Finance Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order, the 60th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance.

Our committee is continuing our pre-budget consultations. We have two panels from 3:30 to 6:30, panels of an hour and a half each. We have eight organizations in this panel. I'll read them in order of presentation. We have the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Philanthropic Foundations Canada, the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, the Canadian Caregiver Coalition, the Canadian Federation of Students (Newfoundland and Labrador), Barrett Xplore, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, and Action Canada for Population and Development. So we have a lot of organizations in quite a short time period.

I will ask each of you to have an opening statement for a maximum of five minutes. We'll go down the line and then we'll go to questions from members.

We'll start with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

[David Collyer, President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Thank you for inviting us to appear and to share our proposals with respect to the next budget as it pertains to the oil and gas sector.

I'm David Collyer. I am president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, or CAPP.

Appearing with me today is Don Herring, president of the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors, or CAODC. Don.

[Don Herring, President, Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers]

For my part, what I would like to do is explain just a little bit about the CAODC.

The Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors is a voice for Canada's drilling and service rig industry and one of the country's oldest petroleum associations. We represent 100% of the drilling contractors, 48 companies running 863 drilling rigs. We have four drilling contractors operating in Atlantic Canada and another 73 service rig contractors that run about 1,200 rigs across western Canada.

When investors put us to work we employ 25 technicians and about 50 other skilled service workers for each rig that is running. Right now, 75% of our equipment is idle, and another 65% of the service rigs are parked. That means on our equipment alone, more than 11,000 more people are without work this year compared to the same time last year. And some 23,000 people are at home if we compare it with just three years ago.

[David Collyer]

In our written submission to the committee this year we made three recommendations, and I'll speak to each of those in turn.

The first recommendation was that the federal government help stimulate job creation in the oil and gas sector by implementing immediate tax deductibility for oil and gas development expenditures, and that would be for a time-limited period.

Second: that the scheduled phase-out of the accelerated capital cost allowance for oil sands be deferred.

Third: that the federal government address ongoing issues of eligibility for the scientific research and experimental development, or SR&ED, tax credit.

The first two of those proposals are meant to address the current and near-term economic environment, while the third will have a medium- to longer-term effect on the sustainability of our industry.

I'd like to spend a moment discussing each of those proposals.

First, on the jobs recovery proposal, we all know that our economy has been through some tough times lately, including the oil and gas sector. While the Bank of Canada and others have had some promising news of late with respect to economic recovery, there is, I think, still some uncertainty about the timing and strength of that recovery. The conventional oil and gas sector, particularly the natural gas business, is undergoing significant structural change that is compounding the effects of the economic downturn.

Development of large supplies of shale gas in the United States, in particular at very competitive costs, is a new source of supply that was not part of the picture even a couple of years ago, and is changing the competitive environment in which we operate. We're confident the Canadian producers will adapt, but it will take time to do so. This means that the 25,000 jobs we've seen lost in the sector will not bounce back so quickly and may continue to be part of a much talked about jobless recovery.

CAPP and its sister associations in the oil and gas industy, like the CAODC, are proposing that the federal government encourage development and job creation by allowing immediate tax deduction of oil and gas development expenses. This is similar to a mechanism that has already been put in place for machinery and equipment purchases for manufacturers and processors. This is a deferral, rather than a reduction of taxes, and requires no direct cash outlay by any level of government.

The proposal is for a limited 30-month period, ideally starting this fall or winter, and it is in sync with how long we estimate it will take for industry to respond to both the recession and some fundamental structural changes that are occurring. There is obviously the option to shorten that period, if it were necessary to do so and should the economic outlook improve sooner. There's a significant amount of detail in our submission with respect to that proposal.

Let me talk very quickly about the other two items we included in our proposal. The first is a deferral of the phase-out of ACCA, our accelerated capital cost allowance for the oil sands business. In a manner similar to what we're seeing in the conventional part of the business, we believe that deferral--not elimination, but deferral--of the phase-out of ACCA would have the effect of stimulating near-term investment in oil sands and creating jobs as well.

