Finance Committee on Sept. 30th, 2014

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Okay. That's fine.

One of the things that I think unites the presentation from the neurological association and Mr. Ireland and the Alzheimer's strategy with Mr. Mann is the caregiving aspect. To Mr. Cullen's questions, you were able to respond in terms of the benefit to your family.

One of the design issues about the national caregiver tax credit is that it's a non-refundable tax credit. As such, low-income families may not qualify because they don't make enough to get the benefit. Given the importance of caregiving and the need in low-income families, would you recommend that we make this refundable as part of the design change?

[Bruce Ireland]

I would absolutely recommend that. I think it's important because I see families all the time that are not able to do that and are struggling.

I think your comment about the health care system and trying to figure it out is a challenge. In our recommendations, you'll notice under number 4 that we're suggesting a partnership between the Government of Canada and NHCC to increase awareness among the public and education and training among health care providers to increase understanding and help to combat stigma. I think these are really critical. I've seen this in a variety of different areas and personally as well, so yes, I would agree with you one hundred per cent.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

One of the compelling arguments for a national strategy in areas like Alzheimer's and dementia is that our aging demographic of course is a national issue, but in the Maritimes, for instance, we have some of the most rapidly aging populations in the country in some of the smallest provinces. As a result, national research and national support can be disproportionately beneficial in smaller provinces. I see that my colleague Mr. Keddy agrees with that. It's something that's important in my region.

In terms of aboriginal and first nations young people, I'm told that there are 400,000 young aboriginal students entering the workforce in the next 10 years. Is that accurate?

[Chief Roberta Jamieson]

That's the best number that I've seen: about 400,000 under 16 who will be entering the workforce or the social assistance line.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

It's really important that we realize the economic imperative. This is not just a social issue affecting aboriginal and first nations, because if we get this right, having this many young people entering the workforce will be an economic benefit to the country, but if we get it wrong—and we're currently, on a macro level, getting it wrong—it's a huge economic cost that we all ultimately are going to be responsible for.

[Chief Roberta Jamieson]

I think that's true, Mr. Brison. In fact, a couple of years ago there was a great study by the Centre for the Study of Living Standards that found that if we closed the gap in education and employment over 15 years, we would save $115 billion on the expense side of government funding and add $401 billion—with a “b”—to Canada's GDP. That's a pretty compelling argument that it's a smart investment.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Ms. Decter, on the early learning and child care side, low-income families, given the cost of child care, really can't afford to go out to work in a lot of cases. There is the economic cost of people not being able to go to work because they have to stay home to take care of children, but there is also the benefit of kids getting a really good start. The Mustard and McCain studies have been around for a long time, but they are compelling in that a dollar invested in a kid in a high-risk situation provides $7 of benefit by the time the kid is 30 years old—or something to that effect.

Why aren't we focusing more on the economic benefits of early learning and child care and childhood development and broadening the community of support, based on that economic benefit?

[Ann Decter]

I think some of us are trying to, but it is a bit difficult to get the message out and, at least in current times, it tends to be pushed back towards a discussion of whether people should be at home and kids should be raised at home. There was a long five- or six-year period when we thought $100 a month was a child care plan—which it clearly isn't. I think there is some residual fear that it's some kind of institutional model, but really there has been a huge social change. Back in 1976 about 27% of women with young children were in the workforce. Women's employment marched up year by year, and we didn't get a corresponding social program to support that.

We all know that incomes have stagnated. It takes two incomes to feed a family, and if a woman is alone and can't afford child care, the choice is social assistance. It's not only that there is a lack of investment in the kids getting out and being with other kids and being in an enriched environment of child care, it's also the example they see.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you, Ms. Decter.

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

We go now over to Mr. Keddy for up to seven minutes, please.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to our witnesses.

We're having an interesting discussion here today and, of course, there are a number of “asks” on the table.

I'm going to start with you, Mr. Mann.

Like Mr. Brison, my mother also suffered from Alzheimer's and eventually succumbed to that disease. I suspect most of us around the table have a story that's very similar to that.

We know there's a growing and very real health threat, as I will call it, facing Canadians. Currently we have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 750,000 people living with dementia. That's expected to double by 2030, so that's over the next 15 years. Some of those folks will have dementia, and some will have Alzheimer's, and some will have other problems. They could be concussion-related. I don't know. I'm not going to speculate.

Your “ask” here would be for a national dementia plan of $150 million over five years, or $30 million annually. I'm going to be specific, but what I'm concerned about with that “ask”—and maybe Mr. Ireland could step in here as well—has to do with the coordination. I really believe we have to confront this issue head-on. We need to put something in place to do that. The question is how we coordinate that effort. Quite frankly, how do we get the best value for our dollar when we do that?

[Jim Mann]

I think you're right that the need is there. As I had agreed earlier, with so much different research going on, or so many people doing the research, there's a need to coordinate. If you have a group of people doing biomedical research, then you're hoping that scientist A will not be duplicating what scientist B will be doing. That's where a lot of the coordination will be, in just making sure that people talk to each other.

