Health Committee on April 12th, 2021

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Essentially, you are in a situation of having to look at significant borrowing because of measures that were put in place without any clarity on why they were needed for public health outcomes or any clarity on when they were going to end.

[Carmelle Hunka]

Certainly we support any testing that is being done at the airport, whether that's for domestic travellers, which is what we would like to see, or for arriving passengers. We do believe that the pilot program provided significant and strong data and information with respect to what the risk was from travellers arriving. We continue to support that.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Have you been given any information on when, say, the Alberta pilot program might come back into place, or any benchmarks for when some of the restrictions that you've been operating under might be lifted?

[Carmelle Hunka]

We have not received any of that information at this point. We continue to support—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Have you asked for it?

[Carmelle Hunka]

We have not gone and asked specifically for that information. We continue to participate in conversations and telephone calls with Transport Canada and otherwise with respect to the continued restrictions that are in place—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

But Transport Canada has not provided any information in terms of benchmarks on when restrictions might be eased.

[Carmelle Hunka]

No, they have not provided those directly to us. As I indicated, we have asked to participate in testing and have indicated that we are prepared to participate in as much testing at the airports as possible in order to enable and support recovery.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Sure. If things keep going the way they are right now under the current system, would it be fair to say that the airport authority is in major trouble in about a year's time?

[Carmelle Hunka]

We certainly are looking at our forecasts over the course of the next year. We are actually forecasting for 2021. We will be advising at our AGM that we're forecasting 5.1 million passengers compared with 5.7 million passengers in 2020. The 5.1 million is the same level of passengers as in 1995. With those low levels of passengers, certainly we have—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Just quickly, with the time I have left, the April 21 OIC ends in 10 days. You're telling me that the government has told you nothing in terms of what might happen at that point in time. We're 10 days away.

[Carmelle Hunka]

We have not received any indication. We continue to plan for supporting the continued testing, should it be required.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Mr. Kelloway, please go ahead for six minutes.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Hello to my colleagues.

To the witnesses today, thank you so much. I had a few questions prepared for this morning, but I sort of erased them because of the testimony given today, which I found very, very important. Whether we're talking about food security or food banks or sustainable funding, I hear you. I've been there. On the need to build on the 25 million rapid tests that we have out there now, it's a lot, but we need more. It's an important work-in-progress.

Dr. Stanford, I'm going to focus on you. I want to thank you for your testimony today. As a community developer, I've always found that economists like you are fundamental in helping to provide insight in how we can move communities forward and the country forward.

As you know, our government implemented a number of support measures for Canadians through the pandemic, most notably the CERB. For me, anyway, in essence it's been acting as a basic income for those who need it the most. I've been an advocate for basic income in my riding in the Atlantic region.

I'm wondering if you can speak to your thoughts around a basic income. Do you think a national basic income framework is something that could help Canadians as we enter into our post-pandemic recovery?

[Dr. Jim Stanford]

Thank you, sir, for the question and also for your very generous remarks about economists at the beginning. We don't usually come off that well in people's estimation. More often I hear an economist described as someone who's good with numbers but doesn't have the personality to become an accountant.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

It all depends on the economist.

[Dr. Jim Stanford]

Right. Your remarks are very much appreciated. Thank you.

The federal government's very fast and very powerful injections of income support last year were absolutely vital to our traversing this crisis as well as we did. Obviously, despite that, it's still been a very painful, disruptive experience for millions of Canadians. The CERB, in particular, was vital to helping Canadians imagine how they could get through with the job losses and income losses that they experienced. The money was delivered very quickly and the qualifying requirements were relatively accessible, which was vital. The traditional rules of the employment insurance system before the pandemic would have left most Canadians out in the cold without any support whatsoever.

In this regard, the pandemic highlighted the flaws in our previous income security system. The CERB, because of its encompassing nature, had some of the characteristics of a basic income. I think many observers have noted that and noted how important that was. The level of the CERB, $500 per week, did seem to be an amount that was sufficient to meet the basic necessities of life for people in most households if they didn't have special needs of some kind, so the analogy to a basic income-type system was obvious. I think that was, in a way, a positive experience. On the other hand, it also showed that universal payment of a benefit like that would be very significant in terms of its fiscal implication.

