Finance Committee on Oct. 29th, 2009

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

So would you use your pipeline facilities to transport that?

[David Teichroeb]

We would transport it and in our case it would not be for any type of enhanced oil recovery, to the best of my knowledge.

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

Thank you.

This question is to the cancer folks. Your catastrophic drug plan has been supported by the Liberal Party for quite a number of years, and I think it was in part of our last platform. What struck me as interesting is that there are apparently 19 plans in Canada and you essentially want some coordination among those plans so that there's a universality of access across the country so that everybody is covered.

What little you read about these kinds of things in the newspaper is that it has to do with somebody who's not covered. If you have 19 plans, and you're trying to coordinate them all, how would you end up doing anything other than not going with whichever of those 19 plans is the richest plan?

[Daniel Demers]

We certainly recommend that we go up to the highest standard rather than down to the lowest. Right now, all things considered, it would probably be the standard in British Columbia. We're recommending that no Canadian should have to spend more than 3% of their net income on drugs, which would make it equal to the standard in B.C.

I acknowledge that the Liberals had this in their platform, and every other major federal party also promised to do it, but nobody has yet. The provincial ministers of health recently asked the federal government to step forward, acknowledge that they have a role to play, and meet with them. So the first step is for the federal government to admit something must be done here to ensure universal access.

Today, if you need drugs and live in Prince Edward Island, they'll cost you roughly $6,500; in B.C. they're free. That's not universal health care.

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

Finally, to the episodic disability initiatives folks, you talked about the financial implications of increasing coordination among the eight disability support programs and five service areas. My vague recollection is that in the last budget $40 million was set aside for a disability centre in Whitby. Doesn't that address your concern?

[John Stapleton]

It doesn't address our concern, because we're really talking about the large programs in Canada. When brought together they spend about $28 billion in total. They're at the federal and provincial levels of government; some are even at the municipal level and in private industry. In many cases those programs serve different purposes and have totally different philosophies.

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

Does that budget allocation do anything for your concern?

[John Stapleton]

I don't believe it addresses it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Laforest, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon to all witnesses.

My first question is for Ms. Collins of the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees.

I listened carefully to your presentation and I must say that your submission presents an alarming view of the safety of air transportation in Canada and Quebec. I would go so far as to say that you did not pull any punches. You stated that transportation organizations have a lack of resources and staffing difficulties that directly affect the safety of travellers. You spoke of a serious shortage of aviation inspectors. You said that Transport Canada is at the same time cutting its budgets for inspections and security. You stated that you believe the safety of the travelling public is increasingly at risk.

We just completed pre-budget consultations across Canada and we often travelled by plane. I, at least, am happy to have finished the process of flying to other places.

However, I realize that, at the same time, you are making demands, which is appropriate for a union representative. If I were listening to you without doubting what you were saying, I would possibly be inclined to refer the matter to the Auditor General of Canada, Ms. Fraser, so that she would investigate the increased risk to the safety of travellers.

Are your comments and your submission as alarmist as I perceive them to be?

[Christine Collins]

There is certainly risk to the travelling public. I also believe the Auditor General identified weaknesses within civil aviation, Transport Canada, in her last report.

[Michael Teeter, Advisor, Union of Canadian Transportation Employees]

The Auditor General is scheduled to review civil aviation next year, I believe. Anything you can do to suggest a more fulsome review would be appreciated.

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

Thank you. I must say, you sound quite alarmist. I am trying to take a balanced approach. I realize you have to defend the position of your members and possibly see about an increase. I am not questioning the quality or professionalism of your association.

Mr. Demers, you speak of problems related to the fact that many people or their families do not have the means to pay for the necessary drugs because increasingly, cancer is being treated at home. Do you have any concrete examples?

[Daniel Demers]

I would be happy to send you a copy of a report we recently did on the disparity between Canadians in their access to drugs. It clearly shows that your ability to get the drugs you need is increasingly dependent upon how much money you have and the province in which you live.

We've done a comparison based on the drugs, the provinces, and the costs. It clearly shows that not all Canadians are being treated equally.

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

There is something you have not talked about. What about people who are diagnosed with cancer, who receive treatment and have to take leave from their job. I think they get only 15 weeks of employment insurance benefits.

I, personally, have seen many people with cancer who get treatment and quite often lose their job afterward. In fact, the 15 weeks do not cover them long enough. Some might return to work too soon after going through a rather difficult time under chemotherapy or radiation treatment.

You have not made any requests in that regard. Is there a reason for that, or have you indeed made such requests?

[Daniel Demers]

We've looked at the issue of the patient, but also the family that supports the patient. In both cases the system does not allow for long-term financial support when you're suffering from a chronic disease. People with cancer are living much longer. It's episodic.

You're right that we have to look at the employment insurance programs, but we also need to look at the support programs for families that need to take time off—it might be three weeks now or three or four weeks two months from now—to support a parent or child. We agree with you in both cases. We need to look at financial support for all patients who are living with long-term chronic diseases--cancer or other diseases.

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

Thank you.

I have a question for Ms. Harvey or Mr. Lajeunesse. You are asking for an increase or a new program to the tune of $400 million. Are there any projects that might not get off the ground if that $400 million were not granted?

[Claude Lajeunesse]

You are right, we are asking that the SADI funding be increased to $400 million. Nonetheless, as I was saying, Minister Clement has already announced an additional $200 million—or part of the $400 million. This should address our immediate needs.

However, we will continue to stress the fact that $400 million is needed to ensure that Canadian companies have the necessary technology to be competitive on the global market in the coming years.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Laforest.

Ms. Block, you have seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all of our presenters here today. I certainly enjoyed reading your submissions.

My first questions are for the Canadian Electricity Association. I have to admit I'm very thankful that we did a site tour in Weyburn to see their facility for carbon capture and storage. It certainly helped me put into perspective some of the things that were referenced in both your submission and Enbridge's. It was a very good tour to take.

In your submission you mentioned a previous pre-budget submission on capital cost allowance rates for smart-grid initiatives. We certainly hear a lot about smart grid these days. I'm wondering if you could further explain the issue as it relates to your industry and the role of the federal government.

[Francis Bradley]

Yes, and thank you very much for the question.

The smart grid is on the minds of a lot of people and is certainly attracting a great deal of attention in the media. It has attracted the attention of the Obama administration in the United States. Smart grid is all about how we're going to accommodate new technologies on both sides. On the supply side it involves new types of distributed generation and how we're going to be able to accommodate the sorts of technologies that my colleague from Enbridge was talking about today into the grid. That's on the supply side, but it is also about how we're going to accommodate new types of demand, because the demand will change. We are on the cusp of some pretty significant changes in terms of energy use and electricity use around the world. We're on the verge of plug-in hybrids. We're going to see a lot more electricity in transportation as we move to a more carbon-constrained world, and we need to allow for greater customer control over costs. That clearly is where we need to get to.

There's going to be a requirement for some pretty significant investments. What we were looking for, and it continues to be one of the questions we have, is the capital cost allowance treatment. The sorts of technologies that we're talking about are not treated any differently from the old technologies. A new smart meter is effectively a piece of IT. It's not a mechanical meter. It's not a piece of equipment, and much of this equipment is not equipment that will last for generations, like much of the transmission and distribution system that exists today. We're talking about technology that really is IT, so we were looking for a very specific treatment. If the committee is interested, we can provide details in terms of what our recommendations were.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

If you could you send that information through the clerk's office, it will be distributed to committee members.

[Francis Bradley]

Absolutely.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Go ahead, Mrs. Block.