Finance Committee on Oct. 24th, 2006

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

So that's a no. Thank you.

Ms. Dorner.

[Jennifer Dorner]

I'll just say no.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

No. Thank you.

[Jeanne Fay]

No.

[Dr. Katherine Schultz]

I'll say no.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you. All noes, confirming once again the wisdom of Nova Scotia. Thank you.

My next question is to Ms. Schultz.

Dollars are limited, of course, as we all know, and I believe, having heard from universities, having spent most of my life in universities, that the initiatives of the federal government—for research grants, for professorships, for indirect costs—have made a difference to the universities. So if you had a choice between more dollars of this kind of direct federal support versus more dollars transferred to provinces for use, one hopes, in post-secondary situations, which would be your preference?

[Dr. Katherine Schultz]

Clearly, more dollars all the way around.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Ms. Schultz, there are about thirty seconds to respond to that, if you wish.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

But if it had to be one or the other, which would be your priority?

[Dr. Katherine Schultz]

I think direct.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. McCallum.

I must put on record that we have some briefs that have been submitted in only one language. I expect that may be the case tomorrow as well. I would like to put on record that we have the consent of the committee to distribute those in the language in which they have been presented to us. We of course will have them translated as soon as possible for the balance of the week, if that is acceptable.

Thank you, committee members, for your cooperation.

We will continue on.

Mr. Paquette, you have four minutes.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

This question is for Ms. Dorner.

You presented a series of recommendations. I have two questions for you. First, are you optimistic regarding the current government's openness to the completely legitimate investments that you are requesting for cultural purposes? A few days ago, the museums assistance program was cut by 50%. Moreover, what we call “public diplomacy” or the assistance dedicated to tours by theatre and dance groups and by symphony orchestras was also reduced. What makes you optimistic on this matter?

Second, I am a little surprised that you have not made reference to the Canada Council for the Arts' budget. You speak of the National Gallery, which is an important institution, but the Canada Council for the Arts also plays an important role. So why?

[Jennifer Dorner]

I will respond in English.

In terms of my optimism, there definitely is concern in the sector with these recent cuts, and we would like to stress the fact that we definitely need more money invested into the arts.

The second part of your question in relation to the...we did mention the funding to the Canada Council, and we do know that there was that increase. What we would like to say is that we would like to see more invested in more stable, long-term funding. We would like to see this happen not just immediately, but for the long term into the future, because there was very little funding invested into the Canada Council. So we would like to see more of an increase, for sure.

Does this answer your question?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Yes.

Ms. Warren, you talked a little about the situation of people who have had brain injuries, but in the brief, you did not indicate the amount you expect in order to help with these victims' reintegration into the labour market workforce.

Have you assessed how much this might be? What should the federal government's investment be to help these victims in everyday life or to help them integrate into the workforce?

[Jane Warren]

The Brain Injury Association of Nova Scotia has had an inroads program going for the last eight years, and, as I say, it's from donations from the public and a literacy grant occasionally. And they calculated that $70,000, which is a pitiful amount, would enable them to offer inroads classes, which re-teaches reading and writing, and socialization to a certain point, and gets people up to being work ready. And there have been examples of ladies who were trapped in their homes for ten or fifteen years, because they got lost, and since they've going to the inroads program they are now able to go out and walk around, and visit stores and spend money, and they've even got a job.

It's $60,000 or $70,000 for the five chapter areas that the Brain Injury Association has in this province, so if you multiply that by, I suppose...I can't do it--

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I basically understand your approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We will continue.

Go ahead, Ms. Ablonczy.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to each of you. They were excellent presentations, and I can see that the various groups you represent are well served by these briefs.

I'll just keep my headphones on; I have a hearing problem, and that way I won't miss anything you say.

I'd like to first ask Ms. Warren something. I appreciate your brief. We had not heard of this issue before in our consultations, so you've done us a service, and you're a passionate advocate for the group you represent. I commend you on that.

You talked about the need for a national database to better decide what mix of services would be correct. In your experience, should we be aiming for brain-injured people to return to their former employment, or have training for a different entree into the workforce?

[Jane Warren]

I shouldn't generalize and say often, but it seems to be often that they're not able to return. I don't have any employment background, but I have a degree in mathematics. After my brain injury, I couldn't add two and two together, and to use a calculator was a problem. Short-term memory most often is one of the problems that follows a brain injury, so to say two plus three plus seven, divided by six...I would forget which numbers I had punched and whether I had punched the “add” sign on the calculator. And to type--and I'm not a good typist--by the time I had looked from the paper to the screen, I'd forgotten what the word was, so I wouldn't be able to type it.

I'm able to add and subtract now. I'm not able to do university-level mathematics, but not many people can. Where I could do it before, I can't do it now, but I'm back to average sort of thing.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

So what I hear you saying is that the issue really isn't what kind of work someone does, but really just gaining skills so they have some choices in getting back to work.

[Jane Warren]

Yes, and as I say, the inroads program that the Brain Injury Association offers.... There was a conference on October 20 and 21 in Peterborough about re-teaching and what areas the brain injured should be led into. So once you re-teach somebody how to read....

I sent in my full brief in September, and I think I had an example in there of an accountant who lost the ability to do multiplication tables. So he doesn't have a job as an accountant any more, but he could be something else because he has the experience with the accounting side, but perhaps not with the actual manipulation of numbers.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Right. That's good background and very helpful for us.

I want to turn now to Ms. Schultz--

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I'm sorry, Madam Ablonczy, there won't be adequate time for that question.

We'll move on to Mr. McKay now.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to be here.

I want to focus on Mr. Johnson's presentation and the interaction of Bill C-48 and Bill 207. Am I to understand that Bill 207 essentially confirmed the purposes of Bill C-48, and then with the change in government, there was an attempt to, if not repeal it, at least alter the intention?

What I don't understand is, first of all, on Bill C-48, the Conservatives, who were then in opposition, voted massively against Bill C-48, and now in government, because of Bill C-48, they have been forced to fund it, and they funded it through a trust.

I don't understand how a junior level of government gets to say that the purpose of these moneys is changed because we say it's changed, regardless of whether the reasons are good or bad or whether we argue about them. I don't understand how you do that. Can you explain that to me?