Finance Committee on May 31st, 2006

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you very much.

I have two more questions, quickly. One is to Michael Shapcott, who was kind enough to present a brief to this committee on the mortgage insurance issue even though he couldn't appear.

I would like for you to give just a short message to committee members about the dangers of opening up mortgage insurance to private competition before we do the final vote tomorrow.

Then we'll go to Ian Boyko, on education. I think we all agree that the money going into infrastructure is not money going to access. But I think we all have to acknowledge that at least the Conservatives are trying to spend the Bill C-48 money--something the Liberals refused to do. They had to be dragged, pushing and screaming, just to put in place some money for access after 13 years of no money for access--in fact, after taking $6 billion out of transfers, to the point where the federal share of education is probably less than 10% in most provinces.

So I wonder if Michael and Ian can each give a quick comment on those two issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

They'll have about 15 seconds each.

Mr. Shapcott.

[Michael Shapcott]

In my brief, I said about mortgage insurance that, one, it's good for the people who get it. It helps low-income Canadians get access to housing. Two, it's good for the Government of Canada. It generates a significant revenue pool. And three, that revenue pool can prudently be invested in new housing, which again is good.

So we think mortgage insurance should remain as one of the responsibilities of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

A quick response, Mr. Boyko.

[Ian Boyko]

The history of transfer payments is a matter of public record, and that's clear. We need to go forward. We need to recognize that Canada almost couldn't be in a healthier economic and fiscal position. We need to train our young workers, looking forward to the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thanks, Mr. Boyko.

To Mr. Cunningham, Canadians were saddened by the tragic passing of Heather Crowe these last few days. She was of course an advocate for no smoking in the public workplace. Fortunately, smoking bans are occurring now in our two largest provinces; unfortunately, these smoking bans are uneven across the country.

My particular concern is the fact that on our aboriginal reserves, they have been excluded by certain provinces' smoking bans, certainly by my home province of Manitoba, where Madam Wasylycia-Leis is from as well. People working on reserves in public buildings aren't protected the way the rest of Canadians are. That's one example. The previous government also got in the habit of having the Indian Affairs minister sign off on band council resolutions that allowed smoking in such places as aboriginally owned casinos and on reserve generally.

I'd like you to tell us if your organization has a position on this. I believe it's important that we know your organization's position on this. You know mine.

[Rob Cunningham]

We believe all Canadians should be fully protected from the health hazards of second-hand smoke in all enclosed workplaces and public places. Only one province, Manitoba, has specifically excluded public places on reserves from provincial law. Normally provincial laws for occupational health and safety do apply on reserves. If it's a federally regulated sector--broadcasting, communications, grain elevators, banks, RCMP--that's not covered by provincial laws.

Second, a handful of band bylaws has been adopted to override provincial laws. As a lawyer, my respectful view is that those bylaws are illegal. Reserves have authority to adopt bylaws to protect the health of residents on reserves. When a bylaw says that a casino must have a smoking section, even if the casino management doesn't want one, that's not protecting the health of residents. Those bylaws should not be signed off, because there's no authority for those bylaws to be adopted.

The Non-smokers' Health Act applies to the federally regulated sector, but that has not been updated since 1989. So you may be a worker, in a federally regulated sector, in an office on the same floor, and all of the other provincially regulated employers are covered 100% smoke-free, but you may be exposed to second-hand smoke. It's time for an update by amending the act, amending the Canada Labour Code, or amending the regulations so that all workers are fully protected. That's something that members of Parliament from all parties I think could easily endorse.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, sir.

Mr. McCallum, over to you, sir.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just one question for Mr. Shapcott, and after that I'd like to share my time with Mr. McKay.

Your comments about the housing situation and homelessness are, if anything, in one sense over-optimistic, I think. The budget makes it pretty clear that both of those activities are endangered species for the federal government in the section of the budget that talks about activities that perhaps should not be in the federal domain at all, not to mention the finance minister's previous life, in which he advocated that homelessness be made a criminal offence.

My question to you is, how important is the contribution of the federal government to homelessness and social housing today, and what would be the implications if the federal government simply withdrew from these areas?

[Michael Shapcott]

The federal government's contribution is critically important—and has been so. The federal government has taken leadership on the issue of housing going back to the 1930s. I can quote former prime ministers: Prime Minister Pearson recognized the need for a federal role, and Prime Minister Trudeau put that recognition into law. So the federal role is absolutely critical.

I do want to say that in Geneva in May, when the UN committee was listening to both Canadian government representatives and representatives from non-governmental organizations, one of the questions asked of the Canadian government representatives was—to paraphrase it—do you intend to hide behind federalism by downloading, in effect, Canada's obligations to safely house its citizens? The federal representative said, no, they weren't going to hide behind federalism. But I think with respect to some of the issues you've raised, the federal government is intending to abrogate its responsibility.

