Finance Committee on Nov. 20th, 2012

[Benoit Lavoie]

Yes. We need your help. I think it's pretty clear.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I want to ask Dr. Reid a couple of questions.

I was so thrilled to see in your document, your opening remarks, about the lack of efficiency and how frustrating it is to work in a system that gives quality care but that is inefficient.

I want to bring to your attention that we did have St. Boniface Hospital appear here, and we had a wonderful suggestion about creating what they would call a centre for health care innovation, because they see a need to try to partner with business to try to address some of these inefficiencies.

Not only did they suggest that, in an effort to solve these inefficiencies, like partnering and producing seniors' care homes on hospital grounds, which makes entirely good sense to many of us because of our aging population, who have health care needs, but they also suggested a lean management system that would allow inefficiencies to be addressed, by really addressing those through the grassroots people in hospitals. Through this lean management system, they were actually able to save, in the first year, $3 million. They expect to save double that in the second year, so they've asked that the government consider putting some money towards this centre to do that.

Would you be able to perhaps review that and tell us whether or not you think that's a good idea? Did you hear about this suggestion from St. Boniface Hospital before coming here?

[Dr. Anna Reid]

I'm not familiar with that particular example of lean management and efficiency, but the lean management system has been used in health care in many jurisdictions across Canada. Actually, Saskatchewan has been a leader in that, and the government—actually, through Dan Florizone, the deputy minister—works very closely with the physicians of Saskatchewan. They've worked together to put the lean management system in place. The CMA has been very interested in this, and it's something we're looking at trying to promote in other areas across the country.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

After today, if you have an opportunity to actually review—

[Dr. Anna Reid]

I will, yes.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

If you want to send some comments in, we would be really happy to receive them, Doctor. As I say, Dr. Tétreault was one of the leaders in the lean management system in Manitoba, and he travels all over teaching this, not only in Canada, but the world, because he's been in such demand.

We did do some things in Budget 2012 to address cost effectiveness, such as promoting cost-effective health care through the McMaster University studies. Hopefully, that will reduce some of the inefficiencies. Of course, we did some other things with regard to mental health research and that kind of thing, and we continue to look at ways to help improve in our own way.

Ms. Wolfson, you did not get a question yet. I would love to have your feedback on something you had in your submission, the federal skilled workers program. There are some changes coming, and you've indicated that you believe this will help recent graduates stay here in Canada. I'm just wondering if you can explain what you mean by that.

[Judith Wolfson]

The new program Minister Kenney announced has been hugely helpful for our Ph.D. students and our graduate students who are here doing research. Instead of having to leave the country at the end of their program, they can apply to stay here in the country, and that's just a tremendous retention strategy for the best and the brightest.

I will say that we've had wonderful skating stars here; we do have the Olympics of these kinds of graduate students, and we want to make sure that they can stay in the country. It's a huge opportunity for Canada.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I have to tell you that I agree.

The Jenkins panel also made some recommendations with regard to evolving National Research Council institutes. Very briefly, did you want to comment on that?

[Judith Wolfson]

I think the bottom line is—as opposed to my taking the time here to speak about a specific program, there are two areas. Research has to be supported, and infrastructure has to be supported because you can't do it without that kind of expensive investment. It's really not about the NRC. The Jenkins report spoke to the NRC. It had a whole slew of recommendations that we were highly supportive of. It's a trend that goes from A to Z of the kind of infrastructure support that's very important to get that innovation out the door and into products and services.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We are bumping right against the 5 p.m. time to change panels.

I will put three questions on the table and then have the organizations perhaps respond to me as the chair.

Ms. Wolfson, that was an outstanding submission to the committee. Is there anything further, for instance, on CFI—that was in your response to question 5 in your submission—that you want the committee to consider in terms of background funding for the Canada Foundation for Innovation?

My second one is with respect to Alzheimer's, the motion that Mr. Brison mentioned. Dr. Reid, is there anything further that you want us to consider in terms of substance, as to what would involve an Alzheimer's society? There are two organizations, the Alzheimer's Society and neurological organizations that actually work on.... If there's anything substantive you want us to consider for this report, please submit that to me as well.

Mr. Campbell, the third one is with respect to the foreign investment protection agreements. You mentioned them in your opening presentation. Again, I'm sorry I'm running out of time, but if you could submit any further comments on that to the committee—obviously it's very topical with the recent one with China—we'd appreciate them very much.

