Finance Committee on Feb. 6th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I call the meeting to order.

As everyone knows—we repeat it daily—the committee is continuing its study on the pre-budget consultations 2020.

In beginning, I want to thank all the witnesses, who have managed to get here on fairly short notice, and also to inform those groups that made submissions prior to the August deadline that the committee passed a motion to bring forward those submissions and consider them as part of our pre-budget consultations 2020. Basically, they will be put into evidence.

With that, we will start. I will ask you to try to hold your comments to roughly five minutes. That will give us plenty of time for questioning around the table.

We'll start with the Appraisal Institute of Canada. We have with us Mr. Fox, president, and Mr. Lancastle, CEO.

Welcome.

[Keith Lancastle, Chief Executive Officer, Appraisal Institute of Canada]

Mr. Chairman, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen, we are very honoured to be here again. We appreciate the opportunity to present our members' perspectives and recommendations to the Standing Committee on Finance as you prepare for your pre-budget consultation process.

The Appraisal Institute of Canada has over 5,500 members. They complete over one million real property appraisals each year, valuing over one trillion dollars' worth of real estate and real property. Our members provide unbiased opinions of value on residential, commercial and all other types of property. In addition to a university degree, our members complete a rigorous program of professional study, leading to one of two internationally recognized designations. The scope and conduct of our members' services are defined by our Canadian uniform standards of professional appraisal practice. As a self-regulatory body, we have a strong focus on consumer protection. We maintain a robust disciplinary process and provide a mandatory professional liability insurance program to help protect consumers and our members' clients.

Our submission today is focused on three areas. The first is that the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions exempt residential mortgage renewals from the application of the B-20 stress test. The second is that the Government of Canada work with provinces and territories to create a publicly accessible registry of beneficial ownership to help combat money laundering in real estate. The third is that the Government of Canada make an immediate investment to improve the quality, availability and currency of flood mapping across the country.

We understand that each of these recommendations has been noted in mandate letters to the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and the Minister of Natural Resources. We would like to convey the importance of proceeding with these initiatives and would note that we are fully prepared to support government in carrying out that work.

To our first recommendation, we all know that as of January 1, 2018, the stress test has been applied to uninsured residential mortgage loans gained through federally regulated lending institutions. The stress test applies to all mortgage loans, whether they are new originations, renewals or refinances. While we know and appreciate that many in organized real estate have called for broad-based changes in the stress test, our focus has been on the application of the stress test to renewals. Applying the stress test on borrowers who may want to switch lenders at renewal could prevent consumers from obtaining the most competitive interest rate and terms that might otherwise be available in the marketplace.

Whether it is at the end of the mortgage's first term or several terms down the road, mortgage holders seeking to renew their mortgages are responsible borrowers who have a proven track record, and are not seeking to increase the amount of their mortgage debt. We would also note that transferring one mortgage from one federally regulated financial institution to another does not add any additional financial stress to the system as a whole. Therefore, we recommend that mortgage renewals be exempt from the application of the stress test so that Canadians can obtain the most competitive rates and terms possible.

Our second recommendation focuses on allegations of criminal behaviour and money laundering through real estate purchases in Canada. One measure that has been discussed, and in fact has been recently announced in British Columbia, is the need for and the creation of a publicly accessible registry of beneficial ownership. In May of 2019, the C.D. Howe Institute released a report regarding Canada's ability to combat money laundering. The report called for this publicly accessible registry, stating, “Canada’s anti-money-laundering protections (particularly as they pertain to real estate) are among the weakest of those of the western liberal democracies”. Based on 2018, it's estimated that the amount of money that is laundered annually in Canada could be as high as $130 billion.

The C.D. Howe report further outlines that money launderers are able to do what they do because of their ability to be “invisible” and “anonymous”. A publicly accessible registry of beneficial ownership would help address that concern. We believe these registries would help support the balance in market forces of supply and demand, and help ensure that legitimate homeowners are allowed to compete in a fairer and more balanced market. Regardless of how the registry is structured, it is important that all stakeholders within the real estate industry have full and equitable access to these and other public records.

