Finance Committee on Nov. 19th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order.

This is the 92nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to Standing Order 83.1, we are continuing our pre-budget consultations for 2012.

Colleagues, we have two panels before us this afternoon and early evening. In our first panel, we have six organizations presenting. We have, first of all, the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO; the Canadian Bureau for International Education; the Canadian Psychological Association; the Council of Ontario Universities; the Grain Growers of Canada; and Nature Conservancy of Canada.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being with us here this afternoon.

You each have five minutes maximum for an opening statement.

We'll start with Mr. Smillie, and we'll work our way down the panel here.

Please begin.

[Christopher Smillie, Senior Advisor, Government Relations and Public Affairs, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO]

Thank you.

Greetings, Chair, members of the committee, and fellow witnesses.

I hope to give you a tip-of-the-spear view today of where we see the world and how Budget 2013 can hopefully solidify Canada's economic recovery and set us on the right path for the future.

We are the Canadian building trades. We represent skilled tradespeople who go to work every day on Canada's infrastructure, energy, mega, and even small construction projects.

The construction industry represents just under 12% of GDP. We represent about 550,000 workers—all voluntary members, by the way—and we thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

What helped us survive the recession? The same two things that will help Canada grow and solidify gains in 2013 and beyond: infrastructure and the energy sector. We need a budget in 2013 that makes a significant overhaul of labour market initiatives and skills policy to ensure investment in our country isn't foregone because Canada can't build it. If we're serious about energy superpower status, we need to get the people thing right. If we don't, other jurisdictions will.

What are these labour market and skills policy fixes we need to get right? First of all, labour market development agreements with provincial jurisdictions should prescribe and measure training goals for new Red Seal apprentices. Also, graduating current students into journeypersons is needed to ensure growth. A shrinking workforce and a broken training system is a recipe for disaster in the economy. Allocate existing unaccountable LMDA funding to provincial governments differently so that employers are encouraged to hire construction apprentices, either financially or through a tax incentive. We submit that no more money be spent on redundant websites or studies by provinces, the content of which already exists in the public domain.

The federal government should be interested in getting value for money already allocated for distribution to the provinces in these deals. Given that the Government of Canada is a funder of provincial education systems, there should be financial consideration given to those who have tangible results to show. Minister Oliver's common-sense plan for regulation reform in the energy sector needs to be coupled with practical labour market solutions.

There is no possibility that our economy gets built out with an underperforming labour market. I stress this is a free solution, as these labour market deals already exist. The policy leadership required is free, and we see no reason not to proceed.

Primarily, the Government of Canada needs to ensure that barriers to employment for Canadians are low. For example, there needs to be sufficient incentive for companies to hire young Canadians who otherwise would not work and contribute to society, provided that these positions lead to real jobs.

We submit that a procurement policy be in place on federal government construction sites, encouraging contractors to hire young Canadians or aboriginals registered in the Red Seal trades. Some of the energy partners we work with in Alberta require training plans to be submitted to them regularly. This requirement is part of the commercial terms between the purchaser of construction and the companies that actually do the work. It's been wildly successful in Alberta in training and retaining young people at large energy projects. Some sites, like Suncor and Shell, have 30% apprentices on site. These kinds of innovative programs would work when Public Works is buying construction; it costs nothing to implement and it serves a public policy goal. If it's sound public policy to get the best price for work, which it is, it is sound public policy to make sure that people get trained on the work paid by tax dollars.

I said it in the Financial Post 14 days ago, and I'll say it again: there's a pending demographic time bomb in construction. Massive retirements, coupled with relatively new entrant numbers and increasing economic demand on our industry, could cripple growth. Check out my HUMA testimony from May if you want more details on who, where, what, when, and why.

In this context, there are primarily two levers that can be pulled by the Government of Canada: the apprenticeship and training system, and immigration. The apprenticeship system is largely managed by the provincial jurisdiction, but is completely funded by the Government of Canada. StatsCan tells us that registrations are trending upwards, which is a good thing, but that graduation rates from apprenticeship curriculum in Canada is fairly low and is not on the rise. There is little or no incentive for people to progress through the curriculum.

I'm getting the one-minute hook.

