Finance Committee on Oct. 26th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Would you be there if that single desk still existed?

[Annalisa King]

We would not have built in Brandon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

For members, I want to draw a parallel to the Canadian Wheat Board, where in fact people do not set up value-added operations in my home province and Judy's home province. I've heard from many of them that they will not as long as they have a sole, single-desk supplier of the commodity they are engaged in processing. They will never locate in Manitoba until such time as they are able to deal directly with the suppliers of the commodity.

[Annalisa King]

We agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thanks for your business in Manitoba. I know a lot of farm families who really appreciate it, and we certainly should too.

And I would again draw that parallel for panel members in terms of the Canadian Wheat Board proposals for dual marketing.

We will now continue with Mr. McCallum.

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

How much time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

You have five minutes.

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

Thank you.

Dean's comment about the unfairness of child care because of his neighbour reminds me slightly of the argument that the health care system is unfair because I'm well and my neighbour gets sick and only my neighbour gets to use it. I don't accept that. But there's one point he made that I do agree with, even though it might have caused me to question my beliefs, and that's on this question of income splitting.

To Mr. Braniff, I don't understand why we should discriminate by age against the young, the middle, or the old. If we have a limited amount of money—and I agree with the principle of income splitting—why don't we say that all households can income split up to, say, $60,000 joint income, or $50,000 or $70,000 or $80,000, depending on how much money we have available in the budget? Then it would be available to all, except we would ration it out not according to how old you are but according to your income. As resources become available over time, we could then raise that threshold income. Why is it old people and not middle-aged people? Why not do it according to need?

[Daniel Braniff]

Thanks for that question.

I'm not sure you should discriminate in that respect, but if you wanted to put a priority on it, then it should be based on the fact that today's working person or family has more facilities to split income than ever existed before. This household plan, for instance, was introduced in 1985. That was the year I retired, so we have limited options to split our income unless we're very wealthy.

Mr. McKay mentioned the wealthy. If you look at the arithmetic, there's a point where splitting your income doesn't do you any good if you're up in the higher echelons of income.

The point is that the group I represent is on a fixed income. Generally, these people came from the generation of homemaker and breadwinner. The institutions at that time pressed forward the idea of the woman staying at home and having kids. My sister had eight kids, and there wasn't much of an option for her to go out and work. That's a rarity these days. So I say that you start there because that's the generation that is suffering the most under these circumstances today.

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

I don't really agree, but I'll go on. I think those suffering the most are those with the lowest income, whether they're old or young, and that's the way in which we should ration this good.

I'd like to move on to child care, vis-à-vis how Elizabeth would respond to her neighbours. I would think that the child care argument is primarily a social one, but it can be made in terms of competitiveness. Look at our health care system. The availability of universal health care in Canada versus the lack of it in the U.S. is of huge benefit to companies, to car companies. It seems to me that child care would have the same competitiveness advantage if it were available.

Would you agree with that rationale?

[Elizabeth Ablett]

I would, but at the same time I hesitate to put our children in what is purely an economic light. I absolutely concur that it would be a competitive advantage if employers across the country or employees across the country could have access to quality child care services in which they felt comfortable placing their children, knowing that they were in a healthy early learning environment, but I want to emphasize that children are not widgets.

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

Okay. I said first the primary motivation is social, but if you want to dress it up in competitiveness garb, then I think you also have a strong point, and that was the question of my colleague here.

[Elizabeth Ablett]

Absolutely.

[Annalisa King]

Yes, absolutely. We do a lot of business with Japan. China is a growing area for us, as a company. It's a new environment. We're very intrigued by it, but there's a lot of work to do. It provides a tremendous opportunity in the future, as do countries like Mexico, which also has huge potential for us as a company. Although Mexico is included in NAFTA, the whole trade dispute area is an area of concern for us. It takes time to resolve trade disputes, and the inefficiency associated with those things costs companies like ours money, meaning we aren't able to actually contribute back to the economy, and thus help fund all these other people.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you. Mr. McCallum's questioning time is up.

Over to you, Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to be relatively quick.

To Mr. Polanyi, you had thirteen recommendations, I think, in your proposal. Are they in order of importance?

[Michael Polanyi]

No. They're just by value, by objective.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Are there one or two that you would like to point out to me that are more important to your organization than others?

[Michael Polanyi]

I highlighted four or five, I think, in my speaking notes. I think a lot of different groups are calling for the poverty reduction strategy. At least let's recognize that poverty is a problem and set some targets regarding poverty.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Is there one other one? Can you give me another one?

[Michael Polanyi]

I think certainly greenhouse gas emission reduction is another one. Canadians care about it. They're looking for leadership and action from the government, and that's a win-win for everybody.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

I don't have any questions for the Real Estate Board. I completely understand that issue.

Regarding our day care presentation, I just have one real question. I'm not going to debate the issue itself with you. You have four recommendations, and let's say for argument's sake you're right, that tax incentives won't work and that we have to turn them into actual capital requests or capital funding. The question is this: why would the federal government turn it over to the provinces? Is this a provincial matter or a federal matter?

[Elizabeth Ablett]

My understanding is that child care is indeed under provincial jurisdiction.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

So really up until the on-paper promise from the Liberals, day care was always funded by the provinces, never funded by the feds. Is that correct?

[Elizabeth Ablett]

I'm not sure whether that's correct. I know it is legislated and monitored and overseen by the provinces, but it relies heavily on assistance from the federal government.