Finance Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

To the panel, welcome, ladies and gentlemen. This afternoon we are continuing our pre-budget consultations in preparation of a report for the finance minister for the next budget, and we thank you for being here.

You have been told that you will have five minutes to make an introductory presentation. I will give you an indication when you have one minute remaining, and I will indicate again when you have much less than one minute remaining, to the point where I will be forced to cut you off at five minutes, so that we can allow these fine committee members to question you and to enter into what we know will be an informative exchange.

So I welcome you. We do appreciate very much the time you've taken to be with us today.

We'll start with John Williamson, from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

[John Williamson, Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation]

Thank you. It's good to be back.

I'd like to thank members of this committee for the opportunity to bring the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's perspective to your pre-budget deliberations. Once again, the federal government is facing a growing surplus. Big surprise. High taxes have Ottawa swimming in excess tax revenues. It is worth remembering that the surplus is not the result of spending restraint. Rather, it is a result of structural overtaxation.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is urging this committee and all parliamentarians to make the following three priorities central in this year's federal budget: meaningful reduction and elimination of wasteful spending; broadly based and fair tax cuts; and a legislated and planned debt reduction.

The federal government's surplus for the last fiscal year was $13.2 billion, up significantly from both the $8 billion forecast by the finance minister in the May budget and the original $4 billion projection that was reported in the 2005 budget. The surplus money will be used to reduce Canada's debt.

One reason for the larger surplus is that program spending was reduced last year by $1.1 billion versus the previous fiscal year. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Treasury Board President John Baird also identified budget savings totaling $2 billion over the next two years. The CTF applauds the government for embarking on streamlining of program spending.

The spending cuts are welcome, but more reductions are necessary, particularly when Ottawa spends an eye-popping $26 million a year on grants and contributions. A $1 billion trim is approximately half of one percent of Ottawa's program spending. In future years, the federal government must ensure that program spending is kept down and does not gallop ahead. As such, the Prime Minster's commitment to limit expenditure growth to a maximum annual amount of inflation plus population growth must be observed.

That we need and can afford tax cuts is obvious given multi-year and multi-billion-dollar surpluses. Budget 2006 fulfilled the government's election promise to immediately lower the GST by one point—a positive step—and offer a variety of targeted tax cuts to benefit some, but certainly not all taxpayers. Where the budget was regressive was in raising the first income tax rate from 15%, which is the rate Canadians paid in 2005, to 15.25% this year. Unfortunately, this income tax will jump again in 2007, to 15.5%.

Last year, we called on this committee to recommend that both the basic personal and spousal exemptions be raised to $15,000. In fact, the 2005 economic update outlined an accelerated timetable for increasing the BPE to $10,000 and the spousal exemption to $8,500. Regrettably, the 2006 budget revoked this schedule. As a result, Canadians are paying more income tax today than would otherwise be the case, although the introduction of the employment credit mostly offsets the increase.

This year we are pressing members to peg the two exemptions at $15,000 in four years. This will save all taxpayers $1,100 a year when fully implemented. In the context of growing surpluses, we are confident members will see this proposal's merit.

But it is not sufficient or even responsible for parliamentarians to only discuss cutting taxes for low- and modest-income Canadians. According to the OECD and even Canada's finance department, our personal income tax burden remains the highest of the G-7 nations. In fact, this standing has not changed in almost a decade. Broadly based tax relief is necessary to ensure all income earners benefit from lower taxes. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is therefore advancing a “3 and 3” plan, whereby the top two personal income tax rates are reduced by 3%, phased in over three years from 29% to 26% and 26% to 23%.

Many said the previous government's 2000 to 2004 tax relief measures would dramatically reduce expected revenues, but they did not. I quote then Finance Minister Ralph Goodale: “The revenue growth we are now seeing is of a permanent and structural nature.” This should come as no surprise. Tax cuts strengthen the economy and result in more Canadians working and paying taxes. Until the Department of Finance reforms its modeling to include the stimulative consequences of cutting taxes, Ottawa will continue to underestimate its annual surplus by $5 billion to $6 billion a year.

