Finance Committee on Feb. 17th, 2016

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

In the home.

[Dr. Cindy Forbes]

Some people have left their jobs. Many people are working full-time and providing care either to their parents or a neighbour's friend. Often it's an elderly parent. They're not receiving any support for any of the costs associated with that. This is really just one measure. There are many other things we could be doing to support them in terms of respite, supplies, and other physical support home care. This is just one measure that is easily implementable.

It can be done immediately and it would provide some relief for people who are spending a lot of money. It is expensive in the sense of different forms of care that you're providing and giving up your income as well at the same time. It's just one measure.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

I'm glad you highlighted the issue around small business.

[Dr. Cindy Forbes]

Yes.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

We did have someone during the election campaign make a statement that I thought was unfair relative to the fact that we have something to the effect that many small businesses were nothing but a tax dodge. We raised that issue yesterday with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. That's something that we need to continue to hammer home on.

[Dr. Cindy Forbes]

Thank you.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

I am curious on the CUPE presentation around PPP Canada. It's been well-proven that having competitive bids, if you might, has always worked best for Canadians. I'd like to challenge your comments about doing away with the funding for the public-private partnerships and ask if you have any concrete data that would show that these projects are better spent being funded solely through the public system.

[Toby Sanger]

I would love to have concrete data, but unfortunately it's all kept secret. We have to rely on auditors general to review this. The office of the Ontario auditor general reviewed 74 public-private partnerships that were through Infrastructure Ontario and found that they cost $8 billion more than if they had been publicly financed and operated. That works out to about 29% more and the auditor general found absolutely no evidence of risk transfer.

The previous government passed the Federal Accountability Act which actually reduced the transparency for public-private partnerships.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

May I ask one question on it? Did that take into account—

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Sorry, Mr. Liepert, we're over time.

Mr. Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Strangely enough, I will continue in the same vein with Mr. Sanger.

In your brief, you said the following:

Privatization compromises those shared values in communities. Subcontracting and public-private partnerships are risky and expensive for municipalities and Canadians. Costs increase, quality decreases and local management is weakened. Services are less accessible and project time frames continue to increase. Public funds are diverted from essential services to the benefit of large corporations.

Moreover, my colleagues, several MPs and business people often repeat that PPPs are a great way to help the government save money and share the risk. However, you are basically telling us that this is not the case. It seems a bit counterintuitive. Do you have anything else to bring to our attention?

Ontario's example was striking, but do you have other examples to explain why it may seem that PPPs help governments, while they actually negatively impact the ability to provide services at a lower cost?

[Toby Sanger]

In terms of the risk transfer, one thing that the Ontario auditor general found was that $6 billion of that $8 billion was actually double-counting of risk and was inappropriate. That's a significant amount and the auditor general found absolutely no evidence, no empirical evidence, for that risk transfer.

I also want to go to the point that Mr. Liepert made that it's better to have some more competition. I would absolutely agree. The problem is that in that whole P3 world.... This is another thing that came out in the auditor general's report. There are a few big firms and they basically carve up the business themselves. Smaller businesses, the Canadian Construction Association, engineers, architects, and others have been critical of P3s because they don't open up competition. We have a few big firms that compete and basically carve up the business themselves. That's a factor there.

In many small communities, those benefits don't trickle down. In fact, some of the companies are basically tax havens. They don't even get the benefit from corporate income tax.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bloomer, your presentation was very thought-provoking. For a time, I was the official opposition critic for natural resources. So I am quite familiar with the pipeline issue. I was also a member of the Standing Committee on Finance when changes were made to the way the National Energy Board operated. I agree with you. We need to have renewed confidence in a regulatory body like the National Energy Board. Unfortunately, that won't happen just because we wish it to. The changes made in 2012 and 2013 have resulted in the National Energy Board having only 15 months to study very complex projects that can often involve tens of thousands of pages of documents.

With the TransCanada project, we are already talking about more than 30,000 pages and consultations that have so far excluded many people. In the case of the Energy East Pipeline, in Quebec, about 90% of those who wanted to attend the hearings were denied the opportunity.

