Finance Committee on May 10th, 2006

[Serge Nadeau]

In the context of the GST, for example, it's very difficult to go beforehand and ask them, how much is it going to cost you? However, the change was very much supported by the business sector, because they expect to do more business after the tax reduction is implemented.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I'm not sure which business sector.

How about when you are affecting other departments? Is there communication with them?

[Serge Nadeau]

Yes, there is communications in the sense of departments that would be.... I'm talking here in terms of the tax policy. Yes, there are discussions with the departments involved in the implementation of some measures.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Okay. So none of the budget measures of 2006 will be in the estimates. Is that correct?

[Serge Nadeau]

That's my understanding; the estimates came out beforehand.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Okay. So the estimates for 2006-07 are all based on the 2005 budget. Are there any budget initiatives in the 2005 budget that have been eliminated and should not be in 2006-07?

From what I understand, for example, the child care agreement is still applicable. It's been cancelled, or will be cancelled, but the 2005 or 2006 agreement is in place. But the Kelowna agreement has been cancelled and no money was dispersed. Would that not be in the estimates? I'm not sure.

[Paul-Henri Lapointe]

No, all the measures proposed in the post-fall update would not be included, unless confirmed by the government. All the measures in this budget are not reflected in the mains.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Will that be in the supplementary?

[Paul-Henri Lapointe]

It will be in the supplementary estimates, yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. Pacetti.

I want to give Madam Wasylycia-Leis a chance to ask a question.

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

Since I have to go, I'll ask this in 30 seconds.

On the question of mortgage insurance, I know we're going to come back to it; however, I would like to know—since it was Serge who answered quite definitively on its purpose—whether or not this initiative was talked about before the new administration. Is this something that was on the agenda for a while? And on what basis would we be deciding public policy: in terms of competitiveness, as opposed to the ability to ensure we meet certain social objectives and find a way to put money back into social housing, rather than opening up something for the private market because it's a lucrative proposition?

[Serge Dupont]

Sure. I would simply say that the same item was included in the supplementary estimates that died on the order paper in the last session. So it was carried over.

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

It's a Liberal idea, aha!

[Serge Dupont]

The issue of opening the market to private competition was basically done back in the early 1990s--

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

I know that, yes. It's when we lost the national housing policy.

[Serge Dupont]

--when one provider was brought into the marketplace. As I indicated, it was always understood—certainly from the point of view of the government, but perhaps less clearly by the provider—that the same facility would basically be provided to others, should they come forward.

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

I apologize. Now I'm really late.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Before Madam Wasylycia-Leis has to leave, I'd like to relate to the committee that the minister hopes to be here the first week after we return from our break. That's what we're shooting for, in answer to your earlier inquiry.

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

Great. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. Savage, over to you.

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

Again, thank you.

We had talked a little bit about Bill C-48, specifically with reference to post-secondary education--and I had the opportunity to get the exact text of Bill C-48--because there was some question about whether it involved access or whether it involved university spending. The exact wording is that it is: “for supporting training programs and enhancing access to post-secondary education, to benefit, among others, aboriginal Canadians, an amount not exceeding $1.5 billion”.

We followed up on that with the proposals and the economic updates, specifically around the issue of access to post-secondary education. I come from a province that has the highest tuitions in the country. It's anywhere from $6,000 to $8,000 a year. The tax credit on books is just not relevant; $80 is not a significant amount. A lot of students don't get the benefit of tax measures anyway.

Is there anything introduced in the budget that will specifically address the issue of access by the lowest-income Canadians to post-secondary education? I know that sounds confrontational. I don't mean it that way. I'm trying to find it.

[Serge Nadeau]

You mentioned tax measures. There's also the scholarship measure, in the sense of the complete elimination of federal income tax on scholarships and bursaries, as well. You mentioned the textbook tax credit.

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

I'm talking about people who can't afford to go to university, not the benefit to those who already go and will save $80 and whatever else there is in this measure. The update in the fall specifically targeted the Canada access grants, and also produced a plan specifically for Canada's disabled community, which is having a really difficult time getting to university because of the extra costs. I know you indicated that there are more transfers perhaps going to the provinces, and we hope it trickles down to students through the provinces. There is nothing specifically on the issue of access for low-income Canadians in this budget.

[Barbara Anderson]

Beyond those tax measures, no.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I'll let you finish up quickly, Mr. Savage. We have three others on our list, and we can get each of them in if I hold it to about four or four and a half minutes. That's how we'll proceed.