FINA Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Finance

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

1305

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.))

Ms. Patricia Jacobsen (Chief Executive Officer, Translink)

1310

The Chair

Mrs. Penny Perlotto (Executive Director, Houston Friendship Centre Society)

1315

Mr. Paul Lacerte (Executive Director, B.C. Aboriginal Association of Friendship Centres, Houston Friendship Centre Society)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Lacerte

1320

The Chair

Mr. Rob Calnan (President, Canadian Nurses Association)

1325

The Chair

Dr. Rick Bell (Chair, Coalition for Active Living)

1330

1335

The Chair

Chief Cece McCauley (Honorary Chief, Women Warriors of Sahtu)

The Chair

Ms. Barbara Brown (Director, Community Development Associates, Women Warriors of Sahtu)

1340

The Chair

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Patricia Jacobsen

Ms. Sophia Leung

Ms. Patricia Jacobsen

Ms. Sophia Leung

1345

Mrs. Penny Perlotto

Ms. Sophia Leung

The Chair

Mr. Paul Lacerte

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Paul Lacerte

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Paul Lacerte

Mrs. Penny Perlotto

1350

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Rob Calnan

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Rob Calnan

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Rob Calnan

1355

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Rob Calnan

Ms. Sophia Leung

Dr. Rick Bell

The Chair

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mrs. Penny Perlotto

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mrs. Penny Perlotto

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mr. Paul Lacerte

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mr. Paul Lacerte

Mr. Nick Discepola

1400

Mr. Paul Lacerte

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mr. Paul Lacerte

Mr. Nick Discepola

Ms. Patricia Jacobsen

Mr. Nick Discepola

1405

Ms. Patricia Jacobsen

Mr. Nick Discepola

Ms. Patricia Jacobsen

Mr. Nick Discepola

Chief Cece McCauley

Mr. Nick Discepola

Chief Cece McCauley

Mr. Nick Discepola

1410

Chief Cece McCauley

Mr. Nick Discepola

Chief Cece McCauley

Mr. Nick Discepola

Chief Cece McCauley

Mr. Nick Discepola

Dr. Rick Bell

Mr. Nick Discepola

Dr. Rick Bell

Mr. Nick Discepola

The Chair

1415

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mr. Rob Calnan

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mr. Rob Calnan

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mr. Rob Calnan

Mr. Nick Discepola

The Chair

Mr. Rob Calnan

1420

The Chair

Mr. Rob Calnan

The Chair

Dr. Rick Bell

The Chair

Mr. Paul Lacerte

The Chair

Mrs. Jacquie Ackerly (Secretary Treasurer, National Anti-Poverty Organization)

1435

Mr. Robert Arnold (President, National Anti-Poverty Organization)

1440

The Chair

Mr. Glen Everitt (President; Mayor of Dawson and Chair of the Northern Forum of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Association of Yukon Communities)

1445

1450

The Chair

Mr. Glen Everitt

The Chair

Mr. Derek Rogusky (Vice-President, Family policy, Focus on the Family Canada)

1455

1500

The Chair

Ms. Rachel Rosen (Coordinator, Grassroots Women)

1505

The Chair

Mr. Ted Kuntz (President, Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network)

The Chair

Mr. Jack Styan (Director of Social Policy, Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network)

1510

1515

Mr. Ted Kuntz

1520

The Chair

Mr. Nick Discepola

1525

Mr. Ted Kuntz

Mr. Jack Styan

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mr. Jack Styan

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mr. Ted Kuntz

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mr. Ted Kuntz

Mr. Nick Discepola

Mr. Jack Styan

Mr. Nick Discepola

1530

The Chair

Ms. Rachel Rosen

Mr. Nick Discepola

Ms. Rachel Rosen

Mr. Nick Discepola

Ms. Rachel Rosen

1535

Mr. Nick Discepola

The Chair

Ms. Sophia Leung

The Chair

Ms. Sophia Leung

The Chair

Ms. Sophia Leung

1540

Mrs. Jacquie Ackerly

Mr. Robert Arnold

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mrs. Jacquie Ackerly

Ms. Sophia Leung

Mr. Robert Arnold

The Chair

Mr. Glen Everitt

1545

Ms. Sophia Leung

The Chair

Mr. Glen Everitt

The Chair

Mr. Glen Everitt

The Chair

Mr. Glen Everitt

The Chair

Mr. Glen Everitt

The Chair

1550

Mr. Glen Everitt

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Finance

NUMBER 089

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, October 28, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

· (1305)

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): Pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), we will continue pre-budget consultations in Vancouver. We have the following witnesses on our first panel this afternoon.

From TransLink, we have Patricia Jacobsen, chief executive officer. Welcome to you.

From Houston Friendship Centre Society, we have Penny Perlotto, executive director. Welcome. And you have with you Paul Lacerte, executive director of the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres. We are very glad you could join us today.

From the Canadian Nurses Association, we have Rob Calnan, president. Rob, it's always good to see you again.

From the Coalition for Active Living, we have Rick Bell, who is the chair. Rick, thank you for joining us.

From the Women Warriors of Sahtu from the Northwest Territories, or down from the Northwest Territories, we have Honorary Chief Cece McCauley, together with Barbara Brown, director of Community Development Associates. Welcome to the two of you.

As I explained to you individually as you arrived, there are some supply votes going on in the House. Some of our members, except for our minimum forum, have had to return to attend the votes in Ottawa tonight. However, you are here to put your material on the record and to give the members present an opportunity to do some questioning. All of the material will be distributed to all of the members through our clerk's office.

Thank you very much for preparing your briefs and coming to us today.

Without further ado, you have up to seven minutes, and we'll start the presentations with TransLink. Patricia Jacobsen, go ahead.

Ms. Patricia Jacobsen (Chief Executive Officer, Translink): Thank you very much, Chair Barnes.

I am representing the chair of TransLink, Doug McCallum, who is also the mayor of Surrey and representing the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority. We're the public agency that plans and finances this region's integrated road and public transit services.

