Evidence of meeting #16 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was federal.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Not as a percentage; if somebody comes in and does 10 hours of work for your charity—whether it's 10 hours a week, or a month—could we put a dollar value on it so that the person can benefit from that?
3:20 p.m.
Vice-President, Public Policy and Regulatory Affairs, Imagine Canada
Yes, we have some data on that.
3:20 p.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Okay. You can send it over to the clerk.
I have a quick question to Ms. Gray.
We were discussing the attraction for employers or companies to come to Canada and make their investment here in Canada rather than in the United States or any other country. I'm talking specifically about our health care. Is there a percentage that it is worth? When I talk about percentage.... The statistics are that we're eighth in the world in our tax rates, or seventeenth. Should our corporate tax rate be two or three percent more because we provide medicare? Is there a specific number?
3:20 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Healthcare Association
I'm certainly not going to be advocating corporate tax increases right now. But it is a benefit to those corporations that get the tax—
We don't have a number. We can look up some numbers for you. It's more than $1,000 per worker, something like $2,500 per worker. That's a lot of money.
3:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Rob Merrifield
Thank you.
We'll move on now.
Monsieur St-Cyr, you'll have seven minutes.
3:20 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Thank you all for being here.
My first question is for Ms. Sholzberg-Gray. In your brief, among other things in point 4(d), you call for a pan-Canadian strategy on drug insurance. As I've often said, in Quebec there is a unanimous objection, across political parties and groups, to the federal government's dictating standards in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, particularly since Quebec already has its own drug insurance plan. It isn't perfect, but it has had some success.
I often put the same question to people calling for pan-Canadian programs. If that's the wish of the rest of Canada, I don't see any problem. Would you agree to Quebec's being excluded from such a pan-Canadian program and having an unconditional right to opt out with full financial compensation?
3:20 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Healthcare Association
First of all, I'd like to note that Quebec signed the 2004 accord—accepted strategies and pan-Canadian objectives, I think in a very open way, and signed the accord.
But with respect to the fact that Quebec already has a pharmacare program—which has, as you note, some imperfections but certainly meets the needs of bringing pharmaceuticals to everyone—I think we would agree that the Social Union Framework Agreement, which wasn't adopted by Quebec, allows for compensation to existing programs that meet everybody's objectives. So if Quebec's program met the broad general objectives that are set for a pharmacare program, they ought to be compensated for it.
As to whether you call that opting out or not, certainly a province that has the program.... Manitoba has a good home care program. If we had a better home care program, I would say they should be compensated as well.
3:25 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I consider your answer a no.
When we request a right to opt out with full financial compensation, we're asking for an unconditional right to opt out. We're asking that the government of the Quebec nation, recognized by this Parliament, be solely responsible for the criteria that define it. This is a true consensus in Quebec.
As regards the health agreement you referred to, Quebec did not support it wholeheartedly because it was conditional. The Liberals imposed it and they told Quebec that, if it wanted money, it had to sign the agreement. They imposed criteria. Everyone in Quebec denounced it. The government itself said that it did so reluctantly.
Is there a willingness on the part of an organization such as yours to respect the concept and existence of the Quebec nation, which has been unanimously recognized by this Parliament, by saying that, if Quebeckers form a nation, they have a right to determine their policies in the areas of health, education and so on? If so, funding should simply be transferred to the provinces and it should be allowed to determine its priorities and what it wants to do with that funding.
3:25 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Healthcare Association
I would say our board agrees with the principle that Canadians have to have access to comparable services wherever they live in this country, and they'd really be reluctant to see money being transferred to Quebec to achieve a pan-Canadian objective—not a specific objective, but an objective of access to pharmaceuticals. It seems to me that even Quebeckers who want to be in charge of their own nation and their own destiny couldn't object to the fact that Quebeckers ought to have access, without financial barriers, to pharmaceuticals.
I'm not saying micromanaging a project or giving all the details; I'm saying that opting out, at least with the notion of a commitment to those objectives.... And if they're objectives that Quebec is already meeting, I'm not sure why that would be so onerous.
So I think there's a way of creating respect for Quebec's right to determine its own future in terms of pharmaceutical policy, at the same time as knowing that there's no reason the federal government would keep spending money over and over again, if not to ensure that wherever you live in this country you'd have, not identical access to services, but some sort of comparability.
We discussed this over and over again with our Quebec member, which is in a strategic alliance with us. They are very in favour, of course, of the Quebec government's objections to national programs. At the same time, they also want universal access to pharmaceuticals. So I'm not sure....
We're talking semantics here. Quebec already has a program, and some of the other provinces don't. If they get money for the program, Quebec ought to be compensated. I'm not sure why it would be so hard to say we also agree with access to pharmaceuticals.
3:25 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
In fact, you can look at the semantics in two ways. You have to ask yourself why it's so hard to say we're going to give Quebec money and to allow it to do what it wants. If that's what Quebeckers want, they're going to do it. That's more than semantics.
The issue is that the Constitution provides for a division of powers. Currently, however, the government is using its enormous surpluses to impose its conditions on Quebec and the other provinces. That's not semantics; it's something fundamental.
