Finance Committee on May 17th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you. That's the time, MP Dzerowicz.

Thank you, Ms. Rahmati.

Now we're going to the Bloc for two and a half minutes, please, with MP Ste-Marie.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Céré, basically, part 4, division 35 extends the pilot project for one year in the 13 targeted regions, in terms of seasonal claimants. The date has been pushed back from October 28, 2023, to October 26, 2024. If I understood your opening remarks correctly, you believe that simply offering an extension is woefully inadequate.

Would you like to add anything to that?

[Pierre Céré]

Thank you very much for the questions, Mr. Ste‑Marie. Indeed, I have the impression that, otherwise, we wouldn't be talking much about employment insurance.

At the same time, I can understand the shame of the Liberal government for not taking action. I can understand the shame of the Conservatives for imposing these budget cuts in the 1990s, which explains why we're stuck with such a botched system. Social legislation is the way to help people.

To answer your question specifically about administrative tribunals, there were serious problems with one of the Conservative reforms in 2012, which abolished former administrative tribunals and replaced them with the Social Security Tribunal. In particular, there were problems with appointments, as cronies were being appointed. There were also delays, when it took months and months to get a hearing, and then it took months and months to get a decision. What's more, these decisions were made by arbitrators who thought they were Supreme Court justices.

So there were real problems, and they had to be solved. Will the EI appeal board, the new administrative tribunal that will be set up, be able to compensate for these problems? If so, all the better, but at the same time, one tribunal can be replaced with another, but that's not the real problem. What we really need to do is reform the employment insurance program. This is social legislation that will repair the social safety net and better protect people in precarious employment situations.

This has been raised several times, but 35% of the labour force works in precarious conditions; 20% of the labour force, or about four million people, two thirds of whom are women, work part time; 15% of the labour force works seasonally or temporarily, on call or on a split schedule. All these people need a social safety net to support them when they find themselves unemployed.

As for seasonal workers, let me remind you of the Liberal government's promise, which was not to perpetuate a pilot project, but to make it an improved program and to enshrine it in the legislation.

Once again, we're postponing all this and not really solving the problems, and that's really very unfortunate.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

That's very clear. Thank you very much. Let's hope that this changes quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

Now we go to MP Blaikie for two and a half minutes.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Lafontaine, I think around the time you were doing your residency, I was working in the health minister's office in Manitoba, under the government of Gary Doer. We were very focused on the five priority areas that had come out of the Canada health accord in 2004. I would say that really shaped a lot of the work we were doing at that time, and there were a lot of benefits, not just in terms of the funding but in terms of data collection and accountability.

Sometimes, frankly, there can be challenges with various health professionals in the system and some of the interests within the system. Having that understanding and everyone knowing that was an interprovincial understanding was also helpful when the government needed to implement certain kinds of changes.

That's why I was pleased in 2015 to hear the Liberals commit to a new Canada health accord and disappointed when they went with the bilateral model. However, I'm an optimist and I think it's still possible to do better. I'm wondering how you think we can.

Given that these bilateral deals are in place, what are the next steps to try to create that culture of accountability, but also co-operation, with respect to data and metrics on top of the bilateral deals, until we can get to a point when we can do a proper Canada health accord again?

[Dr. Alika Lafontaine]

That's an excellent question.

I personally feel that our biggest danger with this largest nominal investment since 2003-04 is going back to solving the problems that were there yesterday when, in reality, they're very different today.

What's the number one problem in the health care system? It's the lack of interoperability. We don't know where our health assets are across the country. There isn't a map of where hospitals, clinics and other health access locations are. We don't know with any type of nuance what people do.

I've worked in Grande Prairie for 12 years. I would say the majority of HR in AHS has no idea what type of anaesthetics I provide, whether or not I can do small children or whether I can do adults with certain subspecialty areas.

The data that's going to drive it has to be more detailed and it has to be more focused on matching supply and demand. We also need to shift beyond these silo jurisdictions. When a person only accessed health care in the place where they lived, the jurisdictional approach worked fine, but now that patients are hypermobile across provinces and now that a lot of our care ends up happening in border towns.... Grande Prairie is only an hour and a half to two hours away from Fort St. John. We receive lots of patients there. There are examples of this across the country in every province and territory.

We have to evolve our way of looking at things beyond just jurisdiction. I will say that, for patients and providers, increasingly, the jurisdictional argument of why things are the way they are doesn't really hold any water, because we see the system burning down. Patients care less about whether or not the decisions are made in their province, and more about whether or not the decisions are effective.