As you can see, it was a very interesting panel and a very interesting discussion. I'm sorry it has to end here. We do want to thank you for your responses to our questions. If you have anything further, please do submit it to the committee.

Thank you so much.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

We're resuming the 93rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance.

We have with us this afternoon the Canadian Arts Coalition; the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada; Fair Pensions for All; Food Secure Canada; Medicine Hat and District Chamber of Commerce; and finally, by video conference, Réseau québécois d'action pour la santé des femmes.

With that, I would like to welcome the witnesses. You each have five minutes. I'll let you know when you have about a minute left.

We'll begin with the Canadian Arts Coalition.

[Shannon Litzenberger, Artist, Arts Policy Fellow and Steering Committee Member, Canadian Arts Coalition]

Thank you so much.

My name is Shannon Litzenberger, and I am a Toronto-based dance artist and an innovation fellow with the Metcalf Foundation in arts policy.

I'm here today actually as a volunteer for the Canadian Arts Coalition. We are Canada's largest group of arts, culture, and heritage supporters. We're non-partisan, pan-Canadian, 100% volunteer-led, and we don't receive any government funding.

In response to the government's framework for Budget 2013, we're proposing some specific measures to address economic recovery, job creation, skills development, and enhanced productivity.

First, we're recommending that the government renew investments in the Canada funds that it announced in 2009. These include the arts training fund, the arts presentation fund, the cultural spaces fund, and the cultural investment fund. Of the $120 million in that fund currently, $80 million is up for renewal, so we'd like to see that investment renewed.

This suite of programs plays a very critical role in supporting the arts and culture ecology, and it represents investments that are not in the scope of what the Canada Council for the Arts supports.

Our second recommendation is to maintain levels of funding to the Canada Council for the Arts and, as circumstances permit, to begin increasing investment towards the target of $300 million annually.

I'd like to acknowledge that in Budget 2012 the government did maintain investment to the Canada Council, and we are very thankful for this in the sector. Last year that enabled the council to support activities in 1,900 Canadian communities. The council is regarded by government and the arts sector as the most effective deliverer of public funds in the arts.

I often hear government say that it is investing in arts and culture at record levels, so at this table today I'd like to give you some perspective on how the Canada Council for the Arts, more specifically, has been funded over time.

The council, as you know, was created in 1957 by the Massey-Lévesque commission, and 30 years after that there was a federal cultural policy review committee that looked at all of the federal programs of investment in the arts. When that report was published in 1982—that's 30 years ago—it called for a significant increase in funds to the Canada Council at that time, and they actually asked for a doubling of the budget.

In the years that followed that, the recommendations for new investment for the council were never implemented, and in fact the budget was cut quite dramatically in the nineties. That caused a major downsizing for the institution. Since that time, we've had modest incremental growth, particularly by this current government, and we thank you for that. But the fact remains that today, in 2012, the per capita investment in the Canada Council for the Arts is actually lower than it was in 1990.

The impact of that long-term investment trend has resulted in the council having less capacity than it did 20 years ago relative to the growing and changing demographics of Canada's population, as well as relative to the available talent and potential of the sector itself. As a practitioner in the field, I can tell you that for my generation, life as an artist is a constant struggle.

But we are still a booming sector, growing faster than financial services, faster than the food and beverage industry, and faster than the biomedical industry. And we are capable of producing great returns for Canada, both economic and social.

I know you've heard all of these stats: over 600,000 jobs; $46 billion into the economy; and we return $25 billion in taxes to all levels of government, which is more than three times what the investment is from government.

We are also a sector that's undergoing unprecedented transformation at this time. New technology is challenging traditional modes of presentation, and changing patterns of audience engagement in cultural experiences has broadened the scope and nature of artistic offerings and public demand.

While maintaining investment through a challenging financial climate has allowed the cultural sector to avoid major downsizing, as we've seen in other countries, there is still an entire generation of diverse and talented creative innovators waiting in the wings. These new generations and the work they produce represent today's Canada, one that speaks over 200 languages; that embodies values of equality, tolerance, social responsibility, and civic pride; and one that is poised to lead the world in creativity and innovation. So we are foolish to hold back the relatively modest investment that will be required to leverage this talent.

