Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 26 - Evidence - June 22, 2005
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 22, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred Bill C-43, to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, met this day at 6:37 p.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Donald H. Oliver (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I would like to call our thirty-sixth meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance to order. I would remind honourable senators that this committee's main interest is government spending, either directly through the estimates or indirectly through bills.
[Translation]
Yesterday, an Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 23, 2005, was referred to our committee by the Senate.
To begin tonight's meeting, I would like to welcome the Honourable Ralph Goodale, Minister of Finance.
[English]
Minister Goodale was first elected to the Parliament of Canada in 1974. In the 1980s he served as leader of the Saskatchewan Liberal Party and in 1986 was elected a member of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. Mr. Goodale returned to the House of Commons in 1993 and was re-elected in June 1997 and November 2000. He has served as minister of a number of portfolios including Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food, Natural Resources Canada and Public Works and Government Services Canada. Mr. Goodale became Minister of Finance on December 12, 2003, and was reappointed to this portfolio on July 20, 2004.
I also would like to welcome Mr. McKay, who is not here yet. I will more formally introduce Mr. McKay when he arrives.
Minister, welcome to our discussion of the important budget Bill C-43. We would welcome your comments, and as is the usual practice, after your make your opening comments, honourable senators will probably have some questions they would like to ask.
The Honourable Ralph Goodale, P.C., M.P., Minister of Finance: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. On other occasions you have met various people representing the Department of Finance. I am glad to have with me tonight, in addition to other officials in the room, Mr. Peter Devries who is well-versed on all the numbers. Hopefully he will be able to assist me through the next hour.
Mr. Chairman, I do not have a formal statement this evening. I thought the best use of the time would be to try my best to deal with your questions. Bill C-43 is the first budget implementation bill following upon Budget 2005. As is the traditional practice, there is more than just one budget bill that seeks to implement the provisions of each budget.
The first one is the bill that includes the major items of principle, and particularly those items that have a timing dimension with respect to the apportioning of certain items, programs or expenditures. As you know, according to the normal practices and rules of the Auditor General, those items need to be dealt with expeditiously by Parliament in order for her to accord those things the correct recognition in the correct fiscal year.
Part of the mission of Bill C-43 is to bring before Parliament those major items of principle flowing from the budget of February 23 and to deal with any items that have a time sensitivity attached to them, in particular, to which fiscal year they would apply.
Bill C-48, which also deals with important budget matters and items of principle, will be coming to you later. It is nearing but has not yet reached the end of its course in the House of Commons.
The Chairman: Could you tell us when we might receive that bill?
Mr. Goodale: I wish I could. It is at the final stages in the House of Commons. We will know within the next couple of days whether that course is likely to come to a conclusion quickly or whether it will take more time. As I understand it, there is some debate remaining at report stage and then there is, of course, the formal third reading procedure. Report stage is nearing conclusion, but third reading has yet to come.
After Parliament has disposed of Bill C-43 and Bill C-48, there will be other legislation forthcoming later in the year, largely of a technical nature and particularly legislation that will propose technical changes to statutes that require some advance consultation. That consultation will take place during the course of the summer. It will be input into the legislation that will come to the House and then on to the Senate.
Bill C-43 is the first of the budget bills. It includes most of the items of principle and it includes those that have a timing consideration attached to them. Accordingly, that is what we are dealing with tonight. I will be happy to answer your questions to the best of my ability.
The Chairman: Thank you very much minister.
I know that there is something about the Atlantic Accord in Bill C-43. Could you tell us what it says and how it will be effected once that bill passes?
Mr. Goodale: It is part 12 of the bill, Mr. Chairman. It translates the detail that was agreed upon among the Prime Minister and the premiers in the Atlantic Accord into the appropriate legislative authority to spend the money. Without this authority, it is not possible to make the anticipated payments to Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Labrador. With the authority contained in part 12, those expenditures will be formally authorized.
The detail is extensive, Senator Oliver. Without wading into all of the detail, I can tell you that it faithfully reflects what was agreed upon between the Prime Minister, Premier Williams and Premier Hamm. Great care was taken to ensure that those two provinces were comfortable with the draftsmanship of this part. There were some technical adjustments made in the language to ensure that it did satisfy all the requirements of Newfoundland and Labrador consistent with the agreement with the Prime Minister.
The Chairman: In your opening remarks you said that some of the things in this bill are time sensitive. Is the accord one of the time sensitive items?
Mr. Goodale: It is time sensitive in the sense that Newfoundland and Labrador and New Brunswick are very anxious to get on with it. It is an item that I am sure all parliamentarians will welcome passage of. It has a life span of more than eight years, and potentially 16 years, depending on future circumstances, but at the same time, it provides for advance payments to those two provinces as soon as the legislative authority exists, and those two provinces are anxious to have the money.
Senator Kinsella: Minister, clause 5 in Part 12 says that the minister shall make a payment to the province — Nova Scotia in this instance — in the amount of $830 million. When would that cheque be cut?
Mr. Goodale: Nova Scotia will receive the cheque when the legislative authority exists. I am told that procedurally that could be as soon as a couple of days later.
Senator Kinsella: The same would apply with regard to clause 19 that says:
The minister shall make the payment to the Province in the amount of $2 billion to allow the Province to reduce its outstanding debt.
That is found at page 60 of the bill.
Mr. Goodale: That is the same principle with respect to Newfoundland as the previous one with respect to Nova Scotia.
Senator Kinsella: When this becomes law, the authority exists and a cheque would be cut forthwith?
Mr. Goodale: That is correct.
Senator Kinsella: I come from the Atlantic region and I have been receiving calls about how anxious the people of that region are to have this legislation adopted quickly. Indeed, this afternoon in the Senate chamber, I offered to your colleague, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, that Conservative senators would be prepared, after your appearance here this evening, to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill so that we could report it to the Senate tomorrow.
As you know, there will be a Royal Assent ceremony tomorrow afternoon dealing with another very important bill for that region, that being the Inuit Land Claims Agreement. We thought it would be appropriate to have Bill C-43 given Royal Assent tomorrow afternoon as well.
Would you be supportive of having your bill proceed in that way?
Senator Downe: On a point of order, should we advise the minister of what the Leader of the Government in the Senate said about that proposal?
Senator Kinsella: The Leader of the Government in the Senate said that he did not agree with this. I am wondering whether the minister wants this bill passed or not. At any rate, that is not a point of order.
Senator Downe: It is a point of common courtesy that the minister be made aware of all the debate and not be given only one side of it. That was a bit of a leading question.
Senator Tkachuk: Is that not why we are here?
The Chairman: The minister is a very experienced parliamentarian.
Minister, you have the floor.
Mr. Goodale: Mr. Chairman, as I said at the beginning, this legislation includes some matters that are time sensitive. There are Canadians who will be anxious to see a number of the provisions of Bill C-43 advance to final approval, creating the authority to make certain payments. That is important.
It is also important to ensure that each House properly follows its rules of procedure. I would not invite senatorial comment upon the rules of the House of Commons and, accordingly, I would not presume to offer House of Commons commentary on the application of the rules in the Senate. You know them far better than I do.
Senator Kinsella: Minister, I am happy to advise you that your Bill C-43 has the support of the official opposition in the Senate. Many of us from Atlantic Canada are reassured by your statement about our reading of those two sections and that money flows and can flow within 48 hours. Both Premiers Hamm and Williams will be pleased to know that.
I am from the Province of New Brunswick, and I am a bit concerned about the impact of Bill C-43 and whether the monies that are provided by Bill C-43 would be inclusive of the monies that would flow for the refurbishment of Point Lepreau, or is that a different bill?
Mr. Goodale: That is a topic that is a matter of some representation now by the Premier of New Brunswick. To the best of my knowledge, the matter has not come to a conclusion. It would not be specifically contemplated, Senator Kinsella, on what we know today within the terms of Bill C-43. Bill C-43 does, however, create certain programs that will exist into the future pertaining to energy matters and environmental matters.
Is it hypothetically possible that some future decision pertaining to nuclear power might at some future date fall within the ambit of something that is contemplated in Bill C-43?
That is a general hypothetical possibility, but I would have to tell you that, at the moment, it is not specifically contemplated by Bill C-43, because there is no conclusion yet to a discussion with New Brunswick on that matter.
Senator Kinsella: Because we have Bill C-43 before us and not Bill C-48, I will wait until and if we receive Bill C-48 to ask questions.
If I had read correctly, and of course, it was only logical, every demand that is made on the treasury makes things tighter. I think that is a comment that I read somewhere as being attributed to you, minister.
Mr. Goodale: It seems to me to be a truism.
Senator Kinsella: It is a truism indeed.
Mr. Goodale: I have not recognized a demand that made it easier.
Senator Kinsella: We will return to this issue when we are examining Bill C-48, when and if we receive it. Thank you, minister.
The Chairman: Before turning to the sponsor of the bill, Senator Eggleton, I would like to extend a warm welcome to Mr. John McKay, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance.
Mr. McKay was elected for the first time to the House of Commons in 1997, and he was named parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance in July of 2004.
The Honourable John McKay, P.C., M.P., Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance: Thank you.
Mr. Goodale: Mr. Chairman, might I say, as we have made our way through this rather unusual minority Parliament and have had to deal with a number of financial matters through the parliamentary process, I have relied very heavily on the good work of Mr. McKay. I want to say on this occasion before a parliamentary committee that he has done extraordinarily good work in making sure that the proper parliamentary attention is given to the matters that pertain to the Department of Finance.