My comments today to the committee concern sustainable federal funding support for urban transportation. This is an issue of extreme importance and mutual interest across many organizations in Canada.

The Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority has been aggressively pursuing transportation improvements in one of Canada's most important transportation systems. Our regional road network serves our nation's western gateway to Asia-Pacific and is a major north-south corridor to the U.S. It's a network of land, sea, and airports representing billions of dollars to the national economy.

Our region is growing in terms of population, jobs, and economy, and we've recognized for a long time that transportation has a major impact on how well we handle that growth. These are important points that have been made and reinforced on many occasions with the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers, and senior bureaucrats in Ottawa.

They are the same points that I want to make again today, because so many people, not only in this region but across Canada, have a great interest in seeing them reflected not only in the next federal budget but in the ones to follow. We have seen and appreciated the Prime Minister's comments and commitment to creating new partnerships with municipalities and we are also heartened by some of the comments of the incoming Prime Minister.

We look to sustainable federal infrastructure funding that goes to Canada's urban centres. Ottawa has particularly recognized that improving transportation infrastructure is a priority. Indeed, B.C. has seen unprecedented federal support for transportation improvements, including major investments in border infrastructure, provincial highways, and most recently a $300 million federal contribution towards the Richmond Airport to Vancouver line.

The recent comments from Paul Martin at our meeting of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities suggest that Ottawa is ready to take a bigger step forward yet, and that is to allocate a portion of the federal fuel tax collected to date to provide sustainable ongoing transportation infrastructure at the municipal level. This is news we have been waiting for and is the news that, in fact, will create the capacity to have new long-term plans.

In simplest terms, I want to take the opportunity today to encourage all efforts in this area. These are supported by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and the big city mayors. We believe also, based on our experience as a unique integrated transportation authority, that we could offer some contributions in terms of federal policy. We're not a uni-city or a mega-city; we're a federation of 22 municipalities. This means we have to operate on a consensus basis to move the region forward.

In doing so, we have to pay particular attention to what people are telling us in terms of priorities. We are hearing that people, in terms of cities, agree that the transportation systems in cities need major investment. We in the GVTA get a dedicated fuel tax from our province and parking tax revenue from our province to operate and improve the road and transit system. That is relatively unique in Canada.

We are recommending, on the same principle, that a portion of the federal fuel tax revenue be transferred to those local authorities responsible for transportation. I emphasize that this would be a transfer of existing funding, not a creation of a new funding source.

Given our structure as an integrated planning and transportation delivery system, we would particularly seek that the revenues come to that local authority charged with transportation. In line with the FCM recommendation, the GVTA also calls for transferred gas tax revenues to be allocated particularly to multi-modal transportation solutions, with particular emphasis on urban transit.

We believe the federal government can facilitate access to more capital for urban transportation beyond its own funding. Tax-free bonds and other sources of revenue that are available to American cities could be used across Canada, given, particularly in our region, that we compete with Washington state and Oregon for shipping and ports. The next federal government can, in our opinion, take an additional step that would increase urban transit systems. The GVTA and the Canadian Urban Transit Association have long advocated making employer-provided transit passes a non-taxable benefit to put them on a par with employer-provided parking.

· (1310)

In closing, I would like to express our appreciation for the significant effort that the federal government has invested in developing closer partnerships with municipalities, and particularly for the significant investment the federal government has made in our province of British Columbia and in transportation particularly in this region. Given the equally significant shifts in the population in Canada and public policy for the future, we look to those partnerships becoming even more productive and mutually beneficial.

Thank you very much for receiving our submission.

The Chair: No problem. We appreciate it being made.

From the Houston Friendship Centre Society, who would like to start?

Mrs. Penny Perlotto (Executive Director, Houston Friendship Centre Society): Good afternoon. My name is Penny Perlotto. I'm from the Houston Friendship Centre. I'm very pleased to come back for another year and to bring some other information in regard to lobbying for core funding for non-core-funded centres. There are three friendship centres in B.C. and 17 friendship centres across Canada that are non-core-funded.

For your reference, I've given you packages containing our brief and another handout--mine are pink, but yours are blue--and also this binder.

I gave you these handouts as an overview of the programs and services that we offer. Being non-core-funded, it's important for us to bring to your attention the difficulties of trying to meet the needs of our aboriginal people, especially in the north, where I'm from, and the importance of bringing core funding to non-core-funded centres. This package outlines the programs that we do offer and have been able to offer without core funding.

I'm also lobbying for core funding for an elders program that we can house out of the friendship centre. In the blue package you will find some information from the Prince Rupert Friendship House outlining the successes and what it would look like for us to have an elders program in each of our centres across Canada.

Therefore, I would also like to bring to your attention recognition of centres in the north. I know there's a northern living allowance, and I'm kind of thinking we could approach this as an enhancement to core funding to recognize northern friendship centres.

A lot of times our people get educated and then move to the larger centres because they just want to get out of the north as fast as they can. I do know that professionals receive northern living allowance initiatives to have them come and work in the north and to try to keep them in the north. So that was what I was thinking, to enhance the core funding to keep our educated people in the north.

I'll hand it over to Paul Lacerte.

Thank you.

· (1315)

Mr. Paul Lacerte (Executive Director, B.C. Aboriginal Association of Friendship Centres, Houston Friendship Centre Society): Thank you, Penny.

If I could, I would like to read into the record a greeting in our indigenous language from the area that Penny and I are both from, to recognize the territory that we're on here.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

Again, it was important for us to bring greetings in our indigenous language and have them read into the record to recognize that we are on Co-Salishterritory and to express our gratitude to the Co-Salish Nation for hosting us and these events and allowing us to be here in a good way.

The Chair: As a former chair of the aboriginal affairs committee, I thank you for the welcome. I just need to advise you that we don't have translators who can put it on the record in the way that you said it, but it has been done, and I note that for the record.

Mr. Paul Lacerte: Excellent. That's good for me, because the elders in our community, if they heard that, might think that I have a little of a city accent too.

