Thank you.
Evidence of meeting #18 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cement.
Evidence of meeting #18 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cement.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
We'll now move on to our second last questioner, Monsieur Mulcair, and I'll take the last one.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to continue asking Ms. Asselin questions because there are a number of very important points in her presentation.
Ms. Asselin, were you here when I spoke with the FEUQ representative?
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
This is a question that applies somewhat in both cases. Obviously, we are elected members of four federal political parties who are hearing ideas and suggestions here about what should be done in the next budget.
Some things in your presentation are federal responsibilities in that you talk about transfers.
I don't know whether you remember the history. Two or three years ago, when the Liberals were still in power, we demanded that Paul Martin, instead of giving tax breaks to his buddies in the big corporations, transfer $4.5 billion to three areas: social housing, public transit and postsecondary education.
We have a little challenge: to ensure that the funding flows to the right place, that the appropriation for that area, since it is an area of provincial jurisdiction, is actually allocated to the area in question.
Have you considered that? I'm considering the themes you talked about. A number of things, even social housing, are now managed to a large degree by the province under various agreements. If $2 billion more were invested in social housing, would it be normal for us to be able to ensure that it was really set aside for that purpose?
3:55 p.m.
President, Fédération des femmes du Québec
Yes. Obviously, we wouldn't want the money paid for social housing to go into Quebec's Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Our movement, which is a social movement, works with groups that work for the development of social housing. Consequently, when, in our brief, we request $2 billion more a year for that purpose, we agree that it's for social housing.
The same is true for postsecondary education and all social programs. If the contribution to a national child care program is increased, it must be ensured that Quebec has its share and that it will enable us to develop and maintain a network of accessible child care services. It's always done in that spirit.
However, we want Quebec to retain all its jurisdictions in these matters and to be able to develop its own programs. That's fundamentally important for us, and that has proven itself. I'm thinking of child care services and the Quebec parental insurance plan program. We know that women in the country are examining these programs and would like them to serve as examples. The whole question of parental insurance could serve as an example, and we could modify employment insurance leave to copy that of Quebec.
So, yes.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Thank you very much.
I just have a couple of quick questions I'd like to address.
First of all, just to clarify something from Mr. Bonnett, you advocated a made-in-Canada or Canadian product, as far as the hog market goes, which is interesting. The United States has a fairly aggressive farm bill, and part of that farm bill includes country-of-origin labelling, which I believe your federation would oppose.
So how do you square that?
3:55 p.m.
Second Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
I can clarify that.
What we're talking about is a voluntary “Grown in Canada” program. It's broader than just hogs; it's about vegetables, it's about beef, it's about meat.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Second Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
We would advocate that it be a voluntary system. I think there's an opportunity to get a marketing advantage from it. The difference between what we're proposing and what they're proposing in the States with country-of-origin labelling is that the latter is mandatory in nature, and that drives costs into the system that would otherwise not be there. Actually, we would not support it, because it's an additional layer of regulation and complexity, which is just going to drag down the prices to producers.
What we're talking about is a voluntary program that's clear and transparent, so that when consumers do buy product, they do have a choice, and they can understand whether they want to choose something grown in Canada or something grown elsewhere.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Okay. Thanks for that explanation, because it really is quite hypocritical to suggest we would do something different from what we're advocating for another country.
3:55 p.m.
Second Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture
No, and we would actually encourage other countries who want to do their own local marketing—but it has to be voluntary.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Fair enough.
I just have one last question with regard to Bob Hindle. How much synergy is there between what you're advocating with the funds and the research we're doing in Canada and the United States, Australia, Europe, and other places that are doing the same thing? I say this because it becomes absolutely critical that we put our heads together on this one.
3:55 p.m.
Director, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
My honest answer is there's an incredible amount of potential synergy, and I mean true synergy, where one plus one equals three--funding the gap in transitional research. Now people are focusing on that, and the biggest problem is that you can't go from all of the great basic research to commercialization unless we let the scientists go through that.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Director, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
We're working with type 1 and type 2.
Maybe I could involve Mr. Pacetti in an answer about expecting a cure in five or 10 years. Complications, prevention--the key is a cure. But JDRF will be around funding research for a long time yet.
4 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Thank you very much.
This is our last panel. It concludes our pre-budget consultations, as far as the hearings go.
I want to thank not only the witnesses for coming on this panel, but also the committee for the good questions.
We wish everyone a Merry Christmas.
The meeting is adjourned.