Finally, with respect to the eligibility for scientific research and experimental development tax credit, we believe very strongly that technology is a critical lever for reducing costs, increasing supply, and improving environmental performance of our industry. We've had a longstanding discussion around eligibility for the tax credit, and we think one of the means by which to fundamentally encourage investment and technology and stimulate that investment in the near term would be to broaden the eligibility for the tax credit, thereby encouraging companies to invest incremental dollars in technology.

I'll leave it at that in terms of my opening remarks. That's a very brief overview of our submission, and we're happy to take any questions later in the program.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Collyer.

We'll now hear from Ms. Pearson please.

[Hilary Pearson, President , Philanthropic Foundations Canada]

Mr. Chairman, honourable members, thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of my members.

I represent Canadian charitable foundations and grant-makers from across the country. Collectively my members manage more than $7.5 billion in charitable assets and disburse around $270 million annually into the community to support all types of charitable activity.

Canadian foundations of all kinds contribute up to $1 billion of charitable funding every year. Our focus and our purpose is to support the work of the close to 80,000 charities that contribute essential services to Canadian communities.

We have watched the negative impacts of the financial crisis and the recession over the past year with great concern. These negative consequences are worsening as charities exhaust their reserves and their traditional sources of funding become restricted, and as those who make grants, whether governments or private funders, unavoidably reduce their commitments and donors reduce or postpone their gifts. Charities are also facing reductions in earned income. Their budgets for 2010 will almost certainly be smaller, leading to cutbacks in services or layoffs in personnel. In other words, they are facing a perfect storm in finance. This situation points to the serious structural difficulties faced by charities in accessing capital.

Our first recommendation to you addresses the problem of the unmet need for investment capital by charities. Such capital is used as it would be by any small business to finance facilities, bridge-finance the acquisition of equipment, invest in soft capital, such as business plans, and otherwise finance organizational growth. Capital is not accessed easily by Canadian charities, particularly the smallest ones. We believe there is a gap in the market not adequately filled by commercial financial institutions, even credit unions.

While Canadian foundations can do more to provide loans and investments out of their own capital, they must work within the limitations of the federal Income Tax Act, which makes a strict distinction between charity and business. We need more creative, more innovative solutions to the urgent financing needs of charities, especially in light of the worsening outlook for traditional funding.

We recommend that the federal government undertake a comprehensive review of the regulatory structures and vehicles that could promote more access to finance by the community sector and more flexibility for charitable foundations. There are many models. For example, the community development financial institutions fund set up by the U.S. Treasury in 1994 is government action to encourage non-profit capital market development. It has been responsible for channelling more than $1 billion into community development organizations and financial institutions serving the community, and has leveraged more than $26 billion in private sector investments. And in the U.K. the government is moving ahead with all-party political support to create a social investment wholesale bank designed to enable third-sector organizations to access the finance they need to grow and become more sustainable. We have a similar opportunity for creative public policy in Canada, and we urge the committee to examine it seriously.

Our second and third recommendations support those made by other groups that have submitted briefs and have appeared before this committee. The first is the recommendation for the stretch tax credit for charitable donations, led by Imagine Canada. This measure would partly address the funding situation of charities that I referred to at the beginning of these comments.

We know that individual giving has decreased as a result of the recession. We also know that individual giving responds to tax incentives. Therefore, we support the recommendation made by Imagine Canada for a stretch tax credit for new charitable giving. We believe that increasing the federal tax credit from 29% to 39% on all new giving over $200 will encourage Canadians to give more and will benefit all charities.

We also endorse the recommendation made by Imagine Canada and the Canadian Bar Association for an urgent review of the so-called “80-20 rule”, or the disbursal quota for charities. We think this regime under the Income Tax Act imposes a complex administrative obligation, especially on smaller charities.

My members wish to underline that we are not asking for a change to the current requirement to disburse 3.5% of assets annually. We believe it is our responsibility and mission to use our charitable assets to support Canadian communities every way we can. But we believe the 80-20 rule is arbitrary and its application unclear, and we urge the committee to recommend a review of the quota regime to the minister as soon as possible.

Thank you for your attention.

Thank you. It will be a pleasure to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci, Madame Pearson.

We'll now go to the Association of Canadian Community Colleges.

