Finance Committee on May 20th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 48 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. This will be our third panel today. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the committee's motion adopted on Tuesday, April 27, 2021, the committee is meeting to study the subject matter of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 19 of this year and other measures.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. The proceedings will be made available on the House of Commons website. Just so that witnesses know, the webcast will always show the person who's speaking rather than the entirety of the committee, and we ask that screenshots not be taken.

With that bit of introduction, we will go straight to witnesses. If you could keep your presentations to about five minutes, that would be great, because it will leave a little more time for questions.

We'll start with Canada's Building Trades Unions. We have Mr. Kucheran, chair, and Mr. Strickland, executive director. I'm not sure who's taking the lead, but the floor is yours.

[Robert Kucheran, Chairman, Executive Board, Canada's Building Trades Unions]

I am. Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, and thank you very much for the opportunity to address you today on Bill C-30 and the effect the budget will have on the skilled trades workers in Canada.

My name is Robert Kucheran. I am the chair of the Canadian executive board of Canada's Building Trades Unions. The CBTU is an organization composed of 14 international unions, with over 500,000 skilled men and women from coast to coast to coast. I am also the general vice-president of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, one of the CBTU's 14 affiliates. Today I'll be sharing my time with the executive director of the CBTU, Sean Strickland.

First off, we are pleased to see the $30 billion allocated for a national child care program in the budget. Access to child care remains an issue for skilled trades workers who don't fit a typical nine-to-five, Monday-to-Friday work schedule. A large-scale investment of this kind is important to help working families, and we will continue to work with the government to ensure child care means child care for all workers.

Overall, over 500,000 workers have been laid off or faced cuts to their working hours due to the pandemic, impacts that have been disproportionate among certain segments of the population, including young workers, women and racialized communities. While the construction industry, which accounts for about 6% of Canada's GDP, has been a key player in keeping the economy going this past year, industry employment is down from pre-pandemic levels, with unemployment nationally at about 8% and much higher in certain regions of this country.

The recent extension of programs like the Canada recovery benefit in the budget will help workers through this unprecedented time. Looking to the longer-term, we are pleased to see the reforms in the employment insurance program included in Bill C-30. This has been a high priority for Canada's Building Trades Unions and will better support workers in the long term. Recently we appreciated the opportunity to address the HUMA committee on this issue, specifically on allowing claimants to start receiving EI benefits sooner by simplifying the rules around monies paid on separation, lowering the thresholds for entrance requirements to EI, and, very importantly, extending the EI sickness benefits from 15 to 26 weeks. This will help all Canadians, including CBTU members who don't have access to paid sick days. We commend the Government of Canada for taking those measures into account in this bill.

Thank you. I will hand my remaining time over to Mr. Sean Strickland.

[Sean Strickland, Executive Director, Canada's Building Trades Unions]

Thank you, Robert.

It's a real pleasure to be here today. Thanks very much, members, for the work you do on behalf of your constituents and all Canadians.

We appreciate the opportunity to engage on Bill C-30 and look forward to continued consultation on budget items such as the new apprenticeship service, the community workforce development program and the sectoral workforce solutions program as details get ironed out.

Bill C-30 includes important measures to alleviate some of the financial burden on apprentices as they move through their apprenticeship by absorbing interest accrued from the Canada apprentice loans program until March 2023. We applaud the government for this initiative. We also appreciate the budget's focus on green energy and workforce development, but we recognize there's an opportunity to expand on additional investments as we look beyond the pandemic and getting Canadians back to work.

In the construction sector, this means support for a skilled trades workforce mobility tax deduction, which is currently on the floor of the House of Commons as a private member's bill, Bill C-275. Unlike many careers, construction work is temporary, in that you build a project, complete the project and then move on to the next one. This can require workers to travel and temporarily relocate for work, with costs that can be too much for a worker and can disincentivize them from travelling to where the work is. This can create labour shortages in different regions, with high unemployment in others. A skilled trades mobility tax deduction would address this problem and transition workers away from utilizing programs like EI so that they instead contribute to the Canadian economy through tax revenues from their employment.

