Finance Committee on Feb. 18th, 2016

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you very much.

I had the same question as Ms. Raitt in regard to the GST on over-the-counter. If your association does take a position, maybe you could share it with the whole committee. I'm sure many of us have been approached on that.

With regard to your submission about immunization, I don't know if I didn't understand it correctly, and I don't know if it's in provinces other than Ontario. I know pharmacists now can provide flu shots for example. Is that the case across the country?

[Perry Eisenschmid]

Right now in Canada it's a patchwork of approvals. In the territories and Quebec, pharmacists are not allowed to provide immunizations. In certain provinces, for example in B.C., they can provide more than just flu immunizations. They can provide travel medicine vaccinations. There are different regulations, and it's a patchwork around the country.

The other thing is that reimbursement rates differ as well. I think Ontario has the lowest reimbursement rates for pharmacies providing the flu vaccine, at around $7 to $8 per. I think it's $25 in Alberta at the high end.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Okay.

Does that part of your submission create more of a national standard in terms of pharmacists and immunizations, or was there something else?

[Perry Eisenschmid]

A number of things have to be done on a national immunization strategy. It's about putting in place the proper registry, and the proper tracking and reporting on effectiveness of immunization programs, so there's a consistent schedule of immunizations across the country. There are a lot of things the federal government can do to try to harmonize and make that program more consistent around the country.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Is part of this a type of “eHealth” system? I know that's the Ontario usage, but is it the overall electronic tracking of medical records with immunizations through pharmacists? I see a pharmacist more consistently than a doctor, especially being in Ottawa. You have to go where you can, but I know my pharmacist is always the same.

Is it that kind of access, with the pharmacist knowing your immunization records, that is the kind of standard you're looking toward?

[Perry Eisenschmid]

It's not just the practitioner knowing what your immunization program is, but also nationally tracking it so we know where there are pockets of poor immunization rates and you can target programs to boost those rates. That also allows you to track the effectiveness of these immunization programs.

It all starts with a core set of data that is currently not being captured in a reliable way.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, that clarifies a lot.

My next question is in regard to colleges and universities. I don't know if both or either of you can answer, but in terms of having our aboriginal skills and employment training strategy, I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on how we can improve this program or enhance the ability to attract aboriginal and first nations into colleges, universities, and skilled trades.

[Denise Amyot]

I will not talk about universities. I do not represent them.

It is extremely important to increase the funding available for post-secondary students that are indigenous. As you know, that population has increased tremendously in the last 10 years, but unfortunately there has been a cap of 2% increased funding that clearly does not service the demand. What is important is to renew and expand the aboriginal skills and employment training strategy, or ASETS, because our members are training a lot of that clientele. That often is their first entry to the job market, or if they go to universities, they often come back to colleges.

Some of you may not know, but 22% of our student clientele in colleges have a background from university. Some people are saying that we are becoming the finishing school more and more, and we are very proud of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both very much.

We'll have a quick question from Mr. Liepert.

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

I have a quick comment.

Perry, I don't want you to leave the table, despite the passionate plea from our NDP colleague who sits next to us here that somehow pharmacare is the panacea for all of what ails us in the health care system. I think there is a lot of work to be done in that area yet, and there are a lot of options that I hope the pharmacists association will continue to push.

I wanted to ask Denise a quick question. One of the dilemmas I see—and your association is probably as good an example as any—is when the federal government starts to decide what kinds of projects to fund. We've heard a lot in the presentations about shovel-worthy projects, but I know that in the case of Alberta a lot of money has been spent in the last decade because the resources were there to upgrade facilities. Elsewhere in the country, there probably wouldn't be those same situations so the need is probably greater. At the same time, the dilemma the government has is whether to invest in infrastructure where people are now out of work.

How does the government balance need with what I think would be an objective of the government, putting people back to work?

[Denise Amyot]

What is very interesting is that when commodity prices are low and there are less jobs in the industry, people go back to school. They go back to acquire increased skills because they realized while they were working that they could be better and they could aspire to a better career if they were better skilled.