[James Knight, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Canadian Community Colleges]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and honourable committee members.

I am joined by our vice-president of public affairs, Terry Anne Boyles, this afternoon.

First, I want to congratulate the committee on the extraordinary work it has undertaken across Canada over the past few weeks. You really have travelled a lot. You have met so many Canadians. I commend you for your energy and your commitment to this process.

We represent 155 institutions of higher education that stretch into every part of Canada. Remarkably, these institutions operate 1,000 campuses in communities across the country. Although we're called the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, in fact there are only three community colleges in Canada. Polytechnics, CÉGEPs, institutes of technology, and universities with a college mandate also comprise our membership.

We have limited our presentation and our brief to three issues only. The first is Canada's lagging productivity. Over the past 50 years, Canada has dropped from third position in the OECD to 17th position in terms of per capita output. Our response seems to have been very large investments in discovery and pure research, primarily in universities, the thinking being that this would somehow increase productivity. In fact, we're not winning at this game. We think that we have to talk more about applied research and the role of colleges in supporting that aspect.

In 2008-2009, no fewer than 3,481 companies, primarily SMEs, turned to colleges for help with applied research, product and process innovation, commercialization, and technology transfer. That is six times more than we reported in 2006. Rather than bury you with explanations, statistics, and details, we have provided a summary, a sampling, of many of these types of relationships, defining in very few words the nature of the technologies and the comments of our private sector partners. Please take a few minutes to read this. If you were ever doubtful about the college role in supporting the innovation economy, you will be persuaded by this short document.

We seek a modest 5% of federal investment in research to support this work. There is some very modest support currently, but it's less than one-half of 1% of the federal investment in research overall.

I'll talk about advanced skills as well as about the challenges of our institutions in this recessionary period. We had long wait lists of students before the recession hit, before hundreds of thousands of Canadians literally turned to colleges for upgrading and new careers. We thank you so much for the knowledge infrastructure program. It really made a difference. Colleges got about 30% of the $2 billion in federal dollars, cost shared with the provinces. It has made a difference, but we still face an enormous challenge.

We have a recommendation. I know that you will say that the cupboard is bare, and it is bare. But college graduates get employment, even in this economy. There's been no decrease in the take-up of college graduates for employment. If we can get more students through the system and out the other end, we'll contribute greatly to Canada's economy.

A remarkable phenomenon in this period is the enrollment of university graduates in colleges. The colleges' success in getting their graduates into employment is recognized by many university graduates, and increasingly large numbers go to colleges for the advanced skills employers need to keep the economy going.

Our final recommendation pertains to Indian and Inuit post-secondary education and the support programs for that. I'm not sure that there's not enough money here. But there are so many programs and so many confused and conflicting criteria and so much control of the spending seemingly in uncertain places that the outcomes just aren't being realized.

We're producing more high school graduates that could enter post-secondary education, but there are funding challenges, and we urge you to consider that.

Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. There are many details in our brief.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Knight.

We'll go now to the Canadian Caregiver Coalition, please.

[Marg McAlister, Policy Analyst, Canadian Caregiver Coalition]

Thank you.

We're pleased to be here to express the concerns and wishes of the million Canadian caregivers across the country. Actually, we estimate that to be five million individuals who are providing care for families every year. We also speak on behalf of employers and the number of associations that are trying to be responsive and supportive to Canadian caregivers.

Family caregiver tasks include wound dressings and injections delegated by health care professionals, personal care, support activities such as preparing meals, household management, managing medication or attending to finances, and a myriad of other activities that are necessary to keep care recipients at home. Clearly, family care-giving is a health care issue, but it's more than that. It's an issue of compassion and caring and respect, values that Canadians hold dear. In addition to supporting the care delivered in busy institutions and to being available so that people can be discharged quickly and stay at home longer, family caregivers are vital to our social network.