Our third and final recommendation relates to the increased number of floods that have occurred over the last several years in communities across the country, most notably in the spring due to abnormally high water levels during the thaw. Many thousands of residences and buildings across the country have struggled in preparing for and managing these extreme flooding events. There are reports and indications that climate change is one of the factors contributing to recurring flooding. In fact, the Insurance Bureau of Canada estimates that over one million homes across Canada are at a high risk of flooding. A portion of those are at a very high risk.

Homes and buildings that are situated in flood plains are often less valuable than those that are outside of those zones. As climate change escalates, floods will occur more frequently and in areas that may not have been affected in the past.

Prospective homeowners, developers and the mortgage-lending industry rely, in part, on information gathered by appraisers to make their buying, lending and development decisions. Updated flood maps that would be made available to the real estate industry, and in fact to the public, would assist appraisers in providing more accurate information to those relying on their reports.

Mr. Chairman, honourable members, we feel privileged to have been invited here today to share the perspectives of our members. We also appreciate the chance to share our recommendations and would be very pleased to respond to any questions or comments that you and your colleagues may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lancastle.

I think you know that the finance committee did a fairly major study on money laundering, etc., during the last Parliament, and that recommendation matches what we recommended as well. Thank you for that.

From the Canadian Mental Health Association, we have Ms. Rodrigues, senior policy analyst.

Welcome.

[Sara Rodrigues]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members. Thank you for inviting me to speak today.

I am Sara Rodrigues, senior policy analyst at the national office of the Canadian Mental Health Association.

Founded in 1918, the Canadian Mental Health Association is a pioneer and leader in community-based programming and service delivery. With 86 locations, our programs and services are available in more than 330 communities. The national office of the Canadian Mental Health Association champions publicly funded mental health care, advocates to end stigma and enhances the knowledge and evidence base around how social status and economic status influence mental health.

The Canadian Mental Health Association applauds the federal government for firmly establishing mental health as a priority in the health minister's mandate letter and in its throne speech on December 5. The stated commitments to increase people's access to mental health and addictions care, and to ensure that first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples have access to culturally safe mental health care, are critical, as the opioid and suicide epidemics continue to have a devastating impact on individuals, families and communities.

The stated commitment to mental health sends a clear message to people in Canada, who increasingly see mental health as important and who are working together to break down stigma around mental illness. People from all walks of life are demonstrating an unprecedented level of honesty and engagement, and with it, a desire for change.

The time has come to match political will to public awareness and make the immediate, tangible investments that will transform our systems, protect the mental health of all people in Canada and ensure that people with mental health problems and illnesses can get the help they need when they need it. Our efforts must be effective in the short term and sustainable in the long term. To move forward with purpose, we must work collaboratively to treat and fund mental health and addictions the same way we do physical health. We can advance equity by elevating parity.

Parity is the notion that mental health should be funded equitably and proportionately with physical health care. For at least five years, the Canadian Mental Health Association and our allies have advocated for parity of esteem legislation in Canada, which is critical to ensuring accountability and compliance. But people in Canada need their leaders to deliver on the promise of parity and make an elusive notion a reality by bringing urgently needed and highly demanded relief.

Canada's “universal” health care system does not universally cover mental health care provided by addictions counsellors, psychologists, social workers and specialized peer support workers, but these services are the foundation of mental health responses in other G7 countries.

We know the numbers. This year, one in five people in Canada will experience a mental health problem or illness. This week, 500,000 people will miss work due to a mental health problem. Today, 11 people will die by suicide. Yet spending for mental health care represents just 7.2% of Canada's total health care spending, even though mental health problems and illnesses represent as much as 23% of the total disease burden. This leaves people in Canada to spend, for example, $950 million per year on counselling services alone, 30% of which is out of pocket. Funding must increase significantly, and it must be tracked by measures that ensure it is truly allocated to mental health.

Canada is well positioned to demonstrate true vision and leadership by addressing chronic inequity and underfunding in mental health. Sufficient and sustainable investment in community mental health services, like the Canadian Mental Health Association, is vital to maximizing our health care system. We intervene early, preventing problems before they start. We provide direct services to people with mental health problems and illnesses. And we provide supports and programs to people who are leaving hospital care or the justice system, to support them in recovery and in flourishing.

Many people still do not receive the full scope of care they need, and many others who could be well supported by community mental health care often cycle in and out of hospitals. The Canadian Mental Health Association sprang up from the grassroots and continues to exist because it fills critical gaps in our formal systems.