The federal government has tried to assist through the implementation of the apprenticeship incentive grant. Currently, it covers only years one and two. We think it should be extended to years three and four and the benefit amount should be increased. If we take a look at some of the other things the Government of Canada spends money on—no offence to the research and development community—$2.6 billion is allocated to SR and ED tax credits, $89 million is spent on apprenticeship and employment tax credit issues. There's a real discrepancy there.

It's free to reallocate money from one program to another, so if we're really concerned about skills shortages, if we're really concerned about these kinds of things, we'll take a look at money we're spending and make sure we're getting value for money.

Just quickly, the last thing I would say is that the mobility of Canadian workers impacts productivity. If we want to improve productivity in our country, it's a really good idea to look at a system that encourages mobility for skilled trades workers from one part of the country where there is a shortage of work to places where those workers would be in demand. So let's take a look at that.

I've handed out my policy to the Minister of Finance—at Starbucks, and on his policy retreat, etc.—so he has it.

I think it's time: you could talk to our employers.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll now hear from the Canadian Bureau for International Education, please.

[Dr. Scott McAlpine, President, Douglas College, and Board Member, Canadian Bureau for International Education]

Good afternoon.

I thank you for taking the time to hear from me today. I am Scott McAlpine, and I am pleased to be here on behalf of the Canadian Bureau for International Education, or CBIE, of which I am a board member. I'm also the president of Douglas College, which is a long-standing member of CBIE. Douglas has two campuses in metro Vancouver. We have over 1,000 international students currently studying at Douglas.

CBIE is Canada's national membership organization dedicated to international education. CBIE comprises 150 member institutions across Canada, covering the whole education spectrum, from K to 12 to postgraduate.

We are committed to making Canada a global leader in international education. CBIE plays a leadership role in the Canadian Consortium for International Education Marketing. This organization has unified and coordinated the sector like never before, ensuring that we are well positioned to play a leadership role, in partnership with government, in order to ensure a strong return on our investments.

CBIE provided a written online submission to this committee in August. We concluded as follows: CBIE recommends that the government provide substantial, sustained investment for a comprehensive international education strategy, delivered in partnership with key stakeholders, in order to achieve concrete results based on ambitious targets for international student enrolment and study abroad opportunities for Canadians.

The points I want to amplify today are that Canada is well positioned to take a leadership role in international education, and that this will require a substantial, sustained investment. The benefits of this investment are for our economy and for our students. Our youth are the future leaders of tomorrow.

Our recommendation was bolstered by the report of the advisory panel on Canada's international education strategy, appointed by the Honourable Jim Flaherty and the Honourable Ed Fast. CBIE supports all of the panel's recommendations that together are designed to make Canada the 21st-century leader in international education.

So what kind of leader can we be? The panel clearly integrated the messages provided by CBIE and the consortium. The panel claimed and aimed to position Canada not only to attract top talent from abroad, but also to prepare our citizens for a global society and marketplace. In other words, they aimed to position Canada to develop a labour force that can ensure our country's prosperity in the short term and into the future.

We need to invest more, however. To give this some perspective, in 2010 Canada enrolled about 5% of the world's international students, putting us in seventh position worldwide. Australia, a country of similar size, received 7% of the international student market, putting it in fourth position.

To concretize some of the benefits of international education, consider the following. In 2010 international students in Canada spent more than $7.7 billion, all in. Education services are now Canada's 11th largest export industry and our single largest export to China. In B.C., international education is the fourth largest export industry, and is moving quickly into third. Moreover, international education is witnessing worldwide expansion. The OECD estimates that the global demand is set to grow from nearly 4.1 million students in 2010 to 7.2 million in 2025. We need, as a country, to tap into this large and expanding resource.

And what about Canadian students? Providing Canadian students with international opportunities allows them to acquire global perspectives and contribute to what Governor General David Johnston has termed “the diplomacy of knowledge”.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have one minute.

[Dr. Scott McAlpine]

Thank you.

The Governor General is also CBIE's patron and just last week helped us launch our blog, “Without Borders”. At present, only 3% of Canadian university students and 1.1% of college students participate in exchange programs. Compare this to Germany, where 33% do. Just this month, the Australian government announced $38.5 million for 10,000 students to study abroad. In 2011, Brazil announced 100,000 scholarships for study abroad.

