Finance Committee on Oct. 7th, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We will start the clock right now.

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

Ms. Robinson, you've referred to the poor labour market information available and the resultant exacerbation of the job skills mismatch. Recently, a resolution at one of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce's meetings called for the restoration of the long-form census.

Would you agree that it could contribute to better data for young Canadians and for educators?

[Nobina Robinson]

Who can disagree with wanting better longitudinal, detailed, granular information? So, yes.

But what I think is the most important point now is that when you actually look at all of Statistics Canada's existing tools, they represent a rusted toolkit measuring backwards for the twentieth century. Now we need new data that really helps, including graduate employment rates and earning power. Are people finding jobs in the field they studied? How many work-integrated learning opportunities do the programs offer? From an employer perspective, what are the actual barriers? Qualifications are not the same as actual skills, so clearly there is a disconnect there.

I will tell you that I contribute a lot of my thinking to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce through its HR skills committee, and what I think is superb is that there is this alignment now on the need for better labour market information. The council of CEOs is saying it, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is saying it. It's not just that they want demand-side data, but supply-side data. They don't know what's in our talent supply chain. They don't know how many graduates we're going to have in mechatronics two years from now. That's the kind of information we need the federal government to put out.

So regarding your question on the census, I think we need a re-look at the whole of the evidence.

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

Sure.

If we restored the funding cut to Stats Canada, ensured that there were the proper resources and the right mandate, could the labour market intelligence agency function as a unit within a properly resourced Stats Canada?

[Nobina Robinson]

You're asking a very good question, Mr. Brison.

We're now calling it the labour market information council, and we've adjusted since our early August submission to you.

I struggle with this question all the time. I go back to my days at the Jenkins panel. The machinery of government question is bedevilling. There is this antipathy to creating more federal bureaucracy. That's why my thinking, and our thinking, is to have an arm's length, independent entity—we can provide you more information on this—with the private sector and the education community on its board. You almost want to now take it out of Statistics Canada, out of the ESDC, and create, through shared jurisdiction, with the forum of labour market ministers working together, something that is credible and not bureaucratic. I think we have examples for you. In Australia they've done this. It's called the workforce productivity council. You can do it here.

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

Could we also launch, as a national government, a national campaign to restore the honour of professional trades in Canada to get young people thinking about professional trades earlier, in addition to providing them with better labour market data? Should that be something we're thinking of as a government?

[Nobina Robinson]

You know, with respect, that's been going on year after year. We put some money out to promote the trades, try a trade program. There are how many different ads that we've seen in the Winter Olympics—

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

Just providing the data and the information may be the best, and let them—

[Nobina Robinson]

Yes, I'd say it's much more important now to get the data on the earning power of the trades professions, the high-demand trades, and really what you can earn as a power engineer, a power line technician, etc.

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

Thank you very much.

Ms. Vornbrock, we met yesterday with Michael Kirby, the original chair of your organization, who spoke to us and gave a very compelling presentation on his organization's work on the whole area of youth suicide prevention.

How would you help us distinguish between the laudable work that he's doing, in terms of youth suicide prevention, and the work that you're doing as an organization? Can you help us understand the difference in terms of the nature of the work done by each organization in this area?

[Jennifer Vornbrock]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Brison.

I would probably say that the work the commission has been doing and actually started by Mr. Kirby carries on in a similar way. What the commission is particularly proud of is the degree and the extent to which we have secured a number of really critical national and local partnerships on suicide prevention.

In particular, I would want to draw your attention to the work we've been doing with the Public Health Agency and others around the federal framework for suicide prevention, but also the work we've been doing in the communities, in community-led conversations on suicide prevention, which we think is critically important.

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

There has been a significant increase in the incidence of suicide among veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces. What do you recommend to the committee in terms of resources for mental health within the Canadian Armed Forces? Should we be making a significant increase in mental health resources both for active enlisted men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces and also for veterans?

[Jennifer Vornbrock]

For many years we've had very active partnerships both with the Department of National Defence and with Veterans Affairs, in particular around operational readiness in dealing with those men and women who are serving abroad.

There is some fantastic programming called the “Road to Mental Readiness”, and we've been partnering with that program to bring that into civilian police forces as well. I think there is some really critical work that's going on, and we continue to partner with them to support that work.

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

Do we need to increase resources given the dramatic increase in the incidence?

[Jennifer Vornbrock]

Well, I think there has been an increase in resources, and I do think there continues to be a need to increase resources. I want to comment particularly around Veterans Affairs.

We have been working with the Department of Veterans Affairs and others, because one of the really critical things we've realized is that the transition from the armed forces into the community is a critical juncture and an opportunity to increase support. We're very pleased to see some of the real partnerships that are beginning to take root with Veterans Affairs around things like mental health first aid, expanding the Road to Mental Readiness, and other critical programs.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Brison.

We'll go to Mr. Keddy, please, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I welcome our witnesses.

I want to pick up on Mr. Brison's comments on the Canadian Armed Forces, the work that Veterans Affairs has done on suicide prevention, and the application of mental health issues in general straight across that department.

