Finance Committee on Oct. 5th, 2010

[Wayne Morsky]

We may not have a number, but Bill might have some statistics.

One thing I can comment on is that in Canada, we figure that employment in our industry dropped 140,000 within the first eight months of the recession, but since then the industry has grown month over month and is now close to about 30,000 people off our pre-season high of 1.3 million Canadians working in the construction industry.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

And hopefully you don't expect that to drop off on April 1 at the end of the stimulus spending.

[Wayne Morsky]

Well, we certainly don't hope that happens. We are concerned that we're not seeing the return of the private sector demand that we expected or hoped for. Particularly in Alberta right now, when I talk to some of the members there, I know there's a big gap coming in some of the commercial building in downtown Calgary because the credit market is not coming back at the pace they expected it to.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you for that.

Mr. Howlett, we hear so much about poverty, and we would all like to alleviate it, but everyone in this room will have a different definition of what poverty is. I guess that's what I struggle with. We've taken over 950,000 low-income Canadians right off the tax roll. They no longer pay taxes because of the tax reductions we've put in. We've doubled our aid to Africa.

You criticize us for not doing more, but we've consistently, as a government, flowed money to poorer nations. How much does it take to be effective, in your estimation, if the $5 billion that we've said we're going to continue to flow through ODA isn't enough for Canada's contribution?

[Dennis Howlett]

Canada, again compared with other countries, is about 16th or 17th out of 23 countries. So we do not compare that well with other countries in terms of our total aid effort.

In terms of measuring poverty, the globally accepted measure for extreme poverty is $1.25 a day. Many people in many countries have escaped poverty. A lot of countries no longer need our assistance, and a lot of them are financing their poverty reduction primarily through mobilization of domestic resources. That's all good.

Canada could do more through helping developing countries deal with tax havens and stemming the flow of illegal money flowing out of the country. But there are still some countries, especially in Africa, that are not at a level yet where they can benefit from the trade and the investment opportunities that are out there and they still need help.

The point here is that, yes, Canada has made a significant contribution, but now is not the time to draw back in that effort. We've got five more years to achieve the MDGs, and Canada should continue to increase its effort. Other countries are doing that. The U.K., France, and others are not pulling back; they're stepping up, as is the U.S. So Canada needs to step up its efforts. It's done a good job in the past, but it needs to do more.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menzies.

I want to thank all of the witnesses for being here this morning, for your presentations, and for responding to our questions. If there's anything further you'd like the committee to consider, please submit it to the clerk.

On the tax haven issue, for your information, we did adopt a motion by Monsieur Paillé yesterday, so we will be looking at that issue some time later this fall. That is just for your information.

I want to thank you all.

We're going to suspend for a couple of minutes and bring the next group of witnesses forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Colleagues, I will introduce the organizations and then have them present in order. Each organization will have up to five minutes for an opening statement. We want to thank you all for being with us here this morning.

We have the Canadian Wind Energy Association, the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, the Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists, and the Canadian Meat Council. We'll proceed in that order, so we will start with the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

They're not here.

Ms. Baxter are you presenting, or is it Mr. Sangster?

[Sharon Baxter, Executive Director, Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association]

It's the both of us.

[Michael Sangster, Vice-President, Federal Government Relations, TELUS, Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association]

Good morning, and thank you for the invitation to speak before you.

My name is Michael Sangster, and I'm appearing as an individual to co-present with Sharon Baxter, the executive director of the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association. I'm not an expert on hospice and palliative care, but I do sit on the association's champions council because I feel the issue will have profound impacts on Canadian society as more and more Canadians look for hospice and palliative care and solutions and programs in Canada.

This committee is familiar with numbers and reports, so I'm not going to re-read the submission we have made to the committee. We all know that our society is getting older. We know that we are all living longer, and there is and will be a growing need for end-of-life care for our parents, aunts, uncles, spouses, and friends. I believe you see it in your ridings, in your families, and within your own social groups. You know that the need is rising and will continue to rise. I am here to add my voice of support for a group of Canadians who do these heroic services across Canada at the most trying of times for the families and friends of dying patients.

