Finance Committee on Sept. 28th, 2006

[Amanda Aziz]

That's a great question. We have worked very closely with our sister organization, the FEQ, which I think was here yesterday. We have supported the increase of funding and the idea that there be a dedicated transfer payment. We worked very closely on that issue together. The provincial premiers came together last year and said at least a $2.2 billion investment needs to be made to bring it back to 1993 levels, so we support that, and we certainly support an increase in investment as well. So above $2 billion, above $4 billion, we certainly support an increase in funding for the system.

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

Bear in mind that the $2 billion have not been adjusted to inflation. Two billion dollars was worth more in 1995 than it is today. If, in addition, if we take into consideration the increase in the student population, that brings us to $4.9 billion.

There is a degree of consensus on this, although there is, nonetheless, a difference in opinion between Quebec-based groups and those from elsewhere in Canada. For example, in your brief, you talk about the introduction of federal legislation on education, in spite of the fact that education falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. You clearly state that you want provincial funding to be tied to compliance with federal standards, even though the Constitution provides that education is not a matter of federal concern.

I am frankly not surprised that only 3 of your 80 members are from Quebec. Your brief is contrary to the desires and aspirations of all Quebeckers.

How can you justify allowing the federal government to encroach on an area of provincial jurisdiction?

[Amanda Aziz]

Our position is not that the federal government usurp the power from the provincial governments. Our position is just that the federal government cooperate with the provinces, with the provincial premiers, to come up with a joint strategy for post-secondary education. It's not fair that students in Nova Scotia pay the highest tuition fees while students in Manitoba pay the third-lowest tuition fees. There needs to be a joint strategy across the country, much like the provinces and the federal government came together to do around health care. This issue is that important to Canadians, so there needs to be a joint strategy. We're not talking about the federal government coming in and imposing and usurping the power of provinces, but that there be conditions that are mutually agreed upon by the premiers and the federal government with regard to access, with regard to money.

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

You talk about mutually agreeable conditions. However, as Premier Charest again said today, Quebec does not want to be tied by conditions. The National Assembly has always been in unanimous agreement on this point. In light of this fact, would you be willing to accept unconditional transfers to Quebec? The National Assembly is in unanimous agreement. This is the will of all political parties in Quebec. Would you be prepared to support this position?

[Amanda Aziz]

It's clear that the system of education in Quebec is very different. You mentioned that we have only a couple of members in Quebec. That's because we work very closely with our sister organization in Quebec. We know that the system of education is quite different, and we understand that there are issues that are sensitive within the province of Quebec.

I think Charest has said in the past, as have other premiers, that he's willing to talk about federal funding for education. It's our position that premiers need to come together, and the federal government needs to take a leadership role in encouraging the provinces to work together on this sharing strategy. If you're asking me if we would accept the money coming to provinces without any conditions--no. There is no way of knowing that the money coming to provinces without any conditions is going to flow to post-secondary education. Without having something attached, the transfer could be virtually useless. It's like the example we saw with the Millennium Scholarship Foundation: money was coming in without any formal agreements in place, and the money was being displaced and put into general revenue to fix toilets and that sort of thing.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Merci, Monsieur St-Cyr.

Could we have Ms. Ablonczy, Mr. McKay, and Mr. Dykstra?

Ms. Ablonczy, go ahead, please.

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

I thought we were going to have a round table first.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

This is the kind of meeting we decided to have today.

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

Thank you, presenters, for giving us good input again.

There seems to be some question about whether taxation money should all be spent to the last penny, whether it's evil not to spend taxpayers' money as long as you can keep it coming into your hands, or whether some fiscal probity is in order. I thought it might be interesting for the presenters to think about these quotes, and I'd like some comments on them.

The Ottawa Citizen said:

...it's hard to argue against saving ourselves millions in future interest payments.

Don Drummond, the Chief Economist at the TD Bank, said:

Canadians should be celebrating another significant payment against the public debt.

We have the National Post saying:

By socking away the surplus...Mr. Harper is protecting the long-term fiscal health of this country.

We have the Toronto Sun saying:

Where [previous governments] used to hoard the money they overtaxed us in order to blow half of it on new spending...the Conservatives understand this money isn't theirs to use to buy votes.

Last, but not least, Dale Ore, a good friend of my good friend Mr. McCallum, says:

[This] will have long-term positive impacts, such as reducing both the tax burden for future generations and the cost of financing debt. This money doesn't just disappear

My question is for any of you who would like to answer it. Some of you are asking for more money; some of you are saying we need more tax cuts. We're spending almost $200 billion a year in this country--some of it, though less than we used to spend, on interest.

If we're going to make Canada great, if we're going to free our job creators, if we're going to be able to support our students--really--not with political agendas but by really putting the tools in their hands to learn, and if we're going to build a knowledge-based economy, then it seems to me we're going to have get a grip on spending. We're going to have to get a grip on our fiscal management of the resources of this country that come from nobody else but hard-working Canadians. So I'd be interested to hear from all of you, with your different perspectives, about how your needs and your objectives fit in with this determination of the government to be more careful with Canadians' money and with taxing.

