Finance Committee on Oct. 3rd, 2006

[Dave Park]

Not directly; however, we have produced a report called “Reforming the Canadian Healthcare System”. In fact, the recommendation was cited earlier by a representative about looking at European health care systems and trying to find some kind of amalgam, a hybrid system that would work better in Canada. I think we would certainly sympathize with the position taken by the Halifax Chamber of Commerce, but I think we have to do far more than that.

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

Mr. Brandt, I meet with a group similar to yours in my own riding—church groups that come together to talk about the importance of social policy. Considering that Development and Peace and the Primate's World Development Relief Fund are part of your group, I was a little surprised that you didn't mention Canada's obligations internationally. Do you have a view on that?

[Kim Brandt]

Yes. KAIROS is very active in international affairs. This committee came together to ask for information specifically for Canada's economy and the growth, so that's why we didn't address that.

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

We are hearing from other organizations. We want to hear about how we should spend federal dollars, which includes international development. In fact, my colleague Mr. McKay had a private member's bill passed in the House of Commons—you may have heard about it last week or two weeks ago—indicating that Canada's foreign aid should be based on poverty reduction.

Do you have a view on whether Canada should reach the millennium goal? Do you have a sense of how much we should be putting into international development, how we should be doing it, and what the focus should be?

[Kim Brandt]

Honestly, I can't speak for the national group, so what I say should be divorced from that. For our local KAIROS group, you'll only hear my personal opinion on that. That's important to note.

It's a very complex issue, and I honestly can't say that I can give you an answer, in a few moments, about how international aid should be spread. However, what we seem to be seeing is that the money is spent and the success is hard to measure in terms of whether we are getting a benefit for the money spent on international aid. Are these stop-gap measures? Are they long-term? It seems to be that there's a shortage of long-term thinking in terms of how we can help people solve their problems.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. Brandt.

Committee members, we have half an hour remaining for questions.

Next we will move to Mr. St-Cyr.

for five minutes, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My first question is for Ms. Gregson of the Coallition of Child Care Advocates of British Columbia.

I do not know whether you attended the first part of the meeting, but I spoke a little earlier about the fact that the federal government saves $250 million a year in tax credits that are not claimed by Quebec parents because Quebec has established an affordable daycare system. As a result, these Quebec parents pay three times for their daycare services: the first time is their reduced contributions of $7 a day; the second is through their Quebec taxes, since that is what funds the daycare services; the third is to Ottawa, given that their choice saves the federal government $250 million a year.

The question that I asked this morning and that I would like to ask again now is as follows: do you think that the $250 million should be given back to the Quebec government to be invested in daycare services, or should that money go into the consolidated revenue fund and spent entirely on debt reduction?

[Sharon Gregson]

First, I'd like to say that I wish the rest of Canadian parents were as fortunate as the parents who live in Quebec and have access there to the $7-a-day regulated child care system. Quebec has been a leader not only in looking at child care, day care, but in family-friendly policies, and I would congratulate the Quebec government for that move.

As far as the $250 million is concerned, I think it's important that Quebec not be penalized for its own provincial spending on a day care system. I would suggest that being fair and just and being equitable would be the way to go. I wouldn't want to choose for Quebec how that $250 million should be spent, but I believe the federal government should not penalize Quebec for being a leader in creating a system that serves its citizens.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Ward, I have looked at the brief that you tabled before us. I am surprised by several comments in it. It seems to me to be a collection of assertions presented as truths, when in fact many of them are questionable, to say the least. If I understood correctly, you would like to see direct financial assistance given to parents to encourage them, I suppose, to stay at home rather than spending that money on public daycare. I find surprising the deliberate attack on public daycare that appears throughout the brief.

I want to quote a few of those assertions so that you can develop your ideas a bit more. I have difficulty understanding how establishing a public daycare system could lead to a need for foreign workers and how daycare can be harmful to children wellbeing. That assertion is a very serious one, in my opinion. Finally, I find it hard to understand how the low birth rate can result from that. You say that there is no evidence that daycare has a positive effect on children. I am sorry, but there are numerous studies that show exactly that. You can tell us that you do not agree with that research, but it is a bit much to claim that there is no evidence.

Finally, our society funds public schools. We do not tell parents to raise their own children and pay if they want them to go to school! Why could we not do the same thing with daycare? Why should it not be free, just like school is?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

You have 15 seconds to address that dissertation.

[Helen Ward]

The definition of child care is part of the problem.