The Chairman: Mr. McKay has appeared before this committee on several occasions, and we are quite familiar with his ability to answer questions.
Senator Eggleton: Welcome, minister and Mr. McKay. Congratulations, minister, on a wonderful budget.
Mr. Chairman, you and I spoke in the Senate the other evening, and you raised a number of points in your comments. While I do not necessarily agree with all of them, I thought they were the kind of things that should be responded to. I would like to ask the minister about a few of them. For example, you raised the matter, because you dealt with it in this committee, of the Main Estimates and the whole question of why the budget spending initiatives can not get into the Main Estimates rather than coming up in Supplementary Estimates.
I know a little bit why, having been a Treasury Board president at one time: The Main Estimates are what people rely upon to give the principle picture of the spending, and yet it does not include many of the main items that come out of the budget speech.
Can you comment on that and the possibility of changing the timing so that the Main Estimates can be more inclusive?
Mr. Goodale: Senator Eggleton, Mr. Devries is a very experienced person in these matters, so I will ask him to comment in detail. I would say as a preliminary matter that it is largely a question of timing. The decisions are made with respect to budgetary matters and enter the public domain through the budget speech. The time that remains is used to get them into the appropriate format so that they can ultimately go before Parliament in the usual way, in either the Main Estimates or Supplementary Estimates.
Let me ask Mr. Devries to comment on this, because he works on this arithmetic every year. Perhaps I will then come back with a comment on your last point about trying to remedy this situation.
Mr. Peter Devries, General Director, Deputy Minister's Office, Department of Finance Canada: As the minister said, it is largely an issue of timing. The Main Estimates, under current House rules, are required to be tabled in Parliament on or before March 1. Given the timing of the budget then, it is very difficult to get the measures that are proposed in the budget into the Main Estimates as well. There is a logistics issue there.
In addition, the measures that are proposed in the budget are of two types, one affecting ongoing programs, which would normally come in through the statements process during the course of the upcoming year, as well as a number of them that require changes to existing legislation. Those that require changes to the existing legislation would not go into the Main Estimates. The legislation would have to be changed first through the budget act or through some other act in order to get those into the Main Estimates.
Senator Eggleton: Or an earlier budget.
Mr. Goodale: Senator Eggleton, on that matter, I would be very interested in the views of both senators and members of the House of Commons on the timing of the budget tradition, if I could put it that way. Typically, the budget is presented somewhere between the middle of February and the middle of March. On occasion, it has been a little bit earlier than or a little bit later, but it is generally in that window, which of course presents the timing dilemma to which Mr. Devries referred. In assembling the economic information and then the fiscal forecasts that flow out of the economic information, we always seem to be either at the end of a cycle or the beginning of a cycle and anxious to have more information before we put the hard numbers on paper.
A few years ago, there was some discussion about whether it would be more appropriate to have a budget cycle that generated the budget speech in the fall rather than in that period after Christmas. In doing the analysis, however, it turned out that you simply backed up the flow of information, and you were still falling between cycles, whatever period of time you selected.
One of the desirable things is for us to try to get a budget into the public domain as early as possible in each new calendar year. That has to fit within the parliamentary calendar as well. The House of Commons tends to come back towards the end of January and you have to complete the consultation process; it does not leave you many options.
In terms of the presentation of the information, do senators have comments to make about the timing of the process? Your recommendations could be quite useful to the government.
The Chairman: Is there enough cooperation between Treasury Board and the Department of Finance in this whole budget estimates process? If that were streamlined, would that help the process you have just described?
Mr. Goodale: There is a huge amount of dialogue on a daily basis. My impression is the relationship among officials in the two departments is a good one. On occasion there will be differences from a policy point of view, as is natural to expect, but I do not know of any major impediment between the Department of Finance and the Treasury Board standing in the way of a smoothly flowing process.
Senator Eggleton: On the corporate cuts as a result of the negotiations that led to Bill C-48, there have been some modifications. There is a concern about our competitiveness. Mr. Chairman, you raised the CD Howe Institute study that found our effective corporate marginal tax rate was the third highest of 20 nations studied.
I know you have said you will bring back the full proposals in a later bill. Perhaps you could comment on what this does in terms of our competitiveness and the matter of how and when you will bring it back.
Mr. Goodale: The budget proposed about $13 billion of tax reductions over the course of the next five years, some on the personal side and some on the corporate side. We are raising the basic exempt amount from about $8,000 to $10,000. We are raising the ceiling on contributions to RRSPs. On the policy side, we are taking off the foreign property rule to allow complete flexibility in terms of what people may choose to invest their RRSPs in. We have made adjustments to capital cost allowances.
The two corporate tax provisions that are subject to the discussion on Bill C-48 apply only to the larger corporations, and they have an effective date of the year 2008. We propose to eliminate the corporate surtax which has been in place since the late 1980s and has been a matter of some concern for the corporate community for quite some time now. We propose to eliminate that surtax in its entirety in 2008. We also propose to bring the general corporate tax rate down from 21 per cent to 19 per cent and accomplish that change between 2008 and 2010.
Those are the two provisions that were affected by the discussions around Bill C-48. All other tax packages as announced in the budget remain in Bill C-43 and unaffected.
It is our intention to reintroduce those two tax measures on a stand-alone basis in their own piece of legislation. The notice has been served on the Order Paper in the House of Commons, and the legislative drafting is largely completed so that can proceed.
Proceeding with those tax changes, as well as the other tax package in Bill C-43, is an important thing to do on the corporate side, particularly to maintain Canada's competitive position especially vis-à-vis the United States. Because of the tax reduction package that has been implemented gradually in that period between 2000 and 2004, a package that was worth altogether $100 billion in tax cuts for Canadians, we have secured a modest but strategically important tax rate advantage over the United States. There is evidence indicating that tax rate advantage has been helpful in terms of maintaining investment and jobs on the Canadian side of the border.
Over the course of the next five years, the Americans are proposing tax changes in their jurisdiction that will substantially erode the tax rate advantage Canada enjoys today. If we were to let that happen without any response, we would largely lose our competitive position on tax rates vis-à-vis the U.S. The major impact of the changes in the United States will hit in the period of 2008-10. Therefore, our timing with respect to the reduction in the rate from 21 per cent to 19 per cent and the elimination of the surtax was directly aimed to hit at that same period of time. We have some time before this issue is squarely before us, but it is important to proceed in order to ensure we maintain that competitive advantage.
Senator Tkachuk: Minister, you were pretty adamant in April that no changes would be made to the budget tabled in February. As a matter of fact, your words were:
You can't go on stripping away piece by piece by piece of the budget. You can't, after the fact, begin to cherry pick: ``We'll throw that out and we'll put that in, we'll stir this around and mix it all up again.'' That's not the way you maintain a coherent fiscal framework. If you engage in that exercise, it is an absolute, sure formula for the creation of a deficit.
On April 26 in the Leader-Post after the new budget deal with the NDP there was an article, but they quoted you here too.
But Goodale said there were some disadvantages to the country if the Liberal government was to accept an NDP proposal — which would involve the government retracting $4.6 billion in corporate tax cuts proposed in the budget in order to receive NDP support in Parliament.
The competitive position of Canadian businesses compared to U.S. businesses could be damaged if those tax cuts were not provided, Goodale said.
Did you feel a bit blindsided by the budget deal with the NDP?
Mr. Goodale: Let me go through the flow of events because I think this is important to understand. The budget speech was on February 23, and there was a clear, strong, unequivocal indication that day that the official opposition supported the budget or at least did not oppose the budget.
The language used by Mr. Harper and other spokesmen on behalf of the official opposition were to the effect that there is nothing in this budget that should cause the defeat of the government and this is a budget the Conservative opposition could support, language to that effect. I was pleased to hear that commentary from the official opposition.
That remained the position until April 21. On April 21 there was a very clear 180-degree reversal of position on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. What was an acceptable budget from his point of view six weeks earlier had become totally unacceptable, and he made it clear he intended to defeat the budget and defeat the government at every turn, on any pretense, whether it related to the budget or not.
Having been faced with that situation, the issue became whether we accept that as a political fait accompli and continue to drive the budget process over the cliff, no matter what, and ensure the defeat of the budget and the defeat of the government.
Senator Tkachuk: Whose idea was it; yours or the Prime Minister's?
Mr. Goodale: I am answering your question, Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: I am trying to get some answers.
Mr. Goodale: You are trying to get a very selective interpretation of the facts and I am trying to give you the whole story.
Senator Tkachuk: I am trying to find out some of the facts we do not know about. I asked you a simple question.
Mr. Goodale: The answer to your question is ``no.''
Senator Tkachuk: Was it your idea or was it the Prime Minister's idea?
Mr. Goodale: I am happy to try to answer the question, Mr. Chairman. If Mr. Tkachuk wishes to heckle, as I know very well is his tradition, we can have a petty political tiff, if he would like. Otherwise, I am happy to deal with the facts in an honourable and professional manner.
Senator Tkachuk: So am I.
Mr. Goodale: That will be a first.
The fact is, Mr. Tkachuk, that when your leader reversed himself, the government was faced with the choice of crashing and burning, which of course was your objective, or trying to find some other configuration that would make Parliament work and allow the budget an opportunity to get through the parliamentary process in a credible fashion.
We looked around to see if there was an alternative configuration of support, since your party had reversed itself. We found that it was possible to have some discussion with the NDP based on four principles. First, there would be no deficit. Second, we would continue to pay debt. Third, any spending had to be modest, had to fit within the fiscal framework and had to be consistent with previously stated government priorities. Fourth, while the tax measures in relation to large corporations would be removed from Bill C-43, they would nonetheless proceed on their own legislative track according to their own legislative profile and, therefore, the tax measures would ultimately prevail as is indicated by the notice we now have on the Notice Paper for separate tax legislation.
