FINA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES FINANCES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, November 3, 1997

• 1538

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan—King—Aurora, Lib.)): I call this meeting to order this afternoon, and welcome everyone back.

As you know, pursuant to Standing Order 83.1 we are holding pre-budget consultation hearings to seek input from Canadians—individuals and organizations—as to measures we should be taking to deal with the next federal budget.

This afternoon I would like to welcome representatives from the following organizations: the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, the Canadian Federation of University Women, the Canadian Teachers' Federation, the Canadian Federation of Students, and I believe also from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

Many of these groups have appeared before the finance committee many a time, but just to refresh and review the procedure here, you will have approximately five minutes to make your presentation, giving us the highlights or most important points of your paper, and then we will proceed to a question and answer session.

We will begin this afternoon with the representative from the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, James Horan, president.

Welcome.

[Translation]

Mr. James Horan (President, Learning Disabilities Association of Canada): Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for this invitation.

[English]

I have been a volunteer with the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada for more than a decade, at all levels—chapter, provincial, and of course national. Our mission is to advance education, employment, social development, legal rights, and the general well-being of individuals with learning disabilities.

• 1540

Did you know that over three million Canadians in this country have learning disabilities, and that our association, with thousands of volunteers, works through 140 chapters that stretch from coast to coast? We have chapters everywhere from Newfoundland all the way to British Columbia and toward the far north.

I want to give you a profile of a person with a learning disability. An individual can be either male or female and can have average or above-average intelligence. They can encounter problems with reading, writing, spelling, mathematics, concentrating, dealing with spatial concepts, or social skills.

The Learning Disabilities Association of Canada acknowledges that if these individuals do not have a continuum of support and service, the direct consequences are low self-esteem, academic failure and difficulty achieving success, which at times places them at a distinct social and economic disadvantage in our society.

You don't need to search far to find these people. You'll find them standing in the unemployment line. You'll find them standing in the soup kitchen lines. Often they live in abject poverty. They live in youth detention centres. You'll find them incarcerated in our prisons, and you'll find them on the streets.

Tonight, take a few minutes on the way home. Four blocks away from this great building you'll find them. Have a look into their faces and wonder how they got there. Have a really good look. They have moms and dads someplace in this country.

The Government of Canada has made some major investments in the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. The most recent investment, through the National Literacy Secretariat, was Bringing Literacy Within Reach: Cue Cards for Learning. These materials are hands-on materials used at the street level by literacy workers across this country. It's something the Government of Canada should be proud of, something that the Learning Disabilities Association is proud of, because it reaches the grassroots.

The teaching materials have been designed to help adults with learning disabilities upgrade their literacy and numeracy skills. For some, this book represents the very first step on the journey that will allow an individual with learning disabilities to experience the joy of reading a newspaper, of sharing a book with a son or a daughter or a youngster, of filling out a job application on their own, and conducting their daily affairs without shame or fear.

As we enter the next millennium, we have to look toward the next generation. We have to ensure that all are given an equal opportunity to learn, to have a sense of accomplishment and of self-worth.

The Learning Disabilities Association of Canada recommends to the Government of Canada that investments be made in programs that provide for early intervention for young children at risk before they enter our school system. New opportunities must be developed and new support found for those high-risk adolescents and young adults who lack very basic literacy and numeracy skills, and who are being shut out of the new economic reality.

These programs have to be global in nature. You have to look after academic, social and emotional needs of these young Canadians at risk.

Last year, when the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada appeared before this standing committee, I recommended a disability tax credit that would recognize the expenses incurred by parents of children with learning disabilities. Furthermore, in a brief on the disability tax credit, our association asked the Government of Canada for clearer definitions that would include learning disabilities. Our position on this issue hasn't changed in 12 months, and when I come back 12 months from now it still will not have changed.

Across this country right now we have seen a number of provinces slash spending in the area of education and health care. What does that mean at the grassroots level? What does that mean in communities across this country? It means you have a longer line-up for assessments. It means that many youngsters who are really in need of treatment will end up being trapped in the era of downsizing. It ends up meaning that some very highly trained special education teachers are no longer working in their field. It also means numerous specialized programs that really offered a lifeline to some of our young people who could have a productive future have simply disappeared.

• 1545

As a result, we know we have parents in crisis. Those who can afford it pay for the psycho-educational assessments, the tutoring services, and the basic academic remediation. Parents, we know, have invested materials and money. We know they have actually invested in talking books and tape recorders and the costs involved with putting novels on tape and text. Parents in some areas have had to pay for speech, occupational, and psychological therapy.

What these parents need is a disability tax credit to recognize that those expenses are legitimate. This support will ensure that their child with a learning disability will grow up and become self-sufficient and independent, a productive member of our society.

We're not advocating that every single individual with a learning disability should qualify for a tax credit, but there is a need for a consistent application of the guidelines and there is also a need to extend the guidelines to better reflect the nature and extent of learning disabilities and their disabling consequences.

We're due to take action today. We understand the position of the government. We understand downsizing is necessary. We understand you have to get control of the national debt and bring down the deficit. Yet at the same time, we also see a need for parents who are out there struggling with their youngsters to actually acquire this disability tax credit. For in the end, it leads to a better start for young Canadians and a future with a wide range of job opportunities that will include everyone in our new economy.

Merci.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Horan.

We now move to the representatives from the Canadian Federation of University Women: the president, Betty Bayless, and the legislation director, Nora Kudrenecky.

Welcome.

Ms. Betty Bayless (President, Canadian Federation of University Women): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nora will begin our presentation.

Ms. Nora Kudrenecky (Legislation Director, Canadian Federation of University Women): Thank you.

The Canadian Federation of University Women, or CFUW as we call it, appreciates this opportunity to present its views to the Standing Committee on Finance. CFUW represents approximately 10,000 women university graduates in 130 clubs across Canada.

Within the broad framework of the budget, we feel all allocations must be subject to careful gender impact analysis. Based on CFUW policy and with particular reference to the well-being of girls and women, we are addressing the three questions from the committee and five additional priority budget areas.

Number one, in evaluating the economic assumptions for the 1998 budget, the inflation and interest rates will remain low. The government will gain tax revenue because the lowered age for conversion of RRSPs will save funds, and also because the OAS is income-tested, with forward clawbacks now in place. We ask if the government is reinvesting in the CPP the clawback from CPP recipients who are early retirees.

We understand the IMF ruled that the government must decrease Canada's debt before it can invest in other programs. If the employment insurance surplus continues to grow, will the government reallocate that surplus?

Revisions to the tax system should include tax incentives for businesses that provide on-the-job training for their employees. Funds earmarked for tax cuts should be applied to social programs. We urge that you continue to tax RRSPs rather than lowering the income tax threshold.

Canadians need additional educational opportunities to enable them to access jobs in the knowledge-based economy. Please consider the following.

Expand apprenticeship programs.

Ensure that manpower training programs are portable by defining national standards agreed upon by all the provinces. This will guarantee the mobility of Canadian workers.

Consult employers and fund courses based on job market trends.