This past March, an independent financial projection commissioned by Canada's Building Trades Unions found that the Canada-wide implementation of a skilled trades workforce mobility tax deduction would save the treasury an estimated $347 million annually through increased tax revenues and reduced reliance on EI and other government programs. This private member's bill will not receive royal assent, but we encourage the government to adopt this measure. This is very important for helping to rebuild Canada's economy, and it is very important to members of the building trades.

There is a lot in the budget that will help to continue building Canada's skilled trades workforce. However, we need to ensure that funds that have been committed in budget 2021 and previously for infrastructure investment flow out the door, put shovels in the ground and get people back to work, and faster.

On behalf of the over half a million skilled trades professionals who belong to Canada's Building Trades Unions and our 14 affiliated international unions, I want to thank the committee for this opportunity to present. I look forward to any questions that you may have for me and Robert.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you both for that presentation.

We'll turn to Dr. Ann Collins, president of the Canadian Medical Association.

[Dr. Ann Collins, President, Canadian Medical Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am Dr. Ann Collins. Over the past three decades, I have taught family medicine, run a full-time family practice, served with the Canadian Armed Forces and worked for 20 years in nursing home care. Today it is my privilege to speak to you as president of the Canadian Medical Association, representing the sentiments and convictions of our 80,000 members.

Since inception in 1867, the Canadian Medical Association has advocated on matters of national health. The pandemic has showcased the enormous strengths and tenacity of the professionals who are at work delivering the nation's health care. It has also shown us how quickly our resources can be overwhelmed. Our country's recovery hinges on the recuperation of our health networks, because economic security cannot exist without health security.

Of the significant investments announced in budget 2021, we are pleased to see the attention paid to better care for our older adults and the communities most impacted by structural inequities. We can create a more dignified provision of care in long-term care facilities and support age-in-place strategies. We can address social determinants of health and invest in the battle against climate change. These commitments will fortify the equitable health security of Canadians.

The CMA especially welcomes the federal government's commitment to provide the provinces and territories with $4 billion through a one-time top-up to the Canada health transfer. This will support health systems with the capacity to clear the backlog of delayed procedures from the first and second waves. Bill C-25 is the lifeline to Canadians' immediate health needs. It must pass without delay.

Canada's job now is to address equitable access to primary care teams. Thirteen per cent of Canadians lack access to a family doctor or a family care team. That's an astonishing five million Canadians.

Primary care is the front door of health care. It is affordable, it fosters equity, and it will be essential in supporting Canada through and out of the pandemic, but the door is broken and off its hinges. It's struggling to remain upright.

The federal government has long expressed commitments to invest in the expansion of primary care, with good reason. Expanding primary care will help ensure that every Canadian has access to a family doctor or primary care provider. Every person in Canada, especially those most impacted by structural inequities, deserves the attention of a primary care team.

At present, much of our care exists in a vacuum. One discipline is completely severed from another. We don't accept divisiveness in any other aspect of life. How can we accept it in our health care system?

Primary care is a team-based model that is rooted in the networking of health professionals. They work in concert, just as a healthy body does. Primary care is the infrastructure with which to deliver mental health services and make virtual and remote care a reality. I think we can all agree that making a distinction between physical health and mental health is antiquated. The time has come to work towards parity in the resources needed to treat Canadians, regardless of their illness.

The future of sustainable health care is housed in the success of primary care. Our younger physicians and physicians in training seek to practise under this model. It is the means that will prevent greater illness and further strain on our health care systems. This is the time to support the future of medicine, the future of care, the future of Canadians' health.

The CMA appeals to parliamentarians to deliver this critical health care resource in budget 2021. There's still time. An infusion of federal funds in the amount of $1.2 billion over four years would expand the establishment of primary care teams in each province and territory.

We are equally intent on seeing an increase in federal funding for health care to the provinces and territories in the long term. It is the truest signal of collaboration.

Mr. Chair, let me thank the committee for the invitation. The CMA is grateful for the opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Dr. Collins.