I guess one of the things we see in the political world, unfortunately, is sometimes the raising of rhetoric around suicide. Everything you're ever taught in suicide prevention is that you don't bring attention to it: all of a sudden you have a cluster and that cluster starts to grow, and you get copycat incidents that spread as a cancer that is almost impossible to stop

Do you have any suggestions on how we handle that very important need—because it's politically sensitive—to have a positive suicide prevention program and yet not inadvertently be part of the drivers?

[Jennifer Vornbrock]

I thank you for that question, because I think it's a critically important one.

In regard to the way in which the Mental Health Commission and others have approached the conversation about suicide, I would quote Harold Albrecht. I think he has stated that the approach of not talking about suicide isn't working. So we need to start talking about suicide. But we need to do that thoughtfully, because you raise some very important points about where the conversation can go if it's not done carefully and thoughtfully.

The national mental health strategy exists. We do not need another national strategy on suicide prevention. We need to take action on suicide prevention.

In particular, we want to be cautious and not focus on particular populations. I think suicide is an issue that is complex in nature. I think it reaches into families, adult males, seniors, children and youth, the veterans, and the armed forces. By focusing on particular populations, I think at times we run the danger of losing the full breadth and scope of the complexity of the issue, and we miss the opportunity to look at how communities can support those individuals across the lifespan.

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

Thank you very much for that answer.

Mr. Fleming and Mr. Robinson, I just want to try to get this straight. You talked about the obvious need we have in Canada to harmonize our IT sector with the global economy and the rest of the world and the modernization of the Food and Drugs Act, Bill C-17, which was an attempt to do it. Yet you're concerned about two different issues.

You have patent protection, and we understand what patent protection is. That gives you roughly 20 years of protection, and after that it's out there in the mainstream and anyone can copy it. But most companies also have proprietary information, which is not patented. There is no protection for that proprietary information. Are you suggesting that there needs to be some type of built-in mechanism to have protection for proprietary information?

[Walter Robinson]

Through you, Mr. Vice-Chair, to Mr. Keddy, in the context of our presentation today, in terms of a driving an innovation environment that fosters Canadian competitiveness, the stability and predictability of the Canadian business climate is important for life sciences investors and, I would dare say, for some of the other industries that are represented across the table today. Your question goes specifically to Bill C-17. We testified before the House health committee and before the Senate last week. Bill C-17—and I know this is not the place for it, but with respect to the question—is trying to do two things, and doing neither very well. One is to ensure that the minister has the right to disclose clinical trial information, emerging trends, and things that are of a serious or imminent risk, in the interests of the health and the promotion of the safety of Canadians. We fully agree with that. But the bill also defines confidential business information. That stuff is proprietary. It may not be intellectual property on the molecule or the biological...but it speaks to issues of proprietary manufacturing processes, packaging, and a variety of other things that Mr. Fleming and other members have to disclose to Health Canada to get a notice of compliance in order to get a medicine approved as safe and clinically effective. We're just trying to ensure that the patient safety data, the stuff that is needed, has to be there.

In the other areas, they need notice and consent because those do have a competitive advantage, and Minister Fast, with the global markets action plan, is out there speaking about Canada's brand. The late Minister Flaherty and the current minister speak to Canada's brand as a stable and predictable place to do business. That's what we're trying to get at.

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

Okay, thank you for that answer because it wasn't exactly clear in your presentation.

Mr. London, you present a case in which Canada has nine deposits of rare earth elements that could possibly be developed. You talk about secure, stable, and sustainable supply. You're looking for a fairly substantial investment over five years—it's not a small investment—by the Government of Canada. At the same time, there is potential to grow from a $4 billion industry worldwide to an $8 billion one—it's something that's going to double—and there's been 8% to 12% growth over the last 10 years in that field. Those are all fantastic statistics, but you talk about how we match up the academic support for the industrial development? I ask because with junior mining firms, you generally that don't have that expertise, quite frankly, to move into industrial development, let alone the ability to partner with that academic community.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

You have a little less than a minute to respond, Mr. London.

[Ian London]

That's an interesting question. I agree that junior mining companies do not naturally collaborate. However, it is clearly recognized today, and with the establishment of CREEN and the active involvement of many of those companies right now, that they know what has to be done. Each of the companies possesses the capabilities and the knowledge. There are a number of national and commercial labs that have worked on every project, but because of the rules of confidentiality, they don't share. It's now a global competition, and these players have now said they need a platform and they can collaborate.

We have since held three major symposiums. I've chaired them since 2012. We were just in Vancouver. One-third of the conference of metallurgists was around rare earths. Last year there were 54 papers from 17 countries. Canada can collaborate. You're right that it doesn't happen naturally, but a number of the folks recognize that it needs to be done and have the enthusiasm and ability to do so.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Nathan Cullen]

Thank you, Mr. London.

Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Rankin, go ahead for up to seven minutes, please.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you to all the witnesses for attending. It's very interesting and there's not enough time to do justice to all of you.

I want to start, if I can, with Mr. Robinson and Mr. Fleming of the Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies.

You say in your brief that Canada secures less than 1% of global R and D from the innovative pharmaceutical industry despite being a global leader. You're asking, it seems, for more federal funding despite being part of what I would have thought was a very profitable sector. Do you have suggestions for how we can get increased R and D in this country? How can the federal government be a driver of scientific innovation? Is it simply a question of adding more money from the federal government? What are your suggestions?