Restore grants for students in higher education.

Fund research in universities and expand ESL, FSL, and literacy and numeracy programs. We were pleased to learn that the budget for the National Literacy Secretariat was increased by 30% to $30 million and urge you to continue this support.

The implementation of the CHST has negatively affected post-secondary education in terms of higher tuition fees and reduced student services and programs. Under the new Canada student loans program women average four years longer than men to repay their loans because of childcare responsibilities and lower-paying jobs.

• 1550

The federal government must continue to monitor the impact of reduced transfer payments. The growing debt load facing post-secondary students discourages many able students from low- and middle-income families from choosing further education.

We urge the government to pay particular attention to this phenomenon and suggest more lenient pay-back schedules and alleviation of loans in hardship cases.

Ms. Betty Bayless: Additional funding for student participation at the community college level will increase the number of skilled tradespeople in Canada. Women need support to seek careers in non-traditional occupations, including adequate funds for living expenses, transportation and childcare. Dollars for short-term training courses that do not lead to productive jobs but further the cycles of employment insurance and welfare should be reallocated.

If colleges, universities and training centres are to keep pace with the rapid changes in technology, they require adequate funding to acquire state-of-the-art equipment and develop courses that meet the needs of employers and prospective employees. Businesses, educational institutions and governments must develop joint strategies to meet marketplace demands for workers. Employment equity and pay equity are vital to ensure equal access, opportunity and fairness in the workplace.

Moving to some more general items, Bill C-2 does not reflect comprehensive gender analysis. There is lack of recognition that 85% of those receiving surviving spousal benefits are women. This impacts their financial independence, as does the reduction of the death benefit. We have similar concerns about the seniors' benefit package to be tabled after Christmas, the impact on women of revisions to credit splitting and of benefits based on household income to be divided equally between spouses in which the lower or non-income spouse loses income in her own name. Women are the majority of non-standard and part-time workers who lack pension plans and cannot invest in RRSPs due to insufficient discretionary funds.

In the health care system, CFUW members have experienced the impact of cutbacks: reduced drug plans, decreased essential services and increased patient-nurse ratios. Reduced CHST payments prevent this government from enforcing the standards of the Canada Health Act.

CFUW supported Bill C-71 and urges immediate implementation of the tobacco and health regulations. We also ask you to retain funding for the Women's Health Bureau and Network, the women's centres of excellence and drug research testing for women.

Child care and alleviation of child poverty must be a priority in this and future budgets. We applaud the childcare initiatives launched in the last budget and emphasize that these must be increased. Continued child poverty will have long-term effects in this country. Increased employment opportunities will have a major positive impact.

Full equality for women is not yet a reality in Canada. We therefore request adequate funding for Status of Women Canada. This department provides invaluable support to the Secretary of State for the Status of Women and the cabinet through internal policy development. It also advances the status of women through the Women's Program projects, an independent research program.

Finally, CFUW has been actively involved in the campaign to ban anti-personnel land-mines. We congratulate Canada on its leadership. We will be with you in December for the treaty signing and we urge you to add budget items that will fund mine clearance and victim assistance.

Canada's commitments to major UN instruments since 1990 include women's equality, the rights of the child, human rights, eradication of poverty, reproductive health, basic education for all, action to safeguard the environment and shelter strategies. This government must allocate funds to implement those commitments.

Thank you for listening to the concerns of a group of generalists in your audience today.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We appreciate your presentation.

Now, from the Canadian Teachers' Federation, Mr. Harvey Weiner, deputy secretary general, and John Staple, director of economic services.

Mr. Harvey Weiner (Deputy Secretary General, Canadian Teachers' Federation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present on behalf of our federation.

[Translation]

The Canadian Teachers' Federation is the national voice of teachers in promoting high quality in education, the status of teachers and equality of opportunity through public education. CTF coordinates and facilitates the sharing of ideas, knowledge and skills among its 13 provincial/territorial Member organizations which collectively represent over 240,000 elementary and secondary school teachers.

• 1555

[English]

Ladies and gentlemen, you do have a brief. I'll highlight a number of sections of it. I look forward to your questions.

We want to reinforce, from page 2 of our brief, some of the comments Minister Martin made in which he linked the strong and undeniable factor of quality education with economic success.

We want to, as well, refer to statements made by Minister Pierre Pettigrew in a recent speech to the chamber of commerce in Quebec on October 24, that, “There can be no true, solid economic union unless there is a sound and vital social union to support it”. We agree very strongly with that statement.

We also noticed, with considerable interest, an article in today's Gazette in Montreal in which a report just issued by Human Resources Development Canada refers to an index of social health. A major conclusion of the report is that, “...it's not enough to take care of the economy and then assume that the economy will take care of the welfare of individuals”.

The three major indicators used in this study of Human Resources Development Canada to measure the well-being of children were infant mortality, child abuse, and child poverty. These indicators suggest that youngsters were worse off in 1995—we would suggest that the trend has continued, but that is the year of reference—than at any time back to at least 1970.

I would invite members of the committee to obtain a copy of this report—we will also do so—to look at it particularly in light of the debate that's currently ongoing as to the area in which we should be putting our priorities: social reinvestment, debt reduction, or tax reduction.

We come to you with a strong emphasis on reinvestment targeted to provide opportunities and support for all Canadian children and youth to succeed in school and in life, maintain and improve the social programs that are important to the fabric of this country, and focus on reducing the high rate of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment.

Some of you around the table may ask why we, as representatives of elementary and secondary teachers, come to you at the federal level when education, particularly elementary and secondary, is within the prerogative of the provincial legislature. We would suggest to you that you should look at a number of the departments that are clearly under federal or shared federal jurisdiction with the provinces. These departments have a very significant impact on the ability of the children and youth we teach to succeed.

What are these departments? They include, among others—you have a list of them at the top of page 4 of the brief—federal departments, including Industry Canada and Human Resources Development Canada, that look at: the integration of planning between high school education and the job market; the identification of skills required in a modern economy; the issues of taxation, literacy, and responsible citizenship; the impact of child poverty on learning; the issue of violence through the justice system; young offenders legislation; censorship; pornography; international dimensions of education; education research through Statistics Canada and HRDC; and the increased importance of science and technology.

Anyone who would deny these important linkages and their impact on what we are able to teach and how effectively we're able to teach young people in elementary and secondary schools is obviously not looking at the situation realistically.

We would emphasize again—this is on page 5 of our brief—the impact of the cuts that have been made over a period of years through the Canada health and social transfer. These are cuts that were not necessarily directed specifically at elementary and secondary education, but you can be sure that the downloading effect and the way in which provinces dealt with them and continue to deal with them has resulted in increasingly strapped resources for students and the teachers who are teaching those students.

• 1600

We have a series of recommendations for you. The kinds of partnerships we are looking for, the partnerships in which we believe the federal government can take a leadership role, don't only include the provision of resources. They also include the co-ordination of strategies together with provincial governments, school boards and teacher representatives in trying to ensure that flexible programs can be delivered on behalf of our children and youth to take care of the many needs crying out for attention.