Senator Tkachuk: As Minister of Finance did you negotiate the deal with the NDP on the budget?
Mr. Goodale: As Minister of Finance I was consulted throughout the entire process. The deal and all of its detail were discussed with me as they evolved.
Senator Tkachuk: Why did you sound so surprised when it was announced?
Mr. Goodale: I do not know that I sounded surprised. What surprised me was the 100 per cent reversal of your leader.
Senator Tkachuk: That may have surprised you earlier. You claim that you were involved in the process. Who were you advising when this process was taking place with the NDP?
Mr. Goodale: I was talking to the Prime Minister of Canada and the government House leader.
Senator Tkachuk: They were the ones who were negotiating the deal with the NDP?
Mr. Goodale: The government House leader led the discussion with his counterpart in the NDP.
Senator Tkachuk: Who is that?
Mr. Goodale: Ms. Davies, as I understand it. I was in constant conversation over that four- or five-day period primarily with the Prime Minister but on occasion directly with Mr. Valeri as well.
Senator Tkachuk: Is it normal for the government House leader to negotiate what many consider a brand new budget without the Minister of Finance being present? You were not even present.
Mr. Goodale: Indeed I was present.
Senator Tkachuk: You were present in negotiations?
Mr. Goodale: Not in the negotiations. I was present in Toronto when the discussions were taking place.
Obviously, Senator Tkachuk, the party representatives are the respective counterparts, in this case the two House leaders, in terms of the detail of what was discussed, the propositions that were considered on one side or the other and, most important, the principles.
The principles were that there would be no deficit, that the debt would continue to be paid down, that any spending had to fit within the fiscal framework and had to be consistent with previously existing government priorities, and that the tax package would continue on a separate track. All those principles were discussed with me in detail.
Senator Tkachuk: The particular budget process that we are going through now, which is really two budgets, has set a convention, I think.
Will it become normal, three weeks after the budget comes down, to have a new budget negotiated with whomever the government feels they should negotiate with?
Is that the new process?
You earlier described all the work you went through putting the first budget together.
How will we handle this new process?
Mr. Goodale: Minority Parliaments are different from other Parliaments, as you know. It is obviously a different dynamic that we must all deal with when the voting configuration in the House of Commons is as close as it presently is. It does require some give and take and some dialogue. Indeed, both before and after the budget speech I have had that dialogue with the finance critics and others of all political parties. That is simply a fact of life in a minority situation.
It is also a fact of life in a minority Parliament that sometimes political parties change their minds. In the first budget vote, your party abstained. In the second budget vote, your party voted against it. In the third budget vote, your party voted for it. It is obvious that circumstances change from time to time, including within the Conservative opposition.
What we have in Bill C-48 is something along the lines of what Mr. Tim O'Neil was referring to in general terms in the report on fiscal forecasting that he filed with the House of Commons earlier this week.
The concept of legislative authority, which would deal with unplanned or unexpected surplus situations, has been the subject of discussion in the House of Commons on all sides over the course of the last 18 months or so. There have been questions raised about this concept by both the Bloc and the NDP.
When Bill C-48 was under consideration in the House of Commons parliamentary committee, your finance critic raised another variation on the possibility of unplanned surplus legislation as a device to ensure that parliamentarians have the appropriate opportunity to debate the principles that would go into the distribution of unplanned surpluses if they occur during the course of any fiscal year. Bill C-48 is very clear. The books must be balanced; there must be a surplus; and debt must be paid down to the extent of at least $2 billion per year.
Senator Tkachuk: If assistance is given to the Province of Alberta as a result of the flooding that has taken place there, will that come at the expense of Bill C-48 and the second budget?
Mr. Goodale: The provision of such assistance, whether to Alberta or to other provinces that might require it, would come under the terms of the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements Act as a mechanism of the flexibility in the fiscal framework. I would not anticipate that the one would impact on the other, but the flexibility exists in the fiscal framework to cope with those unusual circumstances when they happen.
Senator Tkachuk: Thank you, Minister.
The Chairman: The $3-billion cushion that you originally budgeted for is still in the budget, notwithstanding Bill C- 48?
Mr. Goodale: As a result of Bill C-48, that margin could be reduced to $2 billion, but that depends on how well the economy does and whether we are dealing with a number of four or less. Frankly, given the more recent signs in the economy, I continue to be more optimistic rather than less optimistic about what the year-end results will be, but it is still too early to tell, and that is why we have the cushions.
Senator Mitchell: Mr. Goodale and Mr. McKay, it is a pleasure to have you here. Before I ask my questions, I will add to the minister's point about Canada's tax rate advantage over the U.S. It is even more pronounced if you consider that, once we have paid our taxes, we have already paid for our health care, and they have yet to pay for their health care after they have paid their taxes.
My questions relate to regional implications for these budgets. I come from a province that is quite interested in how these questions shake out.
My first question relates to the tremendous change in funding. I was present at the announcement of the new deal for cities and communities funding with Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan in Edmonton, and it would be safe to say that the municipal representatives there were almost giddy about the change in the structure. One actually called it ``revolutionary.'' It is responsible for about $5 billion of new cash flow to cities and communities afforded under Bill C- 43. In addition to that, there will be about $800 million provided for public transit through Bill C-48.
I do not expect you would have these figures at your fingertips, and I am prepared to wait for several days to get them.
Would it be possible for your officials to provide a province-by-province breakdown of each of those two programs, that is, the allocation by province and just a province-by-province grand total of the two?
In the case of Alberta, could you please identify, of the public transit funding, how much will go specifically to each municipality that will be receiving it?
Mr. Goodale: Senator Mitchell, I have some of that information this evening. The funding for the new deal for cities and communities and the municipal sharing of the gas tax, is a part of Bill C-43. The incremental $800 million for public transit is a part of Bill C-48. I have the information on Bill C-43 this evening, but I did not bring with me the detailed break down on Bill C-48.
With respect to Bill C-43 and the allocation to provinces and territories of the gas tax money, the information for Alberta is as follows: In 2005-06, there would be a transfer — a net increment for Alberta — of $57.2 million. It remains the same, $57.2 million, in the following fiscal year, 2006-07. It rises to $76.3 million in 2007-08. It rises to $95.4 million in 2008-09. In 2009-10, it is $190.8 million. The total over that period in new funding for municipalities in Alberta is $467.9 million.
A detailed formula goes into that calculation that includes how much the total amount is that we were transferring, and it ramps up over that five-year period, and then each province's appropriate share.
There is a different formula for the distribution of the public transit funds, because that depends upon a variety of province-specific issues related to public transit that Mr. Godfrey has worked out in very careful negotiation with each of the respective provinces and then through them with each of their municipal organizations.
I am sorry that I do not have the Bill C-48 details with me this evening. If it would be helpful to the committee, I would be more than happy to provide you, in the next day or two, with a detailed breakdown of the calculation for the new deal money in Bill C-43. I will provide you with the calculation for the transit money in Bill C-48 and explain the difference in the arithmetic between the two.
Senator Mitchell: Thank you. I would be very interested in seeing that analysis.
My second question relates to the $100 billion in tax reductions to this point and the projected tax reductions into the future. I would be interested in knowing how those tax reductions are reflected by province, the ones that have occurred to this point, and the ones that will occur in the future.
Mr. Goodale: A province-by-province breakdown.
Senator Mitchell: How much have Albertans saved as a result of these tax cuts? How much will they save because of future tax cuts?
Mr. Goodale: I will ask Mr. Devries to comment on the provision of that information. I think we can provide it, but it would involve some reconstruction.
Senator Mitchell: That is fine.
Mr. Devries: It would include some reasonable assumptions.
Senator Mitchell: Reasonable assumptions are fine, and we will see what the assumptions are and that is great.
Mr. Devries: We will put the assumptions in, yes.
Mr. Goodale: This goes back to the year 2000?
Senator Mitchell: Yes, please.
Mr. Goodale: From the time we started to implement the plan?
Senator Mitchell: Absolutely. Albertans are very interested in taxation, as you know.
Mr. Goodale: Or the lack thereof.
Senator Mitchell: I think it is because of our attention to it. I would like to be able to pass this on to Albertans, if I could.
Senator Stratton: I am always amazed at what minority governments do. They manage to spend money hand over first. It has been proven again. To avoid defeat, your government was willing to spend $4.6 billion in taxpayers' money.
I would be curious, because it has been in the media, as to how much money the Prime Minister has announced since the announcement of the budget up until the first non-confidence vote. I heard some outrageous numbers. I know you cannot supply that at this time, sir, but I would appreciate it, because I want to compare it to what the media is saying.
The Chairman: Do you agree to that, minister?
Mr. Goodale: I would be happy to provide that information.
The Chairman: We are not expecting it now, of course.
Mr. Goodale: Because there had been quite a welter of media commentary that from my perspective was constantly getting the math grossly distorted, I issued a statement some weeks ago to provide a reconciliation of the calculations. I would be happy to provide that information to the committee so you can see exactly what the numbers are.
The Chairman: I heard $27 billion.
Mr. Goodale: That is about a 300 per cent gross exaggeration.
Senator Tkachuk: We would not want to be wrong in the facts, would we, minister.
Mr. Goodale: No, never.
Senator Stratton: When did our opposition members vote against Bill C-43, as you said?