What we are seeing right now in Alberta is a huge increase. Guess what? There are waiting lists right now for trades. There are waiting lists in the health sector. Alberta would still be able to get their fair share, I believe, because there are so many needs in Alberta. If I just look at the needs that our Alberta colleges and institutes have identified, it's about $200 million in deferred maintenance and $1.6 billion in infrastructure for new projects.

I can give you an example. Red Deer is a place that most people probably know. There is a big need right now for a centre for health, wellness, and sport for $90 million. The difference this building would make to Red Deer would be incredible for the community.

I could give you another example. I have a full list here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I have to cut you there, Denise.

You have the full list across the country, but we're going to have to cut you. We are out of time. I would certainly like to thank the witnesses for their presentations on short notice, the good information, and the forthrightness of their answers. Thank you.

We will suspend for a few minutes to bring up the next witnesses. We have a Skype presentation and a video conference.

We will suspend for four minutes if we could.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We will come to order for our second series of witnesses on pre-budget consultations. We have two individuals by either Skype or video conference.

We'll come to order, because we are going to run very tight on time.

We'll start with Ms. Forget, who's a professor at the University of Manitoba. Guaranteed annual income is the topic.

Go ahead, Ms. Forget. The floor is yours. We'll have to cut it at five minutes.

[Dr. Evelyn Forget, Professor, University of Manitoba, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to come and talk to you all today.

I'm an economist. I'm a health economist at the University of Manitoba. I'm here with a very simple request today. I'm going to ask you to set aside a very small amount of money in this budget exercise going forward so that you can work with the provinces to facilitate a series of guaranteed annual income experiments, or pilots, across the country.

As you may know, there's a surge of interest in guaranteed annual income from around the world. Finland and several cities in the Netherlands have just initiated pilots. Switzerland is about to vote on a citizens' referendum later this year. In low- and moderate-income countries, experiments are flourishing. In Canada a number of organizations, including the public health agencies of Canada and Ontario, the national association of food banks, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Association of Social Workers, along with many others, have endorsed the idea of a guaranteed annual income. Mayors and councils of several large cities, including Calgary and Edmonton, have endorsed the idea, as have some provincial governments.

In Canada when we talk about a guaranteed annual income, we usually present it as a refundable tax credit based on income, similar to that of the national child benefit or the OAS and GIS. In a sense, what we're asking for is to see what happens if you extend the ideas behind the national child benefit to working-age benefits, or adult benefits. Both of these, by the way, are forms of GAI—the OAS, GIS, and the national child benefit. As family income increases, the guaranteed annual income would decline, but less than proportionately. This of course creates a work incentive, but it also establishes a minimum level of income for all Canadians. The proposed guaranteed annual income would stand in place of the current arrangements for adult or working-age benefits in this country. As such, it would form a coherent part of a progressive state.

Interestingly enough, some of the best evidence for how a guaranteed annual income would function in a high-income country comes from this country, from Canada. In the mid-1970s the federal government, in partnership with the Province of Manitoba, established a project called “Mincome”, which ran for four years in the city of Winnipeg and the town of Dauphin, Manitoba, which had a population of about 10,000. The project ended without a final evaluation after the provincial government changed, but I and others have been able to go back to find out what happened to the participants in the experiment and what the consequences were.

It turned out that many people at the time were worried about a reduction in employment—if you give people a guaranteed income, why wouldn't everybody stop working? There was a small reduction in terms of numbers of hours worked, primarily because women used the guaranteed annual income to buy themselves longer maternity leaves at a time when the state guaranteed four or six weeks, and partly because boys, young adolescents, took their first full-time job at 18 instead of 16. One of the major findings of my project was that Mincome was associated with an increase in the high school completion rate, particularly for young boys.

I looked at the health data and found that hospitalizations fell by 8.5% relative to a matched control group, largely because of improved mental health, as did visits to family doctors.

