Finance Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

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

Can the university ever benefit from it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

No, no. Cut off his mike. It's Mr. Turner to conclude.

Mr. Turner, it's over to you.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Thank you.

I have a couple of quick questions, Mr. Kyle. I'm interested in demographics. We have this unique generation; we are part of the baby boom generation that I think accounts for 32% of the Canadian population right now, around nine million people. You've alluded to the demographic time bomb in your presentation. Have we as a country ever faced this social phenomenon before—this many people so clustered in age and so at risk from disease?

[Kenneth Kyle]

I'm not aware of it, and it's not only the aging population, but because of immigration we have a growing population. The two combined are a time bomb in terms of diseases such as cancer.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

To this particular generation, this 32% of Canadians, what is the greatest cancer-causing concern we have? Is it diet and obesity?

[Kenneth Kyle]

By far it's still tobacco. We're going to have 47,000 people die from the use of tobacco industry products this year. If we could solve the tobacco problem, we'd have the resources to tackle the other areas. Take colorectal cancer. We have to do more in colorectal cancer screening. We have to do more in “sun sense”, as we call it—making people sensitive to the idea that they can get skin cancer. There are a number of issues in terms of screening.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Coming back to the smoking threat, I know we've talked about it a fair amount today, but would you support banning smoking?

[Kenneth Kyle]

No.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Why?

[Kenneth Kyle]

When you have 20% of the population addicted, they're going to get their cigarettes somewhere, and it would just fuel contraband smuggling. It just wouldn't work, unless maybe we get smoking rates down to 2%. We're at 20%.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Would you support dealing with tobacco as a controlled substance, as we do alcohol?

[Kenneth Kyle]

It is in many senses a controlled substance: you can't advertise it; there's controlled access. So in many respects it is controlled, but we can do more.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

All we can really do, then, is use price point.

[Kenneth Kyle]

No, price point is the most effective, but we can do more public education, and the federal government has jurisdiction. We have world-class warnings on cigarette packs. They can be renewed and will be renewed so that they're refreshed. They're a bit stale now; they've been on the packs for several years. We can increase those kinds of public education programs.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

The Government of Canada owns this building, and when I walk out the back to my car I have to go through twelve people blowing smoke in my face.

[Kenneth Kyle]

Yes.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

What's your message to the Government of Canada?

[Kenneth Kyle]

Well, in many municipal jurisdictions you can't smoke within 20, 30, or whatever feet from an entrance.

We strongly recommend it's time to look at the Non-smokers' Health Act. It was great legislation back in 1987. You're familiar with it. It is time to update the Non-smokers' Health Act. It was the lead in the country at the time; the provinces were behind. All but two provinces and one territory have better legislation now than the federal government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you.

I thank you all for your presentations.

We appreciate you being here and the time you've taken to participate in this process.

You are dismissed.

The committee has some housekeeping to do right now.

If I can find my notes, I will begin by quickly reviewing the process we'll be following in the preparation of our report over the next several weeks. Then I have a notice of motion from Monsieur Paquette.

First of all, you will all be getting a request from me--keep this in mind over the next few days as we finish our consultations--to prioritize five to seven key issues of importance to you that you would like to see us perhaps utilize the resources of the finance department in providing more information or research or background.

By November 1--I would ask you to note this--I would like your feedback on that, because it will assist us greatly in the preparation of our report thereafter. That would be November 1.

On November 2, I will then forward a request from our committee to the Department of Finance with a prioritized list of subjects you would like them to research.

The following week, we will meet with finance officials. They will be able to give us background information on some of the issues you have raised, probably not all of them.

We will prepare a draft report for your consideration on November 9. Following the break week, we'll ask finance officials to return, so that if there are other issues.... Perhaps I could say, Mr. Paquette, the issue that you would like researched I expect would take a little more time.

On November 21 we will have finance officials back again to present further information on the issues you have not yet decided you want them to look at but will by November 1.

Our absolute deadline for filing our committee's report is December 4. This is the timeline I've developed for our use. I hope it meets with your approval.

Mr. Paquette, you've given me a notice of motion. Would you like to proceed?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Chairman, you said that this kind of motion is not needed, but I would prefer we adopt it, so that when Department of Finance officials come before the committee, given the very tight deadlines, they will have all the information. I do not want to prolong the debate, but it seems that $4 billion have already been spent in Afghanistan.

I do not know how those funds were allocated. I would like us to know. And what is being planned over the next few years? I believe that the mission in Afghanistan can be seen as an unavoidable constraint on the federal government's room to manoeuvre. It is my view that the committee be informed of the projections of both the Department of Finance and Department of National Defence.

My motion reads as follows:

That as part of the prebudget consultations of the Standing Committee on Finance, the committee requests that the Department of Finance provide within the next 30 days to the members of the committee the overall budgetary allocation both in percentage terms and in dollar amounts of funds previously allocated as well as future allocations for the next two years, to both the military mission relating to Canada's presence in Afghanistan as well as the humanitarian aid and reconstruction projects associated with this intervention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Okay.

Just before we begin discussion, I would like to make the point to Mr. Paquette that in this motion we are referencing the overall budgetary allocations. We're not going to get bogged down in incredible, specific detail here. I want to put that on the record at this juncture, because I think that would not really be in our purview for the purposes of the project we've been asked to perform by the House of Commons--to get into individual, specific allocation decisions.

Is that agreed and understood?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I'd like a ballpark figure for projected expenditures on the military mission, and for reconstruction in Afghanistan in the area of international cooperation. I don't want to go into details, but there is some room to manoeuvre.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you. Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Pacetti.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My only concern, on the items that I think you both brought up, is that I'm not sure this will provide us with any information. I'm not convinced that the finance department will give us detailed information on what we're asking for.

So I just want to put it on the record that if we're going to request the information, we'd like to get the information. Having the finance department come here and tell us that they can't give us the information I don't think is acceptable. If we need to make it even harsher, I think we should.

I just get the feeling that--

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. Pacetti, do you propose an amendment to the motion, or are you speaking for or against the motion?