Finance Committee on Oct. 31st, 2011

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thank you very much.

Now, support for our cultural industries is something that always seems to take a back bench in this country. I really appreciate your intervention here today, because, for myself, I helped get funding for the Workers Arts and Heritage Centre in Hamilton, a critical piece, because we have live arts coming in there, and I want to comend you for what you brought forward. It's a reminder to all of us that we have to raise culture to a level that has been ignored for far too long.

I realize I am going to be out of time for saying it like that, but--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Well, if you stop now, it could be a dialogue.

Ms. Downey, do you want to comment briefly?

[Ferne Downey]

Thank you.

There is just so much work we still have to do, because it's all about planning forward and making a strategic plan so that we can all work together to figure out the path through the forest. We want to be in a healthy, productive place where we have lots of Canadian content available in Canada and for export.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

There are a lot of Canadian jobs at stake, as well.

[Ferne Downey]

There are a lot of Canadian jobs at stake. Hear, hear.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Marston.

We'll go to Ms. McLeod, please.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too would like to thank you all for coming and joining us today.

I'd like to start with a quick comment. Certainly Canada is very complex in terms of the jurisdictions: provincial versus federal versus private sector. We do have many challenges as they relate to actually who's responsible.

I always look at the Bloc. Instead of hating their drive towards sovereignty, I felt the interest in those boundaries of provincial jurisdiction was always very important, and I do respect some of the comments they used to make in those areas.

The federal government, of course, increased transfers to the provinces for health care by 6%. We have the equalization formula, so we're trying to create equity and the opportunity for equity.

I want to go to the technology and the opportunities for health care, because I absolutely, fundamentally know what can be done there, having a background in that area.

I look at the federal government, and we've given significant dollars through Canada Health Infoway, through many different programs. I too witnessed the study where people with congestive heart failure were discharged with home monitoring, telephone support, and case management—funded federally, a huge impact on acute care stay, not getting embedded in the system.

I guess my frustration or challenge is that I don't think this is a dollar issue. I do have to respect the boundaries of the provincial jurisdiction, but could you make some comments in terms of whether you think it's dollars or it's change management...? Could you make some general comments in that area? I think it's absolutely critical.

[Susan Eng]

I have to agree with you entirely. We already spend $192 billion in our health care system. I think we can do better, rather than spending more money there.

While we worry about whether or not the aging population is driving up health care costs, in fact it is the cost of all of this new technology that's driving up the health care costs. The opportunity to rejig how we do business, if you will, is the one we should focus on.

I'll give you one small example, that of a virtual ward. Sending people home after an acute incident is a challenging situation, and there is the danger they will be readmitted. A project here in Toronto provides a care manager to follow the person home, assess the person's usual vitals—as might have been done had the person stayed in the ward—and readmit the person if necessary, but generally not. If that is done properly, it allows the person to stabilize at home.

Does that cost more? The care manager is the only extra cost. Does it avoid cost? Yes. Readmission is expected to cost about $10,000 in all. And of course there are better health care outcomes.

The opportunity to rejig how we do business is really where we should be targeting our work.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. McLeod, there are two others who want to comment.

[Marg McAlister]

A tough call to make is to transfer the funds to home care. In hospitals, where very few Canadians actually spend time, we are on 10th and 15th generation technology—fancy, snazzy equipment. It is arguably important, but we would say it's time to actually shift that paradigm and target those resources that are directed towards health care technology to the home, for the reasons that we described and that you know.

[Nadine Henningsen]

I will make three points, and I think you've certainly identified two.

The initial input of technology is costly. The gains when you actually implement technology are huge, but it's the cost of taking a project from pilot to actually integrating within the system.

Change management, as my colleague from the Canadian Home Care Association said, is very important, because we need to move our thoughts from the acute care into the home and community care, and see where technology can take us there.

And the other point is real leadership, leadership in understanding what technology applications we should look at. I mentioned there are thousands of technology applications, but which ones are the best ones? Really, that's where I see the federal government taking a major role, and I see the provinces accepting that. It's helping the provinces sort through all of the opportunities in technology and identify a vision of where technology is going in home and community care. I think we could see such fabulous gains with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, thank you.

We will now go to Monsieur Giguère, s'il vous plaît.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

My question is for the representative of the National Marine Manufacturers Association of Canada.

