Human Resources Committee on April 25th, 2022

[Rocco Rossi]

It's an excellent question.

Clearly, as I've said, the focus when the powers were granted in the early nineties was really on the cultural side. I think the key—and it goes back to what Ms. Black was talking about—is really about connecting economic need with potential resources, having that appropriate database and then, really, co-operation between businesses, the government and educational institutions to use it for economic purposes.

I think that is going to be crucial: to take what has been largely a focus on the cultural side—and important—and, now, to really use those powers for the purposes of economic growth and matching up skills to opportunities.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you.

I think one of my colleagues wanted us to split the time.

How much time is left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Madame Ferrada, I think there are only a few seconds left.

We will move to Madame Chabot.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

All right, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Ms. Chabot, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to all the witnesses. I'd like to thank them for being here, for participating, and for their testimony.

My first question is for Ms. Saula, of the IAMAW.

Even though you discussed the care economy in your testimony, I'd like us to talk about the labour reality in the aerospace industry, since you are the biggest union in the world representing that sector.

During the last meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, Ms. Martel, the general manager of the CAMAQ, the Comité sectoriel de main-d'œuvre en aérospatiale, told us that the sector suffers from a lack of appeal, among other things because of the pandemic, because of the numerous layoff announcements and the fact that the sector isn't valued, despite it being important to the economy. You know that Montreal is the third largest aerospace hub in the world. Ms. Martel also said that in 2031, or in less than 10 years, 30,000 positions will need to be filled because of retirements and career changes.

Do you share the same view?

I found it quite troubling that a sector as critical as the aerospace industry should be coming up against these issues of scarcity and labour retention, as well as appeal.

What can you tell us about that?

[Ivana Saula]

That's a very good question.

Yes, the subsector was heavily impacted by the pandemic, given its reliance on air transportation. We know the impact of the pandemic on air travel, both domestically and internationally.

In our study, we also found that labour shortages are expected to be extreme as soon as 2025. One of the obstacles to recruitment is, again, lack of recognition, particularly for the skilled trades in aerospace. That's one thing. The second thing is the availability of training programs. What we're seeing is that colleges are not able to get sufficient enrolment numbers, so when there are students who are interested in a particular program, the program gets cancelled and they transfer into a different skilled trade. As a result, there are never enough people trained for work in aerospace, even though it's rewarding work, it's enriching, it's stimulating, it's well paid and it's stable. Really, the issue is between people wanting to get into the industry versus having the ability to do so. It is just not there. It's a provincial responsibility, and all of the provinces could be looking more at that. We do have recommendations on what that would look like.

You're absolutely correct that Montreal is the third-largest ecosystem when it comes to aerospace. Canada is very much globally competitive. This is a subsector that is also of national importance. However, we see that Canada has been falling in terms of global competition and we see that investment on all fronts, from education and training all the way to support to SMEs, really isn't there, so it's a much broader issue. However, skill shortages certainly are plaguing this industry, like many others.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I would like to ask you a follow-up question to something that was asked earlier.

Before the pandemic, you produced, “Grounded Potential: An IAMAW Report on a National Aerospace Industry”. You really made the case for having a national aerospace strategy, and you're already predicting serious labour shortages in the sector. You also asked for a multidimensional strategy, including a labour strategy, to be implemented.

Have you already come up with the main recommendations for the strategy? If so, could you quickly describe them or send them to us in writing?

[Ivana Saula]

I will send the report, but I will say that one of the key obstacles that we identified in terms of a national strategy is that aerospace falls a little bit into the federal jurisdiction and a little bit into the provincial, so the industry tends to fall through the cracks in those roles and jurisdictions. What we have said is that the two levels of government really should be speaking to one another and addressing labour shortages, and then also putting funding into the industry in each of the regions.

Montreal is the hub for Canada, but there are other ecosystems across Canada that are equally important. Certainly, what I will be doing is passing the report and getting specific recommendations. They are multipronged. We don't just focus on labour shortages, because we understand that some of the recommendations verge on different levels of government, so it is a multipronged strategy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

Now we go to Ms. Zarrillo for six minutes.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to have a question for Ms. Saula around robotics and lifting. I am going to start with Ms. Black, though, and I'll just thank everyone so much for their testimony today. I really appreciated some of the highlighting of the care economy.