Mr. Goodale: In the formal budget debate, in the six days after the budget speech, the official opposition abstained. Bill C-43 was then debated at second reading, and the official opposition and the Bloc voted against it. Then, in the debate when it came back to the House after the committee stage, the official opposition voted for it.
Senator Stratton: That would be interesting to verify. Thank you.
I am concerned about two issues. We have discussed child care, as you know, and I am sure you are well prepared for this question.
What is in the child care announcement for the folks in rural Canada, particularly for those who are working part- time and for those who are working out of the home?
How do they benefit from this additional money?
You have to assume that, in many cases, the understanding is that in the cities, it is easy enough to access daycare, but in certain rural areas, it is particularly difficult. Would you mind commenting on that, please?
Mr. Goodale: There are four principles that are the driving forces behind Minister Dryden's negotiations with the provinces.
He wants to support a national child care and early learning system that is characterized by high quality, which means that it must meet all of the appropriate provincial standards. It must be universal in terms of its accessibility and that, obviously, from our point of view, extends beyond urban centres to include rural communities. It needs to be affordable. Most importantly, in the structure of it, it needs to be developmental. This is not intended to be an elaborate babysitting service, if you will. It needs to include a learning component.
Each province is at a different stage of development in how they provide these kinds of services. In some provinces, like Quebec, for example, the system is quite extensive. In other provinces, it is at a very early stage.
Mr. Dryden's objective is to provide incremental resources to provinces so that they can substantially increase what they would otherwise be proposing to do, and to do so within the four principles of quality, universality, and affordability and developmental.
The issues in rural Canada are particularly challenging. In the discussion, for example, that Minister Dryden had with the Province of Saskatchewan, which is my province and one where rural issues are of particular significance, as is the case in your province as well, this was a key part of the discussion. It is fair to say that considerable work needs to be done, but the objective of providing this incremental money is to help ensure, insofar as money can do it, that the system of child care that is available across Canada is not just an urban phenomenon but in fact has a very useful impact in rural Canada as well. It will obviously be up to the provinces to deliver on that, but the federal resources will make it more possible for them to do so.
Senator Stratton: I did not hear an answer. I do not see how that helps someone in rural Saskatchewan or Manitoba or anywhere, from the reports I hear. For example, someone who does truly live rurally and works for a living either out of their home, or they work part-time somewhere, has to travel to work. How does that child get looked after? You are saying it is not a babysitting service, but these people have to find and fund exactly that service.
Mr. Goodale: In too many circumstances, Senator Stratton, as you and I will know coming from rural communities, sometimes, and too many times, in the absence of a reliable child care service and system, children end up riding around on the tractor or the combine. That is a pretty troubling set of circumstances.
From the fiscal point of view, putting $5 billion toward this endeavour will make it more possible for more spaces to be available in a more general distribution across the country. Certainly, more money makes it more possible that there will be those kinds of solutions.
In terms of exactly how it is structured, that is up to the provinces to deliver in accordance with their negotiations with Mr. Dryden. I encourage you to hear from Minister Dryden on the nature of his negotiations with the provinces, and how he is working to try to achieve as broad a distribution as possible.
Senator Stratton: I am still quite concerned. I know it is a difficult situation and there is no easy answer, but it seems that they are completely left out of what we are talking about here.
I have one final question, if I may. When we talk about the issue of the supplement, the GIS, when does the claw back start?
You say you are increasing benefits for low-income seniors by $2.7 billion over five years. When does the claw back start?
Do they hit an income level of, say, $12,000 and any supplement stops? I want to know, because $12,000 a year is not a lot of money. If you report an income of $14,000 a year, you are dead in the water as far as the GIS is concerned.
If you do not have the answer, I would appreciate you obtaining it.
Mr. Goodale: I would be happy to get the detail for you from the Department of Social Development.
Senator Stratton: We seem to be missing the boat in the sense of helping the poor. Yes, the $2.7 billion looks very attractive, and it is attractive, but if somebody cannot go out and work and earn money and then go over a certain limit without getting killed, that is really my point.
Mr. Goodale: There are two separate issues involved here, Senator Stratton. One is the enrichment of the GIS. The GIS obviously applies to the lowest income seniors who have little other means of support other than the old age security pension itself. In terms of how the arithmetic works, when we put the extra $2.7 billion in and thereby increase the monthly supplements to singles or to couples, I would be happy to work out a couple of specific examples for you that will show exactly where the different levels click in.
Senator Stratton: Please include when the claw back starts.
Mr. Goodale: Yes, that point specifically.
Senator Tkachuk: I have a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I feel almost humbled doing it, considering the minister's regard for my sense of accuracy.
I have to say, minister, that the second reading vote was on May 19, and the yeas were 250 and the nays were 54. Only the Bloc voted against Bill C-43, unless the journals of the House are wrong.
Mr. Goodale: The next vote, Senator Tkachuk, moments later, was that rather hair-raising vote when the Speaker had to break the tie. The Speaker was called upon to vote. If that vote had passed, both Bill C-48 and Bill C-43 would have been defeated, and we would have been into an election.
Senator Tkachuk: You said second reading of Bill C-43. I wanted to correct that. I am glad you explained exactly what you meant by your first comment.
Mr. Goodale: There was a five-minute difference. The fact of the matter is that both would have died.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: I would like to make a recommendation. I do a great deal of work on community and social issues. I have a centre in Montreal that I founded 30 years ago, which has more than 14,000 seniors, and many of them live alone. Many very elderly women from the cultural communities only receive the pension and the guaranteed income supplement. It is not enough.
These people are on their own. I have a recommendation for you, Mr. Minister. Your budget is diverse and covers many areas that are very important for the government. However, we cannot leave seniors out. You announced some good news for them; there will be an increase in the guaranteed income supplement starting in 2007. According to my calculations, the increase will be $37 per month.
Now, when the time comes to review that program, can you consider that a person living alone needs $1,010 per month? With that increase, you want to fight poverty, but that is not what you are doing, instead, you are going to make it worse. Today, on average, each month a person spends $450 on rent — I am using the minimum amount — $150 on utilities, $100 on food, $70 on travel, and $180 for other small items like clothing, shoes, et cetera. All that for a total of $1,050. With their pension, they receive $1,010. There is a small difference that must be considered.
We must not do that to seniors. They have the right to live as comfortably as we do. They have the right to buy a bottle of beer or a piece of cake. These people are truly in dire straights. Many non-profit community organizations are involved in helping them a great deal. Every Tuesday, I welcome people for a meal, and I seek out charities like Saint- François d'Assise. I am asking you to consider that. There are nearly one million people in Canada who are living in poverty. The government must do something.
The Canadian government ranks third in the world for its community involvement. Socially, it does not do much to take into consideration the thousands of disadvantaged people.
You also say that you are going to set up a seniors' secretariat. Will it be modeled on the Conseil des aînés in Quebec? What will be the role of this seniors' secretariat?
[English]
Mr. Goodale: Senator, let me say that your history and your passionate involvement on the part of the less privileged in our society is very well known and respected. You can be very proud of the work you have done and the advocacy you continue to perform.
As future budgets come along, we need to remember very clearly the needs of those who do not fully share in the wealth and the well-being of the country.
In this budget, we have taken a number of measures. We are investing an incremental $2.7 billion to enrich the GIS and thereby provide some assistance to the people to whom you refer. It has been a well-supported provision across the country, something that Canadians think is the right thing to do.
In addition to that, the tax changes will be of some assistance. Moving the minimum exempt amount from about $8,000 to about $10,000 will take 860,000 of the lowest income taxpayers off the tax rolls all together. About 250,000 of those will be low-income senior citizens across the country.
There are various other measures in the budget that will also be of assistance, but I would not be so bold to say we have responded to all the needs. The needs are there, as you point out. For some people in our society they are increasing, and we need to be constantly sensitive to that fact in our society.
In respect of the Seniors' Secretariat, this is a new apparatus that will be established within the Department of Social Development. It is intended to be the agency within government that provides the focus or focal point for those organizations you referred to in order to better relate to government. This is one of the concerns that various seniors' organizations across the country have pointed out, that when they have issues to raise, particularly that bear upon the circumstances of senior citizens, they can generally go to the Department of Human Resources or the Department of Social Development or if it is a fiscal matter they can go to the Department of Finance, but they would like to have a focal point within government that draws all these threads together and brings greater coherence to policy-making in respect of senior citizens. This is what that secretariat is intended to do. The minister specifically responsible is Minister Ianno.
Senator Downe: You are not directly responsible, but as Minister of Finance you should and may already be aware that one of the major problems with the guaranteed income supplement is that in 2002 Statistics Canada reported over 134,000 tax-filing seniors eligible for the GIS across Canada were not receiving it because the government was not able to identify them.
As you know, if you do not owe taxes you do not have to file a tax return. Since then, the various departments responsible have taken initiatives to reduce that number, but there are still thousands of seniors not receiving the GIS.
My question this evening pertains to the options the federal government has, if any, when it announces the very generous increase in the GIS, $2.7 billion.
Is there any way to prevent what happened in Prince Edward Island where the Progressive Conservative provincial government took some of that money back from seniors who lived in provincial seniors' housing by simply transferring the money not to the seniors but to the provincial government?
Is there any mechanism to prevent that from happening?
Mr. Goodale: Senator Downe, to the best of my knowledge, there is not a legal tool or an absolute vehicle that would be available to the Government of Canada to remedy the situation. This is within provincial jurisdiction. To the best of my knowledge, it is beyond federal control.
We can draw this circumstance to the attention of our provincial counterparts and strongly encourage them to allow the benefit intended for seniors to remain in their hands.
