Finance Committee on Oct. 28th, 2009

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

You're way more hopeful that am I.

To the medical alliance folks, you're recommending a strategically targeted, time-limited national health human resources fund. That seems to me to mean more doctors. It strikes me that the doctors are the choke point in the system, and they're not prepared to give up jurisdiction and services. That effectively means that we throw more money at a problem rather than solve a problem. I'd be interested in your observations.

[Pamela Fralick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Healthcare Association, Health Action Lobby (HEAL)]

Thank you very much.

First of all, certainly I can clarify that this particular fund is not intended to be directed towards physicians. Coming from the Health Action Lobby, representing 38 national health provider associations for the most part, that would not be tolerated, and very much this particular group operates from an interprofessional, collaborative model and would support that all health professions need to be addressed through this fund.

I will get to your specific question. I know you raised the issue last time I was in front of this committee.

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

I know, it's staring to blur.

[Pamela Fralick]

This is my third time, so I figure third time lucky.

I'll repeat one thing that I did say last week. I have a great deal of confidence in the leadership of the physician organizations in this country, whether it's family physicians, the Canadian Medical Association, etc. The leadership is there, but you're talking about a very large systemic culture change. It does take time. So there are a lot of levers that are changing things, but I will acknowledge it takes time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Mr. Laforest, the floor is yours.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon to all the witnesses.

My first question is for Mr. Howlett. I would also like to make a comment. I find your approach very interesting and significant However, I view it in the overall framework of the prebudget consultations we have been holding since September. Many groups have appeared and asked for more money for various organizations dedicated to reducing poverty in cities and communities, whether it's for children, senior citizens, Aboriginal persons or the homeless.

You say that considering the gross domestic product and the wealth that exists in Canada and Quebec, we should be doing more to reduce global poverty. That is perfectly commendable. That aid should be based on the wealth that exists right here. I also have to consider the opinions of all the groups that come here to see us and say that wealth is not well distributed in Canada. Some people are richer and keep getting richer. The middle class is fairly well off, but the poorest groups seeking better Employment Insurance conditions tell us they are getting poorer. I'm not saying I'm opposed to international development and aid, not at all. These people are telling us that their impression is that the money spent on international aid and developing countries is money that they won't get and that could enable them to meet their very important needs. I sometimes find myself without an answer for them. Do you have any answers?

[Dennis Howlett]

Make Poverty History is campaigning for both an end to poverty globally and an end to poverty in Canada.

I appeared before the parliamentary committee on social development and human resources, supporting the call for a poverty reduction plan for Canada and for the federal government to play its role in support of provincial poverty reduction plans. Now a number of provinces are doing that.

We cannot play off the poor in Canada against the poor overseas. They are both important priorities, and if you compare the need to address the needs of people who are going hungry overseas, who are dying, as well as those who are living in desperate situations of poverty in Canada, and look at some of the other requests that are coming, I would ask you to search your heart and say, is not the survival of children, who could live if but for a small intervention such as the provision of midwives at birth, a priority above some of the others?

I would argue that, for poverty reduction in Canada and overseas, we need to do both. We can't be credible with our assistance overseas if we are not addressing our own problems, but we have to recognize that the desperation of poverty is often much, much worse overseas than it is here.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Doherty-Delorme, you mentioned a phenomenon whereby the government is doing more and more business with the private sector and contracting out more work. When work is contracted out, some contracts are awarded to former public servants and people who are now retired. I know that some people plan their retirement with that in mind, because they know they'll get contracts.

Is this a major phenomenon? Is it under control or out of control? Is it a good thing?

[Denise Doherty-Delorme]

First, the practice of contracting out is out of control. Second, the federal government assumes that everything the private sector does is better, regardless of cost, quality and the time it takes. There is expertise within the government. It's like they're trying to push professionals out the door and get them to start up their own private company by telling them they'll then hire them and they'll be able to do virtually anything they want with no control and with nothing out in the open. It's very troublesome to see contractors not being hired on the basis of merit and requirements related to bilingualism and equity between women, men and other groups not being considered.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

By doing business with the private sector and awarding contracts to subcontractors, the government avoids obligations—for example, obligations related to bilingualism— that it would have to meet if it were hiring people for the Public Service.

[Denise Doherty-Delorme]

Exactly.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you very much, that answers my question.

I have no other questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Monsieur Roy.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Ms. Pierre, I served for five years as a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. You said that you've been waiting a long time for the review of the study of west coast fisheries to be completed. When do you expect it?

