Finance Committee on Oct. 4th, 2018

[Brent Mizzen]

I guess the bottom line, and the reason we mention rare diseases specifically, is that we want to make sure they are included or captured within the program. They are unique in a number of respects. First, you can have a number of rare diseases that affect smaller portions of the community, and as a result of that—

[Peter Fragiskatos]

It's true; they're much more expensive, obviously.

[Brent Mizzen]

—the drug therapies are very costly.

[Peter Fragiskatos]

Yes.

I don't mean to cut you off, but I have limited time—

[Brent Mizzen]

No, I understand.

[Peter Fragiskatos]

—in these sessions. We all do.

Do you have a suggestion specifically on the best way to approach rare diseases as part of a pharmacare initiative?

[Brent Mizzen]

Just that rare diseases are captured.

[Peter Fragiskatos]

Okay.

And the private insurers?

[Brent Mizzen]

It could possibly be that.

Our suggestion is that we would be wanting to work with government as they develop solutions for the rare disease community.

[Peter Fragiskatos]

I know some private insurers do help with the costs of rare disease prescriptions. Are you saying that should continue?

[Brent Mizzen]

That would be one option that we would support, and we do have a pooling mechanism within our industry. It's not specific to rare diseases, but pooling is another option to address high-cost drugs.

[Peter Fragiskatos]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rowlinson, I'm interested in what you're saying when it comes to transitioning workers who are moving away from GHG-intensive industries such as coal, but I'm also anxious not to reinvent the wheel.

Are there other countries that have done this well that Canada can really learn from? Something tells me that you're going to talk about the Scandinavian examples. Maybe you will. I'm quite interested if you could mention a country or two or three, some examples that we could learn from.

[Mark Rowlinson]

You took the words right out of my mouth. I think the way to think about this is that any time society goes through a profound economic transition, workers need to know that government is behind them in that transition. Workers need to know that there are government programs, whether employment insurance, income support programs, or community development, training and retraining programs. Those are the kinds of skills and levers that government needs to be able to exercise to support workers in that transition.

It's no accident, in our view, that social democratic countries like the Nordic countries have in fact done this the best. In Denmark, for example, employment insurance benefits last for two years when a worker loses their job. It's easier in those circumstances when workers know they have substantial economic supports for them to transition away from a high-paying job in the coal sector into a new, hopefully high-paying job in renewable energy. So, yes, I would suggest to you that it's the Nordic countries that are the ones best to look at.

[Peter Fragiskatos]

Lastly, is Denmark the best example?

[Mark Rowlinson]

Yes, it would be one very good example to look at. Correct.

[Peter Fragiskatos]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I have just a couple of questions.

My question for everyone is this. Part of the committee's work is to look at competitiveness, and we've heard a lot of ways in which to spend money today. Are there any things we could be doing that would enhance our economy and our competitive position without spending money?

I'm going to you, Mr. Mullally, first. You had basically called for something like a regulatory council. We already do have a regulatory advisory committee and a red tape reduction action plan. Are you talking about more than that or is that group not doing its work?

[John Mullally]

I think a low-investment solution, certainly for resource development, would be to have some more excellence around regulatory policy, looking at agility and streamlining it. Probably one thing that is a critical part of business and resource development in Canada is working with first nation communities throughout project development. Government provides no framework structure around that. That area is dominated by the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions and things that don't provide any certainty, so I think those kinds of things inside a centre of excellence and best practices when it comes to resource development would provide industry with more certainty and stimulate investment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Does anybody have any thoughts on how we could really make things roll without spending any more money, on a $340-billion budget?

[Mark Rowlinson]

If I could suggest one thing, the government should seriously look at pricing carbon at the border. Look at border carbon adjustments.

If you did that, you would be promoting and protecting the Canadian economy. For example, it is a tragedy, in our view, that we currently have huge infrastructure projects, bridge-building in Montreal and Victoria, where those bridges are being built using offshore steel and there's no accounting for the cost of that steel and its carbon footprint.

If we priced carbon at the border, then its price would be built into the procurement of that product, and it wouldn't cost the government a cent. In fact, it would bring money to the government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

That's an interesting point.

Are there any other quick thoughts, anyone, or did any of the witnesses want to make one point?

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a quick question for Mr. Mizzen.

We have heard that the property insurers track the increasing costs of climate change shown in insurance payouts, which were over $1 billion last year. It will be higher this year, of course.

For the life and health insurers, are you starting now to track the cost of climate change for your business?

[Brent Mizzen]

We certainly recognize the impact on our business. I'm not aware that we're tracking the impact of it on the business. In part, the reason may be that its cost for our business is a little more indirect than for the P&C insurers. When you have a natural disaster, the impact is quite evident for them, whereas in our business, the impact is more secondary. In the aftermath of a climate change event, you may have changes to disability claims, for example, and you would need to be able to track that.

What I'm saying is that I'm not aware that we do that at this stage, and it might be because of the more indirect effects than the direct effects in the P&C sector.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

The last question goes to Celina.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes]

Quickly, again to Mr. Mizzen, and I just need some clarification on your topic.

You talked about longevity insurance. That is good for people who can afford it, but what about those who are at or below the poverty line? What adjustments do you make for them? What's that particular instrument?