Finance Committee on Sept. 28th, 2006

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

I think I'm done.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you, Mr. Turner.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I apologize for the behaviour of Mr. Turner, for his rudeness. I think if he has questions, he should give people a chance to answer them.

However, I think he raised an interesting point at the start of his questioning, and that is the issue of transparency—and this is from a member of a government that claimed it was going to make decisions in a public, transparent, democratic way, and actually put before Parliament and the people the amount of surplus that was available...and have us settle in a democratic way how that should be divvied up.

Mr. Chairperson, I don't think there's a soul in the world who believes that what the Conservatives did this week was democratic, fair, and transparent. So I think it's rather hypocritical for the member to ask these kinds of questions, especially from a leader of the largest trade union in Canada that has actually worked very hard to present solutions to government and work cooperatively.

In fact I think the Conservatives on that side may have missed Mr. Moist's reference to the possible loss of something the Conservatives started back in the Mulroney years, and that's the Canadian Labour and Business Centre. I think it would be worth hearing from Paul Moist for a moment about why you're faced with shutting down the doors of something that bridges business and labour and that works cooperatively.

[Paul Moist]

Through the chair, the centre was founded in the early to mid-1980s, and it was funded by government. The federal government is one of the few bodies that can bring together business and labour in Canada at a senior level.

I've been a board member for only a couple of years, but I think the centre is doing very important work on productivity, labour force development issues, and many projects with the private sector.

No member of the board was aware of this, and we were pretty blindsided. At two o'clock today the motion we'll deal with is whether, under the circumstances and the staffing obligations we have, to close the centre.

Productivity is not a word that worries the labour movement; we actually embrace it. In the world of tax cuts, what should we spend money on, and paying down the debt....

Michael Porter from Harvard University says this whole competitiveness argument is overweighted at times in view of tax cuts. We source Mr. Porter's comments in our longer brief. Tax cuts are part of international competitiveness—actually, a small part—and Canada should be tax responsible with its citizens.

But on the productivity and the work of the centre, we're talking about transitioning people from an economy that's served Canadians well, which is changing rapidly. For the centre to be closed on no notice is tragic.

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

I appreciate that, and I think it's particularly relevant for our committee's work, since we are dealing with the issue of competitiveness. Of course, that means increased productivity.

Paul Moist, could you also address what I call a rather supercilious--I think that's a word—argument that Mr. Turner has been raising at our committee regularly? It is the notion that one must pay down all debts so that you'll have all this extra money to invest in things for the future. I think it would be useful to explain to him and others what's left after you've paid down the debt and what is the difference in cost, in terms of what's left for society as a whole.

[Paul Moist]

I think all governments should be mindful of their annual deficits and their long-term debt.

Our debt-to-GDP ratio in Canada has been declining since the former government inherited the largest debt in Canadian history, number one. Number two, federal program spending today per person in Canada is 25% lower than it was in 1984. Number three, to use a worker analogy--somebody mentioned buying homes here earlier--none of us would retire our mortgage at a pace that didn't allow us to fix our roof or keep the foundation of our house. So the last Goodale budget contained a provision, which I debated with the former minister quite a bit, that one-third of the annual surplus was to be devoted towards the debt, one-third to program spending, and--I can't remember what the other third was for.

I come from Manitoba. A New Democratic Party government is, in an orderly way, retiring Manitoba's provincial debt, along with shoring up program spending where responsible, and trying to remain I guess tax competitive with Alberta.

There is not a single answer to this thing. To take $13 billion and apply it against the debt--this gentleman spoke about what it does to the world that he lives in--is the epitome of ideology trumping common sense.

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

Thank you.

I think I have time for one more quick question.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

If we're going to start trading insults, I don't appreciate that.

[Paul Moist]

I don't appreciate not being able to answer a question.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

I'm chairing this committee. I think he left plenty of time for you to answer the question. He directed a question directly at you and you had an opportunity to answer the question. He asked you the same question more than once.

[Paul Moist]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

If we're going to start trading insults, let's just adjourn the meeting and we'll go outside and scrap it out.

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

Mr. Chairperson, on a point of order, I found that behaviour insulting. I found that he did not give anyone a chance to answer the questions, today, yesterday, and the day before. I think in fact it's incumbent upon you as the chair to actually allow for some possibility for people to answer.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

I already made the decision, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis. Thank you.

You have one minute left.

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

Thank you.

Since Mr. Turner does talk about transparency and we are faced with these cuts and the decisions of two days ago, I'd like to ask Elinor Wilson, Robert Spickler, Mr. Akumalik, Paul, and anyone else whether they were consulted about these cuts, which include millions of dollars in terms of health prevention and public health dollars, millions of dollars in terms of culture and heritage, and a million in terms of a future workforce. Were you consulted?

[Robert Spickler]

The cultural milieu and the museum milieu were consulted on a new cultural museum policy a year and a half ago. They were all called to come to Ottawa to offer their expertise in developing it with the government. This time cuts were made without even any discussion.

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

Elinor.

[Dr. Elinor Wilson]

Our organization was not directly consulted. I think one of the challenges that's being pointed out is that all of these things are interrelated. It reflects back on my colleague's comment that if you cut one place without perhaps thoroughly investigating the ripple effect it might have on other areas, it does provide some challenges.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Mr. McCallum, five minutes, then Mr. St-Cyr, and then Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Until Mr. Turner's intervention I thought we were a very cordial, friendly group, but it seems to have become a little partisan. I think I'd like to respond briefly to him, but not along the lines of the NDP, because, as we know, the NDP has never had any sense of fiscal responsibility. It never has and never will.

I agree with the debt paydown, but my point is that the $13 billion surplus was a Liberal legacy to the Conservative Party, because 90% of that year the Liberals were in power--just as the Conservative legacy to the Liberals when we came to power in 1993 was a $42 billion deficit.

Yes, the debt paydown is useful, but it's really as a consequence of a Liberal government. On the point about the cuts, the cuts are mean-spirited and ideological given the nature of those cuts, particularly when they're juxtaposed with this government swimming in money and able to pay down the debt to such an extent.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

My first question would be to Mr. Moist.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Just one second, Mr. McCallum.

Yes, Mr. Turner.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

I just think it's incumbent upon Mr. McCallum to make sure he reminds the witnesses that under the Liberal administration the national debt actually increased.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you.

Come on. What happened this morning? Are you guys doing it on purpose?