We refer to two specific examples and studies that have taken place, both in the United States. We're not necessarily suggesting that these are models. We believe we can develop our own made-in-Canada models. One of those is the Perry Preschool project and another is the Hawaii Healthy Start program. We have copies of the details of those programs and the kind of collaboration that took place in their development.

On the summary sheet in our brief, on page 8, we indicate our specific recommendations to this committee, which we hope you will pass on to finance minister Martin.

We are looking at a significant portion of whatever surpluses begin to develop at the federal level to be reinvested in areas that address both economic and social needs, but with strong emphasis on social reinvestment.

I won't go through each of the recommendations. You can read them all.

I certainly invite your questions. I particularly invite questions on the Angus Reid poll that some of you may have seen in the Globe and Mail, which I think misrepresents the situation and the views of Canadians across the country. If one does a careful analysis and comparison of the questions and the prompts used by Angus Reid four or five months ago as compared with the ones used in this most recent poll, there is a very major difference in the way in which the questions were asked. I liked the Globe and Mail comment that there was a rather insignificant difference in the way in which the questions were put.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Weiner, although I'm sure you know by now that we don't govern by polls.

We'll move to the next presentation from the Canadian Federation of Students.

Mr. Lavigne, welcome.

Mr. Brad Lavigne (National President, Canadian Federation of Students): Thank you, and good afternoon. It is a pleasure to appear again before the Standing Committee on Finance. We once again extend our appreciation to the committee for providing the Canadian Federation of Students with the opportunity to appear.

In appearances in front of this committee over the past few weeks, representatives from the Canadian Federation of Students have articulated the need for the federal government to address the issue of student debt as well as the need to enhance its commitment to research and development infrastructure.

Today I'd like to raise a subject that is very much related. It is the issue of youth unemployment, and in particular, of student unemployment during the summer months. I'd like to spend just a very brief amount of time reviewing what we see as a need to enhance a very worthwhile and effective project, the career placement program for student summer employment.

At the outset I'd like to apologize; we did not wish to circulate our brief in only one language. It appears that our translation department has been struck by a flu virus. We will forward you the text of our brief as soon as possible.

In 1985 the federal government of the day introduced a challenge initiative that consisted of a number of programs to address the issue of student and youth employment. One of these programs was the student employment experience development program, the SEED program. In that year the youth employment rate was well over 10% and the SEED program was allocated $149.3 million to create over 95,000 summer jobs for students.

Ten years later, in 1995, the SEED program name was changed to summer career placement and was just one component of the overall youth employment strategy.

In 1996 the career placement program created just over 60,000 jobs with $60 million in funding. In July 1996, over 247,000 returning students were unemployed and still looking for summer jobs.

• 1605

In 1997 the federal government announced that it would spend $90 million to create approximately 60,000 jobs. This $90 million represents 60% of what was spent when the program was first introduced in 1985. The youth unemployment rate, as well as the summer returning student unemployment rate, has been consistently high, higher than the total unemployment rate and at times over twice as high.

In 1994 the federal government allocated $108 million to create summer jobs. That summer, the unemployment rate for Canadians between the ages of 15—

The Chairman: Slow down. I'll give you an extra couple of minutes.

Mr. Brad Lavigne: Pardon me.

In 1994, the student unemployment rate was at 18.2%. This past summer, the federal government allocated $90 million with the goal of creating 60,000 jobs. This past summer, the student unemployment rate stood at 17%, almost double, and in certain regions, particularly Newfoundland and Labrador and Atlantic Canada, they reached much higher than 20%.

Our recommendation—and we have only three this afternoon—is to restore the funding for the summer job creation programs to the 1985 levels.

Our second recommendation is to investigate and implement policies to address youth underemployment and declining incomes. In addition to the problem of young Canadians finding work, a second trend has also emerged—that is, that the real earnings of young people relative to older workers has declined dramatically throughout the 1990s. Of the young people in the labour force in 1996, 26% were either unemployed or underemployed, working part-time jobs because they could not find full-time work. That was compared with 17% just a few years ago, in 1989.

According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 12%, almost one-quarter of a million young people, are involuntarily working in part-time jobs but would rather be working in full-time jobs. This figure has more than doubled since 1981.

Temporary work is also taking up a greater share of the jobs that youth have. By 1994, about 17% of young employees held temporary jobs compared with just 6% for their adult counterparts.

The explosion of non-standard employment is leaving young workers with declining real incomes. Statistics Canada data shows that workers under 25 years old watched their median incomes decline by 30% over the last decade. According to StatsCan, again, by 1993 the income for those with a university degree in real terms was little more than the incomes earned by those with a high school degree in the late 1970s.

Our recommendation this afternoon is for the federal government to launch an investigation into youth underemployment and to the declining real incomes of young Canadians, and finally, Mr. Chair, the establishment of an advisory council on economic security for youth. The crisis of youth underemployment and declining real incomes deserves constant attention. We call on the federal government to create an advisory council on economic security for youth, comprised of government officials, youth, students, labour and business, that would monitor and advise the federal government on issues of economic security for youth.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Lavigne.

The next presentation will be made by Mr. Vangelis Nikias from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind.

Welcome.

Mr. Vangelis Nikias (National Director, Government Relations and International Liaison, Canadian National Institute for the Blind): Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee today.

The Canadian National Institute for the Blind was established by an act of Parliament in 1918. The specific objectives of the CNIB are: to ameliorate the condition of the blind of Canada; to prevent blindness; and to promote sight enhancement services. Over the years, the CNIB has assisted blind, visually impaired and deaf-blind Canadians in their effort to become full participants in all aspects of Canadian society.

At the present time, the CNIB offers seven core services, including library services. The CNIB Library for the Blind, located in Toronto, offers nationwide library and information services for approximately 500,000 blind and otherwise print-disabled Canadians. It is Canada's largest producer of materials in alternate formats. Public libraries and other educational resource centres depend on the CNIB library to produce both Braille and talking books for their collections so they can serve other print-disabled Canadians.

• 1610

In partnership with Institut Nazareth et Louis-Braille, the CNIB library provides French library services. The CNIB office in Montreal has a recording studio and a staff of volunteers for the production of French talking books.

The CNIB library's collection includes 15,000 talking books, 15,000 Braille books, 1,000 electronic textbooks, 1,500 print Braille children's books, 18,000 Braille music scores and 8 popular English and French magazines on audio cassette, plus 50 magazines in Braille, as well as a descriptive video service.

Especially critical is the role of the CNIB Library for the Blind in enabling blind Canadians to achieve literacy through Braille. According to both Braille readers and expert opinion, learning Braille is the most effective way of achieving literacy. As, under budgetary pressures, school authorities across the country tend to provide fewer and fewer Braille materials, it is critically important that the CNIB Library for the Blind be able to produce and make available sufficient Braille materials.

In the future, more than ever before, expeditious and effective access to all types of information by blind and otherwise print-disabled persons will significantly influence their education, their employability and their participation as citizens—in short, their quality of life.