The likely benefits of a guaranteed annual income are many. We can look at improved physical and mental health, and improved quality of life for low-income people, including the working poor. Current adult benefits do a very poor job of dealing with the working poor. We can look at a system of social benefits better attuned to the economic changes we've seen over the past 30 or 40 years associated with the rise of precarious employment and the rise of inequality. We also can look at increased education and job training, which leads to greater productivity and less use of other social services; and reduced use of allied public services that are worsened by poverty, such as health care, special education, criminal justice.

I actually work at a downtown hospital at the University of Manitoba. As you walk through the hallways, it's very easy to see that what we treat in that hospital is very largely the consequences of poverty as opposed to bad luck. We'd also see a more efficient delivery of social services, less intrusive social services, and a reduction in the stigma associated with income support, all of which are associated with better family functioning and better child development outcomes.

Mincome took place 35 years ago and the wise government might want to update its findings. This is a pretty big change in the way we deliver social benefits in this country. Any government committed to developing an evidence-informed public policy could do much worse than to support the many calls and initiatives that have come from provincial and local governments across the country, from professional organizations across the country, and from the public at large.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much.

Do you by chance have copies of that evaluation which you could provide to the clerk?

[Dr. Evelyn Forget]

I can provide it for you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

If you could provide it to the clerk, she will give it to committee members.

We are going to the Business Council of Canada.

Mr. Kingston, please.

[Brian Kingston, Vice-President, International and Fiscal Issues, Business Council of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Committee members, thank you for the invitation to take part in your pre-budget consultations.

The Business Council of Canada represents the chief executives and entrepreneurs of 150 leading Canadian companies in all sectors of the economy. Our member companies employ 1.4 million citizens, account for more than half the value of the TSX, contribute the largest share of federal corporate taxes, and are responsible for most of Canada's exports, corporate philanthropy, and private sector investments in R and D.

The Canadian economy is undergoing a complex transition. Low commodity prices are complicating the economic outlook, while a weakened Canadian dollar is rebuilding capacity in the non-resource sector. At the same time, the global economic environment is weighing on Canada's prospects. The IMF has downgraded its 2016 forecast, and just as I came here this morning, the OECD also downgraded their global outlook.

This uncertain economic environment is putting pressure on government revenues, even as demands to increase spending become more persistent. The government's recent economic and fiscal outlook has confirmed that the fiscal situation has deteriorated since the last federal budget. But while growth is weak, it is important to note that Canada as a whole is not in recession. The real economy is actually growing, albeit modestly. There is evidence that Canada's economy is pivoting and becoming more diversified, and there are positive signs that our export economy is benefiting from the recent fall in the value of the Canadian dollar as well as from rising U.S. demand.

Any proposed fiscal intervention must be appropriate to these circumstances and targeted towards the areas of our economy where help is needed most. At the same time, we believe it is important that the government follow through with its commitment to balance the budget by the fourth year of its mandate while pursuing the goal of a 25% debt-to-GDP ratio by 2021.

Fiscal discipline matters. When governments commit themselves to an explicit debt-to-GDP ratio, it provides a frame of reference against which to judge the numerous demands for increased spending. A low debt-to-GDP ratio also serves as an insurance policy against future downturns. Given the fragile state of the global economy, the government should strive to ensure that it has the fiscal capacity to respond to another sharp downturn.

Equally important, we encourage all members of Parliament to recognize that our country's future prosperity depends ultimately on our ability to compete for jobs, investment, and talent in a rapidly changing global economy.

In the time remaining, I will highlight a few measures the government can take now to strengthen our competitiveness.

First, invest in infrastructure. Canadian exporters must be able to deliver their products efficiently to global markets. Modern, efficient, and world-class infrastructure enables this. Productivity-enhancing infrastructure projects that have a direct and measurable impact on the Canadian economy will provide the greatest return in future economic activity and jobs. While we recognize and respect the need for robust regulatory and approval processes when reviewing proposed projects, we urge the government to ensure that such reviews are adequately funded and capable of being completed in a timely fashion.