And I have one last word on taxes, specifically the employment insurance payroll tax. For years Canadians heard opposition Conservative MPs lampooning the previous government for keeping rates higher than necessary to fund the EI program, a practice that was criticized by no less an authority than Canada's Auditor General. This tax was rightly labelled the job killer. Will the EI tax be lowered? Taxpayers will be watching and comparing promises made in opposition with the actions of the new government.

Lastly, on debt relief, the new Conservative government and previous Liberal government should be commended for paying down $81.4 billion of Canada's national debt over the last nine years. This progress has resulted in an annual savings of debt interest payments of over $4 billion a year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Mr. Williamson, I'm sorry, but your time has elapsed. Thank you, and we'll look forward to questions.

We'll move now to Carol Hunter, who is here from the Canadian Co-operative Association. Welcome, Carol.

[John Williamson]

By the way, I didn't see your one-minute signal. I was looking for it, so if you could be a little more aggressive--

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Okay.

[Carol Hunter, Executive Director, Canadian Co-operative Association]

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon.

I'm very pleased to be here from the Canadian Co-operative Association. We're an umbrella organization representing 31 co-operative members, who in turn represent 3,000 co-operatives and over 7 million individual members.

Co-operatives are present in many sectors of our economy, from agriculture and banking, through to energy, health, and housing. Some 11 million Canadians are co-operative members. In fact, Canada has among the worlds highest proportion of co-operative membership.

You have in front of you our complete brief with our seven recommendations. I am only going to touch on three of our recommendations today. These are the three that are supported by six other national co-operative organizations, and which are found in appendix C of your brief.

The three recommendations I will speak to illustrate how the co-operative sector can partner with government to develop and sustain communities. Co-operatives as a form of collective entrepreneurship stimulate economic growth. They keep businesses in the community, and they allow ordinary Canadians in rural, remote, and urban communities to achieve what they could not achieve alone.

The first recommendation I will speak to is the need to establish a co-operative investment plan, or CIP. Agricultural and employee-owned co-operatives need access to capital that does not cede control to outside investors. Producers need access to capital instruments that benefit them, that allow them to maintain control of their enterprise, and that allow them to move up the value chain.

A co-op investment plan that provides investment tax credits would give producers and employees a chance to be part of growing and sustaining their businesses. Quebec, since 1985, has had a CIP that gives tax credits to those who invest in agricultural employee-owned co-operatives. Over $200 million in new investment has been generated in Quebec through this measure, and we could expect similar results across Canada if the federal measure were to be created.

Our second recommendation is to reinstate the social economy initiative. The SEI continues in Quebec, where some $28.5 million in federal moneys in a patient capital fund has leveraged an additional $30 million from the Quebec government and other sources.

The program would provide technical assistance and repayable seed capital to get community-based enterprises, including new co-operatives, off the ground. It would assist businesses, which create jobs and services where they are most needed.

Our third recommendation is to build a new partnership with the co-operative sector to develop and strengthen co-operative enterprises. The existing co-operative development initiative, a five-year, $15-million program, ends in March 2008.

We are recommending that the advisory services component of CDI be expanded from $1 million per year to $5 million per year for 2007-08 to respond to the ongoing yet unmet needs for technical assistance to help groups start, manage, and govern co-operatives. Beyond 2008, when the CDI ends, the co-operative movement would like to work in partnership with the government for a renewed co-operative development initiative.

In closing, I invite all committee members to help us celebrate national co-op week, which is this week. Our theme this year is “Own Your Future/Ensemble, bâtir l'avenir”. Please join us any time after 5:30 this evening in the Commonwealth Room in the Centre Block for a parliamentary reception hosted by the co-operative movement.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you.

We'll continue now with a representative from the Co-operators Group. Martin-Eric Tremblay will speak on their behalf.

Please proceed.

[Martin-Éric Tremblay, Senior Vice-President, Co-operators Group]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to begin by thanking the members of the Standing Finance Committee for inviting me to appear today. My name is Martin-Éric Tremblay and I am the Senior Vice-President of Insurance Operations for the Co-operators Group. With me is my colleague Frank Bomben, the Manager of Government Relations for the Co-operators Group.