Each year, our 5,000 staff and 11,000 volunteers provide direct services and programs. These are offered in person and through e-mental health solutions. Peer supporters, mental health and addictions counsellors, therapists, nurse practitioners, mental health court workers, program coordinators and managers, and recovery coaches support this work from Yukon to Prince Edward Island. We deliver culturally safe programs for first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. We offer population-specific programs for LGBTQ+ youth, older adults, caregivers and new parents. We teach children and youth about resilience and social and emotional learning. And we provide interventions such as counselling and cognitive behavioural therapy. This is a snapshot of what we do to keep people in and connected to their communities.

But we can't keep doing it alone. The Canadian Mental Health Association does not have core funding and urgently needs an immediate influx of $50 million to more seamlessly coordinate and replicate evidence-based services and programs. Such funding can bring more programs to schools, communities and workplaces across Canada.

People in Canada see a future with continued investment and greater access to effective mental health services and programs. With core funding from the federal government, the Canadian Mental Health Association can pave the way, as it has for the past 100 years.

Thank you for inviting me today. I'm happy to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Sara.

Now we have, from the Canadian Cardiovascular Society, Dr. Krahn.

[Dr. Andrew Krahn]

Good morning. I apologize, but my French is not very good.

My name is Andrew.

I'm a heart rhythm cardiologist who works in Vancouver. That means that I spend my day seeing patients who need pacemakers or have heart rhythm problems, or families where sudden death is going on. My friends tease me and say I'm an electrician up at the hospital.

Access, equity and quality of care are common goals for all of you health leaders, as well as for us, leaders in the area of health care delivery. I'm here representing 2,500 cardiovascular specialists from across Canada.

I live this in spades in the area of access. I go up north to Whitehorse for two weeks out of the year to do clinics, and to Prince Rupert as well. In those situations, you see the people who have access, the local quality of care. I see a large indigenous population and see those people struggling to get the best health care that we can provide. We know that the outcomes of these situations are not very good. What we don't have is a map and the tools with which to try to create improvement. We need to understand what the gaps are and try to deliver on them.

As specialists, we are the team leads to deliver a $30-billion business. It's a staggering amount of money, and we know that people also get low-value care. That low-value care is represented in unnecessary testing, ventures that are not necessarily advantageous, inappropriate hospital admissions and so on, but we lack the tools to be able to compare and use that data to try to improve the system.

Imagine investing in a $30-billion business that doesn't measure, report, compare or have system improvement. You would never invest in something like that, and yet that is the state that we're in and that we are aspiring to try to improve and change.

Sadly, the data is there. The Canadian Institute for Health Information, CIHI, has much of that data, but in fact, in many of its forms, it's siloed. It's not integrated or analyzed and then turned into improvement tools. There are no resources or mandate to roll cardiac care data up into a national comparative report, as we do in cancer care with CPAC, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. Provinces and territories have few tools with which to do a comparative analysis to understand how other places are improving their systems, how they're gaining efficiencies and how they're delivering better care. If you are a heart institute in New Brunswick or Manitoba, you're the only game in town. As a result, understanding whether your length of stay, mortality rates or costs are in line or aspire to be the best in Canada is impossible right now. We are looking to try to address that problem.

As you know, the population is getting older. The scope of our population is getting bigger. Two of the top five reasons to come to the emergency room are heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Heart failure is going to cost you three-quarters of a billion dollars this year. That's an immense amount of funding. Atrial fibrillation is the same. Right now, about 45,000 people will be admitted to hospital next year due to atrial fibrillation. Our recent guidelines that look at quality processes suggest that we could probably avoid 60% of those admissions. Imagine the cost of hospitalization for a heart problem. It doesn't resolve itself, typically, in a day or two. It's expensive and intensive, and there's a huge cost-avoidance opportunity.

Believe it or not, we can now actually replace your heart valve and have you go home the next day without doing surgery. A catheter procedure to give you a new heart valve is possible. This is a new venture. It typically targets seniors who have a poor quality of life and a poor outcome. The procedure restores quality of life and extends their life, but this is an expensive venture. It's innovation. Our ability to do this is wonderful for the people who want this, who want to avoid open heart surgery, but the cost is a recognized need that seniors are advocating for on the access front. What we need to do is collect and utilize the data to try to develop system improvements to realize this.

