Finance Committee on Feb. 6th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Sara.

Mr. Fragiskatos, and then we'll go over to you, Mr. Ste-Marie.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I want to begin with Mr. Cloutier. Is it Dr. Cloutier or Mr. Cloutier?

[Paul-Émile Cloutier]

My wife is a physician, but I'm not.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

We'll go with that, then.

The mandate letter to the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry says, in general terms, that there is a need for the government and the minister to act to strengthen the health care system. It also talks about putting in place measures to create a healthy society, and then it points to research as a way to get there.

A lot of research happens in this country, health research specifically, not just at universities but also in hospitals, which is something that not many Canadians know.

I'm a member of Parliament from London, Ontario. As I'm sure you know, we have a wide network of hospitals in the city, and the region as well, and researchers working on these things at hospitals.

Could you go into the importance of hospitals on the research end?

[Paul-Émile Cloutier]

I'll start, and I'll ask Heidi to continue.

Dominic Barton, who, as you all know, started this particular table, approached us and said he'd be interested in knowing what the research hospitals are doing in terms of innovation. When he did his study—his first study, that is—he concluded that if you really wanted innovation in Canada, and even that innovation to be commercialized, it would have to be done through research hospitals, because that's where it happens.

I'm not against doing research in universities, because I think it's very important that they do the research—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I have Western University in my riding, sir, so I'm with you on that.

[Paul-Émile Cloutier]

Exactly. That's why I said that.

However, the results and the outcome in terms of patient care, delivering an efficient and better system, are more seen in a hospital setting than at the university, and also the commercialization. The issue that we had, if I may, with ISED, with all the various programs like SIF1, SIF2, SIF3, SIF4, SIF5, is that institutions like London and UHN, which have enormous budgets, could not lead any project unless it was led by the private sector. Now, we have nothing against the private sector. The private sector is very important, but we wanted to lead the projects with the private sector rather than having the private sector leading them with us. It's only after arguing about this with Minister Bains' office and the department that on SIF4 they allowed our university research hospital to actually lead the innovation in partnership with the private sector.

You saw some of the results, which were enormous. I mean, $49 million was given at Sunnybrook and $49 million was given in the west and McGill. These projects will result in really concrete outcomes that will bring greater efficiency in the system.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I don't mean to cut you off, Mr. Cloutier, but the amount of research at hospitals, then, the breadth and scope of what's being looked into.... We can talk about anything from infection prevention to cancer research and research on stroke. The list is quite exhaustive. Is that correct?

[Paul-Émile Cloutier]

Yes.

[Dr. Andrew Krahn]

And heart....

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

And heart, yes. You're from London yourself, so I'm not going to forget you, Dr. Krahn.

I have limited time. I want to go to Mr. Viau.

Mr. Viau, I apologize, I speak little French. In 2017, I began a French immersion course.

I'm continuing with that.

You talked about electric buses in particular. The mandate letter to the Minister of Infrastructure calls for the government to act to help school boards and municipalities purchase 5,000 electric buses over the next five years. We've heard from a number of witnesses on this issue. You mentioned Ms. Petrevan in your remarks. Her idea was that a rebate system could be used to help cities with this. What are your thoughts on that? I know that municipalities might push back and say they don't have the money to put up front to invest in buses and in the infrastructure system to make that initial purchase in the first place.

How do we best make this happen? How can we best help municipalities pay for the infrastructure, pay for the buses?

[Marc-André Viau]

Thank you for starting your question in French. Keep improving.

I don't have all the solutions for you, but, indeed, the rebate is important to enable municipalities to purchase buses. There are already some programs that should be enhanced to include the electrification of transportation, but we are not just talking about equipment such as buses; we are talking about all the adaptation to be done. Let's think of garage equipment that must be transformed in order to be adapted to electric vehicles. I think there is talk of creating a new fund.