I guess my supporting comments to Penny's presentation revolve around a bit of a context. There are 116 native friendship centres in Canada. We are the largest social service infrastructure in the country, bar none. The next closest is probably the YMCA, which has about half of our capacity, our infrastructure.

The federal government recognized that after the 1961 Indian Act amendments there was a massive migration of aboriginal people into urban communities, and they started responding positively to that by providing core funding to urban service providers. It was like the band office away from people's home communities. That program was capped at 99 core-funded friendship centres, and since then 17 new friendship centres have come into operation, three of which are in British Columbia.

We're here to request, from a public policy perspective and specifically as it relates to the aboriginal friendship centre program, that the federal government consider permanently increasing the program to incorporate the 17 additional friendship centres and to provide an equitable approach to supporting the capacity of communities that have managed to give rise to that kind of infrastructure in response to the needs of aboriginal people moving into those communities.

Notwithstanding our efforts, we're still obviously a very marginalized population in Canada from a social and economic perspective. Of the 24 friendship centres that operate in B.C., again, three of them are non-core-funded. We employ roughly 700 people full time and part time in the provision of services and we service 1,050 clients a day in British Columbia, just to give you a sense of our service delivery capacity.

The second area that I did want to support in terms of Penny's comments is our increasing amount of difficulty in securing the necessary resourcing to facilitate elder involvement in our programs and services and in maintaining the integrity of the cultural content in the programs and services that friendship centres offer. Of course, that link is absolutely vital to us, to inform us about ways to legitimately be culturally sensitive, given the fact that we're servicing very demographically diverse populations, especially in the larger urban communities.

Our request is reflected both in terms of the briefing document and in terms of giving you an example of one elders program, which is in the Prince Rupert community. We request that the federal government consider looking at expanding the capacity of the aboriginal friendship centre program under that transfer agreement to include some core capacity for us in each of the 117 friendship centres in Canada to have elder coordinator positions.

We're open to questions at the end of our presentation. We certainly appreciate your time. Thank you.

· (1320)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to the Canadian Nurses Association.

Please go ahead, sir.

Mr. Rob Calnan (President, Canadian Nurses Association): Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute to these hearings. I believe you have received our brief. Our association is suggesting a number of recommendations to this committee, and we look forward to working with government towards these goals.

As you know, the Canadian Nurses Association is a federation of 11 provincial and territorial associations representing more than 117,000 registered nurses.

Canadian's standard of living is closely tied to the country's economic well-being. CNA believes that our productivity as a country and as individuals benefits from all elements of society, particularly a strong health system. Nurses have a critical role to play to ensure that the Canadian economy is as viable as possible.

The health system fosters innovation and technological development, and it creates jobs and reduces absenteeism and injury in the general population. It is the basis for building and maintaining a viable workforce, the human capital of the Canadian economy. The health system must be invigorated to maintain Canadian leadership to the global economy. Investments are most needed in building and maintaining a viable workplace, including the recruitment of new health care professionals, the promotion of innovation, the strengthening of research, and the improvement of the health system's capacity to participate in and contribute to the country's prosperity and productivity.

Productivity improvements lead to an increase in the quality of living standards for all. Evidence points to causal links between working conditions, interventions designed to create healthier workplaces, employee health, and firm, level productivity.

I'm sure all of you are aware that Canadian nurses are working over 250,000 hours of overtime each week and that, as a work group, they have the highest level of injury and illness. In this instance, the federal government can move forward by implementing the Advisory Committee on Health Human Resources' 51 recommendations to repair the damage done to nursing through a decade of health care reform and restructuring.

A study by the Centre for the Study of Living Standards has revealed that Canada has one of the worst workplace safety records in the industrialized world. The odds of being killed on the job in Canada are greater than in all other 16 OECD countries. Nurses can play a key role in maintaining a healthy workforce and in getting workers back to the job quickly. It would be advantageous for government to invest in health outcomes research related to productivity and the organization of human resources, including delivery models, skills mix, and team structures, and research to measure the effectiveness of interventions.

The SARS outbreak has challenged the use of health human resources in a way no other has. It has shown the fragility of the public health system in communities and the need for a vibrant nursing workforce in the face of providing health care services, both in acute care and in the community. But this is only the tip of the iceberg, as demonstrated by the acute outbreak of an unknown disease. The future of chronic diseases in Canada and worldwide paints a dark picture. The worldwide burden of chronic diseases is increasing as the number of older patients with renal disease increases.

The World Health Organization says that cancer is emerging as a major problem globally, both in more developed and less developed countries, and that worldwide cancer rates are set to double by 2020. Currently, 10 million new cancer cases are diagnosed each year worldwide, and unless there is an effective prevention campaign, the number will rise by 20 million in 17 years' time.

Non-communicable diseases, cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, mental health disorders, HIV/AIDS, and tuberculosis represent 45% of the global burden of illness in 2001, and they are expected to exceed 65% by 2020.

What we noticed from SARS was the casualization of nurses. Nurses who generally worked for multiple employers because they couldn't get full-time work from one employer were restricted from working, and of course this crippled the number of available workers within those hospitals that were dealing with SARS patients.

On the nursing shortage itself, almost half of the current 245,000 registered nurses in Canada will retire in the next decade. The federal government must commit to a national recruitment and retention strategy that increases enrolment into the schools of nursing, provides opportunities for clinical training experience, funds graduate degrees, and improves the linkages between health, education, and immigration policies.

· (1325)

As far as immigration is concerned, we know that increasing the resources goes beyond a domestic strategy to include the immigration. But the challenges of immigration include language and cultural barriers, educational standards and certification, and the international shortage of nurses.

However, the federal government could assist in creating the infrastructure to facilitate the integration into the Canadian workforce of nurses and other professionals educated in other countries. CNA is asking the federal government to commit $1.1 million to fund the development and implementation of an assessment instrument to help individual nurses from other countries make informed decisions about their readiness to become registered nurses in Canada.

Support lifelong learning. Broaden the education tax credit to allow individuals the opportunity to improve their knowledge and skills in their chosen field of work, and ensure funding to sustain services such as home care, palliative care, and pharmacare.

