Finance Committee on Oct. 10th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Morantz.

Now we'll go to PS Bendayan, please.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses appearing.

I have many questions for many different witnesses, but sadly, I would like to return to what my Conservative colleague did at the beginning of this meeting when he questioned the ability of the president of the Canadian Teachers' Federation to represent her members.

Ms. Yetman, you were not given a chance to respond to that. Is there anything you would like to say?

[Heidi Yetman]

First of all, I'm here for a pre-budget consultation, so I'd like to move forward.

We get our mandate from our member organizations and from members on the ground at our annual general meeting every summer, so I disagree with MP Chambers. We are getting our mandate from our members, absolutely.

I am very concerned, though, about mental health, about children's mental health. I'm very concerned about public services in Canada. I'm looking over at my colleague here, who represents nurses, and I've said this before in this committee: These are jobs mostly done by women, and we're seeing them leave the professions, so I'm very concerned. I think it's really important to invest. I'd love to have a minister of education, because I think the federal government does have a role to play in education across this country too, just like it does in health.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I'll pick up on that point then, Ms. Yetman, because one of the reasons the national school food program and the investments that we're making are structured as they are is that we are having a lot of difficulty in coming to agreement with our provincial counterparts. There are premiers, mostly Conservative premiers, across this country who are not coming to the table to accept the funding that the federal government is offering in order to feed vulnerable children in our schools.

Do you see a role for teachers and the Teachers' Federation in helping us come to those agreements?

[Heidi Yetman]

We are working very closely with the government on this.

We know that Newfoundland has signed an agreement, so bravo for Newfoundland, and we're working very closely with our member organizations. We've already asked our member organizations to send out letters to premiers, and we're also working with the Coalition for Healthy School Food, so yes, we have a huge role to play here in making sure that provinces sign agreements to get those kids the food they need.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I'm glad to hear it and I look forward to having that help at home in Quebec as well.

On the topic of mental health, you mentioned the mental health of our teachers, which I am quite concerned about. I also wonder if you'd like to comment on the mental health of our young people and our youth. That is, to me, one of the areas we don't talk enough about, so would you like to comment on the possibility of funding a youth mental health fund?

[Heidi Yetman]

Yes, I'm really worried about students on the ground. The 2023 Canadian Health Survey on Children and Youth just came out recently. It looked at what happened between 2019 and 2020, and we know the COVID-19 pandemic had a big impact on all of our lives, the lives of so many Canadians. Some of those effects are still being felt today.

There is a decline in perceived mental health, especially among older teens. I mentioned that in my opening statement, and girls also are more likely than boys to report mental health decline, so it's really important, and as teachers in the classroom we notice that. Teaching is a lot about relationships, and we may be teaching subject content, but we're also trying to take care of the students in our classrooms.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you. I'll turn to Mr. Hatch now, to talk about our credit unions.

I'm a member of a credit union in Quebec, Desjardins, and I know that you represent credit unions right across the country. I would like to hear your view on the government's plans for open banking. I know that you're very heavily involved in consultations with the folks at Finance and the finance minister specifically.

I wonder if you'd like to put anything on the record here at committee regarding the direction that you would like to see open banking take in this country?

[Michael Hatch]

Thank you for the opportunity.

We've worked very closely since 2018 with the previous minister and the current minister in finance, all of the various agencies, and now the FCAC, which will be tasked with implementing and regulating an open banking regime for Canada. It's been a good process. It's taken longer than perhaps we and some other players in the sector would have liked to see, but that's sometimes the reality of legislating and bringing something new into being in a big and diverse country like Canada.

Our baseline for open banking since day one was that credit unions have the opportunity but not the obligation to participate in this new ecosystem. That was embraced all along the way by Mr. Tachjian, who was tasked with running this out of Finance for the last number of years. We've worked very closely with him, his colleagues and the ministers, as well. We're very pleased to see that reflected so far.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Just to be clear, it's like an opt-in type of program.

[Michael Hatch]

That's right. It's opt in.

The large, federally regulated institutions will certainly want to participate on day one, and so will a number of credit unions, but not all will, necessarily.

We're pleased to see the progress that has taken place, and we hope to see more in the years to come. It has been a slow but steady process. We are, broadly speaking, happy with it.