Second, reform Canada's tax system. When Canadians and their political leaders debate potential changes to the tax code, the discussions generally focus on the rates paid by different individuals and businesses and the various tax exemptions and credits that are eligible. We believe the time has come for a comprehensive review of Canada's tax system, one that answers the very simple question: if we were designing a tax system today from scratch with the goal of maximizing long-term growth, what would it look like?

Our current tax system is essentially a product of the last century. Today we are one of the most open economies in the world, highly dependent on trade, open to foreign investment, and welcoming of immigration. We need a tax system for the 21st century, and one that ensures Canada's continued success in the global economy.

Third, boost innovation. We welcome the government's commitment to invest in incubators, accelerators, and research facilities. But to make the most of these investments, the government should set clear funding objectives, with a premium placed on strengthening competitive advantages and regional strengths and encouraging collaboration and new models of engagement. As part of the government's innovation strategy, we recommend revisiting the review of federal support to research and development that was chaired by Tom Jenkins. There are a number of very good recommendations in it that are worth considering, including making business innovation a key element of federal procurement.

I'll just note that when crafting new innovation strategies it is important that they be designed in such a way as ensures that they do not have unintended consequences.

Last, develop a coordinated approach to addressing climate change. Canada's business leaders are ready and willing to work with the federal and provincial governments to ensure that our country makes a responsible contribution to global efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. An effective and credible national plan must involve enhanced efforts from all segments of Canadian society, and it must be drafted in partnership with the provinces and territories.

With that, I conclude my remarks. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kingston.

We turn, then, to Halifax, Nova Scotia, to Ms. Baldwin, who is with the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

Welcome, Ms. Baldwin.

[Jeannie Baldwin, Regional Executive Vice-President, Executive Office, Public Service Alliance of Canada]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the committee.

The Public Service Alliance of Canada represents 180,000 members. Most of them are employed with the federal public service and its agencies.

The previous Conservative government cut billions of dollars a year from public services. Our members know how these cuts have affected services. In a moment I will talk about how some of these have affected the Atlantic region and the country.

During the last election, the Liberal Party campaigned on an anti-austerity theme that Canadians clearly supported. We encourage the government to follow this approach. This is not the time to further weaken the economy by subjecting the federal public sector to further austerity measures.

As a large employer and a key provider of social infrastructure, the government should lead by example by investing in public services and the workers who provide them. The Liberal election platform promised to improve the quality of public services, including reducing wait times and increasing access to in-person service. The only way this can be achieved is by reinvesting in the federal public service to ensure that staffing levels meet Canadian needs.

Don't be distracted by claims of greater efficiencies and better service simply through improving technology. Inspecting food or aircraft, processing EI and pension claims, helping small businesses understand their tax obligations, protecting our fish stocks, or maintaining our national parks, to name just a few services, these require people.

We are pleased that the government is following through on the commitment to reopen the Veterans Affairs offices that have been closed, several of them in Atlantic Canada. But this is just a start to repairing the damage.

Parks Canada's Cape Breton Highlands Links was privatized. This is a historic site. Residents of the community were expropriated from their lands in order for this park to be created. In return, they were promised good-paying jobs. Parks Canada issued an RFP and placed Highlands Links, a world-famous golf course, into private hands. Privatization of the park will end up costing taxpayers millions of dollars more than if the facilities had remained in public hands.

Three years ago, the Conservative government closed a number of search and rescue stations, in spite of the warnings from communities on both coasts. Again, we acknowledge the government's commitment to reopen the Kitsilano coast guard station on the west coast and St. John's marine rescue sub-centre in Newfoundland. The big question is whether there will be the necessary staff to ensure proper coverage. We believe our union should be among the stakeholders who provide the advice on how these facilities can best respond to the communities' needs, as our members are among the experts who deliver these services.

As a last example, I have to mention the workers who provide benefits, such as employment insurance, Canada pension plan, and old age security. These workers provide a lifeline to the most vulnerable Canadians. Wait times for Canadians to access their hard-earned benefits are simply too long. The government must reinvest in service delivery and ensure that there are enough people employed to deliver these important benefits in a timely manner.