The CNIB Library for the Blind is committed to ensuring that print-disabled Canadians, regardless of their circumstances, keep bridging the ever-evolving information gap. In view of the information explosion and the constant and rapid change in information technologies, keeping pace is a very challenging task. It requires the marshalling of diverse resources and techniques; for example, in production and distribution.

It also requires collaboration by many contributors; for example, over 500 volunteer readers whom the CNIB mobilizes effectively and private financial donors on whom the CNIB Library for the Blind relies primarily for its resources.

The purpose of our intervention today is to seek the active collaboration of the Government of Canada in this indispensable Canadian project.

On October 4, 1997, while speaking to the national voluntary organizations, the Minister of Finance, the Hon. Paul Martin, expressed his support for the work of the CNIB Library for the Blind. We are grateful for this support.

The implementation of a collaborative arrangement whereby the already mobilized “social economy” resources through the CNIB library are financially supplemented by the Government of Canada could secure expeditious and effective access to information by potentially hundreds of thousands of print-disabled Canadians.

In turn, expeditious and effective access to information is a prerequisite for lifelong learning and everything that entails. Access to information and lifelong learning are necessary if blind, visually impaired, deaf-blind and dyslexic Canadians are to win their struggle to become active participants in the Canadian economy. In this way they will achieve the dual goal of becoming contributing taxpayers, instead of remaining passive recipients of social assistance, while at the same time improving their quality of life.

Thank you.

• 1615

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Nikias. We appreciate your presentation.

We'll move into the question and answer session. We'll begin with Mr. Harris.

Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Horan, you talk in your brief about a tax credit to help people with learning disabilities. Exactly what type of tax credit, in the form of dollars, are you talking about? How would it apply? What do you estimate would be the total amount to fulfil what you're looking for?

Mr. James Horan: First of all, we have to go back to discuss how you'd even become eligible for that. For example, in the province of Ontario we know that schools formally identify youngsters who are learning disabled. Therefore, that could be the initial identification of someone who is learning disabled.

We know that parents in that province are acquiring, for example, speech and language services, occupational therapy services and psychological services. We're suggesting, for example, that if a psychological assessment costs perhaps $700 or $1,000—that's a lot of money for a parent—a percentage be agreed upon to be given back to that parent. From talking to parents, we know that what they want to do is to use that money to buy more service.

So it would be those types of things. I think you have to look at a way of actually identifying that population. That's probably the easiest way to do it. You'd have, of course, the registered psychologist or the registered speech pathologist sign off. That way, again, you're getting to verify that the service has taken place.

Mr. Dick Harris: As well, does your description of learning disabilities include kids in school who have very high motor skills but some mental challenges that put them in the special education classes?

Mr. James Horan: Someone who is learning disabled really has average or above-average intelligence. Sometimes there is a 20-point split on the psychological WISC test, but more importantly, they may have, for instance, dyscalculia, the inability to compute numbers, or dyslexia, the inability to read.

I think of the youngsters a lot of our chapters work with, where they say they can see it on the board, but when they come to put it on the paper it's no longer there, or when they come to read a book, sometimes the words are backwards, or upside down.

Mr. Dick Harris: Thank you, Mr. Horan.

Mr. Weiner, in your brief you are challenging the government to take some responsibilities in providing the necessary funding required in the delivery of education services. The government, of course, knows it has responsibilities to provide the funding, in the same way educators in our country have responsibilities to ensure that the students are given an education.

Given that agreement—and I'm sure you agree with me about that—is there any way you can justify the abdication of responsibility that's happening right now in the province of Ontario by one of your member organizations who are, as we speak, engaging in an illegal strike, thereby depriving the students of this province of getting an education? In other words, you're asking government to take responsibility, but where is the responsibility of the educators in this province today, as we talk?

Mr. Harvey Weiner: The teachers in Ontario, I would suggest, are taking their responsibilities very seriously by this political protest taking place, because the—

Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Weiner, you just said “political protest”. So you agree that it is a political protest rather than something to do with the education system. Is that what you're saying?

• 1620

Mr. Harvey Weiner: This is a political protest—if you'd let me complete, Mr. Harris—against measures being taken that are not involving the teachers, who, I think you'd agree, are responsible for providing services in conjunction with parents and with school boards. This is a protest that is designed to ensure that education services are delivered in an appropriate way. I think every teacher across this country is very supportive and very grateful to the teachers of Ontario for carrying out this political protest.

This morning the Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario, in his ruling, I think accepted implicitly that this is a political protest and suggested very strongly to both the government and the teachers that the way to resolve this would be to come to an agreement on the issues that are outstanding. He did not, in any way, shape or form, indicate through his ruling that the teachers should in fact be ordered back to work by the courts.

Mr. Dick Harris: So your organization supports illegal strike action. Is that what you're saying?

The Chairman: Mr. Harris, let's remain within the parameters of what we're discussing. This is a pre-budget consultation. It's just a reminder here.

Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Chairman, if I may—

The Chairman: Yes, you may.

Mr. Dick Harris: —Mr. Weiner is representing a group that is asking the federal government to enhance the funding that is given to education, and I have some questions about the quality of education and the commitment of the educators. That's why I think it was important to ask these questions, so that when I'm asked to give input into the final report I can weigh the commitment of the educators and the organizations that are seeking the funding.

Mr. Harvey Weiner: Mr. Chairman, I don't mind.

I can conclude by saying that part of the representation that's being made here today does fall within the federal responsibility, because I would suggest to you that this political process that is taking place at the moment is to some extent motivated by the kinds of cutbacks that have taken place through the Canadian health and social transfer, which some governments, including the Ontario government, have attempted to offload on the education system, and to compromise the education of students in consequence.

That's the battle the teachers are fighting. Teachers are losing salary every day they're out. This is not an issue that will put more money in their pockets.

The Chairman: Children are missing school and teachers are not teaching. That's a big problem.

Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.

My question is for Mr. Nikias of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind. First, I would like to congratulate you and your organization for the excellent work you are doing for the blind. I have dealt with your organization in the past, and the relationship was always impeccable both professionally and from the standpoint of the support that can be provided to the blind in Quebec and Canada.

Mr. Nikias, what action is the federal government currently taking to support the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, and how has its participation evolved over the years?

[English]

Mr. Vangelis Nikias: Is it the federal government?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes.

Mr. Vangelis Nikias: I think to actually provide you with an accurate and comprehensive answer to that we will have to discuss it program by program.

The focus of our discussion today is the CNIB Library for the Blind. As I have tried to indicate in the presentation, the CNIB Library for the Blind—and I have indicated the details of our operations in the presentation—does not rely on government support. It relies on volunteer readers and private donors.

The whole purpose of our presentation today is to persuade you that the CNIB Library for the Blind plays such an important role in the educational system in Canada, and, beyond the educational system, in terms of supporting blind professionals, literacy for blind children and leisure reading for blind Canadians and others, that we think the Government of Canada should become a financial partner in this national project.

• 1625

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: As regards this library for adults and children, Mr. Nikias, how would you like to see the federal government participate?