We're turning to, from the medical profession as well, the Canadian Nurses Association. We have Mr. Villeneuve, CEO; and Ms. Hamza, policy lead.

[Michael Villeneuve, Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Nurses Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for inviting the Canadian Nurses Association to share our perspectives on Bill C-30 and the 2021 federal budget.

I would like to acknowledge that I speak to you today from the ancestral unceded lands of the Algonquin Anishnabe peoples in eastern Ontario. My name is Mike Villeneuve and I am the CEO of the Canadian Nurses Association. I am joined today by my great colleague Aden Hamza, who is our policy lead.

Overall, the Canadian Nurses Association welcomes the important measures outlined in the budget to continue fighting COVID-19, to care for children, to protect older adults, to expand broadband Internet to support virtual care, and to tackle systemic racism. I will focus my remarks on key issues CNA has strongly been advocating throughout the pandemic and on how the budget addresses some of these concerns.

CNA has been calling for a larger national conversation around aging to identify the best models to support safe and dignified aging in Canada. Since the beginning of the pandemic, we have all seen, and some have even experienced, the devastating effects of the virus for older adults and the way COVID-19 has put a spotlight on some well-known vulnerabilities in our health care systems.

In our pre-budget submission and advocacy, CNA urged the federal government to lead the development of pan-Canadian standards and to increase funding for long-term care. We're pleased to see a commitment of $3 billion to support provinces and territories in ensuring that standards for long-term care are applied, while respecting jurisdictions.

As referenced in the budget, the Health Standards Organization and Canadian Standards Association are launching a process to develop standards for long-term care. While CNA welcomes this work, of course, we do continue to urge the federal government to take a leadership role and to institute meaningful change by implementing measurable, actionable, and accountable standards to address the shocking outcomes we have seen.

Furthermore, although division 12 of part 4 of Bill C-30 provides an important emergency $4-billion top-up to the Canada health transfer, more funding is needed to meaningfully support the health and social needs of the largest generation of older people in our history. As we shared with this committee during pre-budget consultations, just the aging of our population will drive increases in health care spending by an additional $93 billion over the next decade. New dedicated funding is critical to enhance the ability of provinces and territories to invest in home care, community care, long-term care, palliative care and end-of-life care. That is why CNA continues to call on the government to implement a new demographic top-up to the Canada health transfer.

Finally, as nurses continue to fight COVID-19, CNA was pleased to see that budget 2021 pledged mental health supports dedicated to health care workers who are experiencing trauma due to COVID-19.

More than a year into the pandemic, and with many provinces facing a dangerous third wave this very day, nurses and other health care workers are facing critical fatigue and burnout. We have been hearing stories about nurses, physicians, and others planning to leave the profession, and we have seen major staffing issues in critical care units over the recent weeks across Canada. CNA is extremely concerned about nursing shortages and about how those could impact the health of Canadians going forward. A new health human resources plan led by the federal government will be crucial.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My colleague Aden and I will do our best to answer any questions. Thank you for including us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much to you both.

We turn now to Ms. Mrozek, who is with Cardus.

You have the floor, Andrea.

[Andrea Mrozek, Senior Fellow, Cardus]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Every morning I work in taking care of my two-year-old. Every afternoon I work for Cardus, a not-for-profit think tank. The federal government thinks only one of these activities is worthy of federal support. Some afternoons my husband takes care of our two-year-old and other afternoons a paid helper does the same.

Again, for those whose primary concern is increasing GDP, only the waged work contributes, but child care is the care of a child no matter who does it. For the majority of parents and children, there is little to gain and much to lose from plans for national day care.

I have researched child care for 15 years. Today I'd like to comment specifically on federal funding allocations in light of the budget and a paper I recently co-authored, called “Look Before You Leap: The Real Costs and Complexities of National Daycare”.

Our detailed cost assessment phases in spaces for 70% of children under six over five years and includes staff, capital, training and maintenance costs. All of our assumptions are based on the work of advocates for national day care. However, there are several things they would desire that we were not able to include, making our estimates low. Our low-quality and low-cost estimate rings in at $17 billion annually. The more reasonable estimate rings in at $36.3 billion annually.