I am here because the Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association has created a champions council to look for alternatives and solutions outside their everyday routine and to create partnerships that can make a difference. They are working with industry and other health care organizations, politicians, and everyday Canadians to make the change that is necessary. They need your support, and I am here to highlight their four requests for support and to make one of my own.

Visit a hospice or palliative care unit in your riding and see the amazing work these Canadians do every day across Canada. I believe you'll be amazed, and you'll learn more in a few hours about the work they do to ensure dignity and respect for families and patients at the most terrible times in their lives. After that visit and the understanding of the population issues that are facing Canada, I think you will better understand how this issue needs your support, along with Canadians and industry, to ensure that we better understand the issue. We will get better at talking about the issue, and we can work even closer together to plan for the growing demand for these serious issues.

[Sharon Baxter]

The Economist Intelligence Unit ranked Canada ninth in the international quality-of-death index released on July 14, 2010.

Canadian families frequently shoulder up to 25% of the total cost of palliative care associated with home care services, nursing, and personal care services. This is an increase, and it's growing because Canadians are more often cared for at home. If they're in acute care settings, it costs less. Now that they're wanting to die at home, it's costing more out of their pocket.

Although Canada scored within the top 10 countries examined, we are still unable to provide valuable hospice palliative care for over 70% of our population. We're here to make four recommendations for an investment in a predictable population health change. Our recommendations can be found in the Blueprint for Action, and we brought copies for you.

The first recommendation is to ensure that all Canadians have access to high-quality hospice, palliative, and end-of-life care. This must be an integral part of our health care system and available in all settings, including hospitals, long-term care facilities, complex care settings, residential hospices, individual homes, or in shelters. When someone is diagnosed with a life-limiting illness, involving palliative care early can provide a better quality of care and reduce suffering.

The second area is to encourage Canadians to plan and discuss their end-of-life hospice palliative care. End of life will not be a priority in the health care system until it's a priority for all Canadians. We feel strongly that it isn't until a Canadian bumps up against the health care system in a point of crisis that they actually realize this.

With the aging population, more attention must be focused on this issue. The type and quality of care that people receive at the end of their lives depends in large part on their ability and willingness to talk about end of life. So we would like to educate Canadians and raise awareness about the importance of advanced care planning; encourage patients to talk about their end-of-life care and go through the process of advance care planning; and encourage much more public discussion about death and dying and the importance of high-quality end-of-life care.

The third one is to provide more support for family caregivers. We have a number of pieces in there, and I'm not going to lay them all out because they're in the report. Generally speaking, we'd like to look at the compassionate care benefit being extended, and also to look at a caregiver tax credit similar to the child tax credit.

The last one is to improve the quality and consistency of hospice palliative care in Canada. We'd like to continue to look for funding to continue to support research and palliative and end-of-life care.

In closing, quality palliative care is the right of every Canadian, yet not every Canadian can access these services at the time when they and their families need it the most. Combining this with an aging population, the system is being stretched and tested as never before. Issues about health care in Canada may appear complex, but the conclusion with public investment is simple. Canada can invest now to support an aging population or will predictably pay much higher financial and human suffering costs within the foreseeable future.

The CHPC looks forward to hearing from the government in response and hopes that action will be taken on many of these recommendations.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll now hear from the Canadian Association of Retired Persons.

[Susan Eng, Vice-President, Canadian Association of Retired Persons]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

My name is Susan Eng. I'm vice-president of CARP. With me is Michael Nicin, who is our policy development officer.

CARP, as you know, is a national, non-profit, non-partisan organization with 300,000-plus members across the country in 40 chapters. We focus on the quality of life for all Canadians as we age.

I've been before this committee before asking that the finance ministers across the country take some action on pension reform. Indeed, after June's meeting this year, led by the finance minister and Mr. Menzies as well, there have been some good announcements about looking at pension reform for the future. However, that leaves behind today's retirees and those facing financial insecurity as they retire.

CARP is calling for better support for older Canadians in the next federal budget, including increased OAS, GIS, specific support for older women, and, of course, caregiver support. The financial insecurity brought on by the economic downturn is particularly challenging for today's retirees, who have limited opportunity to recover.