We are so proud that our government understands the value of the arts to our economy and to our society, and as Canada sees positive economic growth, now it's time to make some investments that are commensurate with this value.

I can't stress enough that when the government makes decisions regarding arts and culture, its decisions directly impact the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Canadians like me, and it does touch the lives of families and communities throughout the country.

New generations of Canadians want to see their experiences reflected in the contemporary cultural expression of our nation, and new investment is needed to nurture the future development of our artists, the creative work they produce, and the communities they serve.

What is the cultural legacy we are building? How will we know ourselves, and how will the world know us?

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

Next is the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada. You have five minutes, please.

[Shellie Bird, Member, Board of Directors, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada]

I'm Shellie Bird from the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, and I thank you for the opportunity to present today.

I've worked in child care for over 30 years, caring for and educating hundreds of young children and being a support to their parents as they struggle to balance the needs of their children with the demands of their paid work or studies.

I know firsthand the increasing pressures on young parents as they face growing job insecurity, stagnating wages, increased student debt, and higher costs for the basics—food, housing, and utilities. At the same time, these families face sky-high child care fees, typically the second highest cost in most family budgets today.

Child care in Canada is in a state of crisis. It is a fragmented patchwork that demonstrates the failure of a market-based approach to meeting the needs of young children and their families. Evidence of this crisis can be seen across the country in unaffordable fees for parents, shortage of child care spaces, poor wages and working conditions for child care providers, and a growth in large corporate child care interests in Canada.

National and international studies show that child care grows the economy. A recent study commissioned by the Child Care Human Resources Sector Council found that investing in child care provides the greatest benefit of all sectors in the Canadian economy. Child care is a strong economic stimulus. For every dollar invested, the GDP is increased by $2.30, producing one of the highest GDP impacts of all major sectors.

If the federal government is serious about ensuring sustained economic recovery and growth, it must take action now to support provinces and territories to build systems of early learning and care that allow parents to work and/or study and assist in children's healthy development.

If the federal government is serious about investing in job creation and a knowledge-based economy, then it must make investment in child care a priority. Building systems of affordable, accessible public child care not only creates jobs, it also increases families' purchasing power and provides additional tax revenue.

Research has found that child care is one of the biggest job creators, both in the jobs it creates in the child care sector itself and by allowing more parents to enter and remain in the workforce or to train and retrain for better jobs. In Quebec, where half of all children under the age of five have access to affordable child care, 70,000 women have entered the labour force, a 4% increase in women's employment overall.

Child care should factor into any national strategy to ensure the training of skilled workers who will replace Canada's retiring workforce. A universal, affordable, quality child care system will increase access to the kind of care and education we know best supports children while their parents are at work or study. It will help to alleviate the financial burden of the high cost of child care for young families, allowing them to get ahead of the increasing living costs and the stagnating wages.

Every parent hopes to make a better life for their children. Every generation hopes to leave behind a better world. The federal government does have a key role to play in providing the conditions that foster this hope and optimism. You do have a choice in the 2013 federal budget to support young parents to meet the demands of a 21st century economic system that requires their participation. You do have an obligation to support families to be hopeful for themselves, for their children, and for their grandchildren.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

Mr. Tufts, you have five minutes, please.

[William Tufts, Founder and Executive Director, Fair Pensions for All]

Thank you.

It's a pleasure to be here with you and to share in the very valuable work that you do for this country. It's important to see all of the dedicated people around this table who are committing their lives to making Canada a better place.

It's also exciting to see the fellow panellists here, who have a very wide-ranging and diverse group of interests in the country. I thank you for allowing me to be here.

I'm here with Fair Pensions for All. We're an organization dedicated to looking at reform in the Canadian pension system. There are various aspects we need to look at in order to bring the system back into balance and to make the system fairer for all Canadians. I'd like to address some of those issues for you today, to go through some of the facts and figures that represent the imbalances that exist in the pension system today, and to outline some of the unfairness in the system that we feel is important to address and bring back to a level of fairness for all Canadians.

I'd like to congratulate the government for the recent moves it's taken, the bold and courageous steps toward making reforms in the pension system: the reform of MP pensions, and also the reform of public sector pensions. It is a start toward the journey that we need to begin in order to make these pensions, as I say, more fair for all Canadians.

It's a good start, but I'd like to point out to you today some of the areas in which we need to take further steps to address some of the unfairness that exists.