I know from past experience that on occasion jaw-boning works and on other occasions it does not, but it is perfectly legitimate for us to point out what the intent of our programming is and to encourage our provincial counterparts to be as cooperative as possible.
We have a similar issue in relation to some dimensions of the child tax benefit. In some provinces, any funds that the province saves by virtue of there being a federal child tax benefit are recycled by the province into other benefits to those same children.
If my memory of the latest statistics serves me correctly, the Province of Alberta is one of the best at recycling the money back into children's services. The children are better off in net terms. They receive the full federal benefit and no reduction in provincial benefits.
In other provinces, the circumstance is not the same. The point you raise needs to be a matter of constant consideration in federal-provincial discussions, while respecting each other's jurisdictions.
The Chairman: Minister, I would be grateful if you could respond to the first part of Senator Downe's questions about seniors who have, in effect, been disenfranchised.
Senator Downe: It is really not the minister's responsibility but I wanted him to be aware, as Minister of Finance, that there is a flaw in the delivery of the program.
Mr. Goodale: You are saying that they did not know about their rights. That is another minister's jurisdiction. I would be happy to raise it with the appropriate minister.
When Canadians are entitled to benefits, we must all work very hard to ensure that they know of their entitlement so that they can pursue their rights. That is a broad principle that should apply to us all.
The Chairman: There have been a number of stories in the media about citizens finally finding out about their rights and applying and the government saying they are too late, that the limitation period had run out.
Mr. Goodale: There are limitation rules that apply, but we have to be as equitable as possible. I will examine this issue to see how many seniors may be inadvertently disadvantaged by this, because that is obviously not the government's intent.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Minister, you mentioned the corporate tax issue and competitiveness with the U.S. I have heard you talk about productivity in the last few days. Many people seem to forget that premium rates for EI have been decreased by $10 billion on a yearly basis. We also tend to forget that with regard to government participation in business initiatives, competitiveness and productivity there is more than only the corporate tax rate involved. There is the entire national infrastructure to facilitate trade and there is the massive investment that we have made in research and innovation. That is part of developing our competitiveness and it is part of the balance sheet on how the Government of Canada handles and stimulates the economy.
I was fascinated by the documentary on CBC that Senator Mitchell mentioned earlier. It compared General Motors in the U.S. with General Motors in Canada and said that in the U.S. their most costly production item is Blue Cross, whereas in Canada it is materials.
That says a lot about how competitive we are. As I said in the Senate this week with regard to Bill C-43, it is very difficult for me, as a New Brunswicker, not to voice my discontent with my premier for not signing a child care agreement with the federal government. That would put the children and parents in New Brunswick on an even playing field with the rest of this country. For 20 years in New Brunswick I witnessed Conservative provincial premiers promising every election to bring in kindergarten, and never delivering.
I am very concerned because the investment in child care that is missing from the federal-provincial agreement would increase investment in children in New Brunswick by 132 per cent.
Is there any way that you could persuade the premier of New Brunswick to accept what all the other premiers have accepted?
Mr. Goodale: Senator, the Government of Canada is obviously pleased that over the last couple of months Minister Dryden has been able to successfully conclude agreements with more than half of the provinces and territories. There is still some negotiating left to do, and Minister Dryden is working at that very assiduously every day.
It is our desire to have these agreements in place with all provinces across the country so that the services contemplated by the national programming can be available on an equitable basis to all Canadians.
Senator Tkachuk: Maybe you can tell us which ones have agreed and which have not.
Mr. Goodale: I would have to check with Mr. Dryden's office for the complete list. I know that the first one was signed with Manitoba and the second one was signed with Saskatchewan on the same day. There have now been agreements concluded with Ontario, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador.
I would be happy to have Mr. Dryden's office provide the committee with that information. The number of concluded agreements continues to increase. The agreement with Yukon may also have been concluded. I am not sure. I will get the exact total for the committee. It has gone pretty well in terms of the negotiation with the provinces.
The Chairman: If I could interrupt, I have received a note that the minister is 25 minutes late for his next appointment.
I have remaining on my list Senator Downe with a short question and Senator Tardif, who is a new member of this committee and has never had a chance to ask a question in the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. I personally am prepared to forego asking any questions, although they were going to go right to the heart of Bill C-43. I would ask Senators Eggleton and Mitchell, who are on a second round, if they would forego their questions if the minister would agree to stay and hear those questions.
Mr. Goodale: I would, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your accommodation.
Senator Ringuette: I will stop my questioning in order to defer to Senator Tardif.
Mr. Goodale: I will provide the running tally of the child care agreements that are concluded to this date, and with that information the earlier point from Senator Stratton about how the agreements that have been included endeavour to accommodate rural children.
The Chairman: Senator Tardif, welcome to the committee.
Senator Tardif: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Minister, one of the principles you identified in the early learning and child care programs and services to which money will be directed in Bill C-43 is the principle of accessibility. We discussed earlier the question of rural children. I was wondering, Mr. Minister, if accessibility included access by official language minorities to programs and services offered in the minority language across all regions of Canada, and whether this has been a criteria that has been negotiated in the agreements with the different provinces to date.
Mr. Goodale: Senator, I know that Minister Dryden is very sensitive to this point. He and Minister Belanger, who had administrative responsibility for official languages, have examined the question carefully to try to ensure there is the proper respect within the administration of this initiative for the official languages policy of the country. It is my understanding that it has been accommodated appropriately. Again, I would invite you to direct that inquiry to Minister Dryden or Minister Belanger, who would be able to provide you with the exact detail. Yes, it has been a factor, and obviously a very important one given the nature of our country, in the program design issues that Minister Dryden has been working on with his provincial counterparts.
Senator Tardif: Will you get back to me on this?
Mr. Goodale: I will ask Minister Dryden to provide the committee with an explanation of how official languages issues are accommodated within the new policy.
The Chairman: Senator Downe, you have the last question.
Senator Downe: I hope the minister can send me these answers, because I am sure he does not have them off the top of his head.
Mr. Goodale: What a pessimist.
Senator Downe: How much revenue did you collect with the air traveller security charge? What percentage of the revenue went to security, and where did the balance of the money go, if any?
The Chairman: Do you want a break-down year by year?
Senator Downe: No, just for the last year that you have had it.
The Chairman: But it has been changing.
Senator Downe: I know that.
Mr. Goodale: You will have noticed, senator, that in the budget, we were able to announce that the charge was coming down again, which is a good direction for it to take. I will be happy to provide you with a reconciliation of the arithmetic for 2004-05.
Senator Downe: I would like it for the last fiscal year for which you have the numbers. I asked for percentages, not the actual numbers, because the rate has been changing.
Mr. Goodale: We will provide both the absolute dollars and the percentage calculation.
The Chairman: There are more questions, but the minister has to leave. On behalf of the committee, I will thank the minister for coming and for his responses. I know he will be forwarding to the clerk of the committee responses to questions for which there were no answers today.
Mr. Goodale: Thank you very much. Mr. Devries and my other officials have been carefully noting the requests for additional information, and we will ensure that is provided to the committee as rapidly as possible. As usual, thank you for your courtesy.
Senator Stratton: If I may, since we have met with the minister, I would move that we go directly to clause-by-clause consideration now. I put that motion on the floor.
The Chairman: We have another witness to hear.
Senator Stratton: I have placed that motion on the floor.
Senator Downe: Can we defer the vote until we hear from the last witness?
Senator Stratton: I would like the motion heard now.
Senator Downe: I would move that we consider the motion after we have heard the last witness.
Senator Stratton: I believe that you have to vote on my motion. Thank you.
The Chairman: It has been moved that the committee move to clause-by-clause consideration at this time. We will have to have a vote, honourable senators. Please raise your hands so the clerk can count. All in favour? All of those opposed? The motion is defeated six to three.
We will bring in the next witness, please.
Senator Stratton: For the record, when we took the votes, it was six to three, you said?
The Chairman: Yes.
Senator Stratton: I would like to know who voted. I would like a recorded vote.
The Chairman: We will have a recorded vote. I would ask the clerk if she will make a note.
Ms. Catherine Piccinin, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Cowan.
Senator Cowan: Opposed.
Ms. Piccinin: The Honourable Senator Downe.
Senator Downe: Opposed.
Ms. Piccinin: The Honourable Senator Eggleton.
Senator Eggleton: Opposed.
Ms. Piccinin: The Honourable Senator Ferretti Barth.
Senator Ferretti Barth: I was not in the room because I went out to meet with the minister.
The Chairman: When you left, a motion was made by Senator Stratton that we move now, after having heard the minister, to have clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.
Senator Ferretti Barth: No.
Ms. Piccinin: The Honourable Senator Kinsella.
Senator Kinsella: I am for this motion. I would like it recorded that I am sitting as a member of the committee, having replaced Senator Cools, not in my ex officio capacity.
Ms. Piccinin: The Honourable Senator Mitchell.
Senator Mitchell: I am opposed.
Ms. Piccinin: The Honourable Senator Ringuette.
Senator Ringuette: I am opposed.
Ms. Piccinin: The Honourable Senator Stratton.
Senator Stratton: I am for it, and I am here as a member of the committee, not as ex officio.
Ms. Piccinin: The Honourable Senator Tardif.
Senator Tardif: Opposed.
Ms. Piccinin: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: Very supportive.
Senator Stratton: Point of order, chair: As I understand it, Senator Murray is a member of this committee. Who is the substitution on the Liberal side for Senator Murray?
The Chairman: There is no substitution for Senator Murray.
Senator Stratton: No substitution? Thank you.