Studies show that high-quality child care improves children's outcomes. We totally agree, and we are very much in favour of child care. I've personally sacrificed over $100,000 of income to do high-quality child care for myself and also for some friends. The definition of the child care in the studies that show this is a broad, inclusive definition. The NICHD—the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development--study in the States defined child care as 10 hours a week or more of non-maternal care. It included father care, grandparent care, as well as day care--any kind of care over 10 hours a week that was non-maternal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Madam.

I'm sorry, but the time was used up in the preamble. This is the format I must administer.

We continue with Mr. Del Mastro now. Five minutes, sir.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to start with the Vancouver Board of Trade. I enjoyed your submission, actually. I just wanted to point out that we are moving toward corporate tax reductions--the end of corporate surtaxes and lower corporate tax rates of 19% by 2010--and hopefully we'll continue that trend. We agree with you on the Government of Canada's role in competitiveness and encouraging foreign investment.

The fourth point of your presentation actually talked about the measures the government could take so we could reprioritize our spending and maybe become a little bit smaller in government overall. You talked about a reallocation of 5% of program spending that would allow approximately $9 billion in savings, essentially.

Now, we just underwent a little bit of cost restructuring in Ottawa last week. Do you think that's sending the proper signal to business communities, that even though we're running a surplus, we are prepared to run a more efficient government?

[Dave Park]

Absolutely. I think the point we were making is that the target was too modest—$1 billion per year on $180 billion, or whatever it is in terms of the total budget. There should be room for far more than that. As a matter of fact, as a deliberate design, surely there are programs and services that have been around for so long that new priorities should take their place, even if we were to maintain spending at the same level. But the hope is that ultimately we may be able to whittle it down.

I come back to the question of looking ahead to an aging population and the advice from the OECD and so on. We really must continue the debt reduction. Cutting current expenditures will help us move in that direction.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.

I wanted to move to Ms. Gregson.

Ms. Gregson, on your website you have four points under your child care plan. The first one is this: “provides children from birth to 12 years of age with optimal environments in which to grow and thrive”. What is the optimal environment for a kid to grow and thrive in?

[Sharon Gregson]

There is quite a bit of research around what's a quality environment for children, and that's warm, nurturing adults who care for them, with low ratios of adults to children. If you're asking me to choose what kind of environment, each child has a different environment based on the work life of their parents—

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

What is the definition for you? What's an optimal child environment for you?

[Sharon Gregson]

An optimal child environment is a place, whether it's at home or in a child care environment, where the child is loved and respected, where there are opportunities for healthy development through age-appropriate experiences, where children are safe, where the environment is conducive to giving them the opportunities they need to grow and thrive.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

So just about anywhere.

Further on in your website, it says: “The Conservative Party believes that the family unit is essential to the wellbeing of individuals and society, because that is where children learn values and develop a sense of responsibility. Therefore government legislation and programs should support and respect the role of the Canadian family.” Do you think that's a bad thing?

[Sharon Gregson]

To respect the role of the Canadian family? I think that's a Canadian value, yes. But by using child care services, I'm in no way delegating my role as a parent or my value of family.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Ward, you spoke about--it's an interesting term I've never heard before--a family replacement policy. I tend to agree with you that maybe that is the direction we've been following for a while. It seems to me that you're suggesting it's detrimental to the development of children.

[Helen Ward]

The OECD has been basically behind a lot of the initiatives in the day care push in Canada, and the Canadian government has adopted this policy of promoting labour force attachment over parent-child attachment. The OECD policy talks about putting more mothers to work. We say every mother is a working mother. Work is work wherever it's taking place, whether it's paid, not very well paid, or paid well.

What the OECD wants to see and what much of the GDP sector wants to see is an increase in the service sector. In the service sector, what you see is a transference from the so-called unpaid or caregiving sector, the family sector, friends, neighbours. There's a transference of those tasks to paid service providers.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I don't mean to cut you off, but I only have so much time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We'll continue with you, Madam Wasylycia-Leis, with five minutes to you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Thanks to all of you for your great presentations. Clearly there's a big divide in the panel in terms of what we do with our limited flexibility in terms of fiscal surplus, and so on.

I would like to raise the general question of a cost-benefit analysis for programs, for investment in tax breaks, as well as government spending. In fact, the Vancouver Board of Trade has basically suggested that there be a cost-benefit analysis of every dollar that is spent in terms of programs, but we don't ever hear any recommendations in terms of tax cuts to corporations, which is also government spending.

I would like to start with David Levi, first of all, in terms of his proposal. It's a modest proposal, but I would like you to explain to us how that would benefit our economy and actually lead to the growth that we all know we need, and more means by which we can actually address day care, housing, homelessness, and so on.