I'm not going to dwell on this issue because I have very little time left to speak to Ms. Sutherland and Mr. Drover, who spoke, among other things, about tax systems for societies.
I appreciated that you recalled each in your own way: when you work on the tax system, if you reduce taxes, there have to be economic results. The goal is not to cut taxes for fun, but if you have to do it, as was mentioned in one of the briefs, you have to make sure that really achieves significant productivity gains for Canada.
If you have to have tax relief for businesses, do you think we should take targeted measures to assist businesses in difficulty, or should we instead proceed with general tax cuts that will essentially help businesses that are already making profits?
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
3:30 p.m.
Social Worker, Canadian Association of Social Workers
In terms of the corporate tax cuts, I'm not experienced in that area, but the one thing that has been raised by the environmental groups is that certain kinds of targeted tax cuts make sense, particularly for those corporations that are moving in the environmental direction that we want them to go. I think the same is true in terms of social objectives if we're trying to encourage these kinds of initiatives.
3:30 p.m.
Betty Sutherland
It would be only with accountability. They'd have to be accountable.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to our witnesses.
To Sharon Sholzberg-Gray, the health care equation is almost impossible to square. I'm not in disagreement with anything you've said about Canadians' wide-ranging support for socialized medicine and our responsibility to maintain that. I remember actually attending the Romanow report and inquiry and looking at trying to find ways within the system itself--and it would cost money--to actually find more revenue by cutting some costs and thereby generating more revenue from those cost savings.
One of the issues we've looked at is the Canada health information highway, or Infoway, and the $400 million that's been put there. I think that's pretty significant. I remember talking about this at the Romanow commission, and it didn't go anywhere at the time.
We're all attached to our BlackBerrys, our computers, and our information systems, but there's no reason a doctor or nurse in the hospital can't be walking down the hall, input the medical file into their electronic chart, and have it go everywhere within that system all at the same time. If a person is allergic to a certain drug, then that should automatically come up on the person's chart. It would also prevent some of the human error that can occur. If a person is allergic to milk products, that should automatically go to the kitchen. Somehow or other we've not done that, but the technology is readily available.
Can you comment on that?
3:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Healthcare Association
Yes, I'd like to.
This is at the top of our list of expenditures; it is really an investment.
First of all, it's going to create jobs in the information technology sector, which is a great thing. Second, it's going to make the health system more economical. It's going to reduce duplication. Patients used to walk with their X-ray in their hands from one building to another. It's also going to improve quality, which reduces costs as well, because you don't have to pay for mistakes.
The problem is that the $400 million you referred to, and the $1.2 billion that was given to Canada Infoway previously, is not going to do the job. No one has been realistic enough to say that it is going to take billions of dollars. We say it's more than $6 billion; it's going to take $10 billion, and some people say $20 billion, over a number of years. If we don't do it, it's going to cost us $50 billion more.
In other words, in order to save and to make this system sustainable, we have to do it. I would look to the federal government to try to book some of the unplanned surpluses for a multi-year program to do this thing once and for all, and to stop talking about it.
It has to be done.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Thank you.
It's because technology is one way to save money; then you can use those same dollars within the system--
3:30 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Healthcare Association
The veterans administration in the United States did it, and they improved quality and introduced savings.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
That's interesting.
My next question is to Trevor Lewis. Mr. Lewis, I appreciate the comments you made here today.
I had this discussion with one of the earlier witnesses. We have a significant first nations community that is better educated and better informed than they ever were. They're underemployed, without question. There's a huge opportunity to have more aboriginals enter the workforce, but there's a disconnect. Aboriginal communities, the chief and councils, recognize this. I think governments recognize this straight across the board.
There seems to be one group that is not really applying it, and that seems to be the employers. I'm not picking them out to blame them--some companies, such as Michelin in Nova Scotia, have done a very good job at hiring first nations--but there's huge potential here. Has anyone ever quantified how many first nations people--young people in particular--are available to go into the workforce over the next decade?
3:35 p.m.
Chair, National Association of Indigenous Institutes of Higher Learning
There have been statistics done on age of population. I think over 50% of the aboriginal population is under the age of 25; it's something like that.
3:35 p.m.
Chair, National Association of Indigenous Institutes of Higher Learning
That's a huge number. I don't know if I can answer your question directly, other than that. I don't know if that helps. It's significant.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
It's a lot. It certainly is a significant area, and an area that I think all Canadians benefit from, straight and clear.
My last comment is on our immigrant community, because that's the next largest group that can potentially enter the workforce. One of the challenges our government and previous governments have fought with has been the recognition of educational qualifications and professional qualifications from foreign countries. Some of that, quite frankly, is protectionism on behalf of Canadian professional groups, and perhaps other groups; it may be some of our unions as well. I'm not pointing blame at any particular group here, but we have to find a way to get beyond that to recognize those foreign qualifications. So far I hate to say we've failed, but I think we have. I'm just wondering if you've got a new angle or a new way for us to work at that.
I put it all on your shoulders, right?