I don't have a clear judgment one way or the other on basic income as a specific policy goal. As a direction to head towards, the concept that every Canadian should be entitled to a standard of living that meets their basic necessities of life is an absolutely valid one. There are ways to get at that principle, to advance that principle, that don't necessarily involve one big package of a universal basic income. We see this happening already through things like the Canada child tax benefit, the proposed disability benefit that has some of the indications of a basic income for people with disabilities, and the improvement in the EI system so that more people can qualify. In a way, those are all different directions to get towards a basic income situation without necessarily having the one big silver bullet, if you like, to try to address that problem.

I tend to think that that's ultimately going to be more effective than trying to imagine a great big redesign of all of our social programs, particularly because there are some programs today that offer more than a basic income would be providing, and necessarily so, for people who have particular needs.

To sum up, I would say that the concept and the principle of a basic income—that every Canadian should have the necessities of life—should be a guiding light in our social policy design, but there are many ways to get at that goal, ultimately.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Thank you, Dr. Stanford. It's a very interesting conversation. I think we need to have a deeper one as a country.

I'll stick to the reality on the ground. In my riding over the past 12 to 13 months, we've seen a lot of folks come back from different parts of the country to stay in Nova Scotia because it's a safe place to be. It's also, in many ways, home; it always will be home. We've seen a lot of people who were working in downtown Toronto coming to Cape Breton or other parts of Nova Scotia.

I find the dynamic of virtual learning, virtual work and remote learning—whatever you want to call it—really key here. I'm wondering if you could briefly summarize your work-from-home findings for the committee. What do you think needs to be done to ensure that working from home occurs in a safe, sustainable and fair manner until we're able to send folks back to their regular workplaces when it's safe to do so? I think the Canadian public would be interested to learn your findings on that aspect.

[Dr. Jim Stanford]

That's a great question.

Working from home, of course, has exploded during the pandemic. Over five million Canadians are working from home now, over a quarter of all people who are employed. I don't expect it to stay at that level once the vaccines are out and people have taken them, hopefully, and we get the contagion under control, but it will certainly remain elevated compared to where it was before the pandemic.

It isn't a no-brainer. There are many issues that have to be addressed. You can't just work on your couch. You have to have a proper set-up. You have to have good ergonomics, lighting and safety. You have to have proper rules regarding hours of work so that your job doesn't spill over into a 24-7 type of arrangement just because you have the material at home. You also have to have fair arrangements around compensation for extra costs from working from home.

Another one I'll end this with is protection against undue monitoring and digital surveillance by employers of people who are working from home. If we put those types of protections in place, then working from home can be a great permanent solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Dr. Stanford. Thank you, Mr. Kelloway

Mr. Thériault, we now go to you for six minutes.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Can you hear me clearly? I could hardly hear you, but that's okay. The next time you speak, perhaps you could turn up the volume.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

All right.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you.

My first question is for Ms. MacLean.

Throughout the first and second waves of the pandemic, and now, as we unfortunately enter the third wave, everyone we have heard from has talked about the health and social service system. The realities you described earlier stem from the underfunding of health care and, above all, social services. Social services are always shortchanged when health care funding is being handed out.

All the experts have told us that the pandemic has highlighted the chronic underfunding of one of the determinants of health—prevention. The first thing medical students learn in any faculty of medicine is that prevention is the first determinant of health. It's as though that lesson was never even taught, because the focus is always on putting out fires. The health and social service system was already strained, and as you mentioned, the pandemic brought to light all the deficiencies and weak links within the social service network.

Contrary to what the government is claiming, it should immediately and substantially increase funding, and provide the $28 billion being requested by the provinces to bolster health transfers. Do you not agree, Ms. MacLean? That way, we could start overhauling the system now and provide a sustainable response to the pandemic.

The government's current position is that it must wait until after the pandemic to determine what actions it should take, but service providers need to know now what's coming so they can plan accordingly. The provinces and Quebec—the jurisdictions responsible for providing the care—have to develop tailored programs and expand their range of services.

Where do you stand on that?

[Claire MacLean]

Thank you very much for the question.

The social service sector is a nimble sector, and I think we are ready. With additional funding, we can ramp up very quickly. We saw that happen when the opportunity arose during the height of the pandemic's first and second waves. We're seeing it now. I think with additional funding, we could absolutely be a very quick part of the solution to this issue.