CBIE urges the committee to consider at minimum a ramp-up from the current investment of $5 million per annum by the federal government to $25 million within the next three years, with a significant amount of this total dedicated toward enhancing our current scholarship offer and to build momentum for providing international experience for Canadian students. We also urge that the government consider a council for international education and research and fund that as well.

In short, CBIE urges this committee to take forward our message and support the recommendations that will permit us to realize this potential as a global leader in international education.

I thank the committee for its time today.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for your presentation.

We'll now hear from the Canadian Psychological Association.

[Karen Cohen, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Psychological Association]

Thank you for the invitation to present today on behalf of the Canadian Psychological Association.

CPA is the national association for the science, practice, and education of psychology in Canada. With almost 7,000 members and affiliates, we are Canada's largest national association of psychologists. Psychologists engage in research, practice, and education in human behaviour, the very foundation of successful societies and economies.

In terms of practice, psychologists are the largest regulated specialized mental health care providers in the country, outnumbering psychiatrists by about four to one. We help people recover from common mental disorders such as anxiety and depression. We help them manage chronic diseases such as diabetes and heart disease; these are often associated with mental health factors.

When it comes to mental disorders, psychological treatments are among the most effective. The mental health needs of Canadians and the toll these take on individuals, families, the workplace, and the economy are substantial. In any given year, one in five people live with a mental health problem, with estimated costs to the economy of $51 billion. Mental health problems and disorders account for nearly 30% of short- and long-term disability claims. This means that, as a large employer, the Government of Canada feels the impact of mental health on the workforce very directly.

According to recent media reports, on a given day, 19,000 public servants are on sick leave. In 2011, more than 47% of new disability claims were for mental health conditions, led by depression and anxiety. Despite the mental health needs of Canadians and despite the fact that we have psychological treatments that work, the services of psychologists are not funded by public health insurance plans. This makes them inaccessible to many Canadians with modest incomes or no insurance.

Although there are some publicly funded services in Canada, these are in short supply, and wait lists are long. When people have access to extended health benefits through employment, caps on these benefits are often too low to afford meaningful treatment.

The United Kingdom, Australia, and Norway have mental health initiatives at the federal level that include covering the services of psychologists through the public health system.

Canada's federal government has a crucial role to play when it comes to funding health care, participating in innovation, and collaborating with the provinces and territories. The federal government is the fifth largest provider of health care in the country. It can lead by example by improving its capacity to deliver effective services in areas for which it has direct responsibility. Further, as a large employer itself, the government can do much to innovate when it comes to psychological health in the workplace and to provide meaningful coverage for care when needed.

The recruitment and retention of psychologists to work in federal departments is a pressing issue. The need for mental health services in the military is acute. In some cases, soldiers wait months before a psychologist is available to them. Access to psychological services within the Correctional Service of Canada is inadequate, yet research shows that psychological interventions address mental health issues and reduce recidivism in this population, the latter important to individual and public protection.

Finally, the federal government funds research. We need to ensure that there's sufficient core funding for the granting agencies to support inquiry into the psychological factors central to Canadians' health and wellness, factors that can inform and guide public policy.

Our pre-budget submission includes a number of workable solutions. I will highlight six of them now.

First, set up an innovation fund to assist provinces and territories in developing a sustainable mental health infrastructure that will improve access to evidence-based psychological services.

Second, create federal residency placements for psychologists within federal departments that provide health services. Psychologists often stay to work where they do their residency training, yet in many provinces there is greater demand for positions than supply.

Third, many rural and remote communities in Canada are lacking the psychological care they need. Physicians and nurses now receive Canada student loan forgiveness under the CanLearn program. We recommend expanding the program to include new psychologists.

Fourth, revisit the extended health care insurance plans for federal public employees. Make sure that coverage provided for psychological services affords the employee meaningful levels of service.

Fifth, remove the requirement that employees of the federal public service must get a referral from a medical doctor before qualifying for reimbursement for psychological services. Psychologists can diagnose and treat psychological disorders. Other insurance plans do not have this gatekeeper requirement, one that creates unnecessary delays in getting treatment to people who need it from those trained to deliver it.

Finally, ensure core research funding for granting councils and funding for students that recognizes the role of psychological factors in research, particularly in health and the neurosciences.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will now hear from the Council of Ontario Universities.