From our point of view, we see unfairness at basically two different levels. We see one level of unfairness between the public sector and the private sector, the huge gap that we point out, the inequality between the seniors who are retiring today, those who have access to public sector pensions, those who have access to private pensions, and those who have no access to pensions at all.

There is also intergenerational unfairness. We have a group of baby boomers, myself included, who have made very large promises to themselves in terms of the entitlements they are going to be giving themselves. Unfortunately, with the current economic situation in Canada and around the world, those promises are starting to come into question. The question is whether or not they are sustainable over the long term.

As we try to shore up and maintain those promises, we see a generation behind us that is forced to fund them. That generation is making very large contributions to their pension plans mainly to fund the shortfall that exists in those pension plans. They are putting, in some situations, up to 15% of their wages as contributions into these pension plans, and a lot of that's going into the shortfalls that exist.

A large part of the imbalance that's occurred has occurred over the past two decades. One of the things I'd like to point out in our report is the level of contributions that are going into the plan. You can see back in 2001, $28 billion went into RRSPs and $11.6 billion went into the pensions of public sector employees.

We move that ahead to 2011 and look at the contributions that occurred last year, where 80% of the population outside of the public sector contributed $33.8 billion into their RRSPs and another $22 billion into private sector pension plans, but the public sector pension plans accumulated $31.3 billion. That's a substantial increase from $11.6 billion a decade ago to $31 billion today. We're told that there are still very large public sector pension shortfalls that need to be funded.

Those are the issues I would like you to look at today in terms of determining the next steps as you continue your reforms of the public pension system. We'd like to be able to assist you with some guidance.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

Thank you very much.

Now we'll hear from Ms. Bronson from Food Secure Canada.

[Diana Bronson, Executive Director, Food Secure Canada]

Good afternoon. Thank you for inviting us here. It is an honour to appear before our elected representatives from all political parties.

I speak today on behalf of Food Secure Canada, which is a coalition of organizations and individuals concerned about our food system in Canada. We have three overarching goals: zero hunger, healthy and safe food for all, and a sustainable food system.

We have quite a large menu of options we'd like to see in terms of federal policy. Notably, we're calling for a national food strategy, something that all political parties agreed with in the last election, and which we've elaborated in “Resetting the Table: A People's Food Policy for Canada”. I've submitted copies of that on the table and also more detailed comments than what I'll be able to say in the five minutes I have before me.

I really want to concentrate my comments on one big recommendation, even though there are many other things we'd like to see in the budget.

We’ve just come out of our biennial conference in Edmonton. Some 300 people from across the country gathered and came out with a resounding consensus that the most important policy reform we could undertake immediately would be the institution of a visionary national student nutrition program. That's what I'm here to argue for today.

Perhaps Dr. David Butler-Jones, Chief Public Health Officer of Canada, said it well. Over half of students go to school without breakfast in the morning. The consequences of that are quite severe. As he says:

When children go to school hungry or poorly nourished, their energy levels, memory, problem-solving skills, creativity, concentration and behaviour are all negatively impacted.

In fact, what we're calling for today is investment in the better health, the better learning, the higher grades, and better economic returns that will come from a healthy, nutritious snack for all primary and secondary schools in Canada. I'm not calling for some big, heavy, bureaucratic top-down program by the federal government. What I'm asking you to do is to contribute to the amazing array of grassroots community initiatives already going on in breakfast programs and snack programs across this country.

In fact, what we're calling for is for the federal government to assume 20% of the costs of what's already going on. The other 80% of the expenses of this program are assumed by parents and community organizations, by the private sector, and by the municipalities, the provinces, and the territories across this country.

I know this is the finance committee and this is the pre-budget consultation. To cut to the chase: what will it cost? We figure that 20% of the contribution would cost roughly $540 million if we were to institute the full program right away. We're suggesting that we phase it in, that it be bottom up, and that we target the support in those communities where there's the most capacity and the greatest need. We'd argue that this would represent a very wise investment in our future, in our children. It will reduce long-term health care costs. It will improve learning.

I know it's a tight fiscal environment, and it's tough for everybody to think of making these new programs, but Canada is one of the very few developed countries in the world that has no federal nutrition program. There are innovative ways we could finance such a program as well. Annually in this country we consume 3.5 billion litres of sugar-sweetened beverages. A five-cent tax on every litre consumed would adequately cover the first year of such a program, a little bit under $200 million.

