Finance Committee on Oct. 29th, 2009

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

Give me an example of a risk management program.

[William Van Tassel]

Quebec has the agricultural revenue stabilization program known as ASRA. The federal government has the AgriStability program.

[Leo Guilbeault]

AgriFlex does not provide funds to sectors in need in a given period. We are not asking the federal government to spend more money but to spend it in those sectors that need it at present. You spend about $1.53 billion per year. We are asking for this $1.53 billion to be distributed to sectors in need in the year they need it.

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

Therefore this program is misnamed.

[Leo Guilbeault]

Exactly.

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

All right, thank you.

I would like to ask Mr. McKee of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation a question. We know that health is a provincial jurisdiction. Have you also approached the provincial governments?

[Andrew McKee]

In the case of JDRF, we don't actually receive any government money for funding research in Canada. We're a private foundation and we co-fund with other partners. The individual researchers in many cases will ask for provincial funding, but at present there's no adequate provincial funding to support all the type 1 diabetes research going on in Canada today.

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

Thank you.

That is all, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll go to Mr. Kramp, please.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to all of you today. I'll try to get through as many as I can.

I might first say to our people here on behalf of the private funeral owners, quite frankly, I couldn't agree with you more. Government regulation should not create a competitive imbalance. It shouldn't happen. And if they're there for particular reasons, obviously I think we have to try to find some solutions around that. I thank you for your concerns.

I'll just try to go around as much as I can.

Mr. Mains, I think your request from 30% to 40% on the accelerated cost is a move forward and I think it's reasonable. If it were to go to 100%, yes, we would run into perhaps an inflationary situation with the equipment. We thank you for that. That's a suggestion, obviously, that the committee can take under advisement.

I will slip over now to Ms. Craig. I took a look at your recommendations here, and it's pretty significant from a cost point of view--enhancing the national child benefit, the basic income program, restoring the Canada social transfer. Maybe I'll just make a brief comment on it and then ask you for a costing thought.

Actually, with regard to the national child care supplement in budget 2008-09 we actually contributed $5.6 billion, which is three times more than any previous government had ever committed to child care. As well, we increased the budget for the child tax benefit by $436 for a low-income family. We added the disability tax credit. We brought in the disability savings plan. They were all helpful.

I know it's never enough, because we obviously have a situation where there are always communities and families in need, but at some particular point we do have to find a balance on that.

What you're suggesting now is significantly costly. Do you have any particular costing assessments? When you say families should be raised by another $5,200, what would that cost?

[Ruth-Anne Craig]

Although I don't have the cost for that, we do know that is the amount required to meet a poverty reduction standard. It's still about $2,000 below. And as I did say in my presentation, I do believe we have come a long way in reducing child poverty, but we still have a long way to go.

I apologize for not having that figure.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I don't expect you to pull numbers out of the air on this, but perhaps in a further contribution to this committee your group could provide us with some figures so we can try to factor in.... When we get through budget deliberations, there will probably have been more asked of us than there is federal budget composition right now, so we have to find some areas of consideration. Therefore, if you have some numbers you can provide to this committee, we would willingly accept them, and I thank you for that.

[Ruth-Anne Craig]

We'd be happy to do that. Thank you.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Thanks very kindly.

I noticed in one area you almost suggested--if I could stay with you for a second--that we infringe on provincial jurisdiction. You note that “provincial and territorial programs, largely funded through the Canada social transfer, are fraught with inconsistencies and counter-productive”.

There are a number of inadequacies in the provincial delivery of this, but where do we go? Do we simply advise the provinces, hopefully, to do their job? The last thing we can do, as the federal government.... Transferring the funds is one thing, but we can't dedicate results. So are you suggesting that we get directly involved with the provincial administration?

[Ruth-Anne Craig]

To a certain extent, yes, because there should be some accountability for those moneys. But we're still asking that the federal government work collaboratively with the provinces on that, and to look at some of the provinces that have really had some great poverty reduction strategies--for example, Quebec, or Newfoundland and Labrador, and now Ontario.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Okay, fine. Thank you very kindly.

Mr. Simonds, with regard to section D of your presentation, you're looking for ongoing funding. I come from a rural area where there are a significant number of volunteer firefighters. From the point of view of the allowance for tax purposes, that certainly is a welcome measure, I know locally, but that has also been acknowledged by all parties. As you suggested, potentially the vehicle might be through the next federal budget. Once again, that would be a provocative thing that we'll bring forward, so if you have a costing for that and your guesstimate, that would be appreciated as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'm sorry, you're out of time, Mr. Kramp. I apologize for that.

Do you want to respond briefly, Mr. Simonds?

[Robert Simonds]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Specifically, are you asking in terms of what would the cost be with respect to the tax relief for--

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

It's a lot of money to get something off the ground, but does it need an ongoing cost once you establish an emergency preparedness, to then maintain it? It should be cheaper to maintain. You're asking for a continuous allotment all the way through.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Sorry, we're way over time. Mr. Simonds, can you briefly address that?

We're getting into our next panel time now, Mr. Kramp.

Mr. Simonds, please.