[English]

Mr. Vangelis Nikias: One of the challenges that libraries for the blind face around the world, including those in Canada, is the ever-evolving information technology.

For example, we are conducting research into new ways of producing, storing, retrieving and conveying information to print-disabled Canadians. This kind of research is costly, but it's very important. For example, one of the areas the Government of Canada could support us in would be in exploring specific ways whereby we can enhance this type of research. That's very important.

But as I said, we rely on volunteer readers and we are very proud of that. There are many Canadians who want to support the library and they do that either through their financial contributions or by actually going down to the studios and reading or by monitoring books or magazines that are being read. But the studios and the distribution and production systems are very costly. We would like the Government of Canada to consider making a contribution toward the library infrastructure or to the CNIB.

I should also say that we would like the government to contribute toward the library infrastructures of the other producers of ultimate forms of materials in the country, not just the CNIB.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): First of all, I want to thank all the groups for focusing on equal participation and on lifelong learning. I noted that the teachers have a good focus on pre-school and its long-term impacts, which is before your mandate, I guess.

Earlier this morning we heard some good presentations on childcare and the importance of regulated childcare in ensuring that children do have a healthy start and the best start possible.

If we really have to get down to some pretty sticky choices...particularly with respect to the CFUW, I know you have developed these resolutions in consultation with your members right across the country. You have a pretty good list and a pretty long list, a list that includes our obligations internationally. I was pleased to see your support for the minister's initiatives on land-mines and the UN commitments.

But if it's here or there, if it's 50% of the surplus being used for spending in critical social programs and investment in the future and the other 50% going to debt relief and tax relief, I wonder where you would focus very specifically. Are there one or two items we could grab onto rather than the more general statements? I think you have presented those already.

Clearly the CNIB and CAFS have identified specifically where things could be focused, but the others are a bit broader. I wonder if you could help narrow it down.

On learning disabilities, you were totally on the money.

Mr. Harvey Weiner: As a federation, we recognize as much as anyone that one can construct a very long list of all sorts of priorities. There are many needs. I think if we were pushed to the wall—and I think you are pushing us at this point—we would look at early intervention measures.

We would look at measures in which the federal government does take a leadership role. It's not necessarily a program that's imposed on every Canadian across the country, but it sets up the kind of structure needed to develop programs that involve all of the partners, not just government levels, but the non-voluntary organizations, the teacher organizations, the parents and the community as such, programs that will give very young children every possible opportunity to come to school ready to learn. The more children we can bring to school ready to learn, the fewer the problems we will have later on.

• 1630

As well, if people are looking at it in terms of investment terminology—and you should be looking at it in investment terminology—I suggest that there will be some substantial savings to all of us in the future on programs that we are now implementing that try to patch the problems created through the absence of those types of programs.

Ms. Betty Bayless: When we talked about applying funds earmarked for tax cuts versus applying them to social programs, our membership felt strongly—and I think many of those who live in Ontario felt strongly—that what resulted in tax cuts were really minimal in the pockets of people, but if you took those dollars across the board and lumped them and applied them to social programs, they'd have greater impact. That's one point I'd like to make.

Some of the items we suggested were not big-ticket items. Our concern about the manpower training and making it portable is not a big-ticket item, but it's as important as your support of higher education.

The other item that really concerns us is that government should lead the way in getting together with business and educational institutions to develop strategies not only for acquiring state-of-the-art equipment but also for developing courses, whether it's at the community college level, the university level or in a trade centre, if you're looking at trying to generate employment opportunities.

The Chairman: Mr. McKay.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): This is a question for Mr. Weiner, and it's with respect to your proposal here. To try to summarize your proposal, you believe that the 50-50 formula basically could be inadequate in the sense that the government should not limit itself to 50% for those kinds of services in the social area. Further, you feel that should be funded by CHST increases of the cash floor, which is paid for by a minimum corporate tax and, further, a deferred tax balance. We may quibble about that.

I question your basic premise, which is that we should increase CHST transfers. That's something over which the federal government has essentially no control. I'm taking from the thrust of your comments that you want at least some of that money to be directed into education. Yet we see a state of disarray across the nation with respect to education. We see an increase in anger among parents, who don't feel that the outcomes in education match the financial resources applied to education.

So why would a federal government apply funds where it has no control into a situation which is...? It's probably overstated to say that it's chaos, but it certainly is in a state of disarray that causes a great deal of concern among Canadians.

Isn't your proposal in some respects throwing good money after bad?

Mr. Harvey Weiner: I disagree with your premise. First of all, we do make the distinction, and I think you have also. In terms of CHST, there is no money that is directly targeted to elementary and secondary education. It's theoretically post-secondary education and health. But we do know that provincial governments, in developing their budgets, look at spreading the misery that results from reduced funding from the federal government a little bit more equitably. That equity takes our sector into account.

I also disagree with your premise that Canadian education as such is in fact of a poorer or lesser quality than it is elsewhere. Believe me, there is enough research around to indicate that Canadian students are doing very well indeed. I would suggest to you that if you look at Canada's ranking as the number one country in the world, so called, in terms of the quality of life, that didn't happen despite the education system in Canada.

Canadian children and youth have a higher level, on average, of schooling than in any other country in the world. There are countries, in fact, where some of these test scores—one test every two years on a science or a math test—show Canadian students not doing as well as, for example, students in Singapore or in other countries.

• 1635

Of course, the grass is always greener. Singapore was number one on this science or math test that was done by TIMSS, the Third International Math and Science Study. Singapore has just announced a $2.5-billion U.S. investment in a plan to introduce innovative thinking into classrooms. The reason for this is that employers have complained that Singaporeans are better copiers than creators, and sometimes need too much hand-holding when introduced to new tasks or challenges.

You'll be interested to note that as part of the implementation of this plan, Canadians educators are being called upon, because we rank very high in terms of the kind of creativity that is instilled through the learning process in Canada in our students.

There are always trade-offs in education. Our system is far from perfect. There are problems. We're trying to address them. The way the Harris government has tried to address them in Ontario is the wrong way. There is no education reform that has ever taken place in the world that has worked without the full co-operation of teachers and educators. I would suggest to you that we have much to be proud of in terms of Canadian educations. It stands up very well in comparison with any other country in the world.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Weiner.

Mr. John McKay: May I have a brief follow-up?

The Chairman: A brief follow-up, and then we'll go to Mrs. Redman.

Mr. John McKay: You and I could quibble about the outcomes for quite a while, but the issue for us as the federal government is control—control over the money and getting outcome.

The issue here is that if we increase, say, the cashflow of CHST by another billion or two—using Mr. Harris as an example—that could go into roads or anything else other than education. We see a situation in Harris' la-la land where their deficit is composed of $1.2 billion of what we contributed to it, and the balance in tax cuts. How that makes sense, I have no idea. Nevertheless, that's the dilemma that faces us as a federal government.

Mr. Harvey Weiner: I appreciate that dilemma, but it would seem to me that in getting people together around a table—and obviously that's the challenge of federal-provincial negotiations, and believe me I recognize how difficult they are—there are means.