My plea to you today, on this International Day of the Child, is to think very carefully about the consequences of kids not learning properly because they're going to school hungry or they're being badly fed. We can support local economies, we can improve their health, we can reduce chronic diseases. It just makes sense. It's a smart thing to do, and I'd ask you to consider that when you identify the priorities for this government as it goes towards the 2013 budget.

Thank you very much for your attention. We're very pleased to have this opportunity to suggest this to you.

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

Thank you, Ms. Bronson.

Next is Mr. Melhoff from the Medicine Hat and District Chamber of Commerce. You have five minutes, please.

[Jason Melhoff, Chair, Medicine Hat and District Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Finance. On behalf of the Medicine Hat and District Chamber of Commerce, I extend our sincere gratitude for the opportunity to present to you today.

Our primary concerns related to our pre-budget submission of July 2012 are as follows.

Commercial border services. It would be beneficial for the Canadian government to invest in border initiatives, ensuring there is a financial capacity to guarantee the hours and services of ports of entry, consistently matching the U.S. border standards on both traveller and commercial services. Additionally, the Canadian government needs to invest in border services in Alberta and implement budgetary resources and a plan for an extension of hours at the Wild Horse port of entry to ensure there is a second 24-hour commercial border crossing in Alberta. With a population of close to four million and the fastest growing GDP in the country, Alberta remains the only province with one 24-hour port of entry.

Investment in citizenship and immigration. The federal government's temporary foreign worker program and Canada's provincial nominee program are important components of Canada's labour strategy. However, changes in how the programs are implemented and integrated federally are urgently needed. Change is needed to reform processes to increase Canadian businesses' ability to compete domestically and globally. In Canada, employment is projected to reach 35.2 million in 2055. The labour force is projected to reach 22.8 million in the same year. Therefore, the demand for labour would exceed the supply of labour by 13.9 million workers. As a chamber of commerce, we ask for investment and consideration toward the foreign worker program to assist in alleviating the increasing labour gap.

Tax indexing. The value on new housing rebates has not changed since 1991, and we are requesting that the government evaluate and look at increasing the value on GST and HST particularly on new housing rebates or index the values of inflationary rates.

Charitable tax credits. In order to provide a greater focus on fundraising and individual donations, the Government of Canada should establish higher tax credits for donations and provide less direct funding to charities. This will provide a greater incentive for individuals and businesses to provide donations to charities of their choice.

HST exemption from managed assets. On July 1, 2010, the federal government facilitated the implementation of harmonization of the GST with provincial sales tax in Ontario and B.C. While providing streamlined reporting and numerous cost savings for business, the implementation of the harmonization has resulted in Canadian investors paying the price on their retirement assets. Investors are paying GST on management fees for mutual funds, segregated funds, exchange traded funds, hedge funds, and managed pension plans. With the harmonized sales tax, asset management services are now subject to the combined tax rate. Therefore, we request that the federal government continue to assist Canadians to save for the future by exempting asset management services from the goods and services tax.

Red tape reduction. We commend the Government of Canada on its red tape reduction action plan, and we encourage continued investment in reducing unnecessary regulations and bureaucracy through the recommendations provided by the red tape reduction commission. The disproportionate impact on small firms is especially important given that the SMEs are a critical driver of the Canadian economy, and firms with fewer than 50 employees account for 97% of companies in Canada. Businesses feel that much of the regulatory requirements are unneeded and provide no further benefit or added value. Instead, the regulatory burdens are increasing the cost to taxpayers and to business.

Support to ranchers in the removal of specified risk material. Since 2007, increased costs associated with the removal of specified risk material from cattle has caused significant cost disadvantages for Canadian cattle producers, processors, and veterinarians. In order to maintain slaughter capacity and restore competitiveness in the Canadian cattle industry, the federal government should work to implement regulatory reform and policies to offset the costs and harmonize regulations with the United States. We would ask the federal government to invest in working with the cattle industry to determine a cost-effective solution to the removal of specified risk material.

Investing in the Canadian Forces and training. The Canadian Forces bases invest heavily in their surrounding communities....

Yes?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

I'm sorry to interrupt you. You will have the balance of your time. You've got about a minute left. But I need to interrupt you because the bells have started calling us to a vote and I'd like to ask consent from the committee members, under Standing Order 115(5), to sit through the bells for a bit so we can hear the rest of the testimony and get some questions in.