I worked for the City of Montreal for a few years. Canadian municipalities have tremendous needs in transportation, be it in terms of developing new infrastructure or in terms of operational issues. Many large municipalities are able to benefit from such rebates, but we must not forget about medium and smaller-sized municipalities that want to move toward transportation electrification.

When it comes to the form the program should take, I will let experts on the issue talk about it and members of the Standing Committee on Finance consider the issue, but the needs are there. We think that, by 2030, the price of an electric bus will be the same as the price of a conventional bus. That gap will have to be closed between 2020 and 2030 to enable Canadian municipalities to purchase electric buses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, both.

We'll go to Mr. Ste-Marie and then over to Mr. Blaikie.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. Thank you for being here and for making your presentations.

If I may, Mr. Chair, I will begin with a comment to the committee.

I think it is significant that we have four witnesses today who are here to talk about health. In Quebec, health remains a priority in opinion polls and when we meet with people; it is very important. Clearly, the federal government is active in certain sectors. Mention has been made of statistics, especially on the needs of Inuit and first nations.

In terms of research, the federal government has a role to play. However, the main part of the federal government's role is to fund the health sector. Unfortunately, over the past few decades, we have seen a systematic erosion take place. In the beginning, the federal government was supposed to fund half of the health care expenditures, but we have noted an erosion year after year. The situation is such that Quebec's Minister of Health for the latest Liberal government, during the last agreement a few years ago, accused the federal Liberal government of predatory federalism. That is not insignificant.

There are figures from the parliamentary budget officer. He reminds us, in every study on the issue, that the fiscal room to manoeuvre remains in Ottawa and that, within a few years, the provinces could topple under the debt, especially because of the increase in health funding, and that it is important to take into account the aging population in that funding.

That said, Mr. Chair, I would like to put two questions to Mr. Viau.

The first question is about COP21, the Paris agreements. The government stated it wanted to respect those agreements. Do you think it would be useful for this Parliament to introduce a law forcing the government to honour those agreements?

I will ask my second question right away. You talked about the importance of supporting our farmers in terms of environmental measures. I would like you to tell me more about that.

[Marc-André Viau]

Concerning the first question, yes, we do feel that the federal government should adopt a piece of legislation on the climate to enshrine the established targets. That intention has already been announced by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change at the latest COP, and it is included in mandate letters.

For us, this is an encouraging sign. It is also something that was asked of the Quebec government the day before yesterday, during the hearing on Bill 44 on climate governance. We have reached this important moment in the fight against climate change and the climate crisis. We hope that more ambitious targets will be announced ahead of COP26.

It is by adopting more ambitious targets and ensuring that they are enshrined in the legislation that the government will have a responsibility in climate, that we will be able to take steps and to have an action plan focused on those targets. For the time being, there are targets, but they are not enshrined in the legislation. They can be missed without consequences, but there are consequences for the environment.

Was your second question about support for farmers?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Yes. You said there could be measures to support farmers' efforts, including to maintain soil capacity. Can you give us examples—

[Marc-André Viau]

Yes. There is currently a lot of talk about that. A summit is taking place on nature-based solutions. In agriculture and in biodiversity protection, those nature-based solutions are becoming increasingly important. There is still a great deal of work to be done to examine the best nature-based solutions. For example, in agriculture, that leads to reduced pesticide use. There are also different cover crops that improve soil resilience, but there is also carbon capture, which is important, as well.

Two aspects are involved here: the environment and soil production capacity. In various regions of the country, the soil is affected by erosion or by the regenerative capacity issue. There are regional differences, but we feel that nature-based solutions are the way of the future. Those solutions will help protect our production capacity and reach our objectives in terms of exports and domestic production, but also meet our GHG reduction needs in a sector that accounts for 10% of our greenhouse gas emissions.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

We'll have to stop it there.

Mr. Viau, in your original remarks you talked about the risk management program and that it needs to apply to soils. I don't think that will work. Risk management is basically AgriStability, agri-invest, etc. I think you need to rejig that.

There are all kinds of programs across the country related to the environment that deal with soils. If you could rethink that and maybe send us a note...because it just won't fit under the regular risk management programs. I know that for a fact.