Ms. Black, your comments were about the care economy as a critical part of the economy, and one of the key aspects of this study is to raise the value and dignity of this sector of the economy. I think those were the words you used.

My question for you is related to unpaid care. It's a huge piece underpinning our economy. I just wanted to ask if there is any talk about new tax incentives or tax incentives that are available to compensate for unpaid care.

[Georgina Black]

I'm going to invite my colleague Craig Alexander, our chief economist, to comment on that. Thank you.

[Craig Alexander, Chief Economist and Executive Advisor, Deloitte]

Thanks very much.

Unpaid work has been a core challenge in the Canadian economy historically. When I worked at Statistics Canada, there was an entire division set up to investigate and quantify the value of unpaid work. Quite frankly, we could do with even more information, because funding was reduced for that activity at Statistics Canada, so the available data is more limited.

How we can support unpaid workers is a real question. One of the ways we could do it is by providing some sort of tax incentive or subsidy to caregivers in Canadian households. The real challenge from a fiscal point of view is how you design the policy so that it doesn't get gamed. In other words, what you want to do is subsidize caregiving that's going to actually take place and is being done at a high level. The challenge is going to be designing the policy so that you get the desired impact of increasing the contribution of the unpaid workers and at the same time increasing the productivity of workers in the economy, the $1.3 billion of lost productivity that Georgina was referring to.

We definitely need to think about how we provide more effective and better support to unpaid workers. I certainly wouldn't rule out the idea of some sort of fiscal measure to help support unpaid workers. The challenge is really around designing the program. I also think we need better data in the field in order to get the optimal outcome.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, and I think better data has come up over and over again in this study.

I want to follow up a little bit more with one question in relation to tax credits for mileage or for ancillary products that are bought. I think about all the teachers who buy goods for their own classrooms. I see an increase in the number of people who are managing care for their elderly parents and going back and forth daily to a second location. Is there any talk about that? Have you heard any talk about a tax incentive for mileage or, as I said, ancillary purchases?

[Craig Alexander]

I haven't, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people working on this sort of idea.

Let me be clear, and this harkens back to what Georgina was saying at the beginning: You can't actually have a vibrant economy without the care economy.

What we're really talking about here from an economic point of view is the production, development and maintenance of human capabilities or human capital. When we think about the stresses and strains that are created in the unpaid care that's taking place and the fact that unpaid caregivers are actually taking pressure off the health care system and the education system, we see there is an opportunity cost associated with not investing in helping to support those unpaid workers.

What I haven't seen, though, is the compelling piece of economic research that would put the dollar figures around it that would then help you design effective fiscal strategies, such as providing the sort of tax incentives or subsidies that you're referring to. It certainly merits significant investigation.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you very much. Let's hope that's something that might come out of this study.

I want to quickly pivot to Ms. Saula.

Thank you for those comments about stability and non-standard employment. I think there is a need for more stability in this sector. It's almost going the other way.

You also mentioned a report on robotics and AI and some of the work out of Japan, and I wanted to ask if you could share that report or that study.

I wanted to speak about the comment you made on elderly looking after the elderly. We note injuries are very high in home care, in personal support workers and in care aides. I'm just wondering if there is any innovation in robotics around lifting and helping to reduce injuries in this kind of care work.

[Ivana Saula]

Yes, there are. For instance, I mentioned exoskeletons. Exoskeletons aren't just used in health care. From the research that I've done, I know they're also used in construction. They are meant to relieve pressure on the body when something heavy is being lifted, whether it's on a construction site or whether it's in a care home, a resident home or whatever it might be. There are advancements that are being made.

It's essentially a suit that's put on a specific part of the body. It could be to support the shoulders, the neck, the upper body or the back. Exoskeletons are also used for residents themselves, in order to help them with their mobility, with getting up, getting dressed, moving around and that sort of thing.

