Finance Committee on Sept. 26th, 2006

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

I thank you, Sharon, for jumping to our defence.

Absolutely, it was indicated on page 10 of our brief that an efficient and accessible health care system is absolutely a component of any productivity agenda.

We would certainly say and we know that on a per capita basis Canada has quite a high expenditure on health care. We feel that the private sector can assist governments at all levels and health care professionals in trying, to the extent possible, to drive more efficiencies. Sharon mentioned the electronic health record as one of the examples. To the extent that we can bring more efficiencies, to the extent that the private sector can assist in delivery of services of a publicly funded system—and I underline publicly funded system—I think we would all benefit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I'll have to ask you to conclude with that. Thank you.

We will be compiling a report as a committee, of course, as you are aware, for the finance minister after this process. Each of us will have certain issues in this committee that we want to advocate for. I have a small but symbolically important issue I'd like to raise with CFIB and the Canadian Chamber.

Some years ago, the government decided that Revenue Canada would charge a higher rate of interest to those who owe taxes and are late in their payments than they would pay when they were late in their payments to those same people, by about 2%. It's a symbolic issue. It's not in either of your briefs. I would like you either to go on record as saying you're supportive of restoring the equality that used to exist for taxpayers who owed money and those who were owed money by the Government of Canada, or if you're not supportive of it, to say so.

This is my advertisement time, and I would like to hear from you what you think of that.

[Garth Whyte, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

One advertisement time begets another. There is a task force with the Canada Revenue Agency to look at these very things, and I really challenge this committee to come up with some ideas like that, which we would support to bring forward. Right now there is a task force that the revenue minister, who was here at the previous committee meeting, pushed. It is now supported by this government. It's a no-brainer. There are a lot of great ideas on the compliance side that don't cost a lot of money that we can deal with, and that's one of them. We'd definitely support that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you.

Nancy.

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

I'd only say, Mr. Chair, absolutely. Fair is fair, and we would be supportive of that recommendation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Very good. Thank you.

Mr. Savage, you have the floor.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Patry, in your submission you say “In the face of an increasingly competitive international research environment, investments are crucial. The government recognized this, leading into the last election and has highlighted the essential need for increased promotion of basic and applied research...”, etc. What are you referring to there?

[Gilles Patry]

What page are you on?

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I'm on the bottom of page 1. I guess I'm asking if you are talking about the current government or are you talking about the government of the day? I'm trying to identify to what you refer.

[Gilles Patry]

We're talking about increased investment in research and development. As we know, there has been a significant increase over recent years in R and D, but notwithstanding that investment, Canada still lags, as I indicated.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I understand. But in the statement, “The government recognized this, leading into the last election...”, are you talking about the economic update that was introduced in the fall that recognized that, or are you talking about part of the platform of the present government?

[Gilles Patry]

It was part of the platform.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Obviously, the budget in 2006 would be a little bit disappointing then in terms of delivering on research money.

[Gilles Patry]

There were few words about research and development in the last budget, and we're hoping that in the next budget R and D issues would be front and centre of the budget and one of the new five pillars.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I think “few words” is quite accurate.

I think it was you, Mr. Worton, or it might have been somebody else, who said something along the lines of CIHR has allowed us to focus on health and not only illness. Was that you?

[Dr. Ronald Worton]

Yes.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I think that's entirely true, especially compared to MRC, and it's an understandable focus on strict biomedical clinical research. CIHR has expanded that and allowed us to look at some of the stuff that Ms. Sholzberg-Gray has talked about, population health, social determinants of health and how poverty impacts health, and all that sort of stuff. So I think CIHR has done a great job.

You indicate in your recommendation that you're looking for $350 million over the next three years. You're also looking for an additional investment of $1 billion for CFI. We heard this morning from NSERC. They were looking for ramping up to $400 million a year. We're talking about a lot of money on research. One can certainly make the case that it's worth it--you wouldn't have to convince me--but I wonder how realistic it is with the money that's gone into research, certainly publicly funded, primarily at the university level but not only. Is that a realistic expectation?

[Dr. Ronald Worton]

I think it is. First of all, we've said $350 million ramped up over three years. This is actually what CIHR itself is seeking.

The important point here is that we have been ramping up the research enterprise, as you know. The CFI alone has allowed us to construct new buildings and to buy new equipment, develop huge infrastructure, and that has been really good for the country. It has allowed us to recruit a lot more young people into the country. The Canada research chairs program has allowed us to bring in young talent. So the research base has been built dramatically over the last six or seven years. The problem at CIHR, and I suspect at NSERC as well, is that with all this new talent in the country and with all the new equipment that they have to work with, the two groups that provide their project funding are the CIHR and NSERC and they haven't been able to keep pace with that expansion. What's happened is the success rate on CIHR grants now is between 20% and 25%. In other words, every time there's a competition, between 75% and 80% of the grants are turned down, and most of them are excellent.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I think that's an entirely good answer. Okay.