[Marc-André Viau]

Thank you. It would be my pleasure to provide the committee members with complementary information on risk management that takes environmental issues more into account.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Mr. Blaikie, welcome to the committee.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'm glad to be here.

I want to start with a question for Mr. Lancastle from the Appraisal Institute of Canada.

In talking about climate change, we hear sometimes about people who feel that climate change is a hoax, that it's part of a UN conspiracy because presumably some people get funding.

Typically, folks in the financial industry are seen as pretty hard-nosed and not very sentimental when it comes to business decisions. I'm looking at your recommendation for better flood mapping, which I understand is supported as well by the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

Would you say that the financial sector recognizes that climate change is real, that it's happening, that beyond the environmental consequences, it will have a real economic impact, and that if we can mitigate the effects of climate change, we can not only help save the planet, but we can also help save a lot of money and economic distress in the meantime?

[Keith Lancastle]

I certainly don't feel qualified to speak for the financial industry, but I can say that climate change challenges have resulted in the impairment or reduction of the value of property that is secured by lending institutions. It has resulted in individual property owners seeing reductions in the value of their property, or the need to take additional steps to help protect that property from the impacts of climate change.

It's very, very clear, when you look at cities like Ottawa or Montreal, which were dealing with the amount of flooding that happened last spring, that there are steps that need to be taken. There are steps that homeowners need to take to understand where they're looking to purchase or build a home, whether that be the outright decision to purchase or build a home in that area, or whether additional steps need to be taken in the construction to help protect that home.

I don't think anyone can deny that we've seen the impact on the financial substance, if you will, of that real property. Certainly the Insurance Bureau of Canada is well positioned to speak to the magnitude of that, but I would say that the financial industry in Canada is looking for good, stable investments. That's been a hallmark of the Canadian financial lending system. Certainly, anything that would compromise that stability would be of concern to all aspects of not only the financial industry, but also the organized real estate sector.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Right on. Thank you very much.

Dr. Krahn, I am hoping that you might be able to expand a little on some of your remarks in terms of the fair amount of work that's been done in order to set up the infrastructure to collect data that could help us provide services more efficiently. There's some funding needed in order to be able to take what's already out there, bring it together and really help it to realize savings of tax dollars for Canadians.

I know that one of the big budget items this year is a $6-billion tax cut. We know it's going to disproportionately benefit people who are in the upper-income quintile. I'm wondering wether, if some of that money were invested instead in trying to do some of the things you were talking about, that might not only help us deliver better service but also help save money by offering those services more efficiently.

[Dr. Andrew Krahn]

I'm not sure that I fully understand your question. Without a doubt, we often think we have made the cutbacks and the restrictions that we can, and then when we look at the futility of some processes of care, it's pretty evident that more informed decisions by creating a better system will then allow us to....

I'll give you an example of a siloed budget. There are tons of silos in our budgets in health delivery systems. You have a patient who comes to the emergency room with, in this instance, a cardiac problem. The cardiac problem is not sufficiently compelling to warrant admission to hospital, but the patient's social setting creates a challenge. The ability to mobilize the social support resources to allow that person to go home with cardiac follow-up the next day means a whole bunch of activation systems that aren't in place right now. It's always easier to admit the patient to hospital, which then eliminates the person from Prince George coming by air ambulance tomorrow for bypass surgery. You have this lack of fidelity in the system to produce precise care that's best for the patient.

Part of that is actually understanding how it works, how often those situations happen. A good example is that we would not want operating rooms to sit idle, yet they do because of those kinds of congestion problems. A better managed system that's informed by how often that happens, what the processes are and where those patients come from will then potentially result in more efficient use, in principle, moving facilities from inpatients to outpatients, which are cheaper, and providing care in the home, which you've also heard is a targeted value, not just to the social state and mindset of the patient. I think we would all cherish being in our homes. It doesn't have to be a cost bump. In fact, it could be a cost recovery process.