Finance Committee on Oct. 20th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Start again.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Okay.

The first point is that you appreciated the forgiveness of the GST on municipal services. That was done and it continues. You appreciated the previous government's gas tax; you appreciate that continuing, and presumably you want it enhanced.

If you had a choice between the enhancement of the gas tax and these continuous announcements—what another witness described as a lottery—of whether you qualified for a particular program or not, what would be your choice?

[Doug Dobrowolski]

One thing about the gas tax model, as I said, is that it's accessible to everyone. It's on a per capita basis. At least we'll receive some money. It provides a long-term planning tool for municipalities to plan their infrastructure. You know every year under the current gas tax formula you're going to get a certain amount. So it helps plan those infrastructure activities and other things.

The trouble with the ad hoc programs is that they're here today and gone tomorrow. There's not a real chance for planning and there's no real chance to focus on deficits. That's why the gas tax model and similar models to that, over a longer period of time, help municipalities better plan their infrastructure and make better decisions at the council table.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

So if it came to an either/or, you would go with an enhanced gas tax over these hit-and-miss models.

[Doug Dobrowolski]

I think you need all of them. You need a combination. I keep saying gas tax, but I think you need a combination of Building Canada and gas tax. You have to look at all of them, but the key here is the long-term predictable funding source for municipalities. Whatever program you come up with, that's the key: long-term predictable funding, so that there's proper planning and proper spending of the dollars so that things can be run a lot more efficiently.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Benham, I'm pleased to hear that Mr. Dechert has shown some enthusiasm for forgiving immigration fees, and certainly we would support that. I'm glad, after four years, that it's going to happen.

He seemed to be somewhat less enthusiastic about your recommendation with the employment insurance reform or in increasing the national child benefit level. The national child benefit level is a $5 billion item. That's a pretty significant amount of money, and a pretty significant amount of money in the current context.

Is there an argument as to why you would prefer the national child benefit level as opposed to, say, a child care program, which would cost a similar amount of money?

[Donald Benham]

Certainly we would make no argument against a child care program. That isn't included in our brief, but we believe this would certainly help the children in the working poor families, for people to earn additional income and so on. As Mr. Martin mentioned a few minutes ago, we find there are many children living in poverty even though their parents work full time, at full-year-equivalent jobs. So child care is an important part of that, but we believe it should start with the national child benefit.

Yes, $5 billion is a lot of money in anybody's books, but what we point out here is that every study, every piece of research that is done, shows that living in poverty, even for a year, can have a serious, long-term damaging effect on a child's prospects. We would consider this an investment in the future, an investment against long-term poverty and people slipping into the poverty cycle, and of course other long-term harmful effects that come from that, including involvement in crime and so on.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

We'll go to Ms. Block, please.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your presentations. I've read through your briefs.

I have some questions for the Canadian Nurses Association as well as the Association of Manitoba Municipalities.

First of all, I am a little surprised at the assertion that the Canadian Nurses Association or nurses across Canada need to do a study on health human resources in isolation of other disciplines. In Saskatchewan we have a primary care model that you reference in terms of needing to establish the right mix of providers, and you talked about the primary care model. We also heard from the Canadian Medical Association, as was referenced by my colleague. They too are requesting that the federal government consider the need for a health human resources strategy on a national level.

How closely do you work with other health care providers when bringing forward recommendations for a health human resources strategy for the country? You also referenced the great work that we've done with H1N1. It is unfortunate that sometimes we don't do what we should do until we have to.

How closely do you work with other health care providers across the country?

[Kaaren Neufeld]

I believe that Canadian nurses and Canadian health care professionals work relatively closely together. In the study, we're talking about a health human resources institute where we would have an organization or an infrastructure for us to come together and look, not only as professionals but also with policy-makers and administrators, at what the needs are for Canadians for health human resources. That recommendation actually comes out of federally funded health sector studies, where we worked with nursing divisions, pharmacy sectors, and others looking at what the needs were. That study included provincial representatives as well.

There are a number of organizations and associations coming together to say the time has come for this type of federal leadership. Health human resources is a national resource, and we need to be investing in it as such and working collaboratively to move that agenda forward.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you.

For the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, in your presentation you made the statement that municipalities should not be responsible for the provision of health care services. I need you to help me understand the system that you have here in Manitoba. I was the mayor of a small community in Saskatchewan for two terms and was on council for three terms, and we weren't required to be responsible for the provision of health care in our municipality. That was taken out of our hands back in the early 1990s. Could you help me understand the system or the structures that you have in place there?

[Doug Dobrowolski]

Health care is not a municipal responsibility, it's a provincial responsibility. Yet over the years we've been constantly downloaded. In Manitoba you have to pay 10% toward capital cost if you have a hospital or clinic in your area. We've gone to the RHA system, which is inefficient in Manitoba. It seems more and more things, including programming, are being pushed onto municipalities, which have to come up with money. Municipalities are being asked to help fund beds and things in the hospitals in their towns and villages. It's very unfair for municipalities in that it's really not part of our mandate. Health care is a provincial and federal responsibility. This is only one part of the puzzle.

The number of dollars that different municipalities are putting into these health care facilities and health care programs is taking away from the things they should be doing—repairing roads, fixing streets, water, sewer, and those types of things. I think there has to be a clarification of the roles and responsibilities in regard to what is a municipal responsibility, what is a provincial responsibility, and what is a federal responsibility. The dollars are very limited, and we have to make the best use of those dollars. If we could stick to doing municipal work, that would be great.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Block.

We'll go to Mr. McKay, please.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Very quickly, to the folks from Genome, you make a recommendation that increased funding go to western economic development. I assume that's in order to have a co-fund with you. It's a bit of a curious recommendation. Why would you suggest that?

[Dr. Arnold Naimark]

Largely because there is a lot of interaction amongst the genome centres in western Canada—Genome Prairie, Genome Alberta, and Genome B.C. We see a lot of the linkages that each of us wants to build with industry and so on to deal with moving stuff from the lab to commercialization as requiring the convening facility that programs like western economic diversification allow. They provide some funding that allows for the interaction costs, bringing people together and so on for working out programs and projects. They're not the major funders of the research projects themselves; they're the facilitators that bring the various parties—the industrial people, the universities, the not-for-profits—together to develop joint programs. That's been very helpful. It's not a huge amount of money compared to the actual projects that are done, but support for those projects rarely includes support for that kind of facilitation or interaction.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

It's just a curious recommendation, given that I hadn't heard it from Genome B.C., and I don't think Genome Ontario or Genome Quebec would see things unfolding....

[Dr. Arnold Naimark]

Some of us are just more creative and imaginative.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

There is no western economic diversification in Ontario. That may have something to do with it as well.

[Dr. Arnold Naimark]

I think when you're in a single province there's a different construct than when you're trying to bridge provinces.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

To the airport people, in your second recommendation you talk about eliminating airport rent. Is that a reasonable request? I know there are different rates across Canada; airports are paying different amounts. But is it reasonable to eliminate airport rents?

[Catherine Kloepfer]

Starting in 2010, we'll all be using the same formula to pay rent, so it will be relative to your revenue generation. I think the inequity is that we're being asked to create the infrastructure to deal with the doubling in traffic that's happened over the last decade, yet we're also paying rent to a landlord that does not do anything for us in terms of assisting with any of that infrastructure. It's kind of double-dipping, because as we raise the money to pay for that infrastructure, we're paying rent on that money we're raising.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

But shouldn't there at least be a minimum amount because you are renting a facility?