Finance Committee on Oct. 24th, 2006

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to preface my comments by indicating that I believe the only way to help anyone is from a position of strength; you can't help someone from a position of weakness. So in that vein I would argue that the best way to fund social programs and the social safety net that we all value is to create robust economies and provide opportunity for people to climb out of whatever social predicament they find themselves in. I think that is an approach we should be following.

There are other parties who believe the opposite formula is true, that we should fund the social programs and write the cheques, which will somehow lead to a robust economy. I don't agree with that ideology.

Mr. Dennison, you mentioned equalization to begin with. I agree with you that equalization is fundamentally critical to a nation. I want to tell you as an Ontarian that I'm not happy with the approach that our provincial government has recently taken in whining about its contributions to equalization, because I believe that Ontario has a critical role to play in nation-building; we are central to the country in geographic description, but we're also critical in binding the nation together.

What are your comments on that?

[Donald Dennison]

My first comment is that the Government of Ontario doesn't contribute to equalization. It would make us all believe that it does, but it doesn't. What you have in equalization is that the federal government, through the contribution of federal taxpayers, supports the program.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

You're right.

[Donald Dennison]

As well, I think if you look at what's happening in the country today, I read that Ontario has slipped below the national average in terms of GDP. When you look at the equalization-receiving provinces and the dollars per capita they have to work with, and the dollars per capita the Ontario government has to work with, there's not very much difference—and this is what's causing the Government of Ontario to carry on.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

I agree with you. There's a major misconception about what equalization is: it's federal tax dollars collected. Now Ontario does generate the majority of federal tax dollar revenue, which is why the government there is complaining.

We hear a lot about the fiscal imbalance. Could you just clarify why fiscal balance has absolutely nothing to do with equalization? The two are completely unrelated.

[Donald Dennison]

There's vertical balance or imbalance and a horizontal balance or imbalance. They are two very different things. Equalization deals with the horizontal; it doesn't deal with the vertical.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. McCallum indicated that there was a difference between the government and their party and our approach. I agree. They believe in big, inefficient government, and we believe in a leaner, efficient government. We believe in creating robust economies.

He talked about how we were withdrawing support for regional development. I just want to put on the record the investment in ACOA, which we believe is an outstanding tool for creating opportunity in Atlantic Canada. Maybe you'd like to talk about the budget we've set aside for ACOA and the measures we're taking to encourage investment in industry in Canada in general.

[Donald Dennison]

The minister responsible for ACOA has made it very clear that there have been no budget cuts to ACOA yet. We hope the government will not cut that approach, because, as I said before, the amount of money that goes out through ACOA to support industry in Atlantic Canada is nowhere near the amount that goes out through Industry Canada to Ontario, Quebec, and other parts of the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. Del Mastro.

Just to clarify the record, I think Mr. Del Mastro referred to Ontario taxpayers' funds forwarded to the federal government forming the majority of the pool that is used to redistribute equalization payments. That is not true. The most significant contributor is Ontario high-income earners, but less than a third of the total sum comes from Ontario earners. The largest contributors are people who are residents of that province, but the majority of the money does not come from Ontario residents.

We'll continue with Mr. Pacetti.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On that note, coming from Manitoba, I think the people from Ontario would appreciate that.

I didn't ask Ms. McIntyre my previous question because her brief was pretty good and contained some good recommendations.

To Mr. Ferns, in your presentation you were talking about education and the way things have been changing with regard to students. You're saying that students are working more now than they did before, there are changes in courses, and some students are required to stay there an extra year or sometimes two years. I went to university about twenty years ago, and I remember working full-time in the summer and part-time. The people around me did that as well. Some people also changed courses. I think that's part of the education process, part of the learning process.

In Quebec we have what is called a CÉGEP, which is the equivalent of a junior college. Some of my friends made a career out of it and went from program to program--they were career programs. I think it's something that hasn't changed. You seem to think it's a new phenomenon, but I'm not so sure. It's just more prevalent today because the loans are getting higher, but I think it's always been there.

Do you agree or disagree, or did I misinterpret what you were saying?

[Dr. Chris Ferns]

I would disagree, and there is one point I would like to clarify. What I'm reflecting is my experience of teaching in the system for twenty years and seeing how things are now as opposed to when I was teaching in the 1980s. I can assure you that as far as I can see, the actual number of people working longer hours is greater now than it was then.

On people changing their programs, I see it as a desirable thing to do. You should be able to change your mind if something suddenly catches your imagination and you feel it's what you really want do. The point I was making is that's becoming more and more difficult for students to do because of the financial penalties for changing your course of study. Taking an extra year or doing additional courses is now so prohibitive that a lot of people feel they can't do that any longer.

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

It may be an issue here in Nova Scotia because the tuition fees are much higher, but the tuition fees in Quebec are so low that I'm not sure why the costs are so prohibitive. I understand that people have to live, but if they're working, aren't they making more money today than they were twenty years ago? My friends used to work for less than minimum wage when we went to school. We all thought it was just part of putting some money in your pocket or getting some training. You were willing to work for almost nothing if it was a job in your field.

[Dr. Chris Ferns]

I think the specific problem in Nova Scotia is a combination of two things: first of all, having the highest tuition fees in the country, but also having relatively few well-paid jobs for students to take, so they're obliged to work longer hours because the actual pay rates are less.

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

Okay. Now I understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, sir.

We'll conclude with Mr. Wallace now.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming, and I enjoyed the presentations. I had to leave briefly to hear some questions.

My questions are going to deal with Ms. McIntyre, if that's okay.

One of your recommendations is about accountability and responsibility in whistle-blowing legislation. My question is simple. Are you aware that in our Accountability Act we do have whistle-blowing legislation? And are you encouraged by it? Would you like to see it pass the federal level?

[Gayle McIntyre]

In our submission, we did include the link to the whistle-blowing...and that's about the accessibility most Canadians have, that is, let's go on the computer and see what's available for it. We did not see any inclusions for people who are recipients of those programs who are locked into a relationship with civil servants. We see the whistle-blowing working between civil servants but not between the recipients of these programs that are being delivered by civil servants. It may be there; I could not find it. I searched for it and I couldn't find it.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

You want somebody who is a receiver of a federal program, if something is going awry, to be able to blow the whistle on that person without repercussions.

[Gayle McIntyre]

Absolutely. Going back to the theme of being efficient, one of the biggest things that keeps people in poverty is the lack of appropriate services...but the way they're being delivered, which is violated....

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

If I told you that was in the program, would you be satisfied with that then?

[Gayle McIntyre]

I'd have to see it first.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay.

My second question--

[An hon. member]

She hasn't seen it, so leave her alone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

It's interesting. I would just point out that usually the questioners are heckled from the opposite side of the table.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'm new, so I get it from all sides.

The second piece here in your recommendations talks about a separate provincial department for housing. I don't see anything about a federal department for housing. You may have mentioned it, but I didn't see it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was a housing department at the federal level. It was cancelled by the Liberals. Is that correct?