Twenty years ago, the federal government came to CCS in conjunction with PHAC and said that we need to develop those measures and methodologies for doing cardiac care reporting. We rose to the challenge and developed the tools in partnership with CIHI in 2012. We received funding through PHAC to work on a project that was funded for three years. We then developed those measurement tools, those reporting tools, proven methods and an annual report. The funding ended in 2015, and since then, we have gone into our health reserves and virtually bankrupted ourselves to be able to show our commitment to this project as a member organization. This includes thousands of hours of volunteer time and expertise.

We do have a nucleus of activities in six areas where we continue to generate a national map and report. What we are lacking in 2020 is funding to expand and sustain this. These are just six out of many areas within cardiac care that require some measurement, comparative analysis and then system improvement.

Our ask is for $2.5 million each year for the next three years to sustain and fully roll out that reporting system and work with CIHI to integrate this. In summary, we're asking for support to improve care, eliminate expensive, unhelpful components of care and enable a learning cardiac health care system.

Thank you. Meegwech. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Andrew.

Turning then to Équiterre, we have Mr. Viau, director of government relations.

[Marc-André Viau, Director of Government Relations, Équiterre]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I hope nothing will happen, but if ever there was a problem during my testimony, I feel like I am in good hands with a cardiologist sitting next to me.

Mr. Chair, distinguished members of the Standing Committee on Finance, thank you for welcoming me today. My name is Marc-André Viau, and I am the Director of Government Relations at Équiterre. That organization has several thousand members and supporters. For more than 25 years, it has been proposing concrete solutions both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada to accelerate the ecological transition.

We feel that federal fiscal policies and investments for the upcoming year must reflect the current climate emergency. We recognize the fact that the upcoming transformations are deep and complex, and that winning conditions must be created for success. So the government will have to invest in measures to foster the social acceptability of transition measures and to support the proliferation of spaces and forums for discussion, so as to create a true Canada-wide dialogue in different regions, provinces and territories of the country. Canadians must take ownership of the transition for it to happen.

Today, I will talk about issues related to transportation, agriculture, energy and employment. They are closely related to the delivery of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change and to the objectives of government ministers' mandate letters.

First, in order to reach our objectives to reduce GHG emissions, we need to accelerate the electrification of transportation in the country. Public transit reduces the use of personal vehicles, but electric public transit increases its eco-benefits. Sarah Petrevan, of Clean Energy Canada, demonstrated this eloquently in her presentation two days ago, and we support her recommendations. We feel that the implementation of a financial support program dedicated to the electrification of public transit is necessary for absorbing the additional cost of purchase and supporting equipment conversion.

When it comes to personal vehicles, the popularity of the incentive program proves that Canadians are ready to make the jump to zero-emission vehicles. Of the $300 million available when the purchase assistance program was announced in 2019, $134 million has already been spent. At this rate, the envelope of this three-year program will be spent in a few months. In response to that situation, we also support the recommendations of Clean Energy Canada.

That said, the main barriers to the adoption of zero-emission vehicles—also known as ZEVs—remain the lack of ZEVs availability on the Canadian market and access to charging stations. To accelerate the adoption of those vehicles, Équiterre is of the opinion that the implementation of a mandate on ZEVs across the country, along with the extension of the purchase incentive programs for the next three years, is the most effective way to achieve sales targets.

Second, agricultural producers are among the first to feel the increasingly significant impact of climate change. Crop losses associated with the growing risks of climate change have an impact on the GDP, on profitability, on the sustainability of rural communities, on farmers' mental health, and also on government insurance programs. The strategies to increase and maintain healthy soil are some of the most important methods to reduce the footprint of GHG emissions from agriculture and to strengthen farm resilience.

That is why public policies should highlight nature-based solutions. Considering that soil degradation cost $3.1 billion in profit loss in 2011 and resulted in a cumulative loss of $40 billion to $60 billion between 1971 and 2011, the government must present a plan to remedy the issue. Équiterre invites the federal government to support farmers who decide to reconcile that economic growth with the protection of production capacity in the medium and long term by changing their practices.

Furthermore, we believe that, in a context of efficiency and healthy management of public finances, a review of risk management programs should lead to their adaptation, so that they would encourage producers to adopt soil regeneration practices. This would be a $2-billion envelope.