A family caregiver's effort, understanding, and compassion enables care recipients to live with dignity and to participate more fully in society. Every Canadian will be a caregiver at some point in their life. It's not a matter of “if”; it's a matter of “when”. We recognize this can be daunting and be concerning to those of you who are trying to set policy and provide support to these individuals, and it's for that reason that one of our recommendations in our briefing note is the establishment of a Canadian caregiver strategy. We don't see it as prescriptive to the provinces, territories, employers, and all aspects of society but rather declarative on the part of the federal government to indicate support and recognition and value for the contribution that family caregivers make. Family caregivers provide their care out of love. They want to be there. They want to be providing support, but they do need help when the caregiving responsibilities compromise their health and their financial situation.

There are good federal measures in place. The caregiver credit and the infirm credit are modest credits that help family caregivers, and we believe the time is now to start to begin enhancing those credits. An increase of $1,000 per year of each of those credits we estimate would cost about $20 million, if we just ratio up the current utilization. We also call for a panel of experts to really examine these recommendations in terms of the nature of the credits, the phase-out of the dependant's income so that the right recommendation can be made. And we can achieve that spot where Canadians can go to work and where they can continue to do what is typically Canadian, and that is, provide care for their loved ones.

We also believe it's time to introduce a refundable credit. There are many Canadians, about two-thirds of them with annual incomes of less than $40,000 per year, who are declining promotions and taking time away from work in an effort to provide care for their loved ones. They need some relief from some of those additional expenses that are incurred, be that extraordinary travel in order to visit someone in an institution and to provide that supportive care, or be that to acquire the additional medications and equipment and supplies in order to deliver care and keep people at home for as long as possible.

Finally, our aging population is actually a reflection of our success as a society. Our seniors are living longer and they're healthier, but with age come chronic conditions, and chronic conditions are accompanied by episodes of acute exacerbation and then periods of stability and independence, so it would be wrong to institutionalize these people prematurely. What families need is an opportunity to provide care intermittently when it's needed for those with chronic conditions. So we suggest that you use the compassionate care benefit and introduce some measures that would allow flexibility and allow that benefit to be used for conditions other than palliative care and allow the hours to be spread over the course of a year.

Thank you for inviting us to present to you in person. We appreciate your interest in the plight of caregivers in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll now go to the Canadian Federation of Students, please.

[Cameron Campbell, Campaign Coordinator, Canadian Federation of Students (Newfoundland and Labrador)]

Good afternoon. My name is Cameron Campbell and I'm the campaign coordinator for the Canadian Federation of Students, Newfoundland and Labrador. I'm joined by Keith Dunne, who is our provincial organizer for the federation.

The federation represents every public university and college student in Newfoundland and Labrador. On behalf of our members we would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to provide input today.

Our recommendations to this committee will focus on how the next federal budget can enhance access to post-secondary education and reduce student debt.

Over the last few years the federal government has made some progress in increasing access to post-secondary education. This progress has been wholeheartedly welcomed by our federation. In particular, the increase to the Canada social transfer and the introduction of a national grants program have been applauded by students. However, I think many will agree that there is much more work to be done in making post-secondary education more affordable and accessible. At a time when over 70% of new jobs require a post-secondary degree or diploma, it is crucial that the country have a national strategy for post-secondary education.

Although education is a provincial jurisdiction, not unlike in health care the federal government has a clear role to play in providing funding for post-secondary education as well as student financial assistance. In order to achieve this worthwhile goal the federal government should work together with the provinces to implement a national post-secondary education act.

Similar to the Canada Health Act, a national piece of legislation would clarify the roles and ensure accountability for the billions of federal dollars transferred to the provinces each year.

The recent implementation of the national grants program is helping thousands of students attend school while also reducing their debt loads upon graduation; however, we must do more to increase funding to our national student financial assistance portfolio. As we have outlined in our written brief, increasing funding to the grants program can be done without new budgetary expenditures.

Each year the federal government allocates more than one billion dollars in education-related tax credits. That's almost triple the budget of the Canada student grants program.

We recommend refocusing these funds to those who need the dollars by reallocating funding from the tax credits to the new Canada student grants program. In doing so the federal government can triple the size of the new grants, increasing accessibility for post-secondary education for those from lower socio-economic backgrounds while also very significantly reducing student debt.

Let's be clear: investing in student grants, especially during the current economic circumstances, is a necessity. Students spend grants almost immediately in the local economy while developing broader skills that add to the labour force's overall flexibility.