[Robert Simonds]

Certainly. If I understand the question in terms of what is the long-term need and does it need to be modified incrementally, we would offer that right now, probably because of the number of projects that have not been able to take root, it would be a significant undertaking by government if it were to increase the funding levels to what we're asking for today.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank all of you for being with us this morning, for your submissions and your responses to our questions.

Colleagues, we will suspend for two minutes and bring the next panel forward.

Thank you all for being with us; we appreciate your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We will start our second panel and continue this session on our pre-budget consultations.

We have another eight organizations with us here this afternoon. I'll read them in order of presentation. They are the Canadian Working Group on HIV and Rehabilitation, the Canadian Bar Association, the Union of Canadian Transportation Employees, the Canadian Cancer Society, Enbridge Inc., the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, the Canadian Electricity Association, and REAL Women of Canada.

Thank you all for being with us here this afternoon. Each of you has five minutes maximum for an opening statement. We'll begin with the Canadian Working Group on HIV and Rehabilitation, please.

[Martine Mangion, Manager, Episodic Disability Initiatives, Canadian Working Group on HIV and Rehabilitation]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members. Thank you very much for inviting the Canadian Working Group on HIV and Rehabilitation to present today. We are pleased to provide input on how Canada's disability income support programs could be improved and better coordinated to create incentives and reduce barriers for increased labour force participation for people living with episodic disabilities.

Everybody knows someone living with an episodic disability. They include conditions such as mental health, arthritis, HIV/AIDS, MS, and some forms of cancer.

There are an increasing number of Canadians living with episodic disabilities. Features that distinguish episodic disabilities from traditional disabilities are their unpredictability and alternating episodes of illness and wellness, both of which can have a negative impact on employment participation and income security. The experience of many people living with disabilities is that while some disability income support programs are essential, many trap them in poverty by creating barriers to staying on the job or returning to work. For people living with episodic disabilities who have periods when their health permits them to work, this is especially true.

For Canadians with episodic disabilities, more flexible disability income support programs would facilitate labour force participation consistent with their capabilities. Both the financial and social implications of partial disability benefits, combined with partial earned income from the workplace, would be a win-win for Canadians with episodic disabilities as well as for disability income support programs as a whole.

Let me give you an example. Jane is a 42-year-old woman who has been working for over 15 years. She has recently been diagnosed with arthritis, which is causing her excruciating pain. Jane begins to get episodes and flare-ups of arthritis; these are unpredictable and last a few days. Sometimes Jane can work for a few months or more without an episode; however, Jane only gets five sick days from her employer. One arthritis episode can use up all her sick days. In light of this, she is forced to disengage from the workforce and go on disability income support, as she needs more sick days than her employer can afford to provide.

Now Jane is out of the workforce on disability income support and not paying employment-related taxes. She does not have as much money to contribute to the Canadian economy and may lose access to her employer's extended health benefits. However, if Jane were able to use employment insurance sickness benefits in a more flexible way and over a longer period of time, instead of the current 15 consecutive weeks or 75 full days, she would be able to stay attached to the workforce, have access to her employer's extended health benefits, and continue to pay income tax and EI premiums.

This is not about more; it's about different. These modest changes to employment insurance sickness benefits would help many people to be employed, as well as result in a more efficient and effective program and better use of resources.

Our first recommendation is to make employment insurance sickness benefits more flexible. Change the EI sickness program to allow people to work part time or intermittently and receive partial sickness benefits for up to 150 half-days as needed, instead of the current 15 consecutive weeks or 75 full days. This would enable people who are or could be employed to remain attached to the workforce by working part time when their health permits, while receiving part-time benefits.

I'm now going to turn it over to John Stapleton.

[John Stapleton, Principal, Open Policy, Canadian Working Group on HIV and Rehabilitation]

Thank you.

There's a real lack of coordination in governments among disability income support programs. Government, private, and quasi-government bodies spent an estimated $28 billion—please make note of this figure—in 2008 and 2009 in direct income support benefits to individuals with disabilities, without any comprehensive oversight respecting what the programs do as a whole or purport to achieve for Canadians with disabilities. Yet disability income programs are critical supports for people living with disabilities. Most of these programs do not recognize the episodic nature of many disabilities, and when they do, there are varying definitions, policies, and practices because these programs are designed for different purposes and by different jurisdictions.

I'd just like to go to our recommendations. We recommend that the federal government work with the provinces, territories, and the private sector to increase coordination and integration among the eight disability support program areas—Canada Pension, EI, veterans' benefits, disability tax credits, provincial programs, workers' compensation, employers' long-term income protection, and the RDSP, registered disability savings plan, the new program—and the five areas of support, which include disability supports, caregiver supports, employment and training, social services, and medical services.

Our next recommendation is that the federal government work with the provinces, territories, and private sector to develop a program or combination of programs that provide partial disability income support to complement earned income from part-time work.

Where do we go from here? A crucial next step would include convening a national multiple stakeholder policy dialogue, hosted by the Government of Canada to identify and develop a comprehensive response to barriers that inhibit the full integration of people living with episodic disabilities in Canada. It would result in financial and social advantages both for Canadians living with episodic disabilities as well as for Canadian society as a whole.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.