Finance Committee on Oct. 27th, 2010

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

I'd like to turn to the Canadian Medical Association. When I first became a member of Parliament back in 1994, Health Canada came before the committee and gave us a presentation I will never forget. They said that 75% of what we spend in health care is to fix problems, and 25% is to prevent them--preventative medicine. The conclusion back then was that it was an unsustainable model.

I have no doubt that five million Canadians don't have regular physicians. We have to invest there, and I hope the commitment is made.

On pandemic preparedness, we're not an island, obviously. Your presentation is based on the fact that we have to do our share. I hope you'll affirm that we are in the ballpark, in terms of the $500 million over five years. I want to know that.

There's one other area you may want to comment on. Why didn't you ask for specific funding for public education on health care? I think that is one of the best medicines we can provide.

[Jeffrey Turnbull]

Thank you very much for that question.

The issues of health promotion strategies and looking at the social determinants of health are key. The Canadian Medical Association supports these and is very enthusiastic about enhancing the good health of our population. We can do that through direct health care and we can do that as well by looking at the social determinants of health and informing our public about the need for good health. These are all essential strategies.

On the issue of sustainability and the fact that concerns about sustainability have been raised for some time, I think we all recognize that at this time our health care system is at a watershed. People who are waiting in emergency departments, who can't access family doctors, or who have their surgeries cancelled or delayed expect health care to be available to them. I think many in your different jurisdictions recognize that we need to have a meaningful intervention soon that will bring us to a more sustainable health care system.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

You have expressed concern about the situation of an aging society, and the fact that the burden is falling on families and informal caregivers, which interferes with their ability to earn their nest eggs for their years of retirement.

I know a lot about that lately, because last week my mom, at 86, was put into respite care. Today I found out she's not coming out. She has Alzheimer's. I know what the family has had to do and to give up.

But what can we do...? I mean, how serious is this? How serious is it to the CMA? How much are you prepared to stand behind an initiative that will clearly provide some relief to caregivers?

[Jeffrey Turnbull]

It's very important. Is the CMA serious about it? Definitely. It's one of our most important priorities as we see our aging population going forward, and the direct and indirect costs that will have to be borne because of Alzheimer's disease--as in your family--stroke, and other chronic illnesses. The burden on our health care system and the burden on families is becoming more and more unacceptable. We need to look for better ways to strategically invest to make sure we have good value for our money.

You probably will now recognize that the burden on indirect caregivers is huge. We have to look for ways to support them, through many different ways--through the tax system, or respite care that can be provided, or other benefits such as direct pay--because 80% of the care of our elderly in long-term care circumstances is provided by informal caregivers, not the health care system, such as physicians.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Szabo.

Mr. Paillé, please, you have seven minutes.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for your evidence, madam.

I'm going to speak to the CSN people. I'm going to tell you about a situation we're familiar with, but I would like you to give us more details so that the government people can understand. There are sectors where there's a labour shortage, which prevents work from being completed before the March 31, 2011 deadline. We try to cite examples, but they don't seem to understand. In your opinion, what sectors have labour shortages, are overheated or are not doing well at all?

[Pierre Patry]

That's mainly a problem in the specialized building trades. As the infrastructure programs rely to a large degree on these people and many of those projects are being carried out at the same time in the municipalities, there are currently shortages of plumbers, electricians and workers in all the specialized building trades. There are a lot of infrastructure projects and labour is not entirely available. The consequence of that is that some projects may not be completed by March 2011.

We believe the federal government hasn't been clear enough about the fact that the infrastructure programs could be extended beyond the deadline. We estimate that that represents a $200 million shortfall for Quebec.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

So that doesn't just concern paving work, but especially work done by highly skilled workers, as you just mentioned.

[Pierre Patry]

Yes. For example, sewer works are being carried out in the municipalities, and there are all kinds of other infrastructure works.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

All right.