Poverty among Canadians aged 65-plus is estimated by the OECD, prior to the recent downturn, to be about 4.4% or 200,000 people. However, 7% of Canadians over 65, or about 300,000 people in 2008, were living under a low-income cutoff, a commonly used Canadian measure of poverty. Even though those numbers are significant and represent an improvement over the past, we have to look at the fact that 1.5 million Canadians over 65 receive some form of GIS, which indicates clearly that they face some financial insecurity, and many of these people are one medical crisis away from poverty.

Increasing bankruptcy rates among Canadians 55-plus, those thinking about retirement, are another measure of financial insecurity facing older Canadians. A federal report from 2006 noted that for the five years from 2001 to 2006, the number of Canadians over age 55 who had declared bankruptcy had grown steadily. In 2006, over 7,000 people in this category filed for bankruptcy. By 2009, that had doubled to 15,700 people.

Women are particularly hard hit with historically lower incomes and child caring responsibilities, and now are increasingly bearing the main responsibility for elder care. According to the 2006 census, 18% of women over 65 who lived alone lived in poverty. Over 60% of women who retire without occupational pension plans, because those are the types of jobs they tend to work in, depend entirely on their small savings and the supplementary income programs you provide. The working patterns of women may have changed over the last decades, but the caregiving expectations have not. From child rearing to caring for aging relatives, women still bear the primary responsibility.

Caregiving is a major part of our focus. We've talked about financial security as part of the fourth pillar; that is, the informal sector, including caregiving support. According to a 2008 Statistics Canada report, about 2.7 million Canadians, aged 45 or over, or approximately one-fifth of the population in that demographic, provide some form of unpaid care for people 65 years of age or older who had long-term care issues. Estimates of that unpaid labour contributed by family caregivers varied, but one estimate that was presented to the Senate report on aging was $25 billion per year. Obviously, any amount that is announced or provided has to be matched against that.

We've made our recommendations in the presentation we have given you. They include increasing substantially the income supports, namely OAS and GIS, and placing a moratorium on mandated RRIF withdrawals. We were grateful for the 25% reduction in 2008, but we think there should be a permanent reduction.

There are a number of specific issues that apply to women. With respect to the caregiver strategy, we are pleased to note that the Liberal Party is announcing today support for caregivers in the form of a tax credit and EI support. We think that's a huge first step. As the Liberals are not yet in government, I invite the government to adopt that as a very good idea to implement immediately in the next federal budget.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Ms. Eng.

Ms. Barnes, will you be presenting on behalf of the association? You have five minutes.

[Gillian Barnes, President, Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists]

Thank you very much.

My name is Gillian Barnes. I am president of the Canadian Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists, or CASLPA. With me today is Ondina Love, CASLPA's executive director.

First let me explain a little bit about what CASLPA does. We represent more than 5,500 speech-language pathologists, audiologists, and supportive personnel in Canada who work to maximize the communication and hearing potential of Canadians. Speech-language pathologists have expertise in typical development, assessment, and intervention, and in communication and swallowing disorders. Audiologists have expertise in identifying and managing individuals with peripheral or central hearing loss, tinnitus, and balance disorders. CASLPA understands that government must monitor expenditures closely to get the best value for taxpayer dollars. By spending smarter, government can achieve larger social goals without increasing financial obligations. Indeed, in some cases, smart spending saves money in the long run.

There are two areas in which the government can act. The first is the early identification of speech disorders. Eight to twelve percent of preschool-aged children have some form of language impairment. Most are not identified until well after they fail to begin speaking, generally when they are two or three years old. This is simply too late and unduly hinders communication development, leaving children at an academic and social disadvantage. Untreated speech and language disorders can cause serious and significant social problems for affected children that, in addition to contributing to difficulties in learning, have a real negative effect on their lives and the lives of their families, not to mention society in general. The federal government should provide targeted funding for identification of and intervention in these disorders.

