Finance Committee on Oct. 6th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. Savage.

I will use my chairman's prerogative here and just ask a couple of quick questions.

In Donna's example, one of her daughters wants to be a mom. We probably shouldn't dismiss--and I know you're not--the possibility that of course some mothers do prefer to stay in the home. I'd like to get some feedback from you on one of the proposals we heard in other meetings. The proposal, which isn't a new one to any of you, is to allow income splitting, to reduce the tax burden in those situations where one is working and taxed at a high rate and the other is choosing to remain home. I'm wondering if your organizations have an official position on this, or if you'd like to comment on this.

I'm thinking of Phoebe here, right? We reduce the tax burden. We allow the income splitting to occur. We leave more money in the hands of the family, who can perhaps decide, without the economic penalties present in our marginal tax system, that they'd like to stay home for a little longer with their child.

[Donna Riddell]

I believe that Phoebe will still need access to the child care system. There will be times of emergency.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

This is not a zero-sum gain. I'm not talking about eliminating funding for child care systems here; I'm asking what your position is on income splitting. That's all I need to know.

[Donna Riddell]

Does somebody else want to speak to that?

[Debra Mayer]

I'm not sure whether any of our associations have a real position on that, but I guess it really gets to the issue of how we value women's work, and whether women are caring for children in the home or in a child care system. It is a very undervalued, under-recognized, and important contributor to our economy that is just not counted in anywhere.

So measures that would truly help families make decisions, be able to stay home longer, and know that you would have a job waiting for you when you go back.... It's great if you work for the federal government, otherwise there are no guarantees like that across the country. Again, look at progressive countries that are allowing families to get an amount of money that makes it a viable option to stay home. Twelve hundred dollars is not going to help any family make the decision to stay home. It's a night out on the weekend with a babysitter, and that's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

You've made that point, of course. The income splitting, depending obviously on the income levels involved, can be thousands of dollars left in that household. I was hoping for some endorsement of that proposal because it is one that's getting some encouragement.

We will continue with you, Mr. St-Cyr. You have four minutes.

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

Four minutes! I will therefore put my question to Mr. Cenerini. A short conversation among francophones, another pleasant moment at the end of this trip, which I have enjoyed very much.

You were talking about your plans for your centre and the funding for the centre. You are asking the federal government to contribute its share.

In practical terms, what in your view is that share? Can you put a figure on the funding you expect from the federal government?

[Paul Cenerini]

First of all, I would like to explain why we are asking the federal government to get involved.

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

But since we only have four minutes, I would like to know just how much you would like this funding to be, and to which program would you apply it.

[Paul Cenerini]

Yes.

We know that the cultural identity and language component are extremely important in health. We are therefore asking the federal government to do its share to help us, given that we are a minority.

Our project comprises educational, library and other components. We are asking for a contribution—at least through the infrastructure system. Ideally, a million dollars would be very hopeful indeed.

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

Thank you.

[Paul Cenerini]

After all, our community comprises 600 of us, and we have already injected $1.5 million.

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

I see.

I would like to ask another question which may not be specifically related to your project, but which is related to your being a francophone community outside Quebec.

The Conservative government has abolished the Court Challenges Program of Canada, which made it possible for people involved with the Hôpital Montfort to fight for and keep their French hospital. Are you concerned about the possibility that francophone communities will no longer be able to exercise or fight for their rights in the future, because they will not have the means to do so?

[Paul Cenerini]

I don't think I have a great deal to say about this, because health is an area under provincial jurisdiction. Nonetheless, when it comes to the future—which is coming towards us very quickly indeed, we are told that in 10 years the provincial government will be spending 50 per cent of its budget on health care. We cannot go on at this rate. We are already at 30 per cent now. Something has to be done.

In the brief I put before you today, I suggest investing in prevention rather than in acute care. This will help everyone.

In my view, French-language service delivery—as we have in Notre Dame de Lourdes—is a policy established under Mr. Vic Toews. It is a very pragmatic policy that works very well. We could do the same thing in health.

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

In your brief, I read that you provide services in both French and English. I don't know whether other English-language institutions also provide services in both official languages. If they do not, would it represent an additional cost for your organization if your organization provide services in both languages but others do not?

[Paul Cenerini]

It may not represent an additional cost, but it certainly represents additional effort. If you look at the file on our small project, you will note that we have a training component for bilingual professionals who will provide services not only in our region but also in the regions of Saint-Claude, Saint-Jean-Baptiste, Saint-Boniface, and the French-language service network in Manitoba as a whole.

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

I see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I am afraid you are out of time.

Continue, Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you.

It's interesting. I've learned a little bit this morning.

I must say that it does bother me somewhat, on a personal level, that from a child care perspective you all started your introductions noting that you were parents. I too am a parent, and my spouse and I both care a lot for our children. I feel that, coming back from what I heard this morning, because I believe in a different type of national program, for some reason that makes me less of a parent. If that's a perspective, I accept it, but I certainly don't agree with it.

In fact, my spouse has spent a lot of her career working in the area of mental health. She's a therapist in mental health.

I really wanted to turn over to you, Don, to see if you could comment on the component we've talked about, that it would cost anywhere from $10 billion to $15 billion for a program. I wonder if that's definitely going to impact other areas of spending. I really would like to hear what your thoughts are from a mental health perspective.

[Don Boddy]

I think there has to be a national plan. One of the problems with the mental health system is that the entry points are often gatekeepers. One of the things that could begin to happen with the national strategy is they could expect to become more navigators through the system to help people. Now that there are national standards among all the provinces and programs, we know what we're aiming towards. A definition of what mental health looks like would be helpful.

Also, there is the question of access to systems. There's someone here in the Central Region who every Thursday has to pull her kid out of school. She's on assistance. Every Thursday, she hops on a bus, pays her own money or sometimes she gets help from assistance, takes her kid into the health science centre, and gets programming for her there.

Why can't those programs start to come out here, and why can't there be federal money for that kind of stuff in the rural systems?

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Is that the purpose of the national mental health commission? Is that what you're driving at?

[Don Boddy]

The national mental health commission is going to begin to articulate the values and determine what this thing is going to look like. So if the experts, people far smarter than I am, determine that it should be decentralized and there should be a focus on rural programs, either through using telemental health with phone systems, or by sending people out there, or by providing proctors to drive, then those are the kinds of values this commission could begin to articulate.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

So it would be the fundamental purpose of the commission?

[Don Boddy]

My understanding is that yes, it needs to begin to articulate the values and see what the strategy is going to look like. Then once that's done, the commission shuts down, and the strategy takes over. That's my understanding of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

You've got a little bit of time left.