Technology is complex, and it's a very nuanced topic. On the one hand, technology is enabling patients, residents and clients to look after themselves and potentially have a better quality of life, but at the same time it's reducing their need and their reliance on a health care aide or a personal support worker. I think advancements in technology, particularly in health care, are really fascinating in the ways in which they could completely transform long-term care. That's why we're saying we're fascinated by the advancements, but I think there has to be more of an understanding about the impact of those advancements on both patients and workers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Zarrillo.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you. My time is up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Yes, it's gone well over.

We will now go to Mr. Liepert for five minutes, and then we're going to end with Mr. Van Bynen for a further five minutes.

Mr. Liepert, you have the floor.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the guests today. I want to take a bit of a different approach, primarily with the chamber of commerce and Deloitte as two of our guests.

We had the head of the Canadian Medical Association as a witness a couple of weeks ago, and she said that Canada's health care system is in crisis and in fact is “on life support”. That is a quote. We heard today from Ms. Black, who said that primarily long-term care has been operating largely the same for decades.

We hear a lot about the need for innovation and the need for technology and all of these sorts of things, but what we don't hear very much about is whether our entire system is structured properly. If it's not based on a solid structure.... In other words, we will hear a lot from public sector unions and friends of socialized medicine when something goes wrong at a privately run long-term care facility, but my experience with government is that government is not very good at innovation and not very good at making changes.

Here is my question to the two of you to start with. Have you done much work around—and you mention a couple of studies—whether the structure of our health care economy, which is what we're calling it now, is correct, or do we need to look at ways we can provide better care without simply doing it the same way we've always done it?

[Georgina Black]

I'll start. That is a big wicked question that you've posed, so I'll try to be succinct.

I would agree with the head of the CMA that Canada's health and social care system is under significant strain. It was designed for a different era. We also have to remember that we have 13 health and social care systems for a population that I think is at 36 million, so inherently there are inefficiencies. Mr. Rossi talked about some of the challenges in just moving health care labour between provinces during COVID. There was an opportunity to provide virtual care—which the country adopted pretty rapidly, by the way—and there were provinces that didn't have enough nurses and individuals who could provide virtual care. It would have been great if we could have used labour in one province to support virtual care in another, so there are some built-in inefficiencies.

We also know from the OECD ratings that Canada ranks second to last—the United States is last—on a number of indicators, including cost of our health care system and outcomes. The U.K. and Australia would be jurisdictions we could look to for better performance.

I want to conclude by saying that we believe there is a really important opportunity for Canada to think about health and social care as an economy. Frankly, it already is a very dynamic ecosystem, with public, private and not-for-profit players in a publicly funded system. When we start to think about it as an economy, with supply and demand, and we bring that lens to it, we'll be quicker to embrace a number of innovations and technologies that are working in other jurisdictions.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

I would ask the chamber of commerce if they would have any comments.

[Daniel Safayeni, Vice-President, Policy, Ontario Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you for the question.

I would certainly echo what Ms. Black has said, and I would add to that two things. First, at the beginning of this pandemic, we saw just how important and intrinsically related the caring economy and our health care system are to the vibrancy of our economy writ large. In Ontario, we had to basically shut the economy down very early in the pandemic due to capacity constraints within our health care system, but we also saw the government move very quickly on certain health initiatives, such as the immunization campaign in which we saw various health professionals allying and bringing together public health messaging and campaigns to boost Ontario's vaccination rates to some of the best nationwide, so I think we saw how effectively we can work as well.

There are two components to this. First, there is the funding component, and I think the pandemic has underscored just how strained some of the funding equations are for the health care system here in Ontario, so we are calling for a jump of the provincial health care spending from 22% to 35% when it comes to the transfer payment.

The second part of that, which touches on your question as well, I believe, is how that money gets spent. What are the systemic reforms that are going to be needed to deliver a health care system that matches the economy and the needs of society today? I think that is the bigger, trickier question that is probably beyond the scope of today's meeting, but obviously it is one that needs to be explored in earnest when we talk about the types of reforms and changes we need to bolster our health care system's capacity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Liepert.

For the final questioning in this round, Mr. Van Bynen will have five minutes.