Third, consistent budget decisions are essential in a period of transition to environmental and ecological choices. However, Canada continues to subsidize the production and consumption of fossil fuels. We estimate that those subsidies were $600 million for 2019. Although Canada and Argentina announced in 2018 that they were conducting a joint peer review to ensure the phasing-out of their ineffective subsidies for fossil fuels, we are still waiting for the outcome of that exercise.

So we would like the federal government to commit to completing the inventory of subsidies for the production and consumption of fossil fuels by the end of 2020, so that a schedule for the phasing-out of this public support to the sector can be established by 2022.

Finally, Équiterre is very concerned by the transition's impact on Canadian workers. We are fighting against climate change and not against workers. That distinction is too often forgotten in a polarizing discussion and too often used for political goals. It is the duty of various levels of government to protect existing employees in different economic sectors. However, as we begin a decade of transition, do we really have to continue to promise new jobs in economic sectors that present an increasingly high risk for investors?

Jobs in the fossil fuel sector are not only affected by the energy transition related to adapting to climate change, but also by the uncertainty of the Canadian oil barrel price and the automatization of jobs in that sector. In light of these circumstances, we have two choices: the status quo or the diversification of the economy and adaptation to deal with the human, social and economic costs of the changes brought on by the energy transition. It is clear that we have come to the stage of introducing a bill.

In closing, I would simply like to come back to the discussion you had yesterday after the presentation of some of my colleagues from the Climate Action Network Canada. According to you, the two parties—environmentalists and people who work in the energy sector—need to establish a dialogue. I think that my presentation goes in that direction and that this is already the case. For example, our organization is part of an alliance that brings together people from the energy sector, industry representatives and environmentalists. That alliance is called SWITCH, and its objective is to successfully transition to green economy. In other words, that dialogue is already underway. I think we need to continue to build bridges.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Marc-André.

We will turn to HealthCareCAN with Mr. Cloutier, president and CEO, and Ms. Sveistrup, CEO and chief scientific officer, Bruyère Research Institute.

[Paul-Émile Cloutier, President and Chief Executive Officer, HealthCareCAN]

Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, thank you for having me today. I represent HealthCareCAN, the national voice of Canada's health care organizations and research hospitals.

I am happy to have next to me Heidi Sveistrup, who is the chief executive officer and chief scientific officer of the Bruyère Research Institute. Ms. Sveistrup, a brilliant researcher who is appreciated, is also a member of HealthCareCAN.

Before I begin my statement, I would like to greet my fellow witnesses who are here to share their point of view.

If government wants to address the climate emergency, research hospitals and health organizations must be made key partners in its sustainable development, green infrastructure and climate change agendas. As everyone knows, hospitals operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The result is that these critical institutions are the most energy-intensive public facilities in Canada. Hospitals currently consume roughly 11% of Canada's total public energy and collectively account for more than 5% of our nation's greenhouse gas footprint.

Making matters worse is the fact that Canada's hospital infrastructure is ancient. Much of it is made up of 50-year-old hospitals, and yet Canada's research hospitals and health organizations continue to be excluded from most federal infrastructure funding programs, including the disaster mitigation and adaptation fund, and many others. In my view, this is an appalling policy oversight. Hospitals and health organizations cannot make green upgrades, retrofits or repairs when they often do not have the budget to perform even basic maintenance.

In 2016, we were pleased to see that this committee recommended that the federal government ensure a level playing field to allow hospitals and health organizations to be eligible to compete directly for federal funding programs, such as green infrastructure and innovation. Hon. members, we are not asking for any special favours or special treatment. What we are asking for is for our sector be treated equally, like other sectors, such as energy and universities. In budget 2020, we ask that you bring back that overlooked recommendation. In my view, this only requires a policy change and no additional funding.

HealthCareCAN is also urging the federal government to step up and fund the full cost of health research in Canada.

Research activities involve significant indirect costs. The federal funding currently covers only between 18% and 21% of indirect costs of research, compared with 40% to 80% covered for our American and British colleagues and counterparts.

You can see how Canadian researchers are at a serious disadvantage and why brain drain of the top-tier research talent is a serious concern.

HealthCareCAN therefore recommends that the federal government grow investment in science to cover the full cost of research, enabling Canada's research hospitals to generate new breakthroughs, including on the health impacts of climate change.