I would now like to take the opportunity to discuss the recent experience in our home province of Newfoundland and Labrador as it relates to increased funding for post-secondary education and student financial assistance.

On the education front, successive provincial governments have invested heavily in post-secondary education, and the results are becoming quite evident. Tuition fee reductions and freezes, progressive changes to student financial assistance, and increases in core funding to our public post-secondary institutions have paid huge dividends in our province while saving students and their families millions of much-needed dollars. As a result, the province now boasts what is fast becoming, if it's not already, the most accessible system of post-secondary education and student financial assistance in Canada.

The work is clearly paying off. Not only has student debt decreased, but enrolment has gone up, college and university campuses are thriving, and the province has been attracting a growing number students from across Canada and around the world.

Many economists argue that the best way to weather the current economic downturn is to invest in social programs, particularly education, research and development, and training.

A 2004 study quantified the benefits derived by government investment in our public college system, the College of the North Atlantic. The study demonstrated that a direct and indirect benefit from funding post-secondary education is extended to society as a whole, including job creation and expansion of the tax base, improved economic productivity and health, declining crime, and greater participation in civil society. The study found that from a broad investment perspective, it was estimated that the College of the North Atlantic provided an impressive cost-benefit ratio of $11.50 for every dollar invested.

Investing in education is clearly a proven economic stimulus package. Action must be taken in the next federal budget to establish a concrete and stable framework to increase funding to our post-secondary system and reduce student debt.

I'll end there. I can perhaps go into more depth during the question period.

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to present our ideas here today.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll go to Mr. Maduri, please.

[John Maduri, Chief Executive Officer, Barrett Xplore Inc.]

Thank you for this opportunity.

Our company, Barrett Xplore, is singularly focused on bringing broadband high-speed Internet to rural Canada. We have grown from basically few or no customers almost four years ago to more than 115,000 rural homes and businesses.

Ours is a “made in rural Canada” story. Our head office is in Woodstock, New Brunswick. More than 90% of our employees are located in New Brunswick and rural Canada.

We make a bold and confident prediction that over the next three years, Canada will see 100% availability across urban and rural areas, 100% availability of cost-effective, reliable broadband.

We believe we will get to that point, one, through the efforts of private operators--like Barrett--an emerging category of rural broadband service providers. As an example, our company has raised and invested $170 million in private capital to fund this activity.

Second, we continue to see very thoughtful efforts, in addition to those private sector efforts, in government at all levels to invest in P3, public-private partnerships.

Finally, we're seeing acceptance, growing acceptance and understanding, of new technologies: fibre backbone models, wireless technology, and satellite broadband technologies.

With these three elements, again, we're confident in making that bold prediction that our country will be among the first in the world to have 100% availability of broadband.

We believe there are a number of government points of impact in this area. The first is to eliminate the rural-urban digital divide to get 100% coverage or availability of broadband, of cost-effective, high-capacity, quality broadband. The second is to encourage private entities, private operators, to invest their own capital alongside any public sector capital. The final area is to use broadband or digital strategy as a means to renew and grow our rural economies and our rural communities.

We make three proposals. I'll cover two of them very quickly.

First and foremost, we make a proposal that the government look to and consider differential approaches to how they licence spectrum for application in the rural marketplace. Radio spectrum is the lifeblood of wireless and rural broadband. In particular, there's an upcoming process around 700-megahertz spectrum. This spectrum, and I won't get into all the details, is exceptionally important to rural operators.

Today licences combine urban and rural areas together, which means that rural operators like Barrett, and literally hundreds of operators, have to purchase urban spectrum in order to access their rural marketplace. That adds to the cost structure of an already challenging business in terms of serving markets such as ours that have low population density. We make some simple proposals that we believe will have significant cost impact--one, to separate the urban and rural licences based on population density; and two, to look at auctioning rural spectrum separately, or perhaps considering alternative award processes for spectrum.

Our second proposal--perhaps the most important, I believe--is that the government, to use a hockey statement, “skates to where the puck is going to be”. If in fact there is confidence that Canada will get to 100% availability of cost-effective broadband across this country, I think the real effort, the goal, has to be to focus on how this broadband will be used to create economic opportunity.