I know the current minister, even in terms of the integrated child benefit, is looking at developing a system where moneys that are contributed by the federal government would not, or hopefully should not, result in provinces taking out money that they are spending currently on children and using it for roads, as you point out, but using that as well for children's issues.

I would suggest that where there is a will, there is a way. There is a very strong consensus built in Canada, I would suggest, of the importance of dealing more effectively with issues that affect our children and youth. I would hope we could use that consensus to build partnerships that may have been more difficult to build in the past.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Weiner. Mrs. Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question is actually along the same lines. Minister Martin, when he made his statement, talked about partnerships. I believe in partnerships. When you partner with anybody, you share a vision.

My question was actually for Ms. Bayless and Ms. Kudrenecky, as well as Mr. Weiner. When we went across Canada one of the things we heard was that wrestling down the deficit had had a human cost, and a lot of it had been on the backs of the poor.

You talked about job opportunities through the CFUW proposal. I agree with that, and think it makes a lot of sense. Have you given any thought as to, when we partner with the province, there are any kind of strings we need to attach, or safeguards we need to apply, to make sure that those kind of skills opportunities and the moneys transferred to the province go to the kind of initiatives you are talking about here?

Ms. Betty Bayless: One example I had in mind was when the government gave manpower training to the Province of Quebec. I was wondering what kind of strings were attached to that, what kind of standards were in place that would first of all ensure that Quebec was indeed using those moneys for manpower training, and how it would match the manpower training taking place in other provinces. That certainly was one concern of ours.

• 1640

Ms. Nora Kudrenecky: The criteria for the qualification in a skills trade is that there is the mobility there. We have to have that. We can't have unemployed skilled tradespeople in one province and the crying need for workers in other areas. If there is no matching, it's a concern. We don't know how to do it; that's your concern.

Ms. Betty Bayless: I think also attached to that—and I probably said something about it when we talked about the cuts in health care—I know in speaking with Health Canada last year in our briefing with them and others that once Canada was unable or could not in its budgeting give more than 50% of the CHST, whether it was to post-secondary, health care or social assistance, Canada itself had no stick, if you will, to make sure that those moneys were indeed spent in this fashion, nor could they enforce and monitor the standards applied.

I think the experience in some provinces is that even with the CHSTs there's no guarantee that those moneys go directly to the programs the federal government had in mind. I think you have a great difficulty right now holding the provinces accountable, because you are not providing the bulk of that money. I think that's true for all of us in any project funding.

Mrs. Karen Redman: The underlying message, then, is whoever pays has the say.

Ms. Betty Bayless: That's I think true in most everything we do, but that was our real concern.

I don't know if that helped or hindered.

Mrs. Karen Redman: One of the criticisms we heard when we listened to different communities was the CHST transfer. They talked about the fact that CAP was no longer there. We also had other communities asking for the kind of medicare standards that are national standards and they asked whether we could not apply them to welfare and to social programs.

So it was a conflicting message. Some provinces were very suspicious of our provincial counterparts, while other provinces were saying it was okay with them. They wanted to see that process almost duplicated, but in other areas.

Mr. Harvey Weiner: To reiterate, appreciating the difficulties—this is not a simple task, we know; we've gone around it with whatever funding formula governments have had to deal with in the past—the question was asked earlier in terms of where we put priority. If we look at education as a lifelong learning process, it would seem to me that we should be able to come up with, in good faith, ways of providing funds that will be flexible enough for the provinces to buy in yet provide a certain level of accountability that they're being used in ways that will assist the lifelong learning process to be as much as it can be, as much as it should be.

I would also suggest that it would be critically important to involve the very communities you're talking about, the voluntary sector, in these kinds of discussions to come up with some creative models that would provide some assurance to the federal government that there is some accountability, some set of indicators, perhaps, that could be monitored over a period of time and yet be attractive enough to provinces who are being starved for adequate funding to buy into it without feeling somehow that their autonomy and the way in which they wish to deal with some of these funds in terms of specific programs is threatened.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Weiner.

The next question will go to Mr. Pillitteri.

Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think I've had a partial answer to the the question I was going to ask, but in the meantime I will attempt it again.

Specifically, Mr. Weiner, I do recall you coming here before this committee for many years. Today we would not be here, having this meeting, if this government had not taken action in reducing the deficit, if they had not taken action in getting our books in order.

• 1645

If you will recall—and you were here four years ago in the first pre-budget hearings—the amount was how painful the cuts were going to be in order for us to make it as a government. I think we've done quite well.

But sometimes, Mr. Weiner, one should take a position. They say we politicians have a tendency of dancing around the issue, but, Mr. Weiner, you've done a very good job in the last four years. But today you at least did say that even though money that was earmarked to the provinces for education and for CAP and medicare, it was not properly used.

In your presentation, you did state, though, that because of the cuts from the federal government, the province had to take such action. When you think about it, the federal government in Ontario alone cut only $1.2 billion within the social transfer, yet they have a $4.9 billion tax cut. One represents a little over 2% of the total budget of the Province of Ontario, where a tax cut represents more than 5%, close to 6%. So putting those transfers at 2%, you're trying to blame 2% of the problems...and giving up 5% to 6% cuts does not make sense.

To follow up on the question, in other parts of the country we visited during pre-budget hearings, social groups came before the committee. They said that if the federal government wants to intervene, wants to do something in medicare, wants to do something in education, it doesn't have to be done through the social transfer, as we have done with the new millennium, and so on.

I did not hear that from you, Mr. Weiner. The expertise you've had around this table...in saying that the federal government...you don't have to really support that transfer because we've cut. I didn't feel you were making that quite clear enough. This would be like throwing good money after bad money if the Government of Ontario, or other governments, are not going to spend that money where it was it supposed to be spent.

On the other hand, the federal government could be stepping in to do the millennium program and other programs to help post-secondary education without intervening directly in the education system, because it's provincial.

Mr. Harvey Weiner: I think a couple of comments you made perhaps misinterpret or exaggerate my position. I'm not sure I said moneys were improperly used, but with the situation as it was—the situation as it is—is that there is no more or less control because of the CHST funding going down in certain areas, other than the standards in medicare, where you could ensure that provincial governments applied those particular standards. There was nothing specific in the other areas.

My comments about the difficulties in the provinces and the cutbacks in the provinces being attributed to the federal government were certainly not categoric. Certainly federal government cuts have contributed to the decisions that provincial governments have made and the kind of cutbacks they've made in consequence. There's not, though, a direct correlation. You're not responsible for the choices or the kinds of choices that some governments have chosen to make in terms of the priorities for cutting back. So let me qualify that at the outset.

The federal government has always had a role, I think an important role, in trying to ensure that there is some level of equity across this country in terms of major services. I think I indicated in my previous response that one could be creative. You gave one example where there's a clear area of federal jurisdiction, but there are many other areas that are not only clearly within the federal domain, but are, at the very least, shared jurisdictions with the provinces, where investments could be made in partnership with provinces and with the advice and collaboration of organizations such as our own, which we believe would contribute very much to the improvement of education in this country. So we'd be prepared to look at any and all of those options.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Pillitteri.