Lastly, specific action to support health lies in the federal government stepping up its efforts to support full deployment of digital solutions in health.

In Canada, health data is generally siloed in an establishment or an appropriate authority. However, as argued by the government's own advisers at Canada's Health and Bio-Sciences Economic Strategy Table, the mobilization of our data on health will benefit patients, clinicians, researchers and the economy in general.

More specifically, the table recommended that Canada put forward three key elements: an interoperable digital health platform; harmonized frameworks for data and for safeguarding individual privacy; and, finally, a unique electronic health record for all Canadians.

The federal government has the power to address this recommendation, and we want it to take the initiative to do so.

I would like to close with the words of the CEO of one of our member institutions in Ontario, who recently published in The Globe and Mail a stirring call to action from the front lines of our health care system:

While much divides our country, one thing unites us: compassionate, safe and high-quality care for all Canadians. Without definitive action, it's never been at greater risk.

I urge the honourable members of the finance committee to take action now.

Thank you for giving us the privilege to present here today.

I have left you an invitation card for February 24, when you will be able to meet most of those leaders, who are CEOs of institutions, universities and research centres.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Paul-Émile.

The last witness is Mr. Obed, president of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami organization.

Mr. McLeod will be after me for pronouncing that wrong, but go ahead.

[Natan Obed, President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami]

Nakurmiik.

Good morning, ulaakut, everyone.

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami is the national organization representing approximately 65,000 Inuit in Canada, the majority of whom live in Inuit Nunangat. Inuit Nunangat is our homeland and the term we use to describe the roughly 35% of this country that is governed and controlled by Inuit interests, either through fee simple or through a co-management structure, through modern treaties or land claims.

ITK is governed by the elected leaders of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, Makivik Corporation, and the Nunatsiavut government. These four Inuit representative organizations and governments are Inuit rights holders under section 35 of the Constitution, having negotiated comprehensive Inuit-Crown land claim agreements between 1975 and 2005. Our ongoing relationship with the federal government, especially through budgetary processes, is relatively new and an emerging way in which we implement our modern treaties, but also the way in which we implement reconciliation.

ITK undertook an exercise to quantify Inuit-specific federal government investments proposed in budgets 2010 to 2019. Through this review, we found the following. Prior to federal budget 2016, there were no federal Inuit-specific fiscal investments as part of budgets. Any investments for Inuit tended to be indirect, either through public governments or through indigenous allocations, without any specific mention of Inuit specificity within the text of any budget. In fact, mention of Inuit at all in federal budgets was exceedingly rare. For example, in budgets 2010 to 2014, Inuit were mentioned only twice in each budget, and not in relation to any new investment.

Over the last four successive federal budgets, however, references to Inuit have continued to increase, with budget 2019 containing more than 90 references to Inuit. At the same time, Inuit-specific investment allocations have also increased across a broad range of areas, from health and social development to post-secondary education and early learning and child care. In the last two years, there has been an Inuit priority section within the broader indigenous chapter of the federal budget.

These are positive policy changes. They reflect the evolving and maturing relationship between Inuit and the Crown and better situate the meaningful place of Inuit within broader Canadian society and as one of the three indigenous peoples identified in section 35 of the Constitution. Federal budgets allow for the Canadian government to specifically tell Canadians how it will spend money. Unfortunately, in the past, the term “indigenous”—or the term “aboriginal”, which preceded it—allowed for complete lack of consideration of Inuit within any of the allocated funds.

Budget 2020 should build on progress made in the last four federal budgets by continuing to implement an Inuit Nunangat fiscal policy in the allocation of Inuit-specific funding. The inclusion of an Inuit priority section in the last two budgets was a welcome and positive development and should continue in budget 2020. Continued implementation of an Inuit Nunangat fiscal policy in federal budgets creates efficiency, cost savings and more immediate impacts and benefits for Inuit, which, in turn, benefit all Canadians.

In our pre-budget submission, we have gone through a number of things that we would like to see within the Inuit section of the indigenous chapter of the budget. It starts with a $1-billion investment in an Inuit Nunangat infrastructure fund, to consider eliminating the infrastructure deficit in Inuit Nunangat. It also calls for social infrastructure investments to enhance the health and safety of Inuit Nunangat communities, supporting women and also supporting the emerging workforce, and to create the environmental conditions necessary for lifelong development in children. We need investments in early learning and child care centres, family violence shelters and transitional housing, addiction treatment centres and social housing.