Our second recommendation is for the Canada-wide adoption of universal newborn hearing screening programs. As you most likely read in The Globe and Mail this morning, CASLPA launched a campaign to this end yesterday on Parliament Hill. Three to five children per thousand in Canada will have some hearing loss. The average child with significant hearing loss won't be diagnosed until they are nearly two and a half years old. For moderate hearing issues, problems are unlikely to be identified until school age. This need not be the case. A simple, non-invasive, highly accurate test exists that can quickly screen for hearing loss in newborns and can be performed before they leave the hospital. More importantly, in an era where medical diagnostics can present a burden on health budgets, this test is inexpensive, costing only about $35 per infant screened. That's less than $15 million to test every baby born in Canada last year. Measured on a per case identified basis, it costs much less than a number of other existing newborn tests. The advantages to identifying hearing loss early and implementing early intervention are clear: infants with hearing loss who are so identified by the age of six months perform 20 to 40 percentile points better on school-related measures than do those who are identified at a later age. Those who are identified by six months of age also end up with much better language scores than do those who are identified later, an advantage that holds true even when controlling for a bevy of other unusual predictive factors. When action is taken early, children with hearing disorders need not suffer unduly.

The United States already screens more than 95% of infants. Canada should follow this lead and implement a universal newborn hearing screening program. Such a program should aim to have all newborns, not just those deemed high risk, screened in the first month of life, with any necessary diagnostic testing being completed by three months and necessary intervention beginning no later than six months of age. Current Canadian practice for newborn hearing screening is inconsistent. There is no coordinated national approach to this issue, and in most cases there is no dedicated funding for newborn hearing screening.

No province has legislated requirements that infants be tested. Some, such as Ontario and New Brunswick, have offered newborn hearing screening; however, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, and Alberta have no universal program. A coordinated national approach will ensure that all babies born in Canada have equal access to hearing screening that can identify hearing difficulties at an age when they are most easily managed.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Laws, please.

[James M. Laws, Executive Director, Canadian Meat Council]

Good morning. Thank you for inviting us to speak today, as you seek input into the next federal budget.

My name is Jim Laws. I'm the executive director of the Canadian Meat Council. With me today is Margo Ladouceur, our regulatory affairs manager.

Canada's federally registered meat processing industry is by far the most regulated of all the food processing sectors. The Meat Inspection Act and regulations are extensive, and unlike other food sectors, meat inspection is regular and mandatory.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency charged $21 million to processors in 2008-09 for meat inspection fees. Fees for inspection services, export certificates, label approvals, etc., constitute a competitive disadvantage to Canadian federally registered meat processors. These fees are in addition to the growing staffing cost to deliver programs like the HACCP-based inspection program, the compliance verification system, and a significant increase in mandatory pathogen testing requirements, such as the new listeria control policy. This is in sharp contrast to American processors and Canadian provincially inspected meat processors, who are not subject to the same additional costs.

Our first recommendation is that Canada should not charge meat product inspection fees to federally registered meat establishments. The estimated cost for that is $21 million per year.

[Margo Ladouceur, Regulatory Affairs Manager, Canadian Meat Council]

In July 2007, Canada's enhanced ruminant feed ban regulations came into effect. These new regulations require the removal and disposal of certain ruminant materials that were previously allowed in the non-ruminant animal feed supply. These requirements impose tremendous ongoing costs and lost revenues to our beef packing sector that are not faced by our American competitors.

In July 2010, the Government of Canada announced a one-year abattoir competitiveness program, offering $31.90 for cattle over 30 months old slaughtered to help maintain a critical slaughter capacity in Canada.

Our second recommendation is that Canada should extend the abattoir competitiveness program until the end of 2011 to offset the cost of the enhanced ruminant feed ban regulations that came into effect in July 2007. The expected federal cost is $25 million per year.

[James M. Laws]

Over the years, meat processors have been continually improving their food safety systems. Millions of dollars have been invested by companies in upgrading their equipment and reformulating their products to include newly approved antimicrobials and new technology, such as the new high-pressure pasteurization technology and addition of sodium diacetate to ready-to-eat meats and poultry products. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional listeria, salmonella, and E. coli testing, and countless more hours by sanitation management and quality control personnel have been invested. However, the lessons learned from the listeria outbreak of the summer of 2008 indicate that more needs to be invested in food safety technologies.

Our third recommendation is that Canada should create a new food safety tax credit based on eligible expenses for Canada's food processing industry for a safer food supply for Canadians. Many new processing technologies, packaging, and testing equipment are available to improve food safety. Like the very popular home renovation tax credit, a time-limited federal food safety tax credit would provide a simple, uniform, national financial incentive for food processors of all sizes in commodity sectors in all regions of the country. It would reduce the cost of food safety investments without constraining the choice of technologies or services, without regard to jurisdiction having regulatory responsibility for the plant, and without the limiting and bureaucratic features of grant programs.