I thank everyone. This was a very interesting round table. We've certainly taken notes of all the important points you have made. They will be quite useful as we begin writing the report and make what I'm sure will be excellent recommendations to the Minister of Finance.

Thank you very much.

• 1650

Sorry, Mr. Horan, go ahead.

Mr. James Horan: If I could just make closing remarks for our association, when you get right down to it, parents of children who are learning disabled need that disability tax credit. The problem with the disability tax credit already in place is that it's not applied equally and consistently across the country, so some people are able to acquire it and others at the end of the country can't acquire it. Of course that causes some difficulty.

We want to ensure that all individuals in our society have those opportunities to gain literacy and numeracy skills. For example, Project Success: Helping Young Canadians at Risk is the newest project we are trying to create. In partnership with corporate Canada, we're going to make the dream a reality. If the government can't give the money for a specific project or is unable to, that's okay with us, because we're still going to make it happen. For us, that's what Canada's all about—taking a dream and making it happen with volunteers and energy. Maybe you don't need a bag full of money, but in the end you can make it happen if you really have a vision.

Again, on behalf of the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, thank you for listening to us.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for those final comments.

We will suspend for two minutes and come right back.

• 1651

• 1657

The Chairman: I call the meeting back to order.

Before I entertain motions that I think are going to be presented by the Reform Party, if my memory serves me correctly, I want to announce we will be switching rooms tomorrow morning for the 9 a.m. meeting. We will meet in room 237-C rather than 253-D.

Ms. Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to bring before the committee a matter dealing with the study of Bill C-2, the pension fund reform. There is a key witness that Reform has requested come before the committee, but I understand, Mr. Chairman, you have negatived that request. Is that correct?

The Chairman: No, not at all. I don't have that power. You're giving me far too much credit.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: In any event, there is an expert on pension reform who I would like to bring before the committee. His name is Dr. José Pinera. He holds Masters and Ph.D. degrees from Harvard University. Dr. Pinera was the architect of Chile's successful pension reform and now advises governments all over the world. Because no one country is on all fours with any other country, I think the broad scope of his experience in pension reform would be particularly helpful to our committee.

He has also published numerous articles, is the author of six books and is the editor and publisher of a quarterly journal of opinion. He will be the keynote speaker at next month's conference in London, England, where international experts from business, government and academia will be discussing public pension reform.

I think he is the world's foremost expert in this whole area we're studying of pension reform.

The Chairman: Are you requesting that the committee go to Chile to listen to him?

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: When this committee in 1988 was studying bringing in the GST—of course none of us would have ever been involved in such a fiasco—the finance committee did go to New Zealand to study its GST. Fortunately we can bring Chile to us by bringing Dr. Pinera here, and I think that would be an appropriate thing to do.

• 1700

I move, Mr. Chairman, that the Standing Committee on Finance invite and bring Dr. José Pinera to appear as a witness on the issue of Bill C-2, now being studied by the committee.

I think it's something that would be of real benefit to our study.

Mr. Dick Harris: I second that.

The Chairman: Mr. Harris, are you in agreement with Mrs. Ablonczy, or did you just second the motion?

Mr. Dick Harris: I would like to second the motion, and yes, of course I'm in agreement.

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: The government party should not dismiss a witness, as we said a while ago, because that person is opposed to the government or expresses a different opinion. So I would appreciate it if you didn't dismiss witnesses when you find them inconvenient or invite them when it suits you.

So we are going to support the Reform Party's position on principle.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Tony Valeri (Stoney Creek, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For the record, I just want to clarify to Mr. Loubier that the government is not dismissing the witness nor anyone who can come before this committee to provide any clarification or any assistance for us to come forward with legislation that would be better and more progressive for Canadians.

For the record, Mr. Loubier, I just want to make sure you understand that members of the government are not dismissing any witness.

On the motion before us, I don't know whether there has been a discussion of the qualifications of this particular individual, whether the cost has been indicated, whether the availability of the individual has been investigated, or whether you've investigated whether this expertise actually exists in Canada...rather than calling in someone from another country. There may be Canadians pension experts residing in Canada who are quite familiar with the Chilean example and who can provide us with the kind of information you would like to see this committee review. I think it's important that we investigate every avenue, and the committee and the government are certainly prepared to do that.

The Chairman: Ms. Torsney.

Ms. Paddy Torsney: Mr. Valeri took most of my questions, but I gather the Reform Party has done its homework to ensure this is the best person and there is no one resident in Canada.

I was particularly interested in the cost of this. Before we voted for it, I would have to know what we were spending.

The Chairman: It's approximately $5,400.

Mr. Gallaway.

Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): If it's $5,400 or $6,400, I don't think that is really terribly germane, in view of the nature of the legislation. Certainly I don't have any problem with what is being suggested.

I have an amendment to the main motion. It's simply that this committee defer voting on the main motion until tomorrow, November 4, at 5 p.m., during which time the clerk of this committee shall ascertain if any Canadian experts are available on the subject of the Chilean pension plan.

But I'm certainly willing to support it in the absence of any Canadian experts.

The Chairman: First let's go to Mr. Solomon.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I find the request rather peculiar, because it seems to me the Chilean government of the day would have a better understanding of how the pension plan is operating. I don't know this Mr. Pinera, but perhaps it would be a good idea for us to have him before our committee. He was in the Pinochet military dictatorship. Maybe he could answer some questions about some of the tens of thousands of human rights abuses he was instrumental in inflicting on his population.

My view is this. I don't find this a very positive recommendation. In my view it's somebody who has questionable credentials. If we're going to invite somebody from Chile who has been involved with the pension plan, I would recommend we invite maybe one of the cabinet members or one of the administrators of the existing Chilean pension plan to tell us how the plan is operating and what sort of recommendations they might provide to us. To invite someone like this is nonsense. It's a waste of our money.

• 1705

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier, and then we'll go to Mr. Harris.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I don't want to get into a debate on this personality; I don't know this person. But I was told you had rejected a witness when you shouldn't have done so. That's what I heard and that's why I supported the principle that we receive the witnesses, even though that didn't suit the government. Is this person competent or not? I don't know. I supported the principle of not dismissing witnesses when they didn't suit us.

Second, I find that the motion Mr. Gallaway made is entirely appropriate, and I agree that we'll have a better idea of this person tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. Mr. Chairman, if you tell me you didn't dismiss this witness whom the Reform Party produced, then that changes matters somewhat. I was supporting the principle.

[English]

The Chairman: No, no. Let's be very clear here: I haven't dismissed anybody.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: We're talking about Pinochet. I don't want to get into a debate...

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier.

Mr. John Solomon: He was a cabinet minister in Pinochet's military dictatorship. There were tens of thousands of human rights abuses and thousands of murders.

I think we should have him here. I'd love to have him here, as long as I can ask questions.

The Chairman: I just want you to know that—

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: If Mr. Solomon was telling the truth, then tomorrow at five o'clock, as agreed, we'll have formed an idea about this person and we'll be in a position to make an informed decision.