I'd like to make three points today. One is that the federal funding amounts are not enough to provide high-quality child care at low cost to all parents or even most parents. This program will not deliver what it promises. The second point is that if it funds only one kind of care—licensed, for-profit care—most parents will experience a loss of care options, increased child care costs or both. Finally, I'll talk about the per-family funding amounts that could be provided were money allocated to children instead of to spaces.

First, the funding levels are woefully inadequate for a high-quality universal program. This level of funding guarantees low-quality care, inaccessible care or both.

Our low-cost estimate is only slightly less than the federal budget allocates should cost-sharing with the provinces actually materialize. This low-cost estimate is based on the worst staff-child ratios in the country, which are those currently legally allowable in Quebec. To give context, those ratios allow five infants for one staff member. Do you know any parents of quintuplets who do not get assistance? Neither do I. This helps us to understand why these are poor ratios. Research shows poor ratios directly affect the quality of care for children.

Our high-cost estimate rings in at $36.3 billion. If the federal funding amount of $9.2 billion annually remains the same, the provinces will need to cover the gap. In our report, we itemize what each province would need to pay in the creation of a truly national day care system. In Ontario, this means covering $9.5 billion annually. In Alberta, it's $3.4 billion annually, and in British Columbia, it's $2.6 billion annually, to give three examples.

It's likely that this new child care cost-sharing agreement will land child care in the same kind of ongoing political argument as other federal-provincial cost-sharing agreements. For example, the federal budget 2021 did not provide the provinces with any additional health care funding, despite the ongoing global pandemic and the requests of premiers.

My second point is that budget 2021 is not enough to provide a quality system, but it is enough to destabilize the existing ecosystem of care. Subsidizing one type of care at the expense of all others wipes out the other options. The significant decrease in parent fees in one part of the sector will inflate demand for that type of care. The provinces will struggle to meet the new demand, while other providers will be unable to compete. When Quebec introduced its provincial system, private care crumbled. A tax credit was provided about 10 years later to entice private providers back in, and Quebec is still dealing with some aspects of unequal access.

After budget 2021 came down, private providers—who all happen to be female entrepreneurs—told us that they and their colleagues were working on exit strategies from their work, citing feeling unwanted or alternatively that they didn't want to be part of the government's plan.

What is the cost of re-establishing care options when the existing ecosystem of care collapses? A government-created day care space shortage is indeed the responsibility of government to fix, and it comes with its own price tag.

Third and finally, funding parents avoids the quagmire of low-quality systems that help the few and not the many. The $9.2 billion annually as a per-child amount for children under six would be almost $4,000 dollars annually.

I’ll conclude by returning to the beginning and the idea that a family’s unpaid time with their child or children is not work, not valuable, and offers no return. I think this is a short-sighted, technocratic approach to child care that fails to address Canadian families’ wishes and needs. There are fortunately better, more equitable and more efficient ways to meet those needs and simultaneously respect Canadian diversity.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Andrea.

With the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, we have Bob Masterson, president and CEO.

I don't see Bob on my screen.

We'll come back to that and go now with Green Economy Canada with Mr. Lloyd, executive director.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Alexandre Roger]

Mr. Easter, I think those witnesses are on the second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I'm looking at the wrong list. That's my fault, sorry.

We have Little Portugal on Dundas BIA and Ms. Taborda, branch manager.

Go ahead, and please excuse my mistake.

[AnaBela Taborda, Branch Manager, Little Portugal on Dundas BIA]

Thank you. That's quite okay.

Good afternoon. My name is AnaBela Taborda. I am branch manager of IC Savings Credit Union and chair of the Little Portugal on Dundas BIA, or business improvement area, in Toronto, in Davenport riding. Thank you for inviting me to take part in this call.

Little Portugal on Dundas BIA represents a collection of approximately 325 small and independent businesses along Dundas Street West in Davenport. We are one of over 80 such organizations in Toronto whose entire focus is on the success and growth of our local economies.