You say in your brief that a 15¢ increase is planned in employment insurance premiums. The Employment Insurance Financing Board was supposed to management that revenue. You seem to believe in the board's independence. Suddenly, it increases premiums by 15¢ and the government puts pressure on the system by lowering the contribution. Ultimately, you would have preferred the board to have that money and to be able to improve the system. At the same time, wouldn't we then be protected against a potential theft from the fund, which the Liberals have previously committed and the Conservatives are preparing to commit?

[Pierre Patry]

On that point, CSN would like the employment insurance fund to be independent and essentially administered by workers and employers because they're the ones who contribute to it. When the board was established, CSN said that was a step in the right direction, although it believed that the board's powers would not be strong enough for it to be able to play the role of a genuinely independent fund.

Now we see that the government is going against the board's decision because all it wants is to balance the budget in the short term. We believe that a lot of jobs have been lost during the economic crisis, which has been quite significant. A number have since been created, but they aren't always full-time jobs. So we would have liked a bigger increase in premium rates, as the board wanted, and an improvement to the employment insurance system, which is socially important for people who wind up unemployed during an economic crisis. It's also an economically important system because people are in a better position to consume if they have good employment insurance benefits than if they don't. In addition, people who don't have employment insurance quite often wind up as claimants under the provinces' income security programs. Ultimately, that transfers the fiscal burden from the federal government to the provincial governments.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

In other words, you're saying that the tax cut granted to businesses will be financed out of the employment insurance fund.

[Pierre Patry]

That's roughly it.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

You had a word to say about the Canadian government's infamous plan to establish a single securities commission. You weren't here last week when we heard from the president of the Investment Industry Association of Canada. He essentially told us that the system was working very well. The current passport system is working very well internally. Internationally, since this vehicle is used to represent Canada at the International Organization of Securities Commissions, it was working very well.

Yesterday the president of the Conseil du patronat du Québec went further. He said, as you did today, that the federal plan would harm, and even kill, the financial industry of Quebec and Montreal. Even the president of Quebecor—it should be noted that I'm speaking to CSN—holds the same view. In Quebec, when the president of the Conseil du patronat, CSN and the president of Quebecor share the same opinion, I get the impression you have things to add with regard to this infamous plan for a single securities commission in Canada.

[Pierre Patry]

When the Conseil du patronat du Québec, Quebecor and CSN agree, we call that “a consensus” in Quebec.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

It's unanimous, yes.

[Pierre Patry]

We're very close to unanimity.

With regard to Canada's securities commission, what's the problem with the system we have right now? It's proven that the system, even decentralized, is more effective than many systems elsewhere in the world.

If the federal government really wants to take an interest in these issues, it should instead prepare regulations that are more useful at the international level. One of the causes of the financial crises that we have gone through was a lack of regulation, particularly with regard to hedge funds. The provincial securities commissions are able to play a large part of this role. There is a regulatory problem at the international level. If the federal government wanted to do something useful, I would prefer it worked at the international level in order to better regulate the financial markets and that it leave the provincial securities commissions to carry on their role, as they are currently doing.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

There's—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have 30 seconds left.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

There's another aspect in the context of what you're saying. And that's the judicial review of people who defraud Quebec savers, many of whom are your members. This is criminal in nature. It has nothing to do with Canada's securities commission.

[Pierre Patry]

That's correct.

I add my voice to those of Quebec's other stakeholders who say there is a genuine risk. There is a strong financial sector in Montreal, but that sector is increasingly shifting to Toronto. In the long term, we're going to lose a lot of expertise, and that will be harmful to Quebec's economy. We believe there isn't much of a future for Quebec in this plan.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Paillé.

Mr. Menzies, go ahead, please.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll try to share my time with Monsieur Généreux.

First of all, to the Special Olympics representatives, I just sent an e-mail to Minister Lunn, who we all know is a big fan of the Special Olympics. He says to say hello. He would have loved to come and heard this.

Christina, you need to know that we crusty old politicians around the table don't usually applaud anyone, so you should be pretty flattered. Finance guys tend to be a little crusty, so congratulations. Not many times do we applaud our witnesses, so you should feel pretty special.

Could you share a little bit with us, Christina, whatever you're comfortable with, about your training and planning for Athens?