The Bloc Québécois was supporting the principle of not dismissing a witness that did not suit the government party, but our support stops there. We'll know more about this person tomorrow at five o'clock, as Mr. Gallaway moved. One thing is certain: if he was a minister under Pinochet and has a dubious past, you'll see that we're the first to mount the barricades and refuse to allow this person to come to Canada and talk to us about the pension plan. We must not mix matters up.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Loubier, just for the record here, whenever you forward a name, it's looked at. Every party is forwarding names to appear in front of us as witnesses. You're forwarding names. As chair, I'm not forwarding names.

The point I want to make is that nobody has been dismissed to date. We'll have to look at the points raised by Mr. Solomon, Mr. Valeri, and you. These are all part and parcel of the debate on who appears.

As far as this committee being open, it's very open. Based on the number of people and the cross-section of Canadian society that has appeared in front of us on the pre-budget consultation hearings, I think that speaks for itself.

Mr. Valeri.

Mr. Tony Valeri: I'm a little concerned at the comments made by Mr. Solomon. I don't know whether there's a document floating around on that side of the table that we have not been able to take a look at, but it would certainly be important in this committee for everyone to have the same information on which to base a decision.

I suggest that we go forward with the question on Mr. Gallaway's motion. I perhaps could also add that the clerk would investigate this individual's background to confirm what Mr. Solomon is saying. This is unless the Reform Party can confirm for us now, since they put forward this individual's name, whether in fact he was a cabinet minister in the Pinochet government. I'd like to know. Is that what it says on this piece of paper?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: First of all, I think we need to be a little bit careful here. We have someone who has top-notch credentials and who may or may not have agreed with everything that happened at the time he was a member of Chile's government.

The reason he's a proper and desirable witness for us is because of his unparalleled expertise in the matter of pension reform. Not only does he have his Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University, but also he was the architect of the pension reform in Chile, which we know is very successful in that country. He has advised governments all over the world on this issue, and I don't believe anyone else has done that. He's widely recognized and acknowledged to this day as being a foremost expert.

• 1710

So I don't think we want to engage in speculation about what other people might have done in another area and in another country; rather, we should look at his credentials. Nobody in Canada is even close to having this kind of expertise. The cost is very minimal. We're able to bring this expertise to us. And he is available, I understand.

So I don't quite know what the fuss is about. We have someone with sterling credentials and background. We need this kind of expertise when we're studying a key bill for Canadians.

The Chairman: The final comment, or what I think is the final comment, by Mr. Pillitteri—oh, followed by Ms. Redman.

Mr. Gary Pillitteri: I have a long memory, sitting in this committee here for four years. I remember the first time, when we were facing the deficit we were facing, the Reform Party wanted to bring experts in from New Zealand on hitting the wall and how they solved their problem. This is nothing new. They always look for expertise outside. They're not capable of having expertise inside.

It is no matter that you might think I'm being offensive. If you think I am, then I am.

Let me put it this way. I want to make a comment that I don't see any Canadians travelling on to Chile as immigrants. I don't see any Canadians travelling on to Chile as refugees. But I do see Chileans wanting to come into Canada and live in Canada.

Another remark I want to make is that, as we did in deficit reduction, as we have done in getting our house in order, this CPP is not for Chileans. It's for Canadian citizens who make contributions to the plan, and we, as Canadians and parliamentarians, are capable of having our own within-house expertise to do this.

On the other hand, I see that they need someone from the outside to bring expertise. I think there's plenty of expertise within our own country, because this is a pension plan for Canadians.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Pillitteri.

Sorry, Ms. Redman, but I'm going to have to go to Mr. Harris first. I'll be right back to you.

Mr. Dick Harris: Regarding Mr. Pillitteri's remarks, one of the things that the government has to recognize and that this committee should recognize is that under the proposals of the government we are not starting a brand-new pension plan. The government wants to take a pension plan scheme that has run itself considerably into debt and try to fix it.

We agree that the pension plan needs reform. There's no doubt about it. And no matter what the final decision is regarding how to fix the pension system in Canada, I think that we are obligated to be open to hearing successful formulas that have occurred elsewhere, whether it's in another country or not.

There's no doubt that the pension reforms that have been undertaken in Chile have been successful, and Dr. Pinera was a key architect of the pension reform in Chile.

If this committee does not have the open mind to hear from an expert like this, then I think we are simply choosing to close our vision.

We're not prepared to do that, and that's why we've made this suggestion.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I might add, to Mr. Pillitteri, that the Department of Finance on Monday a week from today is holding a conference in Ottawa called “Pension Systems and Prices: What Can Canada Learn from Latin America?” and three of the speakers are from outside of this country. That is sponsored by the Department of Finance.

• 1715

The Chairman: Mr. Crête.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): We have to distinguish between two things. Mrs. Ablonczy just confirmed that it is appropriate for us to have expertise on Chili's experience. This conference next Monday is funded by the Department of Finance Canada, one of the three organizations organizing the event. It's appropriate that we try to obtain expertise on a model, even if we don't agree.

However, another factor is involved and Mr. Gallaway is perfectly right on this point. Give us a little time to determine whether there is a diplomatic or human complication in accepting or receiving this person, but let's not condemn him in advance. Checks could be made. It seems to me that's the solution.

[English]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Is tomorrow at 5 o'clock Mr. Gallaway's proposal?

The Chairman: We're dealing with Mr. Gallaway's proposal.

Just to refresh the members' memories, can you read it, Mr. Gallaway?

Mr. Roger Gallaway: I move that this committee defer voting on the main motion, being the motion presented by the Reform Party, until November 4 at 5 p.m., during which time the clerk of this committee shall ascertain if there are any Canadian experts available on the subject of Chilean pension plan reform.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Gallaway.

Ms. Redman.

Mrs. Karen Redman: I have no problem at all with the motion before us, with its amendment. I will suggest that if there's any peer review of both this gentleman's work and his publications, it is often another valid piece of information that we can look at along with his history and his background.

I think the members opposite have a sincere desire. Through the CPP hearings I really did hear that we're wrestling with trying to bring in what is best for Canadian citizens, but I think you're being somewhat unfair in accusing this committee out of hand of blocking interveners.

I had a bit of a problem with what went on this afternoon with the...I even forget the name of the people. They had an outrageous paragraph that had the names of the Reform Party and the Bloc in it, but when you read that whole thing in context, which I did afterwards...I don't think we screened or vetted anybody who has wanted to come to this committee. I think the criticism before the fact is somewhat unfair.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, pardon me, but we're going to ask for a vote on Mr. Gallaway's motion. If Mrs. Redman wants to come back to the remarks made here this morning and the comparisons between the Bloc Québécois, the Parti québécois and the Ku Klux Klan, I can stay with her until midnight to talk about it. She had better not start in on that again because I swear I can definitely talk to you about it until midnight.

So I request a vote.

[English]

The Chairman: We will now deal with Mr. Gallaway's motion to defer voting on the main motion until November 4.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.