The Co-operators is a group of companies focusing on insurance. It is 100% Canadian-owned. We have over 4,200 staff, and assets of over $6.5 billion. We protect approximately 850,000 homes, 1.1 million vehicles, and 560,000 lives. We provide coverage to 45,000 farms and 130,000 businesses.

For the past three years, the Co-operators has been listed among Canada's 50 best employers in the Report on Business Magazine, and it is listed among Canada's top hundred employers by Maclean's magazine.

The Co-operators Group is a federally regulated tier-three co-operative. Our members--that is, our co-operative owners--are 33 co-operatives, credit unions, and like-minded organizations, representing a combined membership of 4.5 million Canadians.

The Co-operators invests time and capital into developing co-operatives across Canada as well as into building social infrastructure that supports Canada's marginalized population.

My presentation today is timely because this is Cooperation Week in Canada. The theme of the current consultation process is Canada's place in a competitive world, so in the time I have been given I will tell you what we are doing to ensure that Canada becomes better positioned in an increasingly competitive world.

I would like to insist on the significant role the cooperative sector plays in Canada. This holds especially true for the economic competitiveness of the country and the welfare of its citizens. The cooperative sector plays a major role in the development of a long-term strategy aimed at strengthening the bonds which unite the various levels of government and the many cooperative businesses.

This year, our organization partnered with other Canadian cooperators to present three common recommendations to this committee. I will not go over all the issues raised in our document, since the representatives of the Canadian Co-operative Association have already presented the main elements a little earlier. However, I would like to draw your attention to the highlights of our presentation, as they constitute a response to the question of how Canada can maintain its competitive place in the world.

We would begin by recommending the creation of a new cooperative investment plan, followed by the establishment of a new partnership to strengthen cooperative businesses and, finally, the continuation of the implementation of the social economy initiative.

We are aware of the fact that the government has provisionally decided not to renew the social economy initiative. However, we respectfully ask Parliament to reconsider its intent, since we believe that this initiative is a productive way of investing public funds.

Our written submission also focused on another issue: sustainability. Cooperative principles naturally align with the concept of sustainability. Rather than existing for the purpose of amassing wealth for shareholders only, the cooperative understands the satisfaction of vital community needs as its raison d'être. The Co-operators believe that for Canada to maintain and cultivate its competitiveness in the global economy, the twin principles of financial strength and comprehensive sustainability must be enshrined as the keys to economic growth and social progress. In fact, the one hundred most sustainable public corporations outperformed their competitors on the Morgan Stanley Capital International index by 7% during the past five years.

In conclusion, failing to ensure sustainability is to fail our environment, our fellow citizens, this generation, and the next.

Again, I would like to thank you for inviting me to participate in this consultation process. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have in the next few minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, Mr. Tremblay.

We continue with Katherine Carleton, from Orchestras Canada. Welcome, Katherine.

[Katherine Carleton, Executive Director, Orchestras Canada]

Thank you.

If you didn't hear, my name is Katherine Carleton, and I'm executive director of Orchestras Canada/Orchestres Canada, a national membership organization for Canada's professional orchestras.

I'm really grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today. I'm aware of the importance of your current deliberations and I'm very pleased to speak on behalf of our member orchestras right across the country--that's from Newfoundland to northern British Columbia.

First, a few quick facts about Canada's orchestras. We have approximately 80 member orchestras across the country. In 2004-05 their budgets totalled $150 million. They performed in formal concerts for audiences totalling 2.2 million. They performed for over one million school children across the country. They engaged approximately 3,000 professional musicians, 1,000 administrators, and they benefited from the hard work and commitment of some 25,000 volunteers. Far from being elitist institutions, they are committed community organizations and they perform in communities large and small right across the country.

The Standing Committee on Finance issued a significant challenge when it framed its document, “Canada's Place in a Competitive World”. The challenge is surely to express something authentic about the achievements and the potential of the organizations I represent, respond to the very considerable challenges you face, and do so in under five minutes.

I'm taking the arts approach: I'm going to tell you a story about one of our member orchestras. I could tell good stories about any one of 80--I have to choose one, and I've chosen to focus on Tafelmusik Baroque Orchestra, based in Toronto.