For the committee members, the buses have been called and they'll be waiting for us at 5:45 sharp, if we can sit that long. I've had some members advise me that they are unable to return. Unfortunately, it means we're going to have our time cut a bit short. So with that, again I apologize for the interruption.

Mr. Melhoff, you have a minute left.

[Jason Melhoff]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Canadian Forces bases invests heavily into their surrounding communities, not only in base procurement opportunities, but also with military families investing in goods, services, and entertainment. There are Canadian Forces bases within Canada that provide military training to other countries, bringing global investment to our country. With many countries experiencing difficult economic conditions, there is discussion regarding removing some training from Canadian soil.

We would encourage the federal government to investigate these conditions further and ensure there is adequate support and influence for Canadian Forces bases to directly support the retention of overseas military training operations on Canadian soil, and particularly focus on the British Army and other Commonwealth countries.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present to you today.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

Thank you very much.

We are now going to go by teleconference to a presentation from the Réseau québécois d'action pour la santé des femmes.

Go ahead, Ms. Assayag.

[Lydya Assayag, Director, Réseau québécois d'action pour la santé des femmes]

Good afternoon. I would first like to thank the committee for inviting us.

I would quickly like to emphasize that the issues of women and health are really related. Across Canada and around the world, women take care of health issues, providing it both in the public sector and in the family as caregivers. Any steps taken in this area, therefore, target not only the women they seek to help, but also the whole family and society as a whole.

I would also like to say that we are aware of the difficult economic times the world is going through—I am thinking of Europe in particular—of the constraints required in austerity budgeting and of the cuts imposed in order to achieve a balanced budget. But they have a social impact that costs much more later. We have three recommendations for you, all principally based on prevention.

The first deals with demographic change. As you know, we live in an aging society and women live longer. That is to say that they die later than men and, more specifically, in worse health. They have more chronic diseases and, in the final years of their lives, they consume more medications and use more services. They are not in good health.

Given that situation, we feel that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We must therefore invest in prevention to provide those women with information and to improve their living conditions before they get into situations of vulnerability. The result will automatically be the same for men. As we mention in our brief, this is a position that the Public Health Agency of Canada has taken on a number of occasions. In economic terms, we know that $1 in prevention represents $10 in savings in social and health costs and in absenteeism. I can provide examples later if there are any questions.

How do we move forward on prevention? We have been in existence for 15 years and we have a good deal of experience in the area. We do research, we produce information, brochures, conferences and videos in order to provide women with information on their health and the health of their loved ones. For example, we deal with cancer prevention and menopause, among other subjects. That allows them to make decisions and to practise prevention.

Our first recommendation is that a permanent funding mechanism is necessary. The women’s health contribution program, now abolished and whose activities will come to an end on March 31 next year, provided $2.8 million in funding annually to centres of excellence in women’s health. We are part of that program and we want a permanent mechanism to provide $4 million for research. That is the amount needed currently. Why? Because research provides information focused on women that they can use in order to practise prevention, thereby reducing costs.

Our second recommendation asks for $100 million to be invested into improved living conditions. While we have to provide people with information, we also have to improve their living conditions. Food Secure Canada has talked to you about nutrition. That is a living condition. Others have talked to you about old age pensions and affordable social housing. Those are living conditions too.

That brings me to our third recommendation. In order to achieve sound international governance, the optimal use of resources and the modernization of public services, budget analysis must be based on the equality of men and women. The tools used to manage budgets must be tailored to the needs of the target population. The impacts on men and on women are not the same. There is a lot of research on this.

As economic inequality between men and women persists and is manifested in health problems and a loss of social and economic productivity, it is important, when drawing up budgets, to use tools that recognize these differences. This allows us to assess the impact of the measures being taken. We therefore recommend that Budget 2013 use gender budgeting as is done in other countries such as Morocco and some countries in Europe and Latin America.

We also recommend that the budget respond to differences. For example, a person living in a remote region does not have the same impact and does not need the same measures. The budget analysis must therefore also be intersectional and take into account factors like age, place of residence, family situation, life path and disabilities.

So, to optimize the budgetary impact, the tools must be refined so that they can truly be tailored to all Canadians.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

Thank you very much for your testimony. We have a little time for questions.

I will start with Mr. Caron.