I agree with you 100%. While we've invested in research, we have in some ways become a victim of some success in the last number of years. You invest, but then the indirect costs build up.

I had a visit from the Heart and Stroke Foundation saying that by going to 40% of indirect costs, as we proposed in the update, we're actually hurting the not-for-profit charities that can't do that 40%.

I have a 30-second question for Ms. Sholzberg-Gray.

How is the wait times guarantee coming along, in your view?

[Sharon Sholzberg-Gray]

Our association thinks that the simple guarantee, in and of itself, is not the answer, because it's really based on people travelling, maybe even to the United States, where costs are more expensive.

I think we are making progress in Canada. The real issue will be measuring performance. In other words, we're going to have a parliamentary review at the end of this year, according to the legislation that introduced the funding under the 2004 health accord. We're performing many, many more procedures than we did in the past. The problem is that there is greater demand, greater need.

We also, though, have evidence of more efficient ways of doing things. Dr. Frank, in Alberta, showed that he can cut the waiting list to seven weeks by having an integrated list, taking people out of the lineup who are on three different lists and making sure they have physio if that's their solution, or lose weight if that's their solution. In other words, there are multiple solutions, so a guarantee, in and of itself, isn't going to do it. It's the last thing you would do, it seems to me, not the first thing. Let's make the progress we're making and work on it together.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Savage.

We will now go to Mr. Paquette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I want to say that I found the brief from the Chamber of Commerce very ideological.

You want to have your cake and eat it too. That makes no sense. You talk about reducing personal and corporate taxes, better depreciation allowances, debt reimbursement and so on, but you do not seem to consider that the social safety net is important for a civilized society. You make statements that are quite ambiguous. It is probably because I am reading the translation. Here is an example:

Return the EI program to its original goal of providing insurance against unintended unemployment. This will facilitate further reductions in EI premiums.

I suppose that you are not talking about unintended unemployment in the sense it was used before the great depression when the idea was that people who were unemployed were generally those who did not want to work. You are probably referring instead to special benefits that include, I would remind you, benefits for illness, maternity leave, parental leave, compassion and care leave, fishers' benefits and the Work Sharing Program.

I could agree with you that maternity leave, for example, should not necessarily be funded by EI. In Quebec, we are now talking about parental leave. But if these benefits do not come out of the employment insurance program, which program will the funding come from? What would your suggestion be?

Then you suggest sticking to basic benefits — at least that is what I understood — but you make no mention anywhere of the 48 billion dollars that was skimmed off the employment insurance fund by the liberal government, which is why the premiums have been kept artificially high. You know as well as I do that benefit levels for people who lose their jobs have declined very substantially. Before the Axworthy reform, some seven or eight people out of a given total who paid premiums would be eligible for benefits. Now that number has dropped to below five. In fact, only four people who pay premiums are eligible for benefits.

If there is a problem with maintaining employment insurance premiums at an artificially high level, should the blame not really be directed at the federal government, which was responsible for taking 48 billion dollars from the EI fund? To my mind, the premium problem has a lot more to do with that than with the special benefits that you mentioned earlier.

Why is it that you did not mention the 48 billion dollars anywhere? Your colleagues from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business at least mentioned it. I do not agree with everything that they wrote, but things are more in perspective. In your case, unfortunately, you give the impression that the special benefits are the reason that employment insurance premiums are too high.

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

Obviously, the employment insurance program is very important for all employers and employees across the country. However, our members feel that it should be strictly an insurance program. It is perhaps appropriate to use support programs for certain industries, but that could perhaps be done through other funds that members of Parliament might want to designate for that purpose.

Clearly, with the lack of available labour right now in Canada, people are wondering why this kind of program continues to exist, when it does not really encourage people to get the training they need.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam, that is inaccurate. As I just explained, in the past, seven workers who paid employment insurance premiums, out of a certain number, were entitled to benefits. Now there are only four left. This means that six workers who paid premiums will not be entitled to benefits. Not only does this program give an incentive, but it also penalizes those who, normally, would be entitled to benefits. I understand your reasoning.

Let us take, for instance, Saint-Michel-des-Saints, in my riding, where two factories will be shut down. This will mean the loss of 400 jobs and if we add indirect employment, the figure will be 600. Consequently, 50 per cent of the labour force in the region will be unemployed during the coming weeks. You can either ask them all to go to Montreal, or you could give them a chance to train in other activities such as recreation, tourism, or lumber processing, and so on.

[Nancy Hughes Anthony]

Let me say that I do not clearly understand your question. I think that our position is very clear. It is contrary to yours. I do not know what else I can say.