Toronto's BIAs represent a diverse range of organizations with priorities that are defined by local business stakeholders. All funds raised by BIAs are reinvested back into their local communities. Over $1.4 billion have been paid in taxes by BIA members, and together we employ over 551,000 individuals. That’s a massive contribution, and a huge responsibility for individual business owners.

In my role as branch manager of IC Savings, a financial institution in Little Portugal, I witnessed the struggle of many small businesses during this pandemic and how the COVID-19 economic response plan and the initiatives put in place by the federal government provided financial help, without which it would have been virtually impossible for our small and independent businesses to survive. We had very few closures in our BIA, thanks to these programs and the ongoing work of our local MP, Julie Dzerowicz, in tirelessly advocating on our behalf and connecting with our membership to help guide them through the available options. Thank you.

Further, I also want to thank the federal government for increasing Canada’s COVID-19 vaccine supply, which is vital to the recovery of our citizens and small businesses.

We are encouraged by a number of proposed items within budget 2021's support for small business and we look forward to their implementation. We do have some concerns, however, as to the timing, duration and design for some of these initiatives. We are keenly aware that although the future is looking brighter, small business continues to suffer. Indeed, full recovery is still a long way off.

An example would be CEBA. Although it is stated that if a business repays their loans by December 31, 2022, up to a third of the value of their loans—meaning up to $20,000—will be forgiven, we know that even a deadline of December 31, 2022, may still be too soon for our individual business owners to manage.

Another example is the budget 2021 extension of the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy and lockdown support beyond June 2021 to September 25, 2021. We believe this should be extended further, because we must first take our small businesses to a livable state before we even consider setting upon any road to recovery.

Helping small and medium-sized businesses move into the digital age we applaud. The Little Portugal on Dundas BIA has been at the forefront of adoption of Toronto’s Digital Main Street program. We have benefited from having a digital service squad member fluent in Portuguese, since in some cases language was a barrier.

Language challenges aside, however, we cannot force people to adopt a digital program. The design of the Canada digital adoption program must be carefully engineered, understanding that many main street independent businesses are slow and unable to adopt for many legitimate reasons and that some will need support in their native language. The program must be adept at uncovering the barriers up front and addressing them directly before the digital training can take hold and be effective in practice. We know this is the case because of the number of current businesses we have worked with that needed additional hands-on assistance with all government relief programs, subsidies and initiatives, since only online access was available, and for obvious reasons.

But again, we do applaud this initiative.

In regard to new businesses, part of the recovery will be welcoming new businesses into our BIA. We need these new businesses to create new jobs and replace any that may have been lost. We need all levels of government to create ways and means of helping us attract new businesses and helping sustain them in their first years as the country emerges from the pandemic. Proof of revenue loss criteria for government subsidies or relief program applications, for example, must be revisited to be more sensitive to a start-up’s reality.

With regard to accessibility, approximately one in five Canadians, or about 6.2 million people aged 15 and over, report having a disability that limits them in their daily activities. That would include the ability to visit main street businesses.

The Accessible Canada Act was developed following the most inclusive and accessible consultations with the disability community in our country's history. More than 100 accessibility organizations and 6,000 Canadians took part in the consultations. What can be done and how can we prepare, as our population continues to age, to improve the accessibility of Canada’s main street businesses?

In closing, I’d like to say that as the government continues to develop COVID-19 recovery programs, we ask that our local MP representatives continue to actively engage us in the development of those programs. Our BIA boards and staff are highly skilled and adept at identifying potential challenges among our memberships and are only too happy to assist in any way we can.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much.

I have Mr. Falk on the lineup for the first witness on this panel. It will be Mr. Falk, Ms. Koutrakis, Mr. Ste-Marie, and Mr. Julian—or rather, Ms. Dzerowicz is the Liberal one.

Go ahead, Mr. Falk.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for your testimony. It's been very interesting, and I appreciate the different perspectives that you represent.

Ms. Mrozek, in your presentation you mentioned that you recently co-authored a paper called “Look Before You Leap: The Real Costs and Complexities of National Daycare”, and I'm wondering whether you'd be able to submit that to the committee as a resource.