The group was formed on a shoestring in a leaky church basement in downtown Toronto in 1979 by a small group of people who dreamed of applying the dry, scholarly research on music written between 1600-1750 to real live contemporary performance, not on the face of it a sure-fire, get-rich-quick scheme. But 27 years later, Tafelmusik has an annual budget of $3.5 million, over 70 recordings, a sky-high, worldwide reputation cemented through the recordings as well as regular international touring, an entrepreneurial spirit that incorporates performance and educational partnerships, cutting-edge use of new media, and award-winning electronic media projects.

Tafelmusik is an example of reverse brain drain. Performers come to Toronto from all over the world to study with members of the orchestra during its summer institute and through its partnership diploma program with the University of Toronto. Many of these musicians hope to join the orchestra one day--it's that good.

Lest you get the impression the orchestra only focuses on elite performance opportunities, I'll emphasize that it's equally committed to serving the community through a wide array of educational initiatives, including regularly partnering with schools in Toronto's challenged Regent Park neighbourhood. These are really intensive projects, working one-on-one with the kids on creative music development and performance projects.

As enthusiastic as I am about this group, I promise you that they're just an example of orchestras right across the country. What does the example underline, and what am I asking you to consider today?

First, our request is for increased federal funding for the arts through the Canada Council for the Arts. We're asking for a total increase in parliamentary appropriation to the Canada Council of $100 million. As we've seen in the Tafelmusik example, funding from the Canada Council leverages investment from all other levels of government, is often the first money in, and encourages earned revenue and philanthropic support. In Tafelmusik's case, $320,000 from the Canada Council helps generate $3.2 million in other revenue. You're seeding cultural entrepreneurs, and it's a pretty good deal.

The second thing we'd like to see is a commitment to stabilizing and then increasing funding for international cultural touring through the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Tafelmusik is just one group with an international reputation; having a bit of an investment from DFAIT is a big help.

We'd also like to see that arts organizations are recognized, not just as nice people pleasing themselves with what they're doing, but also as economic drivers.

Finally, we'd like to support the work of the blue ribbon task force on grants and contributions, and say that the discussion around accountability is one that we very much welcome. We think we can demonstrate value for the investment and we're very willing to engage in that discussion.

Thank you very much for your time today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Well done. Thank you.

Paul Johnston is here on behalf of Precarn Incorporated. Welcome, and proceed.

[Paul Johnston, President and Chief Executive Officer, Precarn Incorporated]

Thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee.

I am Paul Johnston, as was mentioned, the president of Precarn. It's a private, not-for-profit company that has helped companies for more than 18 years to do research and development to create, develop, and use advanced technologies. I've been with Precarn since 1990 in various roles, managing both university and industrial research programs, before assuming the role of president last year.

Today I want to concentrate on one sentence in the federal 2006 budget: “Looking forward, the Government will develop a broad-based agenda to promote a more competitive, productive Canada.” Even more specifically, I want to concentrate on the need to encourage industrial research and development as part of that agenda.

What do I mean by improving competitiveness and increasing productivity? Being competitive means doing things better than others. It means making better products or making your products in better ways. Being more productive as an economy means moving to a higher value-added economy. We must create and maintain an economy that creates, sells, and uses innovative, value-added goods, products, and services based on our traditional strengths.

This is where increased industry-led, market-driven research comes in. To create globally competitive, innovative products and services, we must develop both the technologies and the people to implement them. Just as important, companies and people must use and adopt these technologies to become more productive.

As an example, a famous Canadian company, Research In Motion, is based on research and development--a highly competitive, world-class company--and it makes the users of its product more productive. I think there are some users in this room.

What, then, might be some of the components of a broad-based agenda to get companies to do more research and development? In our view, the first principle is to continue to do those things that we do well and continue to invest in the models that increase research and development. Pick the ones that have the greatest impact on the ultimate commercial success of those technologies.

For example, Canada's SR&ED tax credit system is among the top three in the world. Similarly, our investments in university research are among the top three in the world. Let's continue to hold those places, if we can't improve them.

On the other hand, our industrial investment in R and D is not quite as strong. So we need to develop and continue organizations that we refer to as “fourth pillar” organizations, which help companies to do more research, commercialize more products, and become world-class participants in the global economy. Fourth-pillar organizations bring together universities, government laboratories, and these companies, to promote research, development, and the adoption of new technologies.