[Dr. Steven Liss, Vice-Principal of Research, Queen's University, Council of Ontario Universities]

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

My name is Steven Liss, and I am the vice-principal of research at Queen's University. On behalf of the Council of Ontario Universities, I would like to thank you for providing us with the opportunity to appear before you today.

COU is the voice of Ontario's 21 universities. Our campuses are home to nearly 450,000 students, or 40% of all students across Canada. Our institutions are unified by a shared commitment to student success, research excellence, and community engagement. We believe strongly in the power of education and research and its ability to transform individuals, communities, and our country.

I am here to speak about issues that I know are important to you and all Canadians: productivity, job creation, economic recovery, and demographic change. Most specifically, I am here to talk to you about the key role that Ontario universities play in helping you to address these issues.

Productivity is directly linked to our ability to be forward thinking, innovative, and nimble. This means that our graduates must bring well-developed skills and knowledge with them into the workplace. It also means that in a world of rapid changes, our students must graduate not only armed with the skills required for today's marketplace, but also with the ability to evolve their skills to meet the needs of the marketplace of tomorrow.

Ontario university faculty and staff excel at ensuring our graduates are equipped with the foundational skills and experience they require as they transition to the labour force. They also challenge and teach our students to find new ways of looking at old problems, to critically assess and interpret information, and to change their minds and their ways of doing things in light of new knowledge. The tools of their trade are knowledge transmission and self-directed learning acquired through classroom education, as well as hands on experiences in labs, libraries, workplaces, and within communities.

Canada's three granting agencies, NSERC, SSHRC, and CIHR, as well as the Canada Foundation for Innovation, provide critical funding to support the training opportunities and experiences our students need to remain flexible and innovative throughout their careers. These investments also allow faculty, students, and staff to develop industry partnerships that catalyze direct economic benefits to Canadians.

Ontario universities encourage the federal government to continue to enhance investments in its core research programs through the federal granting agencies, CFI, and indirect costs of research, with a particular emphasis on student training through graduate and post-doctoral awards and scholarships.

Job creation is about leveraging the talents and skills of Canadians to both sustain and grow the Canadian marketplace. Data analytics is an area of strong competitive advantage for Canada. Canadians are among the best in the world at interpreting and manipulating data, and we are global leaders in data visualization, modelling, and story development.

In his recent speech to the World Economic Forum, Prime Minister Harper spoke of the government's commitment to technology. He stated that the government is “just beginning to comprehensively modernize our approach to research and innovation policy in order to get better commercial results for the significant government investments we make in scientific and technological development”.

Data, and our ability to use it, will be the global currency of the future. In order to leverage our existing talents and ensure that Canadians enjoy the economic benefits of this emerging market, investment in and the development of a national framework for data infrastructure is required. Ontario universities encourage the federal government to build on this existing investment in data infrastructure and to consider the creation of a data infrastructure program as part of its commitment to ensuring Canadian research is modern, relevant, and responsive, as well as being globally connected and globally competitive.

Strong economic recovery requires a strong, talented, and diverse workforce. Canadians are our greatest national natural resource. But our demographic make-up has changed and our society is aging. Our ability to combat the effects of our shrinking workforce will be built on our capacity to be more nimble, innovative, and productive than our competitors. It will also require us to strengthen our ability to attract and retain new Canadians and create new and strategic partnerships with others elsewhere in the world.

While we continue to emphasize the value of brain gain, we are in an era of brain circulation. Ontario universities are key partners in all of these activities.

To help deal with skills and labour shortages that are anticipated in Canada's future, we encourage the federal government to make international education and research a pillar of the Government of Canada's foreign policy and economic growth objectives.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

One minute.

[Dr. Steven Liss]

As part of this commitment, we ask the federal government to continue its critical investments in programs, such as the Canada research chairs and the Vanier Canada graduate scholarships, and to provide nimble and flexible resources so that Canadian researchers can pursue a first-mover advantage in global research partnerships.

As a final comment today, I would like to emphasize the importance of ensuring the success of aboriginal students. Ontario universities are deeply committed to this, and we encourage the federal government to consider new areas of investment that will increase aboriginal high school completion and expand access to and success in post-secondary education and beyond for aboriginal learners.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will now hear from the Grain Growers of Canada.