Thank you for the opportunity.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Do you feel that your voice is—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Now we're way over.

I have to move over to MP Ste-Marie, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Cloutier or Mr. Lavigne, I would like you to tell us about the third pillar you presented, which contains quite a variety of things. It refers, for example, to support for R and D, SME growth, strengthening supply chains, and exports.

I am listening.

[Daniel Cloutier]

I am going to let Mr. Lavigne tell you about this.

[Simon Lavigne, National Representative, Research Department, Unifor]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

What we have to remember in the policy we submitted is that pillar 1 is really the desire to put a strategic framework in place. This issue has been discussed widely in Canada in the past, as part of the aerospace sector review exercises conducted in 2005 and 2012. We are not reinventing the wheel.

Pillar 3 is a bit of a catch-all, as you said. It incorporates all types of support in the ecosystem, whether it is meant for SMEs, R and D, exports, supply chains, or something else. This pillar also has an aspect relating to the entire subject of procurement and public contracting. The idea is to foster Canadian solutions in carrying out these projects, particularly when public funds are being used, in amounts sometimes reaching billions of dollars.

Ultimately, pillar 1, the one relating to the strategic framework, is going to make it possible to calibrate investments that will support each of the measures proposed in pillar 3. As I said, we believe there has to be a huge increase in the support made available for R and D. There is also the whole question of linkages and collaboration. The amounts needed are not enormous, but we have to give it a big boost and get back on track.

I would like to add one thing, in closing. At the start of the meeting, you asked what distinguished Canada from other countries in this regard. France is one example, with its strategic sector committees, or there is what is done in the United States or Germany. Even New Zealand has adopted an industrial policy for the aerospace industry. Based on the research we have done, what distinguishes Canada is that it does not have the will to establish a comprehensive strategic development framework to properly calibrate the funds that might be budgeted for this sector in a federal budget. You can't just sprinkle the money around; you have to make sure that it structures and develops the industry in the long term, for the benefit of our members. I would note that a healthy industry will ultimately mean better working conditions for our members.

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

That is very clear.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Now we'll go to MP Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Silas, as we speak today, the pharmacare act is receiving its third vote in the Senate. Once it receives its majority vote, it is slated to get royal assent today. My understanding is that the Conservative leader in the Senate is delaying that, so that the royal assent that was scheduled for later tonight now has to be postponed.

I'm just wondering if you could explain to us what you see as the health benefits and maybe the economic impacts of having two classes of drug—diabetes medications and devices, and contraception medications and devices.

What impact might it have on Canadians' health and economic situations to have access to those drugs through their public health care system at no cost to them?

[Linda Silas]

A national pharmacare program is what we've been asking for, for 30 years. The introduction of this opens the door to diabetic and contraceptive drugs. It is great news.

I bring myself back to when I was an ER nurse. We had to scramble to find samples to give to patients. Well, that was 30 years ago. They're still doing the same thing today, and the cost of drugs has gone up so much. We have patients, especially in the diabetic area.... There are young kids who don't know what to do. Those who can afford them have the expensive machines that click on. They're well controlled and can have an active life. Those who cannot control it and cannot afford their drugs just try to live. They don't go to school. Their parents can't go to work.

The whole issue of pharmaceutical is that it's an extension of our health care system. We've always said that your health care services don't stop after your doctor or nurse practitioner visit. They need to continue. That's what Canadians are all about. As soon as the bill is passed, we will be knocking on every health minister's door to sign on.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

One thing that was very important for the NDP was compelling the inclusion of devices—the continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, test strips and syringes you alluded to. We heard terrible stories about people going out of pocket or parents having to wake their children at night every hour and a half in order to test their blood sugar levels. There's $270 million in a fund available to the provinces that will help defray those costs.

Thank you for all the work you've done to help push this important health care development.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Davies.

Now we'll go to MP Kelly.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

My question is for the Convenience Industry Council of Canada and Madam Kothawala.

We heard that your members are mostly small businesses. Your stores are almost always independently owned, even if they are part of a large franchise network.

To start with, is that correct?

[Anne Kothawala]

That is correct.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Okay.

These individuals would tend to own their business through a corporate structure, though, especially if they own the building.

Is that correct?