Here is where the concept called the “valley of death” in our paper comes in. A diagram is on page 3, if you have the paper. It relates to the gap between the generation of ideas and the development and adoption of those new products and services based on those ideas.

On the one side is research, which is to discover new technologies in our universities and government labs. This is generally publicly supported. On the other side of the valley is product development. Once the product is proven and the potential revenue stream is well known, internal funding, venture capital, and bank lending are available to support the commercial activity. Public funding is neither necessary nor desirable as a matter of policy at that stage.

It's the valley of death, the transition phase between public and private sector financing, the phase in which pre-commercial research and development takes place, where leveraged public support needs to be made available. Mechanisms such as fourth-pillar organizations, which I referred to previously, can help bridge that valley.

Fourth-pillar organizations also add value in other ways, not only in funding. They reduce the technological and market risks, they share the costs across the valley, and they reduce the time to market for these new products, services, and technologies. Mostly the model is successful in providing links between the companies on one side of the valley and the universities and government laboratories on the other side of the valley.

We support the development of a broad-based agenda to improve the competitiveness and productivity of Canadian firms. To do this, the government must develop and maintain a range of policies and activities that encourage Canadian firms to invest in the research and development of advanced technologies.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, sir.

We'll continue with Michael Shapcott, who is here on behalf of the National Housing and Homelessness Network. Welcome, sir, and proceed.

[Michael Shapcott, Co-Chair, National Housing and Homelessness Network, National Housing and Homelessness Network]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Michael Shapcott. I work at the Wellesley Institute, a policy institute in downtown Toronto. I'm here today on behalf of the National Housing and Homelessness Network.

Mr. Chair, if I could, what I'd love to do with my five minutes is take the members of this committee outside. I think there's nothing like a very cold and wet autumn day to convince people that the issues of homelessness and the affordable housing crisis are not good. We know they're not good for people's health, they're not good for the economy, and they're not good for neighbourhoods and communities.

Mr. Chair, on a cold day like today, which I'm sad to say is only the start of what will be a very cold winter, I think this committee really needs to focus on what the United Nations in May called the national emergency of housing and homelessness in Canada.

We submitted a submission back in September, with several recommendations. Before I turn to that, I'd like to with respect make two very specific appeals to this committee on urgent items.

First of all, I'd like to invite members of this committee to make an urgent recommendation in terms of the renewal of federal homelessness and housing rehabilitation funding.

In just a few weeks, of course, the blizzards of winter are going to move across Canada, but literally thousands of agencies that provide critical health and social services to homeless people are going to be forced to shut their doors and lay off staff. It's because the federal homelessness program, which has funded thousands of transitional homes and thousands of health and social services and has provided capital dollars to improve shelter and food programs in 61 communities, is due to sunset, in the words of the bureaucrats, this fiscal year.

It's going to have a devastating impact on communities right across the country, not simply on poor urban neighbourhoods in Vancouver, north Winnipeg, north Halifax, or the east end of Vancouver, but even in the booming province of Alberta, where all indications show the economy is doing very well. I'm sure members of this committee can attest to the fact that there's a housing and homelessness crisis even in the province of Alberta.

The national homelessness program has been under a microscope for more than a year. The verdict is that it's been highly successful and that additional funding is urgently needed. We can't wait until February, when the next federal budget is expected, because by then the services will be lost and homeless people will have been abandoned by the federal government.

I want to appeal to this committee today to send a strong message about the federal homelessness program and, secondly, a strong message involving the federal housing rehabilitation program, which is also due to sunset in fiscal 2006.

Over the last number of decades, this program has helped many hundreds of thousands of low-income homeowners and owners of rental property to fix up substandard properties. I don't need to tell members of this committee that it's far less expensive to offer modest rehabilitation assistance than it is to allow properties to deteriorate so badly they have to be demolished and rebuilt.

In my final moments, I want to turn to the submission we made in September and urge this committee to make a healthy and competitive Canada a top priority. In doing that, we believe this committee needs to address and work towards the creation of a comprehensive, fully funded, and permanent national housing program.