The Chairman: I would ask the clerk to formally announce the results.
Senator Downe: On the point of order, Senator Murray is a member of the Progressive Conservative party. I do not know why the Liberal party would appoint his replacement.
The Chairman: I believe he was appointed to this committee by the Liberal party.
Senator Downe: But he is not a member of the Liberal party. He is a member of the Conservative party in the Senate of Canada.
The Chairman: I would ask the clerk to read the results of the vote.
Ms. Piccinin: Yeas, three; nays, seven.
The Chairman: I declare the motion defeated.
Honourable senators, I would like to welcome our next presenter on our examination of the budget Bill C-43, Kate Tennier of the Advocates for Childcare Choice.
Ms. Tennier, we have received a written copy of a major address that you have here. Would you mind hitting some of the highlights of this, and I will then open the floor to senators to put some questions to you.
Ms. Kate Tennier, Founder, Advocates for Childcare Choice: I will try to paraphrase, but I have made an effort to come here and listen to many people. I will I try to make it as brief as possible but it is a very important issue. It has been trivialized because it is child care, but one point I am trying to make is this is more than child care. What is about to be unleashed on the Canadian public will have larger ramifications than anybody knows.
Advocates for Childcare Choice is an Ontario organization formed to be a countervoice to the proposals made in the national child care program. We liaise with the growing number of voices across Canada, including those in Quebec, who are expressing serious concerns about the fundamental principles upon which this program is based.
It is our view that the national child care program as it is proposed has serious flaws and must be reconsidered before the $700 million held in trust is released to the provinces this year. It is ill conceived for four major reasons which I will discuss shortly.
I had the good fortune to meet with Social Development Minister Ken Dryden last week at his constituency office in Toronto. It was a pleasure to see that Mr. Dryden genuinely wants what is best for Canadian children and their families. Our group feels that while he is acting in good faith he has not heard enough from all voices, experts and sides of this incredibly important issue, one which could have unintended and negative effects on other aspects of Canadian life if it is rushed, as we believe it is, and if it is not developed more thoughtfully.
I hope and trust that what Advocates for Childcare Choice has to tell you will be considered with the weight to which it is due, especially as the information I am about to discuss has not had a public voice until very recently.
The program has the following four flaws. The first problem is it does not resolve the question of fairness regarding support for families where both parents work outside the home versus those who, often with great hardship, sacrifice an income to have one parent look after their own children.
I have a brief here about the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in 1970 saying it should be given to the family for them to decide. We look and say that was a much more interventionist time in Canadian history and we do not know why they saw fit to give money to parents but now it needs to be government-controlled and only government-controlled care.
The second problem is this will actually waste money as we currently have a thriving child care system that has worked well for years for hundreds of thousands of families. It is deemed in need of replacement only because of a strident and antiquated ideology stating government-controlled care is the only one worth supporting. Agreements have been tied to the provinces only if they agree to government-controlled regulated care not being given to the parents.
The Quebec system has had astronomical cost overruns. We see much of the reason is because they took a system which no study says was inferior and had to run it through a ridiculous government bureaucracy to provide it with an unnecessary ``stamp of approval'' only to turn out the same product at a vastly greater expense to the taxpayers. The sad part is the regulators were already in place. They are called parents.
Currently, the vast majority of children are looked after by quite competent caregivers and in a variety of settings including daycares, nursery schools and home daycares. They are also looked after by grandparents and retired school teachers, but one form of care is still parents, even though the government would have you believe otherwise.
Not only does this wide variety of caregiving choices exist, it closely reflects the wishes of most parents for the kinds of care they want. I have listed a Vanier Institute study clearly stating that daycare is the fifth choice for parents.
A second reason not to dismantle this thriving system of child care we currently have is, in my estimation, the most important, which is to help retain the natural communities now in existence across Canada.
Most child care choices enjoyed by parents are rooted in a real community, not a government run institution. This fosters further involvement in the community, whether it be by meeting others using the same or shared care, or assisting the caregiver outside the contractual obligations, as many families do, such as helping a Filipino nanny establish herself here in Canada. Community daycares ensure a greater connection to the physical aspects of the community, for example, having caregivers take children to the same grocery stores, parks, drop-in centres, et cetera, as parents. In short, communities are driven by individuals and necessary interdependence, not by bureaucratic state- run systems, which in author John Freie's words are called ``counterfeit communities.''
The third flaw in the national child care program is the one kind of care being advocated, namely educational school-based care, is arguably the worst kind of care in ``early learning,'' serving to institutionalize children even earlier than they are now. It is based on a model of education which believes school is the most important place to learn, one which arguably is not working very well considering that 30 per cent of young people drop out each year in Ontario and Canada has a 42 per cent functional illiteracy rate.
Minister Dryden and I discussed the problem of schools not doing a good job of helping parents in their primary role as their child's educator. I admired his optimism when he said this kind of new system could help parents as they could liaise with the child care workers at the end and beginning of the day. I told him that this was almost naively idealistic as this never really happens in schools. In Toronto, in particular, they are moving this very quickly to a school-based model. They are refurbishing ten classrooms right now in schools in ``under-serviced'' areas, which basically means low-income areas. I have great concerns about that. It is the schools in low-income areas, in which I have taught, that do the worst job of involving parents and letting them know they really matter. Rather, the attitude toward parents too often is, as Mr. Dryden acknowledged, ``I am the expert. There is no way you could possibly know how to educate your child.''
Our prediction is that we will see a greater drop-out rate. A well-known educator in Toronto said:
I am very concerned about the growing trend toward institutionalizing children as soon as possible and keeping them institutionalized as long as possible. This is an alarming trend, and, as a teacher, I see its negative results every day — kids who don't know who they are! These kids are suffering from school fatigue at 12 and 13. By the time I get them in grade 9, a good half have lost all interest in learning. They are tired of jumping though hoops. They have been robbed of their childhoods and they know it. The earlier you start kids in any kind of institutional process, the sooner they'll burn out and lose all interest in that process. We are going to reap a bitter harvest from a generation of over-institutionalized, over-programmed kids. I believe the rising incidence of depression and substance abuse in later adolescence is, in part, the product of kids growing up over-stressed and under-nurtured by state-run institutions that claim to serve their needs.
Michael Reist is head of the English department at Robert F. Hall Catholic Secondary School in Caledon East, Ontario. He had taught high school English for over 22 years and is a phenomenal speaker.
The last and perhaps most serious concern we have about the national child care program is that much of it is based on a questionable and worrisome ideology that states that, whether or not we like it, capitalism rules and it is the government's role to ensure that all of its citizens are brought into the fold for their own good. We see this national child care program not as benign and neutral assistance on the part of the government, but rather as a subtle yet powerful force changing the landscape of family life in Canada.
Let it be clear that this national daycare model is predicated in part on workfare-like notions. The federal government has done nothing to distance itself from the Quebec daycare model and has in fact praised it and touted it as something for the rest of Canada. If it is not known to all here, it should be, that there was a mother's workfare component to the Quebec plan, which no one denies. Not only were benefits reduced for needy families, thus forcing low-income mothers to work longer hours to make up for lost family benefits, but mothers on welfare were told that one of their employment options was to become a home child care provider themselves.
This phenomenon has been detailed in documents and editorials and, most ominously, it is a principle that pervades the polemic economists Gordon Cleveland and Michael Krashinsky wrote entitled, Fact and Fantasy: Eight Myths about Early Childhood Education and Care, which is known to have influenced the Liberal government's national child care program. These two economists, who we respectfully suggest should stick to their day jobs, state unequivocally that the economy, mothers, families and children will all and always be better off if both parents are in the work force. It is well known that Krashinsky has long been a proponent of workfare and appears now to want to extend related principles to mothers of young children, even those who are not receiving welfare payments. In short, he sees universal daycare as the means by which to propel women into far greater workforce participation.
Without being cynical, I would like to know whether his oft-quoted two-for-one return on child care investment includes savings the government would reap from not having to pay out family benefits because both parents would be in the paid work force. We are just asking.
Furthermore, there is precedent for this kind of ``rob Peter to pay Paul'' policy. Ontario, along with other provinces, currently claws back the national child benefit supplement when providing families in their province with government assistance. Perhaps instead of the federal government ensuring that daycare dollars be spent only on regulated, government-controlled care, as they are now demanding, they should instead ensure that the provinces guarantee that the offer of ``free daycare'' does not result in the clawing back of even more family benefits.
It is this aspect of the national child policy more than any other that we are diligently and successfully bringing to the attention of the Canadian media. Word is getting out that there is far more of a ``back story'' to this daycare plan than most Canadians are led to believe. It is to this point in particular that we ask you to give particular attention.
I think the Canadian public would be somewhat aghast to discover that the Senate thought it appropriate to green light a program that, far from just responding to how we now live, which is what Mr. Dryden wants to do, may proactively alter and limit the choices families now exercise.
Is it better to have both parents in low-income families work outside the home, or is it better to support them to do the best job they can as parents, especially when the only other option is to have the children in a state-run school, a system that historically and currently is skewed against low-income families.
When we are suffering, in the words of Gabor Mate, from the rage of the ``unparented teen,'' is it wise to have government policy skewed toward encouraging parents to spend even less time at home?
Is it wise or even ethical for government to take such an interventionist role in determining the course of family life in Canada?
