization that claims to speak for all women but speaks only for feminists. This is what we object to, because the feminist perspective does not represent the views of all women. This is why young women have rejected feminism. Yet we have a department that claims to represent and continues to claim to represent all women.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

All right. Let me go on to Mr. Lalonde and Mr. Davis.

In fact, first of all, I don't think anybody claims that anyone speaks for everyone. I think women's organizations try to ensure that there are choices for women and that obstacles facing women are dealt with so they're not harmful to our health and wellbeing. That's why I would like Mr. Lalonde and Mr. Davis to explain to you why it is important to have funding for women's organizations that look at things through a gender lens.

Let me ask them for their opinions now.

Thank you.

[Dr. André Lalonde]

It's a very complex question to answer, but I'll tell you that the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada obviously has a very strong policy on sexual reproductive rights. If you don't believe in this, then I think there is no use in having poverty reduction.

We know that the poorest of the poor is a single mom who is pregnant and having some problems in Canada. We are paying dearly for this because we then have to repair le pot cassé in later years, with child abandonment, child problems, youth problems, etc. There is a great scientist from Harvard who said that the origins of all adult disease come from the environment during gestation, during the pregnancy.

We need to be all-inclusive in Canada. We need to include mothers, and we need to include people who have not had a chance to have stable relations for whatever reason. We're not looking to be judgmental. We're looking to provide them with support because this is the quality of the Canadian life. Everybody has an equal chance, but we're there to help them attain that equal chance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Continuing then with the second round, Mr. McCallum, for five minutes.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to all of the presenters for your interesting views.

I'd like to single out Mr. Brown for his feisty presentation on behalf of community colleges.

As one who was in the world of universities for 18 years before politics, I'm certainly not anti-university at all. I would just like to reinforce a point about competitiveness made by my colleague. A year ago in China I was told there were no less than 30 million engineers in China, about the same as the number of Canadians, and the great bulk of them were well trained. So that does say something about our competitive challenges.

I would acknowledge that as much as our aid to universities was a good idea and warranted, we perhaps have been guilty over the years in neglecting community colleges to a degree. The current government, I would argue, in the last budget neglected not only community colleges but also universities. So we're not that bad. But I, to a degree, would plead guilty, especially when you consider issues of equality of opportunity and the changing needs of our economy in terms of the things that community colleges teach.

So my question is this. Apart from giving special attention to jurisdictional issues, that colleges, in particular, are largely under provincial jurisdiction, and apart from your proposal to have a separate transfer for post-secondary education, what would be your primary priorities for direct federal spending that would assist the colleges?

[Gerald Brown]

Thank you for your question, and thank you for your sympathetic response.

First of all, I just want to correct the perception, really, that while there is a recognition that colleges are in the provincial domain because of education and post-secondary education...I'd also like to remind the committee that so is health in the provincial domain, so are municipalities in the provincial domain, and so are many of the universities in the provincial domain, and we find no difficulty in finding ways to help them. So I would suggest that we should probably look now. I think our time has come from the point of view of the community colleges.

We talked about the dedicated post-secondary transfer. Within our brief there are an awful lot of areas where we could work collaboratively with the federal government--and we are looking at ways to do that. In our brief we single out two in particular: one, the need to have up-to-date modern equipment--and it's very expensive to do that. Just take a dental hygiene lab; it's a huge expense. It replicates not just one dentist's office but probably 30 dentists' offices in one particular teaching station. So it is expensive, and we do need help, and I think it is beyond some of the provinces to be able to do that.

The other area is in the area of research. I think we've come forward and we've dedicated and proven our abilities in those areas, and it is important now for us to have something that is specific for colleges, working closely with industry partners, small and medium-sized businesses, and contributing to the economic development of the community. So for us, at this point what we're talking about is in the area of equipment and in the area of applied nature of research.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

What about access for individuals, particularly lower-income ones or those in far-flung regions of the country? Have the measures we've introduced in the past for access been fair to community colleges? Credit union to bank is like community college to university. Have they been even-handed, vis-à-vis community colleges, and what would be your priorities in that area?

