Evidence of meeting #59 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cement.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:50 p.m.
Conservative
1:55 p.m.
Bloc
Josée Beaudin Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you honourable guests for accepting this committee's invitation to be here.
I am pleased to be here today because I do not usually work on this committee. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.
I have two short questions for you, Mr. Demers, to clarify certain points.
You spoke of compassionate leave benefits. You would like to see some improvement to those benefits. Could you elaborate on the type of improvements you would like to see?
I would also like to ask you, Mr. Stapleton, to elaborate on the concept you spoke of, namely to move away from the income support programs already in place to go to a unitary system. I would like to hear more of your thoughts on that.
We will start with you Mr. Demers, followed by Mr. Stapleton.
1:55 p.m.
Director, National Public Issues Office, Canadian Cancer Society
I think the place to start with the compassionate leave benefit is to understand that if we don't support people to be home to provide care, those people will be in the hospital system and that will increase costs. So it makes sense to allow people to support loved ones at home.
In 2004, the compassionate benefit program was--
1:55 p.m.
Bloc
Josée Beaudin Bloc Saint-Lambert, QC
Sorry, that was so short.
Have you thought about the improvements you would like to see to those benefits?
1:55 p.m.
Director, National Public Issues Office, Canadian Cancer Society
Yes, and I would start with the existing program, which had $190 million set aside. In no year has more than 5% of that money been spent. Over the last five years, $600 million should have been provided caregivers and only $26 million went out the door. So the first thing is to work with the program, spend the money that's there, and get it to the people who need it.
If we look at other longer-term improvements, more flexibility. There should be an allowance that allows people to take the time off in chunks of time versus one continuous period.
Also, it is, quite frankly, unconscionable that if you have a dying child you have to sign a document that says you acknowledge your child will die within the year. No parent who wants time off to provide care for that child wants to give up hope.
Improvements to the system are possible, but the first thing is that the money is there, and why isn't it being spent and why isn't it being provided to caregivers?
1:55 p.m.
Principal, Open Policy, Canadian Working Group on HIV and Rehabilitation
What I was trying to talk about was more the structure of the programs themselves. Many disability programs are “all or nothing” propositions. In other words, you get that program, you get the benefits from it—CPP disability is much like that—but if you go back to full-time work then you receive absolutely nothing from the program. What we're saying is there's an opportunity for people with episodic disabilities to be able to have a sharing arrangement whereby the program would provide some of its income, maybe a half of it, and someone can get the other half from employment. But when you have disability programs based on that “all or nothing” proposition then they don't work for people who otherwise could be in the labour force.
The second point is the working income tax benefit that was brought in a couple of years ago, in 2007. In the budget of 2008, there was a specific proposal for a working income tax benefit for persons with disabilities, but when we saw the program rolled out in 2009, there was no mention of what some of us call the “WITB-D”, and that was an opportunity that perhaps was missed.
1:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Very well. Thank you very much.
I am going to take the next round. We will go a little bit over, and I apologize for that, but we did start a little bit late. I just wanted to get in a five-minute round. I have a series of questions and I don't know how many I'll get to.
I want to start with the Canadian Cancer Society. As the son of a father who's a 32-year survivor, I certainly thank you for all the good work you do.
I wanted to ask you about your third recommendation, about contraband tobacco. I read through your rationale and absolutely agree with it. I don't think there's a person in this room or in this Parliament who would not agree with this, but it's a challenge. It's a challenge because—and I want to say this properly—I think no government would want to increase tension, especially along the border or with first nations communities, so there's a lot of political sensitivity surrounding this issue. You do reference the U.S. side of the Akwesasne reserve. Do you have any specific advice or has the Canadian Cancer Society itself been in a dialogue with first nations communities to try to address this problem?
2 p.m.
Director, National Public Issues Office, Canadian Cancer Society
I agree with you. All parliamentarians are of the same view that this has to be stopped, and I just want to thank you very much for passing Bill C-32 unanimously by the House. It is a great piece of legislation.