[Sophie Pierre]

Before we came here to Ottawa we had no idea. It seemed as if it was never going to be produced, because we kept getting put off. We've been told that the fisheries review is going to be complete within weeks. But more importantly, we've been told that some of the treaty discussions that were dependent on that fisheries review being done will no longer be held up. So that's even more important.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

We'll go now to Mr. Menzies, please.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to apologize to our witnesses for making them wait while we went to vote. That's the unfortunate thing about this government. We have to vote at a specific time, witnesses or no witnesses.

I don't have time to ask questions of everyone. I'm going to share my time with Mr. Wallace.

Ms. Pierre, I agree we've been waiting far too long for these settlements to be made. I think you would agree that more has happened in the last few years than in the 10 or 15 years before that. So we're totally supportive of seeing these things happen, and we support you on that. We agree this is absolutely the right place to bring that forward.

[Sophie Pierre]

Thank you. I'm happy to hear that.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I would like to address some quick comments and questions to Dennis Howlett. It's unfortunate that Mr. McKay has gone. His better aid bill is headed in the right direction. We supported that because our government does believe in delivering aid better. There are all sorts of books out there that talk about the way we've done it wrong for so many years. So I was glad to hear some of your comments that it can be done better.

Our budget bill this year is to improve debt cancellation for those countries that owed money back to Canada. So we are moving forward on that. When we talk about the 0.7%, it's a bit of a challenge because most people look at that as a solid number but not everybody counts it the same way. A lot of countries claim things as ODA-able that we don't.

The other issue is that much of our development assistance we cannot count as ODA-able. So we do an awful lot more than is qualified in the 0.32% or wherever we're at now. I would remind everybody that at the end of the Mulroney era we were at 0.5%, and we know what happened in the meantime. So we're working to bring that back up. We've doubled aid to Africa. We've untied food aid, which I think is a very positive step in the right direction.

The other thing I would like you to comment on is this. I have been at some OECD meetings where Canada has been recognized as one of the best countries at actually delivering the dollars that it commits in emergency situations. Could you share your thoughts on that? I know there are a lot of countries that make a grandstand announcement of how many millions of dollars they're going to commit, and then you don't see them again. I'm sure you've heard that.

[Dennis Howlett]

The untying of food aid was a very significant move because it allowed for purchasing food and other resources closer to where an emergency might have taken place. So in actual quantity terms, it results in much more assistance being able to be delivered much more quickly, and often supporting local farmers and local economies. So it is a very significant move.

It's true what Mr. McKay said earlier, that we can't expect Canadian aid effectiveness to improve overnight, but I do think it's beginning to move in the right direction and we need to keep pushing for that.

A really important point here is that Mr. McKay's bill does require that Canadian aid be oriented towards poverty reduction. We do have concerns about shifting aid away from some key African countries to others in Latin America that are not as clearly in need of assistance. We think that may be because there are more economic opportunities there for Canadian business. So we would question that aspect, while recognizing that things like untying food aid are a positive initiative. We would say we can't turn our back on Africa now that we have kept our promise about doubling aid to Africa. We need to continue to be there. That's where the need is greatest. So we need to make sure the aid is going to poverty reduction and not to other foreign policy goals.

So I agree with you on some things, but I would urge you to consider rethinking that aspect of your government's policy.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Then that begs the question of how hungry is hungry? If people are starving, they are starving; it doesn't matter what country they are in. We continue to focus on many African countries. I've been in African countries where the money has been dribbled out over the years. I refer to it as aid that is a mile wide and an inch thick, and it doesn't do anybody any good. If you focus your aid, you can maybe fix the problem.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Wallace.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have about four and a half minutes.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll see if I use up all four and a half.

I have a couple of questions. I'm sorry I won't get to everybody, but I'll do my best.

My first question is for Communitech. We hear a lot about IRAP. In a nutshell, why is it successful? Why does IRAP work? We've given some more money to IRAP through FedDev, the new southern Ontario development agency and so on. I hear a lot when I go to small businesses in my town--Sound Design Technologies and a whole bunch of high-tech groups in Burlington. But what is it that makes it work?

[Iain Klugman]

I think, very simply, it's that it's administered on the ground in the communities. The people who work at IRAP are on the ground, across the country, and they invest the time building relationships and understanding the needs of the business and making those small-dollar investments with the small companies at critical stages. They focus on research projects, product commercialization—the critical piece that is going to allow that company to go to market or to increase its success in the market.