The report entitled Unfinished Business: The Case for Chronic Care Home Care claims that governments are ignoring the potential of long-term home care to improve quality of care and to lower costs. The study found home care costs for patients with moderate needs were over 60% less expensive than comparable care in an institution. For people with chronic care requirements, home care was over 20% less costly.

Studies have identified weaknesses in the home care system that, if corrected, would make it even more cost-efficient. The Hollander report concludes that even modest investments in long-term home care would be a good strategic policy investment.

And finally, there is a call for a national immunization program as the first step to strengthening Canada's public health system.

Madam, thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

And we will now go to the Coalition for Active Living. Mr. Bell, go ahead.

Dr. Rick Bell (Chair, Coalition for Active Living): Madam Chair, on behalf of the board of the Coalition for Active Living and the over 50 national and provincial organizations we represent, I want to thank you for this opportunity to present to the committee.

I am assuming you have read our brief that was presented to the committee earlier, so I will try not to repeat too much of the information in that document. What I would like to provide in this presentation is a brief summary of the major health issues facing Canadians as they relate to physical activity.

I will describe what the Coalition for Active Living believes to be a series of disconnections: disconnections between policy development, a series of federal-provincial-territorial initiatives, the magnitude and urgency associated with the physical inactivity epidemic in Canada, and the ability of our community to respond. I'll finish with what the Coalition for Active Living believes to be the appropriate response to this health crisis in Canada.

Currently in Canada, 60% of Canadians are physically inactive and face profound barriers to becoming physically active. Physical inactivity is one of the primary risk factors contributing to chronic disease in Canadians. The rate of obesity in teenagers in Canada has tripled in the last two decades. Unless altered, the projections indicate this trend is going to continue to increase.

Type 2 diabetes, in the past an adult-onset disease, is now being diagnosed in teenagers. The same holds true for cardiovascular disease. Two of the major risk factors contributing to these two diseases are obesity and physical inactivity. More profoundly, for the first time in the history of our species, life expectancy will be reduced from what previous generations have experienced.

There are numerous disconnections that exist between current policies, some federal-provincial-territorial initiatives, and what is resourced by the federal Government of Canada.

There are disconnections at the policy level. Bill C-12, the Physical Activity and Sport Act, was recently passed. Sport has received $45 million of new money. The Coalition for Active Living supports this investment in sport; however, the majority of Canadians are not involved in sport, but still face a physical inactivity crisis. There has been no new money for the physical activity community, and in fact, there are fewer resources today than there were in the mid-1990s.

The federal-provincial-territorial ministers of health have recently endorsed a healthy-living strategy for the country, focusing on physical activity, nutrition, and the influence they have on healthy weights. No resources have been allocated to support this federal-provincial-territorial initiative.

The federal-provincial-territorial ministers of sport, recreation, and fitness endorsed an ambitious goal of increasing the number of physically active Canadians by 10% by 2020, thereby saving the Canadian taxpayers $150 million annually. Unlike for sport, there have been no federal dollars committed to assisting the provinces and territories with their physical activity initiatives.

There are disconnections at the budget level within Health Canada. The two federal reviews on health care in Canada, the Kirby report and the royal commission on health care conducted by the Honourable Roy Romanow, both recommended a shift of Health Canada resources from disease treatment to upstream disease prevention strategies. Currently, over 90% of Health Canada's budget is allocated to waiting for Canadians to become sick and then treating them rather than trying to invest in the prevention of these diseases.

There are disconnections between the magnitude of the physical inactivity health crisis and the resources allocated to it. Here are some staggering statistics. Some 5.4 million Canadians over 18 smoke. Health Canada is investing $480 million over five years to the tobacco strategy. Two million Canadians have type 2 diabetes. Health Canada is investing $115 million over five years to address this disease.

· (1330)

Twenty-one million Canadians, or five times the number of smokers and over ten times the number of Canadians with type 2 diabetes, are not physically active enough to achieve the health gains associated with an active lifestyle. The physical activity community receives $3.2 million annually, or approximately $15 million over five years.

The Coalition for Active Living has identified three priority recommendations for the federal government to consider for the 2004-05 budget to combat Canada's physical inactivity epidemic.

First is a strategic investment of $500 million over five years, similar to the investment to reduce tobacco, in order to resource the pan-Canadian physical activity strategy that has been developed by Coalition for Active Living member organizations.

Second, this investment must target five strategic areas: healthy public policy, community physical environments, supportive social environments, public education, and research and knowledge exchange.

Third, the Government of Canada should create tax incentives to encourage physical activity among Canadians. The manner in which the Government of Canada is making resource decisions, particularly in the area of health, cannot continue. What we have done in the past is not working. We must convince politicians that a shift to health promotion and disease prevention must occur. We have some important policies. We have legislation. We are clear on the statistics revealing the severity of the health problems and the trend for these to increase.

What our Coalition for Active Living member organizations require are the resources to adequately combat the physical inactivity epidemic in Canada. Shifting resources from disease treatment to disease prevention is not going to be easy, but it is desperately needed.

In the words of Edmund Burke, the challenge for you and the Government of Canada is to do today what men and women of intelligence and goodwill would wish 10 years hence had been done. The next generation of Canadians is putting its trust in you to make the right decision.

I want to thank you on behalf of our board and our member organizations for this opportunity to address you.

· (1335)

The Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate your brief.

Again this year we are very pleased, Chief McCauley, to welcome you. The floor is yours now for the Women Warriors of Sahtu.

Chief Cece McCauley (Honorary Chief, Women Warriors of Sahtu): Good afternoon. It's my third meeting with the board. I almost look at you as my friend now.

We've been lobbying for three years now, the Women Warriors of Sahtu. I gave you a map. You have the black and white map, which will show you better than the coloured map exactly where we are in the Sahtu region.

You have all heard of the Mackenzie pipeline. It has been in the news for years; for about four years, anyway. It's going to be a done deal. They're working on it, and it's going to go right through our region, along the Mackenzie River.