[Richard Phillips, Executive Director, Grain Growers of Canada]

Thank you very much.

My name is Richard Phillips, and I have a small farm in Saskatchewan. Grain Growers represents over 50,000 grain farmers across Canada.

Before I start, I showed up in my shirt today, and I'm reminded of Roy Atkinson. He was very active in the NDP in Saskatchewan for many years. One time he was asked why he didn't show up in a suit and he said, “You showed up in your working clothes and I showed up in mine.” That'll be my excuse for why I'm wearing a shirt and not a suit today.

In the grain and oilseed sector we're very fortunate. We've had a couple of good years, with good crops and good prices overall in Canada. We're not here today looking for big money. We have seen, in western Canada, massive change with the ending of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly. It's now time to look at the regulatory environment to see how we can be even more successful with the new opportunities available.

The Government of Canada funds research and innovation through Agriculture Canada, universities, agrimarketing programs, and science clusters, where they work with producers. Most of those programs actually work quite well. However, we always feel there's room to improve those. We encourage the government to sit down with us. In the new environment, the opportunity is there to see how we can do even better now that we've worked in these programs for a couple of years.

We'd also like to look at a number of other issues in terms of the regulatory environment that will allow us to be successful. Number one, we need to clean up the Canadian Grain Commission. We need to get regulations in place so that we can continue to export grain the way we need to.

We need a more predictable variety registration process. We have a lot of people interested in breeding wheat in Canada right now and they're prepared to bring dollars in, but our system is still archaic; it was set up for 20, 30, or 40 years ago. There's a lot of modernizing to do there.

Thirdly, there's a rail service review. We spent years and years working on cleaning up the rail service so that shippers have a better opportunity to negotiate with the railways. We understand legislation is coming soon. We ask you and encourage you to support this; don't lose faith. You'll be under a lot of pressure from the railways to back down on things. Stay with the producers. Over 90% of their shippers in Canada are united in that we have to have change: if 90% of your customers aren't happy, then maybe you're the problem.

Last is trade negotiations. I'd like to recognize all three political parties. The Liberals—Mr. Bryson is here, the former trade critic. He's very supportive of trade deals. The NDP have been signalling lately that they're much more open to looking at trade deals if they are good for Canada. The Conservatives, of course, have been very open to trade deals and to leading a lot of our negotiations.

The United States is a big market for us, but so are Morocco, the EU, the trans-Pacific partnership, India, China, and Japan. We can grow great crops—we have lots of land in Canada—we just need markets to sell them to. That's really important.

So work with us to ensure that we do the research and innovation correctly, that we leverage even more money out of the private sector, the public sector, and producers for research. And give us that business environment and market access to be successful. We, as farmers, want to make our living from the marketplace.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll now hear from the Nature Conservancy of Canada, please.

[John Lounds, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nature Conservancy of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

On behalf of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, l'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present to you today as you consider recommendations for Budget 2013. I would also like to thank the government for the bold steps it has taken in recent budgets to enhance the conservation of lands, both public and private, including the expansion of our national park system and the investment in the natural areas conservation partnership program.

As Canada's largest non-profit, private land conservation organization, the Nature Conservancy of Canada brings a unique perspective to the budget discussion. In just nine days we will celebrate our 50th anniversary. With the help of our partners, we have conserved more than 2.6 million acres to date—habitat that supports many of our species at risk. We work in every province, with the help of more than 48,000 supporters.

In the few minutes we have, I would like to leave you with two thoughts: first, that land conservation is not a luxury, but is integral to sustained economic recovery and growth; and second, that renewal of the natural areas conservation program will deliver on-the-ground results that benefit nature and Canadians.

Canada has led the world in its recovery from the global economic recession, but we must remain vigilant if we are to achieve a full recovery and enhance sustainable economic growth. We believe it is possible to realize the goal of sustained economic recovery and enhanced growth while conserving our natural heritage and our working landscapes. In fact, we believe the two are tied together. In real economic terms, nature provides valuable goods and services, such as cleaning our air and water, flood control, and carbon storage. Conserving these services is essential for thriving communities, robust employment, and economic growth. Land conservation directly contributes to our quality of life. Our natural heritage is one of our competitive advantages. It is woven into our Canadian identity and brand. Accessibility of our natural areas to major Canadian centres contributes to our high standard of living and makes Canada an attractive country in which to invest, live, work, and play. Conservation contributes to a healthy environment, which in turn is a foundation for a strong economy.