The expected federal cost for that would be $170 million per year.

Thank you for your time. We would be pleased to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will finish now with the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

You have five minutes, Mr. Whittaker.

[Sean Whittaker, Vice-President, Policy, Canadian Wind Energy Association]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Members of the committee, I am very pleased to be here with you today.

My name is Sean Whittaker. I'm the vice-president of policy for the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

Our asks around the 2011 federal budget focus around three areas, each of which has a particular focus on an area of interest to us. One is on the development of Canada as a clean energy superpower. The second is an interest in building wind-related R and D capacity in Canadian universities and colleges. The third is an interest in strengthening our northern communities and reducing their reliance on diesel generation.

From that there are three particular asks we are looking for. One is development of a pan-Canadian wind integration study, the second is a wind energy capacity development initiative, and the third is a northern and remote wind incentive program. I'll spend a few minutes going over each of these.

The first ask is support for a pan-Canadian wind integration study, which would amount to about $3 million over the course of one year. As many of you know, Canada is very well positioned to be a clean energy superpower. We have a remarkable resource, not only in wind but also in hydro and other sources, and CanWEA believes that wind energy could satisfy 20% of Canada's electricity demand by 2025, which is a great opportunity, particularly given the great demand for green energy in our neighbour to the south. But what we really lack, at the present, is an understanding of what the great impacts would be. So if you bring on high levels of wind or high levels of hydro, what are the operational changes that are required, and what would Canada's electricity look like? What transmission builds would be required in order to accommodate this?

In order to get an understanding of this, there is an urgent need to develop a wind integration study. Over the past year and a half, CanWEA brought together representatives of every system operator in Canada as part of a steering committee to develop the terms of reference for the study. The estimated overall cost is $6 million, half of which would come as in-kind contributions from the utilities themselves. We certainly have strong support from this government and would be looking for $3 million to help with this study.

The second ask has to do with a wind energy capacity development initiative, which is $25 million over five years. At present Canada's expenditures on wind-related R and D on a per capita basis are about one-third of what they are in the United States, so this is a gap we feel needs to be addressed. In the past two years there was an initiative that was led by industry, funded by government, to develop a wind technology road map, which brought together experts across the country to look at R and D opportunities for wind across the country. That document was released about six months ago. It had some great recommendations in it, but there was no federal funding attached to it. We are seeking $25 million over five years for this initiative, which would essentially act on the recommendations that this group of experts brought forward, and really the goal of that is to make sure that for every turbine that's installed in Canada, you are maximizing the number of jobs in the economic investment that happens in Canada as a result.

The third ask is for a northern and remote wind incentive program, which would amount to $63 million over a five-year period. As many of you know, in Canada's northern and remote communities—there are over 300 of them—they rely on diesel generation. It's expensive, it's polluting, and it brings very few local economic benefits. Wind in these cases is a proven made-in-Canada solution.

If you travel to Alaska, there are many communities that already use wind-diesel technology. In fact, they use Canadian wind-diesel technology to displace diesel generation. We already have a lead in manufacturing of turbines in this range, so a program to promote this technology would do a great deal to boost Canadian industry. According to our projections, it would meet approximately 8% of northern electricity demand and reduce fossil fuel use in northern communities by about half a billion litres over the course of the project. It is an opportunity for Canada to gain a position in a growing market globally for isolated power.

In conclusion, we have a total ask of $91 million over five years. It is an opportunity for us to really get traction as a clean energy superpower. It's an opportunity for us to build on our R and D capacity, which is currently lacking, and we have very strong provincial support for these initiatives.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will now start with members' questions. Ms. Hall Finlay, for a seven-minute round.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, everyone, for being here.

Please don't take it personally, but my question actually is addressed to Ms. Eng and to Mr. Sangster and Ms. Baxter, because I am actually very proud of the fact that the Liberal Party has made a very significant announcement this morning about some very important things that the Liberal Party would do when it actually forms government.