The women have been fighting for the extension of the Mackenzie Highway from Wrigley to Inuvik. If they finish the highway, we would save 500 miles, instead of going around through the Yukon.

Our region, if you look at the map, is completely isolated. We fly everything in. The only time we can get cheaper freight is for the summer months, which is barely three months. We've been waiting for 27 years for this extension of the highway to be finished. Mr. Diefenbaker started it.

The pipeline is in the planning stages now. They're planning to build docks along the Mackenzie River, along where the pipeline is going to go through our region, right from Wrigley to Inuvik. If they're going to put in docks, I believe they'll have to dredge a little, because the water is very low. They're also planning to put small airports along the way for planes and helicopters. They will also have to slash 150 feet across the right of way all along that way.

We're trying to push the federal government to kill two birds with one stone. We're fighting for a highway, so get the industry, the government, and the public to join together and build a road. It doesn't have to be a highway, but only a right of way. Once they finish the pipeline, we will continue working on the road, and then we will have a highway. In our region, people are getting desperate. It's going to be year 2004.

The world is looking at our region, the Northwest Territories, because of the diamonds. I think we have the third best diamonds in the world, or the third largest deposits of diamonds. That's not only us, it's all over the north.

There's oil. We have minerals. We're finding emeralds, the best emeralds now; second to Cambodia, I think.

The world is looking at the Northwest Territories, and the people from B.C. and Alberta would like to come. We've had meetings with the chambers of commerce from the Northwest Territories, Alberta, and B.C. They would love to come up north and do business, but they tell us that we have no roads.

We need roads. If we finish the highway just as an extension, it's 500 miles. We have the equipment all along in the little towns. It stops at Wrigley. Fort Norman and Tulita have equipment. Norman Wells has equipment. Good Hope has equipment. Inuvik and other places have equipment. We could all get in there and get to work if we could only get some money. It doesn't have to be a superhighway if the government could work with the industry and forget about the docks in the Mackenzie River. Why waste all that money?

I'm saying to the oil companies that you waste a lot of money building docks and airports when you could build a highway. Help us build a highway.

I'd like Barb to say a few words about the youth and work.

The Chair: Go ahead, Barbara.

Ms. Barbara Brown (Director, Community Development Associates, Women Warriors of Sahtu): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I've worked with Honorary Chief Cece since 1995 in the Northwest Territories, and I can tell you that there is nobody, I believe, who has a vision stronger than Cece does.

I think what's amazing is that last year in September, in Fort Liard in the Northwest Territories, for the first time industry was invited. It was the first time that industry actually showed an interest and felt that the road was doable in a private-public partnership model.

We've had follow-up meetings with industry. I'm pleased to say that industry is very interested in sitting down with the federal government and all levels of government. They do believe that it's needed. It will be of benefit not only for the Northwest Territories but for the entire country of Canada. It is timely to do it now before the Mackenzie Valley pipeline begins to look like it's going to go ahead.

Second of all, I'd like to say that, besides the small communities that are in the Northwest Territories, some 40,000 people live in most of those small and isolated communities. The young people in those communities are looking for something to do. They would like to have the opportunity to participate.

In fact, I also bring greetings from our two co-chairs, Kim Deneron and Heather Bourassa, young Dene women who live in those small communities and who have created an organization called NeXplore Partnership. They believe that young people are ready, willing, and able to participate not only in helping to build but in managing to build the north.

I'd like to thank you again for the opportunity to speak.

· (1340)

The Chair: One of the things when you do these meetings is that not only are you talking to our committee, but indirectly, finance department officials read our transcripts. I hope they hear you.

I will move now to rounds of questioning. We'll start with our Vancouver-based member for today, Sophia Leung.

Go ahead, Ms. Leung.

Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for very fine presentations. We see a few friends coming back this year.

I'd like to start with TransLink, Patricia. I think we are already agreed that the federal government is to give $300 million for support. I wonder in what way we can do more. Probably that's the limit.

If you don't mind, I usually ask a few questions. Do we have more time?

The Chair: I'll allow 15 minutes for questions. This time around, if you want to get an answer and go on to your next question, we probably won't have to worry as much.

Ms. Patricia Jacobsen: We are very appreciative of the federal participation in the RAV line. It's part of the strategic infrastructure funds that are project by project. This means it's not a sustainable flow of money. What we are seeking across Canada is that a portion of the gas tax be returned, so it's a sustainable portion. Until the federal government actually approves that project, we couldn't tell you in this region what amongst our projects would be built in the next 10 years because we were shopping projects to the province and shopping projects to the federal government.

So it's the difference between moving from project by project to a sustainable capital fund that would give us access to more long-range planning. But we are very appreciative of the federal participation in this project.

Ms. Sophia Leung: What about the provincial government? I think they also made a commitment.

Ms. Patricia Jacobsen: Yes, the provincial government has committed $300 million for the Richmond line also. The provincial government gives us a portion of their fuel tax, which is quite innovative, and that formed the core of our sustainable funding on a long-term basis when they created TransLink.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I'm going to go to Penny.

Welcome back.

I know you came last year and that we were very interested in your presentation. It is obvious that your society has done a good job and that you've have had more growth and development. I say thanks for your participation.

I understand that elders' involvement is very important. Do you find that a lot of elders are receptive to being involved in the services?

· (1345)

Mrs. Penny Perlotto: Yes, we do have an elders program done on a voluntary basis. Our staff take turns in organizing a weekly drop-in for the elders. It ranges from arts and crafts to presentations, to workshops, and that kind stuff to help the health of our elders. We have an average of between 6 and 12 attending.

We also have an elders luncheon on a monthly basis, which isn't nearly enough. Our little conference room is full; we get an average of about 15 to 20 elders who come in to take part in our elders luncheon.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Last time, did you get some support from our government after...?

The Chair: Paul Lacerte.

Mr. Paul Lacerte: Yes, in the current fiscal year we're in, the non-core-funded friendship centres all received funding, with an average amount of about $85,000. Minister Copps made that as a national announcement.