There are so many countries across the globe that are focusing on broadband as a means to drive growth. We believe there are low-cost methods to encourage and to drive the adoption of broadband, including such simple things as encouraging and fostering volunteer and community outreach programs that are focused on driving digital literacy and encouraging various groups to utilize broadband. There are tax incentives and other incentives that would encourage Canadian homes and businesses to purchase up-to-date computer hardware and software so that homes and businesses can make the most of the Internet experience. There are ways that the government, in “e-enabling” their own activities and the way they provide services to their constituents, will have an impact on those actions.

Finally, we believe there's much evidence on how broadband can drive economic benefit. We believe our company, in its own right, is an example. We've created 400 jobs, predominantly in rural Canada.

I'll make reference to a statement, a fact, that was in the Globe and Mail today--namely, a World Bank study says that for every 10% increase in broadband adoption, there is a follow-on 1.2% increase in GDP.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, please.

[Dr. Andrew Padmos, Chief Executive Officer, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Andrew Padmos. I am a physician, a specialist in hematology, and the CEO of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, an organization created in 1929 by an act of Parliament to regulate and set standards for the education, training, and certification of specialists, physicians, and surgeons. We now have 42,000 members, of whom 30,000 are active specialists in practice in Canada. I myself continue to practise hematology, although I go to Halifax once a month to do so.

We are here because of concern about the health of the health system. It is in trouble. The health system does not have the capacity to address all of Canada's needs. If you feel it does, it's probably because you're well educated, affluent, and influential. There are many people in large sectors of Canada, both geographically and socio-economically, who are suffering on a regular basis because of the inability of our system to deliver what we expect and what we promise our own family and our close working relations.

We have three recommendations. Canada self-evidently needs a stable, high-quality, and sufficient supply of physicians and other health care professionals. Specialist physicians are in short supply in many areas because of deficits in production, difficulty in retention, poor distribution, and inadequate deployments. Half of the internal medicine specialists in this country are over 55 years of age. More than half of the general pathologists in this country are also ageing rapidly, and our production is not replenishing the ranks of those important specialists. We're counting on making up these deficits by stripping human resources from less developed countries, bringing people in through shorter and shorter routes to certification and recognition.

Our first recommendation, therefore, is to invest in health human resources. This means improving the capacity to produce. It also means improving our analytic capacity. We don't actually know where the physician resources are in this country, where they're going, and what will become of them.

Our second recommendation has to do with the fundamental role of research. It is fundamental to health care quality and patient safety, and it is beneficial to the economy. Every dollar invested in research produces six dollars of local economic benefit. In my lifetime in practice, which is now just over 30 years, we've seen important advances in patient care and the cure of diseases. We didn't have Gleevec in 1972 when I graduated from medicine. It now cures chronic myeloid leukemia. We didn't have Herceptin, which has given hundreds of thousands of women extra years of life and sometimes the opportunity of a cure. You have to have sufficient pathology resources to do estrogen-progesterone receptor tests accurately and in a timely fashion. We didn't have PET scanning in those days to do accurate diagnostics. We had to open your belly to take your gall bladder out, because we didn't have laparoscopes.

In order to address this, we think we should expand and sustain the percentage of GDP invested in research, ideally targeting the 3% of GDP figure that our neighbours to the south have been able to maintain to the benefit of patients in that territory.

Our third recommendation centres on the use of electronic medical records. This is the fastest route to quality, safety, and cost containment. Canada has struggles, both locally and nationally, in the delivery of the promise of electronic connection. But there are many examples of success in this area.

In summary, the system is in trouble. We think focused effort, federal leadership, and sufficient investment is needed to make a difference.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll now finish with Action Canada for Population and Development.

[Katherine McDonald, Executive Director, Action Canada for Population and Development]

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon on your last day of hearings.

I'd like to join with other colleagues to commend you on the broad consultation process that has taken place this year during the pre-budget consultations. Wearing various hats, I have been making these presentations to the Standing Committee on Finance for longer than I care to remember, and I'm glad to see a fulsome and robust consultation process back in place.