As you have probably understood, if you wanted to demonstrate some of your products in Ottawa, the member for Fort McMurray—Athabasca and I would be ready and eager to attend it.

Here's my question. The manufacturing industry in Canada has lost 350,000 jobs in recent years. That's a major loss. We would like to know whether the value of the Canadian dollar relative to its U.S. counterpart has hurt you. As we will be reviewing these policies in the near future, I would like to have your opinion on the subject.

[Sara Anghel]

It's a big can-of-worms discussion, as always.

The Canadian dollar, at its level right now, being close to parity and beyond, creates a problem for Canadian manufacturers in competing with the United States in particular, and we have lost a significant number of manufacturing jobs over the last few years. However, that being said, the United States fared a lot worse during the recession, and in fact we stand behind the great banking system in Canada. Thanks to that system, our segment in particular stayed afloat much better than did the same segment in the United States. While we did bleed a lot of jobs, there were a lot of opportunities here in Canada for Canadian manufacturers to export into the United States or into other segments of the world rather than the U.S., whereas we saw a 70% drop in marine manufacturing in the United States.

The Canadian dollar can be a problem for our manufacturers. They're learning to adjust and deal with that. When the dollar is at par, they lose on some things, but they may gain on aluminum pricing, depending on the time of year and when they're buying product.

On the dealer and consumer side of it, a Canadian dollar that is at par actually creates opportunities and keeps consumers buying within Canada instead of crossing the border to buy a product. It's sort of a balancing act. It is hurting manufacturing to some extent, but there are opportunities to support the other way.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Very well.

In one of your recommendations, you said you wanted a credit to be increased by 35%, but you did not say exactly under what program. Is it the scientific research and experimental development program that you would like to enhance?

[Sara Anghel]

We can work with you. I don't have anything in particular that would be under that. I'd look at that and discuss it with them in particular and see where the opportunities lie.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

All right.

Lastly, the federal government has launched a $35-billion ship-building program. I know the recreational industry is not greatly affected by those big ships, but we are insisting the ships commissioned include Canadian products. A sum of $2 billion has been allocated for small craft.

I would like to know whether the structure of your industry enables you to deal with these requests. Will rescue boats and canoes have to be purchased outside Canada, or will the Canadian industry be able to supply Canadian content for these major commissions?

[Sara Anghel]

I don't directly represent the shipping industry. I represent the recreational industry. Having said that, there are manufacturers within our association who actually manufacture products for that segment, rescue boats and so on. I'd be happy to work with you after this committee is over and offer some of those insights.

Could we fill that gap entirely? From my perspective, we probably could not.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

All right.

My final question is for all speakers who deal with caregivers.

An odd phenomenon has occurred in recent bills introduced by the government: a distinction has now been drawn between a caregiver and a family caregiver. However, it seems to me that this notion should be as broad as possible. In my constituency, people from the Royal Canadian Legion help seniors. They are caregivers, but now there is this distinction.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Henningsen, go ahead very briefly.

[Nadine Henningsen]

The Canadian Caregiver Coalition has a very broad definition. We call them family caregivers, but that includes family, friends, relatives, and neighbours. Just for ease of discussion, we call them family caregivers to differentiate them from the paid caregivers. We used to call them informal caregivers, but they say there is nothing informal about being a family caregiver.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Hoback, please.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank everybody here this morning. Five minutes is never enough. I'd like to ask questions of everybody, but I'm going to go after one area that's a passion for me. It probably gets overlooked, and that's the arts in that sector.

Ferne, I'm going to direct my questions to you, and I ask you to help guide me through what we need to do to make sure that industry is thriving and growing but is also becoming very independent. We see Canadian filmmakers, actors, and musicians producing Canadian content all over the globe.

It's interesting. My son was in Ethiopia working for MIDA, Migration for Development in Africa, and he sat down at a local restaurant and they asked him where he was from. He said he was from Canada. They replied, “home of Justin Bieber”. That was the first comment. Our artists are having an impact abroad. There is no question about that.

I guess that's where I get into our questions when we look at budgets in writing. Where does the support need to be? I know we've done the children's art tax credit. That's going to be coming through here now. That's going to support all types of artistic events for children, whether it's playing the piano, the guitar, or acting lessons. I assume that is a step in the right direction, that you're happy with that type of tax credit.

[Ferne Downey]

It's a very first step, but there is nothing wrong with that, no.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

It puts it on a level playing field with sports--