One of them, in particular, is a proposal for a family care EI benefit that would extend the six-week provisions now in place to a full six months, but with significant flexibility within the six months. It would be built similarly to the current parental leave benefit. This would allow an extremely large number of caregivers who are caring for ill and aging family members to provide the care that is so desperately needed without having to quit their jobs. We know this from submissions by entities like CARP, like the palliative association, and very many organizations who have been saying this is desperately needed. So I'm very proud of that.

The other part of the announcement was that we would provide a family care tax benefit. This would be a tax-free benefit modelled on the child tax benefit, which would provide up to $1,350 a year for those same people, the people who are giving care to family members in situations where now they do so and sacrifice income they would otherwise be able to gain, but for the time and effort put into caring for family members.

Needless to say, we're extremely proud of this. We understand this is something that is very desperately needed in society, and I would love to hear your comments, Ms. Eng, Ms. Baxter, and Mr. Sangster. If anyone else has any thoughts, please jump in. But I would love to hear your thoughts on how this is going to improve the lives of many people.

[Susan Eng]

Thank you very much, Ms. Hall Findlay.

In fact, CARP has been on the record asking for caregiver support repeatedly. As we have made very clear, it has to be treated as one pillar of retirement security for Canadians, as not only the income they get from their pensions but also the defraying of their expenses as they meet their medical and other challenges. We have actually polled our members and they are, all of them, involved in some form of caregiving. All of them need to have some kind of financial support, and most of them have challenges in terms of the time they have to take off work, the insecurity of their job, the costs involved, and of course the health and other pressures they face. So all of these things are mounting up, and women in particular take on the lion's share of that responsibility.

Obviously, a recommendation that there be some substantive financial support is met by the proposal. Of course, we would like to see it be law, so I hope that all parties of the House will in fact endorse that proposal and get it done, because people are actually confronting these challenges today.

I'm pleased to be here with the palliative and hospice association because we also polled our people about end-of-life care. One of the points that came through--you may have seen it in the media--was that our people were actually supportive of the idea of assisted suicide. But it cannot be interpreted that they were asking for that so much as they were afraid of a bad death. To that extent, the idea of caregiving flowing into proper palliative care is all of a piece, and it's an important issue that we all face. There are many who are facing it in silence and with a lot of pressure.

This announcement comes at a good time. We are very supportive of all the aspects of it. It is a sizable amount of money. We can't hesitate to point that out. However, the unpaid labour being leveraged by that kind of expenditure is in the $25-billion-per-annum range. So when we look at the cost-benefit analysis, we're not even talking about the potential for diverting a massive amount of demand from the health care system to the contributions by family caregivers.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you very much.

I'll turn now to Mr. Sangster and Ms. Baxter.

I will point out that for the announcement, the costing of it works out to about $1 billion a year. It is a significant amount of money. But when we also look at the proposed purchase of 65 fighter aircraft, with estimates of up to $0.25 billion per aircraft...I think it is time this country really examined where we know the needs of Canadians really are. If the value of the cost of this program is the equivalent of four planes out of a total of 65, it's an important question for us to be asking. Again, I'm very proud of this announcement.

Ms. Baxter or Mr. Sangster, I'd like to hear any comments you might have.

[Sharon Baxter]

Sure.

In the Blueprint for Action, which is the 10-year plan for hospice palliative care in this country, we make six proposals around caregiver issues, and those are two of them. That's always nice to see.

We're thrilled about it, but we also realize that families are very diverse. Certainly any EI-based benefit is only beneficial for those who qualify for it. There are other points we need to consider on top of that, but it's a great first start. I think it will affect many Canadians and the bulk of the Canadians who are caring for dying loved ones. At this time, about five million out of 34 million Canadians are caring for loved ones. So it's very important.

I want to throw another little piece around. Obviously there's an economic benefit to doing this, but if you look at the health care system, people are going into acute care hospital beds unnecessarily because they're not being supported at home. A patient who is dying may say they want to stay at home as long as possible. We need to divert those $1,200-a-day acute care hospital placements in emergency, if we can help it, and give good home care and good support to caregivers. Those practical pieces help divert the acute-care hospital placements.

Even though it's the right thing to do and it supports patients and families, it also ultimately saves the health care system dollars in other areas. Even though it seems like a huge investment initially, it saves the health care system in premature placements. For all those reasons, it's a great thing to do.