I have two or three points to make. First, I'm issuing a plea to this committee to urge our government to take advantage of the unprecedented opportunity that's posed by Canada's hosting of the G-8 and G-20 meetings in June 2010. The Muskoka summit should be used as an opportunity for Canada to regain its position as an international leader on human rights and health. It's also an opportunity for Canada to take a strong position and finally put together a timetable to reach its often-pledged commitment to apply 0.7% of GNI—gross national income—to official development assistance. Someone earlier talked about the perfect storm. Well, there's a convergence of opportunities here.

This year alone, we've seen the aid accountability act covered. We are looking at providing all official development assistance focused on poverty reduction in a manner that's consistent with international human rights standards. I nod to the Honourable John McKay, who shepherded this remarkable piece of legislation through the House.

We have also seen pledges over and over again to commit 0.7% of GNI. It's time to set a timetable. We are one of six development assistance committee member countries that have not committed to a timetable to reach 0.7%. We are going to host what is probably the most important leaders summit in history, where the G-20 and the G-8 will have meetings together in Canada, which will be co-hosted by Canada and South Korea, in an attempt to reshape the structures that are making important decisions about global development in the midst of this economic crisis.

As well as Canada's commitment to increasing aid, I want to talk about Canada taking a leadership position on an issue that is shameful for the international community; that is, the neglect of women in the developing world who die or are badly injured due to pregnancy complications. Fifteen hundred women die each and every day due to preventable maternal mortality from causes that we well know how to address. As I'm sure my colleagues can tell you, in Canada there is a very low rate of women who die during pregnancy and childbirth. This year in June the international community condemned preventable maternal mortality as a human rights violation, and declared that women have the right to life, to health, and to equality, as well as the right to receive and impart information. It is unconscionable that it has taken fifteen years for the international human rights mechanisms to take this on as an issue.

Canada could take a lead on this issue during the G-8 and G-20. It gained some attraction during the last G-8 meeting in Italy in June, and it could be a way to reach that millennium development goal number five in a way that was unimaginable even two or three years ago. So I would ask that the finance committee take this on board, make these financial and policy recommendations to the government, and see Canada regain its position as a leader in the international community.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentations.

We'll go to questions from members. We'll start with Mr. McCallum, please.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of you for being here this afternoon. We'll do our best to get to all of you, but it's a bit of a task.

My first question is for Hilary Pearson. We heard someone else on this idea of social corporate structure to allow charities to raise capital and the U.K. experience. Personally, I think it's a very good idea. Are you saying this could be done relatively straightforwardly, in that the U.K. experience is something that works well and we could just copy? Or are you saying a lot more work needs to be done? Or are you saying something in between?

[Hilary Pearson]

Thank you, Mr. McCallum, for the question.

I would not say it was a cookie-cutter model. I'm afraid it would require a certain amount of study. The U.K. actually has now been at it for almost a decade. They started in 2000 with a commission that reviewed various aspects of social finance and of access to capital by charities. That commission laid out a menu of ideas, which the government has been working from ever since.

What I think has been interesting is that the political consensus in the U.K. around this set of measures has progressed quite far. The Conservative Party is as interested in developing these new vehicles as the Labour government. The social investment bank, the wholesale bank, which they are now discussing, is one that's been endorsed by both parties. It's a financial intermediary, which I think is also badly needed in Canada. So I think that's a good model.

Thank you.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

To the Canadian Caregiver Coalition, this is not direct experience, but I've heard it said of the compassionate care benefit that to say it's administered without a great deal of empathy or compassion would be overstating it. Is it the case, for example, that people have to sign documents asserting that some relative will die in a certain space of time, and that this might deter people from using it?

[Marg McAlister]

Yes, that would be my knowledge as well. A doctor's certificate is required indicating that the individual in question has approximately six weeks of life left. This becomes really problematic for children who have a parent dying at a very young age or for parents with children dying, who don't want to face that final step. That does limit its uptake.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

So maybe without changing too much in the program, it would be used more and be more successful if it were simply administered more flexibly. Is that your view?

[Marg McAlister]

That would be our view, yes. We see it as an opportunity just to leverage a piece of legislation and allow it to be used in a more flexible manner.