Does that mean that we eliminate the role of provinces and territories? Absolutely not, but we need to be aware of the new climate that we're in and that we're solving the problems that are there right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Thank you, MP Blaikie. That's the time.

Now we'll go to MP Morantz, please.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've been sitting here listening very carefully. I wish I could say I was surprised. I'm just aghast at how dire the situation is out there.

Mr. Hetherington, I have an article here that you were quoted in on April 4. You said, “Let me be very clear: we are in a crisis.”

Do you stand by that statement?

[Neil Hetherington]

Yes.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

You said, “The Daily Bread Food Bank and food banks all across [Toronto] are at a breaking point”.

Do you still feel that way?

[Neil Hetherington]

Yes.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you.

What I find interesting about some of your statements in this article is that, I've learned, it's not only the people who are visiting food banks who are financially stressed, but it's actually the food banks themselves.

In fact, this article says, “Daily Bread is also in a precarious financial position. The charity put aside $33 million to get through the pandemic and that money will run out in 18 to 24 months”.

Is that still the situation?

[Neil Hetherington]

It is. That's why we hosted the press conference. It was to let people know that we have 270,000 client visits in a single month. If we maintain the same level of service, which every Torontonian deserves.... Well, they deserve the right to food and not to have to rely on a food bank, to be clear.

For us to maintain that level of service, the funds that our board appropriately set aside for when we knew the real crisis of the pandemic would happen, which was three years following, we would draw down in 18 to 24 months.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Assuming the course of events plays out the way you described, in 24 months from now, your $33 million will be depleted.

Barring any intervention, by either government or some major benefactor coming forward and giving you millions of dollars, what will happen to the Daily Bread facility?

[Neil Hetherington]

One thing that I am deeply proud of is that, with every crisis the Daily Bread Food Bank and food banks across the city have had, they have risen to that occasion. I have no doubt that we will continue to rise to the occasion. That's where we turn to you and we ask how we can go upstream in poverty to decrease the lineup so that we can continue to meet the need.

In terms of outcome, specifically to your question, it would mean that instead of providing three days' worth of food every seven days to an individual who is food insecure, that number might be 2.9 days or 2.8 days.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I appreciate that you said we have the power to do something about this and that you're turning to us. In fact, I tried.

You may be aware, or not, of my private member's bill, which I introduced after the 2021 election, or reintroduced. It would have waived the capital gains tax for the sale proceeds on the donation of private company shares and real estate to charities across the country, including food banks.

Don Johnson, by the way, who is a major Toronto philanthropist that you may know of, was the inspiration for this idea. I certainly worked with him to try to get it across the finish line. It would have raised about $200 million a year or a billion dollars for charities across the country, had it passed Parliament.

I have to thank my colleagues in the Bloc, and of course, my caucus colleagues in the Conservative Party. Unfortunately, the NDP and the Liberals voted against it and defeated my bill, so you can see my frustration. I think that would have helped a lot.

Those are my questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Morantz.

Now we'll go to the Liberals and MP MacDonald for five minutes.

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for coming in on such short notice.

It's a very interesting conversation. Mr. Lafontaine is being flanked by those two, and I think the connection is very strong.

You look at budget 2023 and what transpired over the past three years with a global pandemic. I know there was a 64% increase in working-class people taking up food banks during that time.

I'm looking forward to the day that we look back at this day today and say, “What did the Canada workers benefit do for low-income workers?”. You talked about it in your preamble and its effects. On property flipping, what's that doing to affordable housing? There's predatory lending, which is what some of the people who are coming through your front door are being affected by.

With the Canada child benefit, I know in my home province of Prince Edward Island there are so many people who don't file their taxes. They just don't see the need. There are millions and millions of dollars sitting on the table, waiting to be picked up by them, and we've heard stories about when they've gone back retroactively. You can imagine some of the people walking through your door going back retroactively and getting cheques for thousands of dollars.

Then there's dental care and the Canada disability benefit, which I am a strong supporter of, and also OAS and GIS. Then we get into the skilled trades workers relative to the Canada workers benefit, and everything that goes with that, which is again the working-class poor, if that's what you want to call them. I'll be looking forward to someday looking back and seeing the success that you guys continue to have, even though you're in troubled waters like the rest of us—and by the rest of us, I mean my province.

I'm interested in hearing whether there is anything else. Mr. Blaikie took some of my question on the basic guaranteed income, which has been very strongly researched on Prince Edward Island. The other part of it, Mr. Lafontaine, is that we're doing actually a pharmacare pilot on the island, and it's working out very well.