This will be very, very serious. We've seen a rising housing crisis in the 1990s in Canada, not just in our big cities, but also in small towns and remote, rural, and northern communities. We've seen that crisis emerge as the federal government has withdrawn from housing. In 1993 the federal government stopped funding new affordable housing. In 1996 the federal government in its budget announced plans to transfer existing federal social housing programs to provinces and territories. That withdrawal had a significant impact; you can track in Canada the increase in homelessness to those decisions.

So the federal government plays an absolutely critical role as a partner with other governments. We were encouraged that there were some small steps in the right direction in recent years, but they could all be undone if the federal government intends to leave its responsibilities.

Incidentally, from my reading of the Constitution—and I'm not a constitutional lawyer—it doesn't say that housing is assigned to the provinces. In fact, it seems to be silent. If you look at the history of Canada, the federal government has played a leading role to the great benefit of Canadians.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

You have just a bit of time for a quick question.

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

I'm going to address my question to both Ms. Lysack and Mr. Stothart. The question is with respect to the value to business of a child care system.

To draw an analogy with the health care system and the competitive advantage that Canadian industry gets by virtue of a universal health care system—and in the auto industry, the worth is something in the order of about $2,000 per vehicle—have you given any thought to the value of a universal day care system to industry and what competitive advantage it might actually give to Canadian industry?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We have time for a couple of brief responses, if both of you would like to respond.

[Paul Stothart]

I would say it's a very interesting question. We haven't really given a lot of thought to that. Certainly, our industry faces a huge human resource challenge in the next decade, with something like 81,000 jobs having to be replaced over the next decade, just at a steady state. Anything that would help companies get new employees and improve their ability to attract employees is something we should consider.

Certainly the industry is known for having hundreds of sites in small communities across the country, so there is the issue of employing fair numbers of people in small communities across the country. How that interacts with your question, I guess, is another issue we should think about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I'm sorry, but we've used up the time for that question.

I'm going to ask for the cooperation of committee members. We have three other committee members who would like to ask questions. I'll go to three-minute rounds now.

Mr. St-Cyr.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I'd like to question Mr. Boyko again on student demands in education transfers.

When the last federation council meeting was held, nearly everyone in Quebec, student associations, unions, education executives and most political parties, agreed that the government should immediately restore $4.9 billion to the provinces in the form of transfers. That in fact represented only the level where we were in 1995, adjusting, of course, for inflation. We're living in a world where prices are constantly rising.

You didn't mention that figure in your answer. Does that mean that the demands of Canadian students are different from those of Quebec students?

[Ian Boyko]

No, in fact we don't, and we work on a very close basis with the university and CEGEP associations in Quebec.

Part of the problem of coming up with a scientific number on what students and their families are owed in transfer payments is the fact that between 1996 and 2004 we had a block transfer payment, where some provinces spent differing levels on social services. So that number is a bit of a piece of fiction to begin with.

I think the premier's number of $4.9 billion refers to the entire Canadian social transfer, so for post-secondary education and associated program funding. Again, there are other estimates out there that put the number well beyond that in terms of what is owed when it comes to inflation and population growth. Suffice to say, I don't think there's anybody out there who can make the claim credibly that our institutions are getting anywhere near the level of federal support on a year-over-year basis that they were 10 years ago.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

You have approximately one minute, Mr. St-Cyr.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I'd like to come back to what was discussed earlier with Ms. Lysack.

With regard to Quebec's choice to fund its own child care service, you answered by telling me about funds that were originally provided under the agreement, the share owed to Quebec. The present government said it would not comply with that agreement, but that it would include that in the settlement of the fiscal imbalance. We'll be watching it on that point.

For my part, I referred to the savings the federal government is enjoying as a result of the fact that Quebec parents claim smaller tax credits. They claim $7 per child per day, instead of $25, $30, $40 or $50. That's a saving.

One wonders whether, in a federation, the federal government should respect the choice of that province and turn the savings it makes over to it or, on the contrary, whether it should simply pocket that money.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Unfortunately, Mr. St-Cyr has used his time with a preamble.

Mr. Dykstra, you have three minutes, sir.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Great.

The questions are for Monica, if you wouldn't mind.

You raised a point in both your introduction and in some responses, and I wanted to make sure this was clear: do you know the five priorities that the current government has listed as ones they are focusing on in the 39th Parliament?

[Monica Lysack]

Yes.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Would you agree or not agree that child care is one of those priorities?

[Monica Lysack]

I agree that it's been identified as a priority, but I don't necessarily agree that it's been acted on as a priority.