We have been talking to aboriginal groups. We have been talking to our colleagues in the United States. Quite frankly, it takes political will, but it also takes solutions that don't require going on reserve for enforcement. We've provided in our brief some recommendations on how to go about doing that. The first step is in fact to meet with the Americans and encourage them to take the responsibility of border security from their side more seriously and implement some tax measures, and also to look at the supply of tobacco and related inputs into the creation of cigarettes.
We have provided recommendations that don't require going to reserves, and we'd also encourage the government to work with the Americans and encourage them to live up to their responsibilities on border security because most of these cigarettes are coming in from the States.
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I certainly appreciate that. I know the minister has been working on it, but we will, as parliamentarians, follow up as well. There are members on this committee who are members of the Canada-U.S committee. We can certainly raise that as well.
My second issue I want to raise is with Enbridge and the Canadian Electricity Association. First of all, thank you for the work you're doing, certainly with respect to renewable and with the utilization of heat and waste energy. I think that's absolutely excellent.
I'm going to poise a challenge, because you're both asking for credit or tax changes of some kind, the investment tax credit with Enbridge and with the carbon capture and storage technology in terms of accelerated capital cost allowance rates. When I'm in Alberta, my friends back home ask me why we are so hard on the energy sector in terms of regulations with respect to our greenhouse gas emissions. When we're here in Ottawa—and you can watch this in question period in about 15 minutes—frankly, as a government, we get heavily criticized for not doing enough. So the political challenge here is having three political parties saying that we should not give subsidies or credits or these things to companies and we ought to use regulations to force these companies to do this on their own. I want you to sort of answer that political question for me, because that's the question certainly that we get as a government each and every day.
Perhaps we'll start with Enbridge and then go to the Canadian Electricity Association.
2 p.m.
Manager, Alternative and Emerging Technologies, Fuel Cells, Enbridge Inc.
I thank you for the question. It certainly is a challenge, and I think as Enbridge, with assets in various parts of North America, we are challenged to find ways to make those investments and drive innovation. You look at Saskatchewan today, and they are using waste heat off gas compressor pipelines to make electricity. When we look south of the border, there are opportunities in various states where there isn't just federal support, there's state-level support layered onto it.
My own view, having constructed that pilot plant I spoke of, is that when you look at what's happening in peer areas, you're not just driving energy issues, such as greenhouse gases and clean air, you are driving innovation. Wherever this technology is used, people learn to make that mousetrap better. Those innovations, the next generation, will happen where it is being used. It's both stimulating industry for innovation and also addressing the environmental issues.
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I appreciate that. My time is running out.
Just to follow up then, is this a temporary tax credit? Do you see it as time limited in terms of one, two, or three years so that it is viable economically over time?
2 p.m.
Manager, Alternative and Emerging Technologies, Fuel Cells, Enbridge Inc.
I would see it as time limited. I would say that it takes time for industry to embrace this, so probably even in a five-year window you wouldn't see yourself drawn into a huge amount of stimulus. It would get the industry started. It would grow, and you could look to other technologies then to continue that sort of tax stimulus.
2 p.m.
Conservative
2 p.m.
Vice-President, Canadian Electricity Association
Yes, absolutely. For the question as to whether or not it should be financial instruments or commanded patrol, my answer would be that it eventually will be both.
What we're talking about here is anticipating that at some point in time there will be indeed regulations, there will be a carbon-constrained future that we will all be operating in. This is an anticipatory move that we are attempting to make. We want to be able to develop, before we get to that point, the ability to in fact move to a more carbon-neutral approach, particularly in the regions where they don't have other options.
2 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I'd like to continue that discussion, but I am out of time and our committee, unfortunately, has ended.
Thank you all for being with us here this afternoon. Thank you very much for your presentations, your submissions, your responses to our questions.
The meeting is adjourned.