[Gerald Brown]

Access has always been important, and for us, it's finding ways to try to provide opportunities for those communities that have not had access to our communities. This connects, of course, to the funding issue. We have long wait lists for some of our programs because of the demands, and this is not a sufficient amount of funds. So an increased transfer to the provinces, and then by extension to the institutions, would allow us to address some of that.

Also for us is the area of aboriginal communities that are all very close. They've now reached, in many areas, the area of post-secondary education, and they are now prepared to move on towards post-secondary education.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Cook, when I was revenue minister I blocked Canada Post from ending the subsidy on mail for interlibrary loans. What's the current status of that file?

[Linda Cook]

It basically has been renewed until January 2008, and then it's going to be looked at again.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay, thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. St-Cyr, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a number of questions, so I am going to try to ask them quickly and I would ask you to answer them quickly, if possible.

My first question is for Ms. Watts. You made some recommendations in your brief, but you did not say much about your organization as such.

Where does the funding for your organization come from?

[Diane Watts]

Our funding comes from subscriptions to our bimonthly publication. So it is our members who support us.

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

The name of your organization is REAL Women of Canada. Is the word “REAL” an acronym or does it mean “real” women of Canada?

[Diane Watts]

The word “REAL” stands for Realistic, Equal, Active for Life, but it also means “real” women of Canada.

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

So it is an acronym.

[Diane Watts]

Yes.

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

My question has to do with your first recommendation, to allow income splitting. You say that a family earning $80,000 pays $2,445 more in tax than a double-income family earning the same amount, assuming two $40,000 incomes.

On the other hand, that $2,445 advantage barely covers, at best, the cost of daycare to that double income family. I say “at best” because if you live in Quebec and have access to a daycare centre for $7 a day, that $2,445 tax savings might be enough to cover your daycare costs, but you will still have to pay for your transportation to work, your clothes, your equipment for work, etc.

We Quebeckers have decided to pay taxes in order to be able to provide $7-a-day daycare. If you do not have access to that, if you live in a province that does not offer this program, you cannot even cover the cost of daycare for your children.

Ultimately, is not the injustice the other way around? Is the difference so slight that it discourages women who would like to choose to go to work?

[Diane Watts]

Right now, women are discouraged from staying at home to raise their children.

In Quebec, people say that it costs $7 a day, but it costs government between $7,000 and $8,000 per child to fund daycares. It costs nearly $10,000 per child when both parents are working. But a parent who decides to stay home to take care of the children does not receive anything.

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

I am speaking from a society stance. In my opinion, all things considered, as I have just pointed out, even with that incentive, it turns out that it is less advantageous financially for two parents who each earn $40,000 than for one parent who earns $80,000, where the other one stays home. There is already more benefit in that situation. If that gap is reduced, there will be more advantage to staying home and, by extension, less advantage in going out to work. The logic seems to me to be irrefutable.

Do you not think that if we really want to respect the right of parents to choose, we should make that choice free of any financial constraint? When it comes to tax measures and daycare services, should we not ensure that the situation is equal in both cases, so that parents, mothers and fathers, really have a choice to do things one way or the other? Do you not think that that would be the way to really show respect for parental choice?

[Diane Watts]

At the moment, parents do not have a choice. Taxes are so high and there are so many more advantages for parents who both work that women are forced to stay in the workforce.

The system that recommends equality was established to increase the workforce. The idea was to get women out working. That is why an unequal system was created. That inequality puts women at a disadvantage if they decide to stay home to look after their children. But that is what Canadians want. Polls show that Canadians' first choice is to stay at home with their children. But they cannot make that choice.

As for the $2,000, that is one of the things that we are recommending. The childcare deduction enables families where both parents work to deduct $7,000 per child, but families where one parent decides to stay home do not benefit from any deductions.

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

I saw that...

[Diane Watts]

People are so used to looking at the situation from the point of view that women should be out working...