Budget 2013 presents an opportunity to ensure that we continue to build upon our conservation achievements for the sake of all Canadians. The natural areas conservation program is a Canadian success story, one that the Nature Conservancy of Canada has been proud to lead. Funding for this program will soon expire. It was launched in 2007 by the Government of Canada with an initial investment of $225 million. The program is the largest commitment by any Canadian government to the conservation of natural spaces through the protection of private lands.

This unique public-private partnership invests in direct, on-the-ground action. The results speak for themselves. More than 835,000 acres—that's 3,400 square kilometres—has been conserved to date. To put it another way, that's 1,100 NHL-sized hockey rinks every day since March 2007. Natural habitat has been protected for 126 species at risk and 450 species of conservation concern.

Through matching funding, we are delivering almost three dollars of conservation for every dollar invested by the government. How have we matched the funds? It's by engaging more Canadians in the conservation mission. Our partners come from all walks of life and all corners of Canada—individuals, landowners, communities, provincial governments, other conservation organizations, first nations, and industry. They have worked with us through the program to create win-win solutions from coast to coast to coast. The program is an innovative approach that delivers measurable results and maximum value for the taxpayer dollar. I invite you to read more about it in the materials we have submitted to the committee.

We urge the committee to support renewal of the natural areas conservation program in Budget 2013. We propose a renewed investment of $250 million over five years. That will yield an additional 3,200 square kilometres of conserved land and more than $700 million in conservation. As a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Canada has committed to ensuring that 17% of our lands and inland waters are protected by 2020. We believe that with innovative programs such as the natural areas conservation program, Canada can achieve this by 2017, our 150th birthday.

As the finance minister himself has said, the environment and the economy are inextricably linked. Canada can lead the way both economically and in terms of the conservation of our natural estate.

I look forward to answering questions. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We will begin members' questions with Ms. Nash, for five minutes, please.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you.

Welcome to all of the witnesses. They were very diverse and interesting presentations. Unfortunately, we only get five minutes to ask you questions, so I'll try to fit in as much as I can.

Ms. Cohen, you raise some very bracing statistics. One in five persons in any given year is affected by mental illness, 30% are on short-term and long-term disability claims, and there is a $51 billion impact on our economy. I know anecdotally that mental health is a huge issue in communities across Canada. It's certainly a big issue in my community. We see low-income people with mental health problems, although I know it can affect people at any income level.

A few years ago Senator Kirby released a report—I think in 2006—that made over 100 recommendations. The kinds of recommendations you're making today about increasing access to psychologists, were they part of the Kirby report, and have any of these recommendations been actioned?

[Karen Cohen]

Following Senator Kirby's report, when the Mental Health Commission came out with a national strategy for mental health, one of their key recommendations was that we do a better job at enhancing access to evidence-based service. Prevention and promotion, workplace mental health—these are critically important. But the reality is that when one in five persons develops a mental health problem, we need to do a better job at getting them the care they need.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Have you noticed an increase in services, or is this a work in progress?

[Karen Cohen]

I think it's still a work in progress. The Mental Health Commission released its strategy only in the spring or early summer. There's lots of work to be done to address it, particularly in the jurisdictions. As for figuring the solutions to that problem, we have a ways to go.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Have you done any costing of what the impact on medicare would be if psychologists were as accessible as medical doctors, without a referral and without private payment?

[Karen Cohen]

I'm glad you asked that question. As psychologists, we can tell you a lot about the research that shows what's effective for mental health problems. But we haven't done as great a job at telling you what it would cost to do a better job to address them. As an association, we have commissioned a business case from a group of health economists. It will be out early in the year and it will answer that question: what will a business model look like for Canada. Likely it will produce a variety of models—employer-provided, private insurer, public insurer. We want to be able to help answer that question.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Presumably, it would put a dent in that $51 billion cost.

[Karen Cohen]

That would be the hope. Our position is that you pay now or you pay later.