I'm going to be very general here, but I'm not sure there's a lot of communication among researchers to say, “This is what I'm doing, and these are some of the problems I've found.” In fact, that's one benefit of the new Brain Research Centre that was opened at UBC recently. They have a more general area where all these scientists can get together and talk about it.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

To Mr. Ireland, I read in your submission that Neurological Health Charities Canada, which is a complement of 24 organizations working together, represents literally millions of Canadians with chronic neurological disorders and injuries. You've put together, to my understanding, a Canadian longitudinal study on aging.

[Bruce Ireland]

Correct.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Can you just describe that, and how we can coordinate government investment in this area?

[Bruce Ireland]

I'm not fully conversant with all of that, but I can say that for the neurological study that was done, with 19 different studies on the neurological diseases, all of the groups came together to look at the expectations and at what the future would be for many of them. For example, with Parkinson's, by the year 2030 there will be over 135,000 people with the disease. I think that's part of the key.

The longitudinal study is really looking at how people are impacted over a period of time. I was involved in a microsimulation where we actually were asked, from the time of diagnosis to ultimately the time when somebody passed, what were the implications, what were the changes in life, and what were the behaviours and everything else. I think we work very closely together.

To pick up on research, in our national research program for Parkinson Society Canada, all of our researchers work collectively together. I've seen significant increases in where we're going and how we're getting there for this particular disease. I can tell you that it's been very exciting. I would say on the record that we probably have some of the best Parkinson's researchers in the world working on this and collaborating with people around the world.

So I think there's a lot of collaboration going on. I expect that with this additional funding we're asking for, there will be even more work to be able to get to where we need to get.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Yes. I think the future absolutely is going to depend on collaboration and, quite frankly, leveraging dollars with the private sector.

[Bruce Ireland]

Absolutely.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Ms. Jamieson, in your submission you talked about the number of young first nation students you've helped. I think you mentioned the number, some 300 Ph.D. students. That's great, but I worry sometimes, and I have the same question for Mr. Carr, that sometimes we concentrate.... I realize that it's not just a matter of educating someone for their master's or their Ph.D. There's also the matter of finding them a relevant job at the end of that cycle.

I'm not sure which one of you had mentioned that everyone can't be in academia....

The chair is looking at me: I'm running out of time.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

I'm sure we'd all love to hear the answer. I'll give one minute for a response to that question, please.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Yes.

How do you streamline the rest of those young minds and abilities into the workforce?

[Dr. Graham Carr]

Thank you for the question.

I was the one who said that not all of those students and graduate students, including Ph.D.s, wind up in academia. I think universities are working to transform their training for students. Programs like Mitacs are essential for that. They do provide the pathways for students to get internship experience outside a university context. They're eligible for that because of the fundamental skills they've learned within the university.

For many of them, the success rates for Mitacs students being interns and being placed within industry are very high. Something like 1,400 to 1,500 of the last 10,000 Mitacs interns have received job offers from the companies where they were doing internships. In many cases, those companies have actually created new R and D positions that didn't exist until they had the opportunity to work with the interns and recognize the value added that this could bring to their company.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

That's fine, but you two need to get together.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

That may be our committee recommendation.

We are out of time for this session.

Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Perhaps, Ms. Jamieson, you can tack on part of that answer to a subsequent question.

Mr. Caron, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since I have two minutes less than the previous speakers, I will be quick.

I want to thank all of you for your presentations.

I will begin with Ms. Decter.

You mostly talked about a child care system. Those are some impressive figures. I saw the study on the program's impact in Quebec. Among other things, you said that the percentage of single mothers on welfare in Quebec had dropped by 55%—an improvement that is largely due to this measure. So the impact can be measured. Between 1996 and 2008, the employment rate for mothers with children under the age of six increased by 22%. This program has had some extremely positive impacts.

Can you give us more details on the consequences of this system on government finances? In the case of a child care system, we are talking about government investments—be it on a provincial level or, in the case of a national system, the federal level. In any event, very little is being said about the positive effects such a system has on the economy.

Can you tell us more about this?

[Ann Decter]

I think the statistic we had from Quebec was a $5.1 billion increase in GDP. I think if you take that across the country, you will see that putting in a national child care system or a variety of systems that comprise a national system would actually increase Canada's GDP. That's why they say it's a revenue-positive program—you don't necessarily get the money exactly where you put it in.

For example, when the federal government sponsors child care programs across the country, province to province it is not going to necessarily reap the direct benefits of decreasing the number of mothers on social assistance, because those are provincial programs. But I think we have to remember at base that it is coming out of one pocket, that there is a single taxpayer, and it's up to governments to invest it in a way that benefits everyone and not be too fussed about whether this is a provincial benefit from a federal investment.

In the countries that do have it, you see that it's very positive and very positive with regard to women's contribution. From where we sit, given the changes in women's workforce participation and education, what are we forgoing by having women unable to participate fully in the workforce when they are so educated and motivated? At the same time the benefits to the children are really immense. For every program we look at, whether it's for women who are leaving violent relationships or women who are homeless, a national child care system is of benefit all the way across.