These questions represent a sincere desire to discuss how we can best deliver family policy that results in health and well-being for all. In fact, that is the greatest problem with this national child care program, the fact that it is a piecemeal bit of policy not residing in an overall national family program that the country desperately needs. The long- time daycare advocates paid by the government probably mean no malice when they push for daycare and daycare alone, but it must be recognized that many of them started this crusade decades ago when daycare was thought to be the answer to women entering the paid workforce. We now know know, though, that sound family policy means so much more than just daycare. It is often said we should emulate Sweden, France and other countries. Although one should question the relative value of emulating another country instead of just improving our own, if we were to copy these countries, we should do so in a big way.
The social programs of many European countries include much longer parental leaves, less work hours, longer holidays, financial support for parents looking after their children in the home, greater support for the costs of higher education and, most notably, countries such as Sweden benefit from a much flatter income distribution.
What about affordable housing? My top student, a six-year-old, came from an award winning co-op housing complex that provided great stability for the family. Bring on universal daycare if you want, but bring it with all the accompanying social supports necessary to make it work. Otherwise, we will suffer from a tunnel vision social policy that would be similar to issuing everyone with shiny new tires but forgetting to give them the car to go with it.
We are not alone in our belief that choice, parental control and more comprehensive child care and family policies are what Canadians need. Alberta and New Brunswick have both declined to take the money the federal government has to offer if it means that they have to limit the choices parents most naturally want to make for their children.
What do we want from universal daycare? What should a comprehensive family policy look like? Should the government be allowed to intervene so profoundly to change the course of family life, or should it be neutral and responsive, serving instead to improve the current condition of its citizens?
Those of us in the growing choice movement are becoming increasingly vocal that the money allocated for child care should not be released to the provinces until these and other related issues are addressed.
Finally, I mentioned that I felt Minister Dryden truly had the interests of Canadian children at heart. I have also had the opportunity to talk with Conservative MPs Rona Ambose and Barry Devolin and know that they too want what is best for families. That is a rare opportunity for us all to be engaged in much needed debate on what we want a Canadian family policy to look like. What a wonderful chance for bureaucrats, elected officials and Canadian citizens to sit down together with the goal of developing family policies for the 21st century, ones that will improve the daily lives of all its citizens now and for years to come.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation. A number of senators would like to ask questions about what you have said. I will start with Senator Stratton from Manitoba.
Senator Stratton: I have grandchildren who are in one form or another being looked after by nannies or variations thereof simply because they cannot get into daycare.
Ms. Tennier: Good for them, by the way.
Senator Stratton: This is simply because they are able to afford it.
Ms. Tennier: Daycare is the fifth choice of parents. Do not think for a second that they are in inferior care. We want everybody to be able to afford every kind of choice.
Senator Stratton: If I could make my point, I would appreciate it.
Their parents have decided how their children should be looked after. I fundamentally believe that choice should be there. That is why I cannot fathom why we would go to a Big Brother system like the one that is being proposed. In my view, it is elitist to say, ``Thou shall do this, and thou shall not have any other choice.''
I am particularly concerned about those people who cannot access, even if they wanted to, this system. I made that point to the minister. What about those people in rural Canada who cannot access this system? He did not have an answer.
Can you explain to me and this table what you think we should do with respect to those parents in rural Canada who want choices?
Ms. Tennier: Our policy is called ``ARC.'' 'A' stands for awareness. We support a big public awareness campaign for parenting. Kirstin Doull, special assistant to Ken Dryden, says this is a theme they are hearing over and over again. 'R' is respect for choices, and 'C' is cash. It is very simple; it is very deregulated.
I do not know why we would even think of going to this Big Brother model. Give the parents the cash. They will be able to make their own arrangements, because the arrangements exist right now. There is no child care shortage. The only shortage is in the money parents have available to them to make their own choices.
If you give them enough cash, they can make an arrangement with their neighbour or get a nanny. In fact, if you look on the Toronto Children Services website, there are X number of vacancies and X number of waiting lists, and it comes out to zero.
There are so many regulations and limitations. If you are depending on a subsidy, you could have Mary Poppins living beside you, but if she is not licensed, then you cannot access Mary Poppins. It is such an inefficient, overly regulated system, and it is one that we vehemently oppose.
Senator Stratton: When you talk to people from rural areas who work, they are essentially being forced to hire somebody to look after their kids during the day and pay them under the table. In other words, they do not get any tax breaks whatsoever.
Ms. Tennier: Why is that?
Senator Stratton: It is simply because the child care worker does not want to report the income. If they do, they would have to charge more. In other words, the charge for child care would skyrocket because they would have to pay tax on it. These workers are being paid cash under the table, and this policy would aggravate the situation rather than face up to the reality that this is happening and deal with it in a realistic fashion, like using tax credits. Would you not agree?
Ms. Tennier: That is right. We are actually talking about a universal benefit. The whole point here is this policy should not happen. I do not want to see some mother making $20,000 a year at Tim Horton's going home at 6:00 o'clock at night, with no Cinderella there to clean up her house, and she now has to deal with her children and make dinner and help them with their homework.
This will become a two-tiered system. Let us keep it one tier, but keep the tier in the control of the parents. This is why we feel it will become a federal issue, because we are talking change in taxation policy.
We propose two things. First, there should be a universal benefit. Basically, if you have a kid, you get cash. Second, you get a sliding benefit for child care. That child care can be given to the parent, a third party or a combination of both, but you have to be registered. Even the parent must be registered to keep this above the black market. There are very simple ways of making this work.
Look at Quebec. Do you want to inflict this on the rest of Canada? The stories that we hear from people there are just unbelievable. My father used to work for FERA. There was great government intervention then, and now there is no government intervention with trade. Somehow with family policy, we have gone the other way.
A lot of Canadians are going to be moving. I have three sisters out of the country. We all have university degrees. Two of them are in the States. One of the fellows I work with has four brothers and three of them are in the States. They cannot stand the socialist drift. This is almost right-wing socialism. I will not use the F-word, but it is really scary stuff. It is not the four-letter F word. It is seven letters.
The Chairman: We are running out of time. I would like to go next to Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: I am a proponent of choice in child care. I am in favour of daycare controlled by the parents. The idea you are proposing, it is more like a tax credit system where there is a credit on your taxation?
Ms. Tennier: Yes. You have to be careful. They must be refundable tax credits, because we want to eliminate discrimination. We have a regressive system now, because when you have a child care expense deduction, obviously the more income you have, the greater you get back. We want to eliminate that kind of thing. It must be a direct credit.
Again, we think families need a bit more money, but let us just talk about the child care part. The parent would get a direct credit. I have worked from the home. I had a small business in the house, so I had a babysitter take my child out. I have been a full-time working mom. This is not about advocating everybody going back to white picket fences. The point is that you can use the credit as you see fit. For me, the best thing was I wanted to be with my child, but he needed to be brought to the nursery school. I made my own arrangements. We can keep it within the tax system.
Australia has something called registered child care. It does not mean licensed. I do not want to get into licensing. They think they can go around licensing all the home child care providers. That is a horror show. There is a document that says it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and then there is a false sense that the home is safe if it is licensed. Parents are the regulators. If you do not know well enough that that is good child care, you should not be a parent. However, you do have to be registered to keep it outside of the black market.
Senator Tkachuk: I agree with you, because I come from a province that is basically rural. There is absolutely no way a universal daycare system will be imposed on our province, despite what the present government thinks, unless it is a two-tiered system as we now have with hospitals, as we have with schools, as we have with almost every feature. We have centralized schools. We have hospitals in the big cities and no hospitals in the rural areas. Kids are getting up at 6 in the morning, getting on a bus, getting home at night after a 12-hour day, and they are not able to participate in school sports or anything like that.
These are the evils of centralization.
Ms. Tennier: The home care providers in your province in particular are being harassed. It is a bad scene in Saskatchewan. We have been hearing from two home care providers that started a group. It is really Draconian there right now.
Senator Tkachuk: I agree. I thank you for coming. I am very supportive of what you are trying to do.
Senator Eggleton: My understanding is that the ministry is trying to achieve quality regulated spaces as opposed to necessarily having institutionalized spaces. In fact, how the money is spent is really part of the agreement with each of the provinces.
Is your quarrel really not with the provinces in terms of how they spend the money or whether you think there is an over-institutionalization?
Would you have any quarrel with quality regulated spaces?
Ms. Tennier: Yes, we have quality regulated spaces, and those are called babysitters, home care providers and nannies. They are great, and it is the parents that regulate them. It is the parents that check their quality. I spent years in the system. There are abusive teachers. There is 30 percent drop-out.
Senator Eggleton: Is your quarrel not with the provinces?
Ms. Tennier: No, because Dryden — I am sure you know this — has only released it with great strings attached. It has to be spent. It cannot be given to the parents. This is why Alberta and New Brunswick have refused to take it. The quarrel is with Dryden. I had a good meeting with him. I am not saying I want to quarrel with him, but it is federal.
Senator Eggleton: Your proposal is to give this money to the parents. The Conservatives came up with a proposal in the last election that involved a $2,000 credit, which would actually put about $320 per child in the pockets of these parents, which is a small amount compared to the cost of daycare.
Ms. Tennier: That is right.
Senator Eggleton: What would you propose?
Ms. Tennier: We are working with some economists to come up with a number quite a bit greater than the Conservatives. I have actually been told by some Conservatives that they realize that that just is not good enough.
Senator Eggleton: I am told that their program would have cost $9.3 billion over four years. That is twice the amount of money we are talking about for Mr. Dryden's proposal.
Ms. Tennier: No, Mr. Dryden's proposal will cost considerably more than they are suggesting. That is just the beginning of it.
Senator Eggleton: How much will yours cost?