I don't know how you take the basic guaranteed income and put all this into that basket. It's way above my capabilities, but it looks like we're going in the right direction, if we can get through what the global pandemic has put on our society, especially the most vulnerable.

I want to hear from each of you very quickly. I don't know how much time I'll have, because I'm doing a lot of talking. Are we going in the right direction with these programs? I know the troubled waters are there, and we've seen them. What is your perception of that?

I'm very interested, Mr. Lafontaine, if we get a chance, to talk about artificial intelligence, which you mentioned.

Ms. Nicholls, perhaps you want to start.

[Meghan Nicholls]

I think we have to make a decision as a society, as a country and as communities on what we value. We continue to place value on growth, investment and business success to the detriment of people who are just struggling in unimaginable ways. I think as we look over the coming years, if we are going to see more people lose their jobs and more scenarios where people are lining up outside the food banks, we're not building the kind of communities we want.

I would say, from a foundational perspective, continuing to vilify and almost punish the poor for being poor is the way lots of these systems are created. Coming to all of these interventions from the perspective of people having a right to food, housing and health care would take us down a different road. Rather than trying to make sure the wrong people don't get service, we're ensuring that all of our communities get what they need.

[Dr. Alika Lafontaine]

I do believe we're in a place that, in five or 10 years, will be somewhere better. It's the inevitable conclusion that when you have persons around the table, regardless of their ideologies, focused on the same things, problems get solved, especially as the crisis gets worse.

We will not have a population that survives if we don't deal today with health care, food security or any of these other problems. The crisis has completely overwhelmed people across the political ideological spectrum. One of the most important things to focus on, I think, is that we have to start to parse out the things in the market that we leave up to the free market and the things that we manage, and we have to embrace that.

I think in the last 20 years, in health care in particular, we depended on austerity to lead us to sustainability. Intuitively it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that you eventually cut your way to sustainability. You eventually cut your way into being unsustainable.

I think we're seeing a rewiring of where people are prioritizing things. Does this mean we can't have mindful use of different levers of change at the federal, provincial and territorial level? I don't think so, but we are going to have to change what we measure, and we're going to have to change what we embrace as far as being a responsibility of government. That's a really important, critical moment that we're in right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Let's give Mr. Hetherington a little bit of time to answer. Then we're going to get into our third round.

Go ahead.

[Neil Hetherington]

I promise to be brief.

In terms of focus, our focus is decent affordable housing, number one. Second are income supports that are appropriate, and third is the reduction of precarious employment.

I do want to applaud the change to the Criminal Code that brought predatory lending from 47% to 35%. I would love an all-party resolution to dissolve predatory lending across the country and be a nation that is void of any other Money Marts and associated things. They are the only types of funding that we do not get at the Daily Bread Food Bank. We don't take money from tobacco or predatory lending, because there is no good reason for those to exist in our country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

That was great. I applaud that, Mr. Hetherington. Thank you.

We are moving, members, into our third round. We're starting with the Conservatives.

MP Chambers, you have five minutes.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Welcome to everyone and also to those of you joining us online.

It's a very sobering discussion here this afternoon. We argue about a lot of things and there are lots of big problems going on, but I think they all pale in comparison to what some of the clients who are visiting you folks on a regular basis are going through.

I want to pick up on and make a comment about predatory lending.

Cardus, which is a think tank based in Ottawa, did a paper a few years ago that showed that, just by walking in the door to one of these facilities, you are 30% to 40% more likely to claim bankruptcy—just by walking in the door. I think there's a long discussion that has to be had about the right way to provide supports to those individuals who need income assistance. I'm always interested in what some potential, unintended consequences are of really over-regulating a space.

There's obviously a need for income assistance. What should that look like? There is no question that support for those individuals.... We need to come up with a better way. I would encourage you to take a look at that report. It's very well done.

I think there was a request or maybe an acknowledgement that you were going to send some information to the committee. I'll ask you to include, if you have the data, those individuals who are what we'll call the working poor, those who have T4 income or any income, really, who are also accessing your facility. I think that would help us think about those individuals. Most people believe, I think incorrectly, that if you have a job, you're fine. Obviously, from the testimony I hear today, that is not the case.

I open the questions to both of the food bank representatives.

In addition, I think I heard that housing is a driver and food costs are a driver. Are there other social determinants or other factors that you see that contribute significantly? They could be anything. It could be the breakdown of a household or mental health issues. Are there other ones that you would put on that list in addition to housing and food costs?