Unfortunately, it was just for the current fiscal year, given the fact that the aboriginal friendship centre program is currently being negotiated for renewal. But it's certainly a welcome opportunity for us to encourage you to consider permanently supporting the 17 centres that aren't core funded under that agreement.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I'd like to know if you have a lot more youth involved, young people like you.

Mr. Paul Lacerte: Thank you.

Yes, again, it's in large part reflective of the urban multi-purpose aboriginal youth centre initiative, which has provided us with $3 million in federal government support a year in British Columbia for increased youth involvement in aboriginal communities. However, we continue to have half of our population under the age of 25, the fastest growing domestic population in Canada, so we still have fundamental challenges around their being marginalized. For example, 36% of status first nations people who enter the education system in British Columbia graduate from high school. We're facing some fundamental or systemic challenges.

To make just one quick comment in reflection on the elders' component, the chief health officer in British Columbia reported this past year that there's a 12-year life expectancy gap in British Columbia between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people, which is the largest gap of any province in Canada. From an elder's perspective, having our elders participate in the programs is fairly critical. As we start to build our capacity, they're being drawn in a number of different directions.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Last week we had opportunity to hear the national chief, Phil Fontaine, who expressed a lot of concern about some of the social problems. In your area, do you have the same difficulties with those, or are you...?

Mr. Paul Lacerte: Well, again, in British Columbia alone, we have 700 employees offering the full spectrum of social services to aboriginal people living in urban communities. So we engage in that face to face every day, and deal with suicide epidemics and those kinds of things. Certainly, we feel daily exactly how marginalized aboriginal people are, because of the scale and scope of our connection to the clients we see.

Mrs. Penny Perlotto: Just to emphasize that further, in Houston last weekend we had a suicide attempt by one of our aboriginal youth. It was quite traumatizing, because he tried to jump off the bridge and all his friends wrestled him down and prevented him from doing that. So not only did we have this distraught aboriginal youth, but we also had the other youths who basically saved his life. So it was pretty traumatizing. We are just in the process now of dealing with that, trying to work with the families and to provide some support to that aboriginal student.

It's a good thing we have excellent working relationships with the school district, the RCMP, community services, and the Ministry of Children and Family Development, who are all doing some case management around that particular youth.

Thank you.

· (1350)

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you.

I'm going to move to the Canadian Nurses Association. I'm very interested in your three basic recommendations. I'd like to ask you about recruitment, because we have such shortages. In the meantime, there are foreign-trained nurses. How many foreign-trained nurses are you able to absorb, as you already indicated there are some immigration problems facing them?

Mr. Rob Calnan: Thank you very much for the question.

I found it quite interesting as I was listening to the various questions. I think there have been three common themes from all of us. One of them is the whole understanding of infrastructure and the need for investment in infrastructure. A second would be the knowledge transfer. We heard from our friends of elder transfer of knowledge, but I can say that as well of our nursing community. The third would be capacity.

How that comes about with the whole recruitment into our profession.... Back in the 1990s there was a large decrease in the funding of nursing education seats. In 1990 we used to graduate 10,000 registered nurses a year in Canada. Last year we graduated 4,900. We have drastically underfunded nursing education seats since 1990. That just tells you one thing as far as the number of people is concerned.

Ms. Sophia Leung: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Rob Calnan: Because we used to have 10,000 seats a year. We actually have an increase of population. We also have an increase of acuity and complexity of care needs, but the way we looked at cost containment in our country was to reduce the number of people coming into the profession. So we've had 13 years where we have actually had a drop in the number of seats available, even though we have thousands of men and women who want to become registered nurses.

I can give you an example in British Columbia. British Columbia, actually, historically has educated only about half the number of registered nurses we need. We have relied upon nurses from other parts of Canada and other parts of the world to come here to work. But with the loss of nursing education seats in the 1990s, we don't have a pool of nurses from across Canada to call upon to come and work here, and we now have an international nursing shortage. There was one country, the Philippines, that did have a surplus, but this last year in May when I attended the World Health Assembly I found out that now even they have a nursing shortage.

The other part of this is that the Canadian Nurses Association has also taken a stand that it is unethical for countries such as Canada, which has the ability to educate our own and have the number of people who want to be nurses, to go to other countries and actively recruit their health care professionals, especially South Africa or African countries that are being hit by HIV/AIDS and need their educated workforce and health professionals to care for their own care needs. Rather, the association believes we need to be educating our own. So one of the things we are saying is that we need to make that strategic investment.

In 1997 we did a study looking at the shortage, and at that time it was suggested that we needed to increase our enrolment to 8,000 seats a year. Many people argued about the methodology of the study, but although by 2000 everybody agreed that there was a shortage, we still didn't do anything about it. By 2001 we were saying we needed to graduate 12,000 nurses a year, and very little was done. We are now at the end of 2003, and now the estimate is that we need to educate 15,000 nurses a year.

If you think of your own constituencies, think of the wait list for surgical procedures. The average age of an operating room nurse in British Columbia is 51. As more and more nurses retire, the wait list will become longer for surgeries, for care, for discharge home.

Ms. Sophia Leung: With such a shortage having occurred, don't you think your professional association also has a responsibility to review this, and perhaps also examine the question in terms of the traditional role of nurses, which has been changing? I think sometimes this also contributes to some of the discontent, and they have been really overworked. They have been used literally for various roles, and sometimes inappropriately.

Mr. Rob Calnan: In terms of their being overworked, as I told you earlier, there are 250,000 hours a week of overtime. That tells you a little bit about the shortage of nurses. But I think, more importantly, we noticed this last year with the outbreak of SARS, when there was a lack of infrastructure and we did not have nurses to look after patients.

I have to tell you right now that I was in charge of SARS planning for Vancouver Island, and we are very worried about a resurgence of SARS this fall. We are coming into the flu season and we make a plea that we could.... We are one of the only countries in the western world that does not have a national immunization strategy. All of these will be incredible burdens on health care systems.