Ms. Tennier: We will say whatever yours will cost; we will go just go $1,000 or $2,000 a year less. Suppose it costs $10,000 to put a kid in universal daycare. As you know, you are supposed to be able to do it even if both parents are not working. As you can do in Quebec, you are supposed to be able to drop your kid off even if you are not working. That will be at least $10,000, so we are saying anywhere up to $10,000.
Senator Eggleton: If you do not know how much it will cost, how do you know it can be effective?
Ms. Tennier: In what way?
Senator Eggleton: You do not have a viable costing program, so how do you know it can be effective in terms of meeting the needs of people who have their children in daycare because they have to work?
Ms. Tennier: I do not really understand your question. Do you mean effective as care or cost effective?
Senator Eggleton: You agreed that the $320 of the Conservative program last time would not meet the needs.
Ms. Tennier: Right.
Senator Eggleton: But you do not know where yours will come out.
Ms. Tennier: Right now, the CCED that families receive is around $2,000. When you claim your $7,000 per child, it works out on average to about $2,000. Lower income families on average in Ontario get a $4,000 subsidy. If you want to do the subsidy, four plus two is six, so we will go somewhere between six and 10. We are non-partisan. We have people from Liberals, Conservatives and NDP in our group. Everybody keeps saying the Conservatives have to come up with their number. Well, Dryden is on record many times as saying that he has no idea how much this will cost. This really should not be so partisan. We should all be sitting down and saying, what is it that we want? In fact, when people write emails to our group and write us letters, they say, ``We do not understand this. What is this about?'' We think we found a bit of a smoking gun. I can be cynical, but I will not be naive. We think it is about reformulating some family life in Canada. But this whole thing is not ready to be unleashed. They are starting to refurbish ten rooms in schools in Toronto.
The Chairman: You have told us that before. The hour is getting late. Please keep your answers short. You have told us those things before, and it is on the record.
Ms. Tennier: I was used to testifying at that the House of Commons committee where they just yelled at me to stop, so you can go ahead. I did not realize you would be so polite to wait for me to stop talking.
The Chairman: We do not yell here, but I have two more senators who do want to ask questions, and we do not have a lot of time. I would ask that you listen to the question and then answer it briefly.
Senator Ringuette: When you say that parents would have to register, is that registry similar to the gun registry? You said parents would have to register.
Senator Stratton: That is a wonderful example.
Senator Ringuette: What kind of registry are you talking about?
Ms. Tennier: I have had a small business. You have to have a GST and PST. In the province of Ontario, it is that simple. It is a registration number. You fill out a form.
Senator Ringuette: We would have to add to the current bureaucracy that we have in order for parents to be registered.
Ms. Tennier: No, it would be a simple little check-off box on your income tax form, about a millionth of what the bureaucracy would be if we have universal daycare.
Senator Ringuette: You have made a very strong statement about the Quebec child care system. That is absolutely unacceptable unless you can provide to us credible expert opinion saying that that system does not satisfy the needs of kids in Quebec. I am not from Quebec. I am from New Brunswick, the neighbouring province at the border of Quebec. Where do you live?
Ms. Tennier: Toronto.
Senator Ringuette: That is quite a ways away. I live at the border of Quebec, and I have a lot of family with young kids living in Quebec. They have a terrific system there. Therefore, your argument has to be substantiated by experts in order to be stated at a Senate committee. The people of Quebec would take to the streets to keep the system that they have. My question is: Do you have a substantive expert evaluation of the Quebec system in order to substantiate the remarks that you made in regard to the Quebec system?
Ms. Tennier: The work fare component, the cost overruns —
Senator Ringuette: Do you have any expert opinions that you can give us?
Ms. Tennier: Yes, I do. I have the document by Jocelyn Tougas. I can give it to you after.
Senator Ringuette: This witness has come and made some statements, and I am questioning some statements.
The Chairman: You have asked the question, and the witness has given an answer. The answer is that she has a paper with her and a document with her which is like the document you have requested. I will now ask the witness if she will make a copy of the document available. We will give to it the clerk of this committee. The clerk will circulate that document to all members of the committee. Do you have another question?
Senator Ringuette: Yes, I do. I remember when I was younger, there was a federal program that was called the child allowance. Vaguely, I remember that parents would get something like a $33 or $35 a cheque every month. I also remember that that program was cancelled by the Mulroney government.
What you are proposing in regards to giving cash is a similar kind of program, so you would like to see that put back in place?
Ms. Tennier: Yes.
Senator Mitchell: Ms. Tennier, I am trying to work out some of the logic here. Essentially, as Senator Eggleton said, there is some flexibility. The provinces can certainly negotiate a variety of different options. In fact, they do. I should mention as a point of fact that I believe that Alberta is in fact on the verge of signing an agreement, and Minister Forsyth has said so publicly.
The reason they have not signed yet is because they are still trying to work out not the kind of daycare but just the mechanism of accountability, who do they report to and how do they report? I do not want to weaken your argument.
Ms. Tennier: I spoke to her two weeks ago and I would say it is pretty much a 180 from what you are saying. She said she was holding out for choice.
Senator Mitchell: You are saying that what she said to the press is wrong? She is quoted in the press.
Ms. Tennier: I spoke to her on the phone.
Senator Mitchell: I was in the legislature with her and I would think most of the time she got it right in the press.
In any event, the options that this would address would be daycare spaces. The option that you are saying is forgotten is babysitting or nannies. Those are extremely expensive. You can provide a daycare space for much less money than a one-on-one home option. It might be that where we would shift some money to a family like yours or a family that has some substance, it would be helpful. They would get some money, but they would still pay for some of the nanny.
What about the single mother who has to work and does not have enough money to pay for daycare? I feel your passion about this and I know how deeply you care. What offends me ultimately is that we forget about these families that just cannot be families like you believe families to be.
Ms. Tennier: I do not know what part you did not get. I am here on behalf of low income families.
Senator Mitchell: How do they afford a nanny?
Ms. Tennier: A lot of people nanny share. That is better because you get age mixing which, from a pedagogical point of view, is something that daycare is sorely lacking.
Senator Mitchell: What about those who cannot?
Ms. Tennier: We are looking at a minimum of $10,000 for daycare. Even at that, the OECD said most of our daycare is crummy. Let us talk about $14,000 or $15,000. We are saying take that money, give half of it to parents and let them join up with other families. There is a lot of home care where two or three children are taken in. They go to the drop-in centre. They take their kid to the grocery store which, my professor at the University of Toronto said, is where most kids learn how to read. This is for low-income families. We have to stop blasting them and telling them that they are too stupid and they have to put their kid in a daycare.
Senator Mitchell: I wish it were that easy. In my experience, as a parent, it just is not that easy to find people where they need to be.
Ms. Tennier: It should not be easy.
Senator Mitchell: What if it is impossible?
Ms. Tennier: It is not that impossible.
The Chairman: Ms. Tennier, on behalf of the committee I want to thank you very much for coming. You can tell by the questions that you have stimulated much interesting thought on a very important Canadian issue. Thank you for taking the time to prepare your brief, thank you for taking the time to make your presentation and, most of all, thank you for your responses to the questions.
Honourable senators, that concludes this session of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance.
Senator Tkachuk: Mr. Chairman, since we have heard the other witness, I move that we move into clause-by-clause.
Senator Downe: I would like to move a motion as well that the bill be referred to the steering committee of this finance committee for further consideration for next course of action.
Senator Tkachuk: There is a motion on the floor. Can we deal with that?
The Chairman: Honourable senator, it has been moved that the committee now move to clause-by-clause of this bill. Are you ready for the question?
Senator Stratton: Question.
Senator Downe: I would like a recorded vote, Chair.
Ms. Piccinin: The Honourable Senator Cowan.
Senator Cowan: Against.
Ms. Piccinin: The Honourable Senator Downe.
Senator Downe: Opposed.
Ms. Piccinin: The Honourable Senator Eggleton.
Senator Eggleton: Opposed.
Ms. Piccinin: The Honourable Senator Ferretti Barth.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Opposed.
Ms. Piccinin: The Honourable Senator Mitchell.
Senator Mitchell: Opposed.
Ms. Piccinin: The Honourable Senator Ringuette.
Senator Ringuette: Opposed.
Ms. Piccinin: The Honourable Senator Stratton.
Senator Stratton: For.
Ms. Piccinin: The Honourable Senator Tardif.
Senator Tardif: Opposed.
Ms. Piccinin: The Honourable Senator Tkachuk.
Senator Tkachuk: For.
Ms. Piccinin: Yeas 2, nays 7.
The Chairman: I declare that the motion has been defeated.
Senator Ringuette: Mr. Chairman, on Monday I sent an email to you as chair of this committee, copies to the steering committee informing you that I would like Minister Stronach to be called as a witness. The major issue we have been discussing tonight is child care, so I would propose that we invite Minister Dryden to appear before the committee. This is a very important issue. We should have the opportunity to hear and question the minister.
We heard a witness tonight who made very controversial statements. We need to hear all the facts.
The Chairman: Those motions will be put before the steering committee of this committee. The steering committee will analyze them and make a decision.
With respect to the first part of your statement, your email was sent to members of the steering committee, Senators Day, Downe, Eggleton and I, and we received it. As a result of that, we asked the clerk of the committee to get in touch with the office of the minister, Belinda Stronach to see if the minister would appear before this committee, first on Tuesday and secondly today, Wednesday. On both occasions the minister was not available to come and appear personally before this committee. We were told that senior officials from her department were prepared to come to speak to certain issues arising in Bill C-43.
Honourable senators, the next regularly scheduled meeting of this committee is Tuesday, June 28, 2005.
The committee adjourned.