[Andrea Mrozek]

Yes, absolutely. I will do so.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Okay, good. Thanks.

You also in your presentation talked about how the implementation of a national day care system would disrupt the existing ecosystem of what we currently have now for day care. Could you expand a little more on that, please?

[Andrea Mrozek]

I'll turn to the example I cited in Quebec as to what happened. You saw the private providers leaving the industry as they couldn't compete, and then being brought back in with a tax credit later on.

More specific to this moment, there was an article in the The Vancouver Sun, I believe, suggesting that the same thing is happening in British Columbia as they introduce their own provincial day care plan. You saw there, in the words of the child care providers themselves, their concerns around viability of their businesses. One provider suggested that under the British Columbia plan she would be providing child care at a loss, and that it therefore wasn't going to be worthwhile for her to continue. The call was for inclusion of all child care in order to avoid that kind of situation.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

You also mentioned that you have an interesting work schedule. It begins at home when you spend your morning looking after your children, and then in the afternoon you have hired help who provide child care while you go to work for Cardus.

Would a national day care system help you in your particular situation?

[Andrea Mrozek]

The short answer is no.

I'm thinking of the people who live in the townhomes next to us, with shift work involved, with unusual work hours. One father stays home, while grandparents are being used down the street. These are all examples, me included, of people who would be excluded from any benefit under the billions of dollars being allocated to a national child care system.

It's not an equitable way, is what I'm suggesting, of helping families. They address their child care needs in many, many diverse ways.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thank you.

I think everyone on this committee, and I'm sure all Canadians, recognize the importance of child care. The finance minister, when she testified at committee and was asked about child care, indicated that she was privileged to be able to have her grandparents offer child care for her in her growing-up years. That's something a lot of folks across our country have, and in this current program it isn't being recognized or rewarded. There are folks who legitimately need to have day care services outside of family and friends, and they don't have those connections or opportunities. We need to make sure that folks like them have options as well.

Would you agree that how parents decide to provide child care for their children should be a parental decision?

[Andrea Mrozek]

Indeed that's the viewpoint that we take.

I would point to statistics from Statistics Canada and other polls and surveys suggesting that cost is not the first issue that parents face. Where cost is a problem, the money that goes to parents would allow us all to make our own decisions and choices. Furthermore, a lot of us are prepared to sacrifice financially in order to spend time with family in these short-lived years when kids are growing up and won't be small forever.

What I see in the policy arena is what is echoed in my private life in taking care of a two-year-old, which is to say that a lot of parents are balancing and juggling in important ways to spend more time with their children.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

As an alternative to a national day care program, could you provide some options that you might see as being more effective, something like an increase to the existing Canada child benefit? Would it be more equitable to provide funds that all parents would receive, which they then could determine how to spend, whether they wanted to subsidize a parent working at home, provide the family with some assistance for helping them or take advantage of a licensed daycare? What do you think would be an alternative to a national system?

[Andrea Mrozek]

Providing the money to parents is definitely a more equitable and efficient way, but first we have to address the supply side issues. To this, I would say that the Statistics Canada data that I have examined suggests that the supply is not as bad as we are told, and whether that's an issue or not is very diverse across the country. Most parents are able to access the kind of care that they desire, and we have very recent polling data that suggests that parents are happy with the care that they find, and even in this stage of COVID, they have returned to their prior care options. This could be a licensed space in a centre. It could be, as I choose, home-based care, family-based care or what have you, but the demand side is where the problems are and where the choices are curtailed. If you don't have money to pay for what is available, then you don't have that choice.

I think the money to parents is a viable option, and if it were means tested, then we would see significant amounts of money going to those who need it most. We suggested that the $9.2 billion, as a per child amount without the means test, is roughly $4,000 per child under six.

If we end up spending upwards of $36 billion annually, which is what I assume will be the case years down the road, then that amount is about $14,000 per child under six. Again, that's not means tested. I would advocate means testing so that people who are truly in need can get the support to help them with their child care choices.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

This is your last question, Ted.