· (1355)

Ms. Sophia Leung: Don't you feel it should be a joint effort, that educators and the nursing schools and the profession should come together to develop a strategy? The shortage can't be dealt with overnight.

Mr. Rob Calnan: No. Madam, we have put forward that strategy. We've been putting it forward since 1997. I am a nurse educator, and the Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing comes with us. I represent them.

Ms. Sophia Leung: May I ask one little further question?

Dr. Bell, I'm very interested in your comments, especially with respect to the shift to health prevention versus treatment. I think our western society is geared to treatment, which is all very late and a patchwork. I really welcome that. I would like to see you develop more on that, perhaps.

Even today, I'm not really pro eastern medicine, because I'm a bit skeptical about it. I have to wait for proof. But now it is such a switch, because they really place very strong emphasis on prevention--not prevention, but on wellness. We have to be concerned with being well. We all tend to be workaholics sometimes and we are not paying enough attention to wellness.

What I would really like is for you to develop some comment on the switch, the change in the viewpoint, the change in public awareness that we should not just wait for medicine, for pills. That's kind of late. Rather, we need to be prepared for the wellness, also the prevention. But even wellness is before prevention, before the onset. Would you comment on that?

Dr. Rick Bell: Thank you for your comments. You have articulated quite eloquently the focus of our strategy. It's not only one of prevention of chronic disease. It's certainly a matter of quality of life as well.

We are a member of the board that is dealing with chronic disease prevention within this country. We have been working at a national level as well as with our provincial counterparts to develop health promotion strategies, to attempt to convince federal, provincial, and territorial members of Parliament and members of the legislatures to shift the burden on our health care system to one of investment that will reap many, many times the reward as opposed to waiting until people become chronically ill and having to treat them.

The Chair: Thank you.

I'll call our vice-chair, Mr. Discepola, please.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Thank you, and thank you to the panellists.

My question is for the Houston Friendship Centre. From your presentation for the elders group program, am I to believe that you are requesting roughly $50,000 in additional funding, or have I misread the presentation?

Mrs. Penny Perlotto: It would be roughly $50,000 per centre.

Mr. Nick Discepola: So that's times 117 centres?

Mrs. Penny Perlotto: Yes.

Mr. Nick Discepola: And what is the funding currently? And I believe that's all in the national heritage department. So you're saying you want an increase from roughly $85,000 per centre to $135,000 per centre.

I want to get an idea of what your total request is in there.

Mr. Paul Lacerte: The national aboriginal friendship centre program is an annual transfer agreement worth $14.5 million per year.

Mr. Nick Discepola: And what kind of an increase are you asking for?

Mr. Paul Lacerte: For the elders capacity increase, for the transportation increase it would be just under $6 million per year.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Am I to believe that the agreement has to also be renewed this year?

¸ (1400)

Mr. Paul Lacerte: Yes.

Mr. Nick Discepola: So you're asking for stable core funding in this area too?

Mr. Paul Lacerte: Yes.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Okay.

I have no problem supporting that. I think we've supported that in the past, and I've heard nothing but good things about friendship centres. Hopefully we'll make that recommendation again.

As for TransLink, I think we support the dedication of a precise amount for fuel tax to transportation infrastructure needs. I think we probably have to do more if we're going to achieve the level of infrastructure and investment that we need in this country, and it would also probably involve provincial participation as well as municipal participation.

I think this is the minimum we must do. The problem that I see is this, and you mention it on page 7, where you say that the transfer, the fuel tax revenue, should go to the GVTA versus to the municipalities.

In my home province of Quebec there's a law actually in the provincial books that prevents municipalities from accepting any federal grants. They have to go to Quebec City and get a special dispensation or a special decree.

Now, one of the problems I see us having in trying to arrive at some form of cost sharing or revenue sharing with the municipalities is that I see us running into stumbling blocks in trying to negotiate with the provinces. So I'm wondering if you have any suggestions that we may recommend to the ministry for a proper implementation of a sustainable, long-term program, which to me has to be over 10 years, almost.

Ms. Patricia Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your comments.

Certainly, traditionally, even if it isn't legally required, all federal negotiations are with the provinces in terms of allocation and even on a project-by-project basis, as with the RAV line. It was the provincial government that sought the federal government's response.

What I see is an opportunity for the federal government, because right now most provinces are so strapped in terms of infrastructure and doing it alone. More and more, it's in partnership at local, provincial, and federal levels, and often in private partnerships such as that with my colleagues here.

I think the federal government can provide a lot of policy leadership to work with the province, because if it has some enabling money, it would be a very short-sighted province that would not see that as an advantage and try to smooth the way to make it happen. So I think that through discussions with the provinces, if the federal government were adding money to the fuel stream, you'd find that many of the provinces would also add their own fuel tax. I think the federal government could be the lever that in fact draws the provinces into making investments in cities.

Generally speaking, the provinces across Canada put more investment into transportation in roads than into urban transit. Where the federal government provides leadership on programs such as the municipal infrastructure program, once there's a program set up, then I find that the provinces seem to follow.

I'm the deputy of transportation for Ontario and I'm quite familiar with the two provinces in terms of the differences. I think the federal policy, in terms of its capacity to encourage provinces to change either legal or policy impediments, is quite strong when it's prepared to make some money available to locations.

I think we have a particular problem, because we are the only region where, for local purposes, we're the transportation agency. So we are a bit of an anomaly. We are 22 municipalities. So we have a particular challenge. And if it goes directly to municipalities, it is not the municipalities in this region that are responsible for transportation. I think both the province and the federal government would agree for this region that it would be able to be done.

There's a Canada Health Act and there's a Canada social assistance act, both of which arose when they were national issues.

I think what we lack is a transportation act, in the reviews that are going forward, that deals with sustainable funding and where the federal government provides the leadership.... It may be different in Quebec, but I think in most of the other provinces where there is money for infrastructure it's a very compelling case to bring to the provinces, especially if they don't get it unless they agree.