Our federal services cannot be allowed to deteriorate any further. We believe this government can and must consider progressive taxation measures to increase revenue that will allow it to invest in public services and programs that stimulate economic growth—programs such as a national child care system and the expansion of the Canada pension plan.

Corporation tax levels must be examined. Cuts to corporate taxes have not resulted in private sector reinvestment but have helped to starve the public treasury. It's public knowledge that there is considerable lost revenue in offshore tax havens alone, yet the Canada Revenue Agency has cut auditor positions, the very people needed to help ensure that everyone pays their fair share.

Our members expect to see tangible evidence in this upcoming budget of this government's commitment to restore federal public services.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thanks very much, Ms. Baldwin, for sticking right on time.

We'll turn then to the Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre and Ms. Johnston.

[Bonnie Johnston, Chief Executive Officer, Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre]

Thank you for this opportunity to present to the Standing Committee on Finance. We're very honoured to be part of the discussion today.

My name is Bonnie Johnston. I am the CEO of the Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre in Calgary.

In my short time today I would like to focus on three areas: the social and economic impact of child abuse across this country; the emerging successes of the Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre's integrated model of practice; and the opportunity provided by the centre and our partners to engage, with federal assistance, in a groundbreaking research study that has the potential to transform our understanding of the impact of child sexual abuse and identify and develop high-impact interventions and treatments with local, national, and global implications.

The impact of child abuse is profound. Children who have been abused are 30% less likely to graduate from high school, four times more likely to be arrested as a juvenile, 26 times more likely to experience homelessness, and four times as likely to report self-harm or suicidal ideation.

Child abuse costs Alberta $2.4 billion every year and an estimated $21.5 billion annually within Canada. We now know through research that child abuse is a form of trauma and that prolonged trauma or toxic stress can impact the developing brain. If we do not deal with the impact of early childhood trauma, our country will continue to deal with the resulting outcomes of increased poverty, homelessness, mental health, and hopelessness, or as Sheldon Kennedy would say, “the outer layer of the onion”, which is not sustainable over time.

The need to do better for our children and think differently led to the development of the Sheldon Kennedy Child Advocacy Centre. The centre is a not-for-profit organization, working in partnership with six government organizations. Our practice is integrated, wrapping around the child and family. We serve all sexual abuse cases in the region and the most severe and complex cases of physical abuse and neglect. We assess 124 new cases per month, and over 34 months have assessed over 4,000 infants, children, and youth who have been impacted by severe child abuse.

As a result of our model of integrated practice, the following outcomes are being achieved: an estimated annual value of over half a million dollars in productivity improvements was achieved in just one of our working teams at the centre; prevention and intervention for vulnerable pregnant women has decreased child protection involvement from 31% to 17%; physical and sexual abuse exam time has been reduced by up to 50%; and therapy wait times were reduced from eight months to one and a half months, and a child only tells their story once.

Our leading practice and strong partnerships have positioned the centre to support research that will help us better understand and continually improve services for child abuse survivors, their families, and communities. Research allows us to connect the dots and understand the true impact of child abuse in our society. We have proposed research partners: the Cumming School of Medicine of the University of Calgary, the Hotchkiss Brain Institute, and the Willamette University College of Law to establish a multidisciplinary, longitudinal study of sex abuse survivors. Participants will be evaluated clinically and from a neurobiological perspective over a 15-year period. This study would be the most comprehensive study of sex abuse survivors conducted with global relevance.

Financial support to conduct the study is needed. We respectfully ask the federal government to consider supporting this research. It is estimated that over 15 years the projected cost would be $23 million, or $1.5 million per year. By taking action now and supporting this research, the federal government can position Canada as a global leader, and most importantly, accelerate our efforts to end child abuse and support the full recovery and reintegration of survivors into their communities as productive and engaged citizens.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Ms. Johnston. I think I neglected to indicate that you had been streamed in from Calgary, Alberta. Is that correct?

[Bonnie Johnston]

That's right, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Turning to questions, we'll have to do as we did last time. The first round will have to be five minutes, starting with Mr. Ouellette.