We also need investments in marine and air infrastructure. Inuit Nunangat encompasses all of Canada's Arctic coastline and significant offshore areas, yet its marine infrastructure is almost non-existent. This contributes to lost economic opportunities, greater fossil fuel emissions, as well as a higher cost of living and its associated challenges. In addition, most airport runways date from the 1950s and 1960s and are made up of compacted gravel. They can support only smaller aircraft, and they lack ability to operate in inclement weather or darkness.

We also need investments in renewable energy. No community in Inuit Nunangat is connected to the North American grid, and with the exception of Inuvik and Tuktoyaktuk, none is connected to the road system. Each community is served by a local power plant dependent upon fossil fuels, predominantly diesel, for power generation. To support the off-diesel transition, there is a need for an Inuit Nunangat renewable energy fund. There is also a need for an Inuit Nunangat feed-in tariff for Inuit-owned power projects serving our communities. This would transcend jurisdictional boundaries and differing energy policies, and provide direct support for Inuit renewable energy projects.

We also need investments in telecommunications. Incremental investment in satellite technologies confuses industrial policy with telecommunications policy and is not cost-effective or a long-term connectivity solution. In order to remedy these challenges, ITK is seeking federal investment in regional fibre projects, beginning with regional feasibility studies. Inuit Nunangat faces a dire digital divide, one that has been noted by the federal government since the 1990s and reiterated most recently in the 2018 report on rural broadband by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology. Due to remoteness factors, Internet connectivity has a more critical role to play in Inuit Nunangat than in other parts of Canada in enabling access to health, education and justice services, and in reducing the overall costs of public service delivery in Inuit communities.

Other key investment areas include funding for the implementation of our national Inuit climate change strategy; funding for the implementation of our national Inuit strategy on research, supporting Inuit language and culture in schools; and also funding to implement the Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

The specific considerations in relation to our funding are contained within our pre-budget submission that was provided to the standing committee and that is also publicly available on our website at itk.ca.

Nakurmiik.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much.

I am going to come back to Dr. Sveistrup. You had some remarks. Could you keep them fairly tight? We're going to run tight on questioning time.

Go ahead.

[Dr. Heidi Sveistrup, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Scientific Officer, Bruyère Research Institute, HealthCareCAN]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.

I am Heidi Sveistrup. I am the CEO of the Bruyère Research Institute. It's the institute that's associated with the Bruyère Hospital, a multi-site academic hospital affiliated with Carleton University and the University of Ottawa. At any one point, we're serving, every day, about 1,000 older adults, in addition to conducting research and teaching the next generation's health professionals.

I know you've been hearing a lot about Canada's aging population, including earlier this week. I'm here today to talk about an alternative future to the sometimes fearmongering perspective that we have toward “the silver tsunami” because, as with any challenge, there is an opportunity, and global aging is actually a massive economic opportunity for our country.

I'm going to provide the context for this economic opportunity and give three tangible recommendations for this committee to consider.

I'll start with an example. We know that Canada is in a deficit of long-term care beds. In less than 15 years, we're going to need about 200,000 new long-term care beds. This is going to add billions of dollars to our health care costs annually. Long-term care is often viewed as a solution to the impacts of aging on our health system, but this is because we have inadequate supports to help people stay in their homes, where they want to be.

While more beds are part of the solution, we can't continue to simply absorb the costs associated with our rapidly aging population. I want to be clear that there is nothing wrong with aging—I'm aging—but there is currently a dearth of alternatives to keep people out of expensive health care institutions. We have to find a way to keep people at home longer, where they want to be.

One way is by doubling down on research. In this example, one focuses on an emerging branch of health care technology known as age-tech. Age-tech is providing distinct solutions for long-term care and health care by leveraging existing technologies like the Internet of things, sensors and virtual reality to provide digital home care and support for all Canadians, including aging adults.

Age-tech for the silver economy will be a multi-million, multi-trillion dollar global market within the next half decade, with an estimated growth of $8.5 trillion by 2025 in Europe alone.

Here is our opportunity. As earlier stated, Canada is uniquely positioned to be a leader in age-tech because of our hallmark public health system. We can leverage this through research, development and commercialization to truly capitalize on the silver economy in ways that we never imagined.