There is also a more problematic element when it comes to environmental assessment. In the past, environment departments would take care of environmental assessments for those projects. Now, the National Energy Board is responsible for conducting the environmental assessment, as if it was not enough for the board to study the project itself.

We want those projects to be socially acceptable and we want confidence in the National Energy Board to be renewed. I think that the changes made in 2012 and 2013 were detrimental in that regard. You are talking about reconsidering a part of the legislation that gives the government the right to make a decision that could go against the National Energy Board's recommendations. That change was proposed by the Conservative government. I think that if we back off when it comes to this, we should back off when it comes to all changes that have been made and perhaps review the National Energy Board's role to give it to the necessary tools to do a good job in order to give the government all the information it needs to make a well-informed decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Bloomer.

[Chris Bloomer]

Is that a question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Well, yes. It was more a statement than a question, but I think it should be responded to from your perspective.

[Chris Bloomer]

I'm happy to respond; I'm just checking.

One of the key things on both sides of the fence to restoring confidence and trust in the system.... The changes in CEAA 2012 I think were grown out of the Liberals' smart regulation proposals. Making the process longer doesn't make it better. Changing the consultation requirement, the federal government taking on the role of consulting with first nations directly, I think that's the role of the federal government.

The technical and process evaluation that the NEB undergoes is rigorous, and I think that within those time frames they can get it done. It is fair to say these pipeline projects have been going well beyond the initial time frames for analysis. You're right in that there are tens of thousands of pages of documentation on consultation, on communication, on the technical aspects.

I think that a lot of the changes in 2012 were appropriate. I think that we need to have clarity of process. Right now, I think the overarching thing is that we don't. We don't know how the greenhouse gas issue is going to be rolled into decision-making. We don't know how the consultation process is going to work through this interim process. We need clarity on that side too. We need some certainty overall in the process going forward.

I think that tweaks on the NEB in terms of the infrastructure that it has to do things is important. I think that should be funded, but we should look at it from the perspective that the regulator has been doing its job, especially on the existing pipeline systems, very well and is well regarded internationally. I don't think we need to roll everything back, but I do think we need to do some things, and governance is one of them. Including indigenous people on the NEB is an important thing to do also.

I hope that is helpful.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

I'll turn to Mr. MacKinnon. I hope we can get back to budgetary issues.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too would like to think that we can reach that objective.

First of all, I want to thank all of you for being here with us today.

I would like to raise another topic, but first, I want to thank Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Bloomer for their constructive contribution. I know the drop in oil prices has greatly impacted the industry. Please be assured that we are fully aware that the government needs to act, not only in the interest of all Canadians, but also in the interest of those who work in the energy sector.

The Canadian health care sector is well represented here today, both its employees and practitioners. In 2005, when the health accord was negotiated by Prime Minister Martin, there was a great demand on the part of the provinces for the federal government to exercise leadership, not only by investing in the health sector, but also by playing a coordination role and by showing greater leadership in the health area, while respecting provincial jurisdictions.

Given the time I have at my disposal, I would like to ask you, Ms. Forbes, Ms. Sutherland Boal and Mr. Sanger, what recommendations you would like to make to the committee with regard to federal government leadership in the health sector, in addition to the investments you have recommended.

[Anne Sutherland Boal]

Thank you very much for your question.

In terms of the Canadian Nurses Association, we believe that one of the recommendations where the federal government can make a real contribution is in bringing groups together to develop principles and standards for home care for Canadians across the country. We have standards for many other processes, but we do not have standards for home care across this country.

Often people would say that the home care you get is based on your postal code. What we would suggest is that we have an opportunity with the federal government to provide leadership to develop standards related to access, governance, degree of services, types of services, etc., and that would be a huge contribution to health care.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Sorry to interject, but do you mean like a Canada Health Act type assurance?

[Anne Sutherland Boal]

No. A series of standards related to types of services, governance, access, etc.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

[Dr. Cindy Forbes]

I'm hoping I understand your question correctly. You're asking for the one ask that we feel will have the most benefit from a provincial-territorial point of view. I think we—

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Where do you think the federal government could play a leadership role in health care?