We want to acknowledge that in 2005, through Bill C-48, $1.6 billion was allocated to affordable housing, and that was a good step forward. We now know that $1.4 billion of the $1.6 billion has finally been allocated in trust funds, and that's a step forward as well. There's $200 million missing somewhere, and someone might want to look for that. It is a down payment and a very important down payment, but it's only a fraction of what's required to address the urgent housing needs across the country.

Our recommendations for the 2006 pre-budget consultations urge this committee to top up money for affordable housing, to extend the federal homelessness program, and to extend the federal housing rehabilitation program.

I want to point out that since the last time I was at this committee, a remarkable consensus has been emerging across Canada. It's not merely the homeless and their friends and advocates who are calling for a national housing strategy. It's all across the community. It's charitable organizations and faith groups. It's business organizations at the national level, such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, business organizations, such as the TD Bank, and local business organizations, such as the Toronto Board of Trade.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close with a quote from the Toronto Board of Trade wherein they say:

Ultimately the supply of affordable housing affects the success of all businesses. Along with other infrastructure components, it helps to determine whether or not companies and employees locate in the city. A lack of affordable housing can lead to a host of other, more serious social and economic problems.

I think we're seeing that happening in Alberta even as we speak.

I'd be pleased to answer any questions or offer more details of our recommendations on the housing priorities of Canadians. Thank you for the opportunity to make these submissions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. Shapcott.

Thank you all for cramming as much information as we forced you to do into five minutes. We appreciate it.

Mr. McKay, begin with seven minutes, sir.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for your presentations.

I want to direct my first couple of questions to the folks from the co-op sector, both groups. You represent workers' co-ops, insurance co-ops, agricultural co-ops. You represent, if you will, the heartland of the country; people who see it as advantageous to organize themselves in a co-op fashion and embrace this, really, right across the country. And yet in the number three item in your summary recommendations you say, "Reconsider the cuts to the Social Economy Initiative announced by Ministers Flaherty and Baird...and implement the Social Economy Initiative in all parts of Canada."

For a government that purports to be interested in the regions, particularly the rural regions, this seems to be a perverse way of embracing them. Can you expand the comment you made under number three? I think both of you made it in a different sort of way.

[Carol Hunter]

There were three pillars to the social economy: a research pillar, which has rolled out, and two other pillars—one for patient capital, and a third pillar for capacity building. We know from experience internationally in growing the cooperative movement in many other countries that you need to marry the financial assistance and some patient capital with technical assistance as well. Those two pillars, we think, are very important.

Cooperatives are found all across the country and although we welcome the roll-out in Quebec, there is some irony, in that the social economy and the co-op movement is very strong in Quebec. One could argue that the monies, although needed in Quebec, and certainly they are, are also profoundly needed in the rest of the country, where the monies have not rolled out.

We are surprised that this government has not chosen to roll out the money across the rest of the country, given its strong rural and western base, and we really would urge reconsideration.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Am I to understand that the moneys that were allocated for the social economy initiative in Quebec have been protected, but the ones for the rest of the country have not?

[Carol Hunter]

Yes, that is correct. The main reason for that is that the contract had been signed in Quebec and was just about ready to be signed in Ontario with FedNor, the regional development agency.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

And how much money does that account for?

[Carol Hunter]

The Quebec money was around $30 million, I believe. The entire program was $132 million.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Your number six recommendation....

Well, let me just ask the insurance folks: do you have anything to add to what Ms. Hunter has said?

[Frank Bomben, Manager, Government Relations, Co-operators Group]

No.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Your next recommendation has to do with child care spaces. As you know, we're supposed to be studying productivity. I'd be interested in your observations with respect to high-quality, affordable, universal child care and its impact on productivity for your members.

[Carol Hunter]

That's a good question. We certainly do support cooperative child care spaces, in particular a multi-stakeholder model, where both the parents and the people who work in the child care co-ops can take some ownership of the quality of the services for child care. If parents were involved in how their child care services are run, I would argue that would have a significant impact on productivity. You wouldn't have worried parents in the workplace concerned about the quality of care their children are getting. We would certainly urge that a number of those child care spaces be cooperative child care spaces, to give some parents a voice in the care of their children.