Here's how. We provided a pre-budget submission last year with five recommendations. I'm going to talk about three. First, the government should continue to consult with industry and the research sector through its economic strategy tables and expand the focus to include age-tech and the silver economy.

Second, the government should renew funding for the strategic innovation fund, stream 4, in pursuit of the health and biosciences economic strategy table objectives.

Third, the government should expand federal research funding, including CIHR's Institute of Aging, to add more work on age-tech and how these technologies can support healthy aging.

As my colleague Paul-Émile stated, levelling the playing field and ensuring that access to infrastructure and capacity-building funding opportunities is open to academic health care organizations directly is critical to success. To unleash the potential of the silver economy, the government must implement ambitious policy packages targeting the aging population, such as those I've listed. These will position and enable Canada to become a leader in the global age-tech economy.

Thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Heidi. Thank you, all.

We will drop back to five minutes per individual in the first round and split up the last four.

Mr. Cooper, go ahead for the first round.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Lancastle, you talked about the stress test and in particular the renewal aspect in terms of changing lenders who are being locked in. Do you know how many Canadians are impacted by that right now? In other words, they would like to or could potentially change lenders upon renewal, but are locked in because they would not satisfy the stress test.

[Keith Lancastle]

Our organization does not have any statistics on that. We do know that approximately 70% to 75% of the residential lending is still being offered through federally regulated financial institutions.

Philosophically, we support the notion of providing consumers with the greatest degree of choice possible, while still recognizing the need to balance the stress on the economy and the stress on the system. We believe that if a borrower has serviced their loan well and is not taking on any additional debt, they should have the broadest base of choices available.

As to the numbers of people who may be directly impacted, I'm afraid we don't have those statistics. I know that others are looking at that kind of information, but that's not information we have on hand at this point.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Do you wish to add anything about the stress test more broadly? I know you said the focus is on the renewal aspect, but do you have anything else to add?

Tied into that, I think you're right that we are talking about a group of borrowers who are low-risk. Making this change doesn't add any financial stress to the system. Is there any argument to say we shouldn't provide an exception? It seems to me to be a no-brainer.

[Keith Lancastle]

Our perspective has been that we're not adding any additional stress to the system. Borrowers are not taking on any additional debt, so the public policy objective is not being encumbered by eliminating the stress test on renewals.

As far as the remainder of the stress test across the balance of the market is concerned, it's important to recognize that our members are somewhat unique in the real estate value chain in that they have no vested interest in the outcome. Their sole function is to provide value, to confirm the market value, to confirm the value of the collateral for the borrower and for the lender. They're not compensated any differently if the deal closes than if the deal does not close.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Right. Thank you for that.

Ms. Rodrigues, you alluded to some gaps in terms of mental health supports and funding within the framework of the publicly administered health care system. Could you elaborate on some of those gaps that you see?

[Sara Rodrigues]

Certainly. At the Canadian Mental Health Association, some of the gaps we see are in access to community-based mental health care, access to counsellors, access to psychotherapists, access to medication and access to low-intensity supports and interventions for mental health.

We see that wait times are increasingly long in this country, especially for vulnerable people and especially for youth. To take a provincial example, we see recent reports from Children's Mental Health Ontario indicating that wait times for youth are up to a year in some cases.

I'll leave it at that.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you.

Chair, how much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You're okay for a minute and a half.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Ms. Rodrigues, could you elaborate on the $50 million that you're requesting? Is that a one-time commitment? Could you expand on that?

[Sara Rodrigues]

We would like to see an influx of funding as a one-time commitment to start, with core funding to sustain the organization at a national level and then throughout the federation following from that. This would allow us to continue to provide the high-quality services that we are providing across the country. It would also allow us to expand, replicate and scale the services and programs that we provide across the country. It would allow us to enhance the population-specific supports that we are currently working towards.

One thing that we didn't have an opportunity to address today, but that I can address now, is that it would allow us to start to work towards responding to some of the key areas that we anticipate will be future areas of priority for mental health care, which specifically will look towards climate-readying the mental health care system. We believe the implications of the climate emergency will be as much a public health issue as they will be a mental health issue, so we're going to need to look towards solutions that will address that. The Canadian Mental Health Association will be well positioned to provide that through interventions that will specifically look toward mental health implications of the climate emergency.