[Jeff Morrison]

Ms. Ablonczy, you mentioned the TD Bank and Don Drummond. I should point out that the TD and Mr. Drummond have also come out with report after report citing that unless you also invest in your core infrastructure, including your highway networks, you'll be facing declining productivity, and lower competitiveness as a country as well.

I agree with you, of course, that we need fiscal responsibility. We need to pay down the debt. We also need to make key strategic investments in those areas that will help increase the productivity and the competitiveness of our country. We will do exactly the types of things you have referred to with regard to the debt, but we will do so by making those key strategic investments.

It's also the position of the government of the province you hail from. Of course, Mr. Klein and the Conservatives in Alberta are no strangers to debt reduction, but they themselves are starting to understand that unless they make some key investment decisions with regard to improving the infrastructure of Alberta, then the boom your province is currently going through will not be sustainable for anywhere near the long term.

So is debt reduction a priority? Sure. Absolutely. But we also have to invest in those areas that are the most strategic and from which we can get the best return.

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

I would put it to you that when a government is spending $200 billion a year, there's a lot of investment in that spending.

[Jeff Morrison]

Absolutely. Of course, we have to prioritize. We have to look at what gets us the biggest bang for the buck. I'm here to argue that investing in our key strategic infrastructure, our municipal infrastructure, our transportation infrastructure, is by far one of the best ways you can get that bang.

[Dr. Alan Bernstein]

CIHR is a federal agency and I'm a federal civil servant, so I won't engage you directly on that. I would agree with my colleague, though, that Canadians expect all governments to invest wisely, but also to make key strategic investments, whether it's in defence, research, or physical infrastructure.

I would argue that in a knowledge-based world we need to invest in knowledge, people, and research. The government, very wisely, has created CIHR to help them do that in health research.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you, Ms. Ablonczy.

We'll go to Mr. McKay, and then Mr. Dykstra.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Dr. Bernstein, I wanted to pick up on a point about mental health that you made in your submission. You quote favourably from the Kirby-Keon report. It strikes me that mental health is, if you will, the poor cousin of health care research. I'm glad to see that you seem to be trying to redress that. I take your point that the loss of workforce availability because of mental health issues represents one of the most obvious drains on the nation's productivity.

Having had this affect my own family and being up close and personal with the system, I'm frankly appalled at the way people who have mental health issues are treated in this country. Where would you like to go here? What prospect can you hold out that would enable a rightly informed government to make a priority decision on mental health?

[Dr. Alan Bernstein]

As I heard yesterday from Ambassador Wilson, mental health issues in the workplace are the major drain on the Canadian economy and productivity. So I couldn't agree more. That is one of the main reasons why our Institute of Neuroscience, Mental Health and Addiction has created this large initiative on mental health in the workplace.

I agree with you that CIHR needs to do much more in this area. That's one reason we're asking for more resources. It's not just more dollars. We need to be working closely with Canadians who have mental health issues, their families, caregivers, and governments to bridge the gaps between what our research tells us and what we're actually doing, whether it's at home, in the workplace, or in our schools.

All of us as a society need to do more. We had a great round table yesterday in which we discussed exactly that point.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

I, too, had a conversation with Ambassador Wilson about these issues, before he became an ambassador. So thank you for that.

My next question is to the Canadian Bankers Association. It has to do with your wish to have a national securities regulator. You have me convinced. My view is that it's akin to having a country without a national court system.

Can you give the committee some feel for the state of play with respect to negotiations on this matter?

[Luc Vanneste]

It's something that's been on the agenda. It's a concern not just of the Canadian Bankers Association but also of securities regulators and various other organizations. Efforts have been made laterally by the head of the OSC. A number of the provinces are prepared to go along. Others aren't, though, and I think this is hurting Canada on the international stage.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Would you be prepared to recommend to the Government of Canada that it take unilateral action?

[Luc Vanneste]

That's a tough question.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Yes, it is a tough question, but we've been going around the mulberry bush for a long time.

[Luc Vanneste]

I would encourage the federal government to take whatever action is appropriate to get the provinces to work closely together, with this as a goal to be achieved within a reasonable time.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

But with certain provincial governments there doesn't seem to be any appropriate action you can take. So we either stay in third world status or act unilaterally.

[Luc Vanneste]

I would recommend that we give it a little more time, because there have been some changes made with various securities regulators, but I do think there comes a point when a tough decision needs to be made. Canada is relatively small on the international capital markets stage. We're about 3% of the world. So people have a lot of options.

We don't make it easy for people to raise money in this country or to do financial capital transactions. I think we need to deal with that issue. It all surrounds the concept of competitiveness. We want people to view Canada positively, as a place where you want to do business. That includes raising money. But we don't make it easy for them when they have to go through ten provinces, territories, etc.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Mr. Dykstra, four minutes.