Mr. Nick Discepola: I'm not saying I don't agree that it should probably go to the Greater Vancouver Transport Authority, because I think in Montreal, Laval, Toronto, and many other larger urban centres it's a regional transportation authority anyway. My concern is how you actually get the money down there, because the overwhelming sentiment I've heard in the past two days is that most groups do not trust that the provinces are going to take the money and add it to their original investment. Some of them are fearful in certain programs.... Although most of the discussion has been around social programs and transfers, the people are concerned that when the federal government does transfer it, there be accountability and demand that it should be new investment, whether it's child care or any other.

I was curious to know if you had any concrete suggestions. I think we have a lot of homework to do before we actually get the money down to where it's needed the most. As you say, if there's a willingness--and I think there is a willingness--maybe we should start, and afterwards, if you measure that some provinces have cut back on transportation funding, at least we'll be able to say we didn't. Maybe we should start and then see how we can manage it.

¸ (1405)

Ms. Patricia Jacobsen: I think, too, that where the federal government has had programs, they have tended to draw the provinces in, whether or not it was their priority to do so. I think the province has some powers, and very persuasive powers, but I think everyone is concerned that it not be only a lump sum allocation to provinces. I think the federal government wrestles with this on health care. It wrestles with it on a number of issues where it's providing significant funding, but it's often never translated back to national priorities.

Mr. Nick Discepola: You've opened up the door for some of the concerns and questions I had for some of the powers in Ottawa, and that was that you felt maybe if the federal government showed the lead on reducing or timing the specific proportion, possibly the provinces might actually increase the fuel tax in their provinces to supplement what the federal government is doing.

We'll know a bit more as of November 3, when the Minister of Finance gives us his economic update, but as everyone's anticipating a more than projected economic outlook over the next year, if we don't have enough wiggle room to assume a $2 billion infrastructure program, for example, do you have any opinion as to whether you think your organization, or others like yours, would be willing to accept a little bit higher increase in fuel tax--maybe half a cent federally, half a cent provincially--to make up for the shortfall in the funding that we would need to make sure the program gets underway and, more importantly, is funded over the long term?

Ms. Patricia Jacobsen: I think there is an appetite. You would find, I think, even in the automobile associations and the trucking associations, that the shortfall is so great for the users of the system that, if it were totally all new taxes, it would be difficult, particularly in this region where we've had quite an increase.

I also would like to suggest that there are many policy levers in addition to the transfer of funds. I'd really encourage the committee to think of policy levers such as the encouragement of private investment in transportation. It isn't only about public sector investment.

There are many fiscal models. I think that if the Department of Finance were encouraged to look at some of the other models, it might in fact encourage some of the private investment needed in the north and across the region that isn't only about public investment. The forgiveness of GST is more than made up, when you think of the economic benefits in terms of jobs and investment in terms of income.

I think there are also some policy instruments that could encourage the kind of infrastructure we need across Canada.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Thank you for that suggestion.

For the Women Warriors of Sahtu, do you have an actual estimate of the cost that would be required to complete the highway?

Chief Cece McCauley: Well, it varies. Quite a few years ago, they said that it would be $416 million. It's 832 kilometres.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Is it a two-lane highway? Is it asphalt or only basic?

Chief Cece McCauley: It's only a highway, I think, not a superhighway.

Mr. Nick Discepola: You say that you have public sector interest. Is it to the point where you could conceive of a private-public road, or even a toll route type of scenario? Is it too speculative?

¸ (1410)

Chief Cece McCauley: People have been talking about tolls. For myself, I wouldn't want to put a toll on it, because we've waited so long.

The rest of the country is open. You've been to Yellowknife. Everything is at Yellowknife and Hay River, close to the Alberta border, and the rest of the territories have nothing. The only reason Inuvik has a highway is because the Yukon knew there was a lot of money to be made. They built a highway from Whitehorse to the Delta to Inuvik.

Mr. Nick Discepola: I have a similar situation in my riding, which is a beltway around the city of Montreal. We've been talking about it for 30 years to get it underway. I think what's going to finally get it off the ground is the involvement of private partnership, including the possibility of tolls on the highway.

I only wondered if that had been explored, because it might be the catapult that will get it started.

Chief Cece McCauley: Yes, people are open to tolls. I have had people from Norman Wells, which is only halfway, say that they would pay $150 to go to Yellowknife on the highway. People are open to it.

Something is going to be done. The private sector, business, and government have to get together. The time is now because they're planning the pipeline. It has to go together.

They cannot use the Mackenzie River. It's too low. It's too much of a waste of money. Put the money on the highway. You people can push that to the Prime Minister or Mr. Martin.

Mr. Nick Discepola: I think the timing is correct, and you can probably kill two birds with one stone. It seems to me that the maintenance of the pipeline would be a lot easier if it were next to a major road, also.

Chief Cece McCauley: The north would be open to everyone in Canada and the world. It's beautiful up there. There is fishing. It's holding us back, because we could have farms all along the highway. The country must open.

Mr. Nick Discepola: For the Coalition for Active Living, thank you for your presentation. I wanted you to elaborate on one of the recommendations. I notice you put it down twice, but you've skipped over it. It was giving tax incentives to encourage physical activity.

I think we can do a lot more as a government. I look back to the 1970s, when I was a youngster, and we had ParticipAction, which was a very successful program. I'm one who believes in an active lifestyle, although I don't show it now because--

Dr. Rick Bell: You have too many meetings.

Mr. Nick Discepola: I believe that's the key. Our youth are spending too much time in front of the Internet as opposed to on the playing fields or doing physical activities.

What kinds of tax incentives do you think we should be looking at?

Dr. Rick Bell: Well, there certainly are some very common examples of what might be included in that package. For example, why wouldn't memberships in health organizations or physical activity centres that obviously are going to contribute to the health of individuals be included in a tax reform around this issue? Anything that would require people to take out memberships in order to be active, to purchase equipment in order to be active...at a base level, running shoes, if they're being purchased for the purpose of being physically active, could also be part of a tax incentive to get people active.

The life insurance industry, I think, could be brought into this issue as well, although it's a distant relative of a tax incentive. We have yet to explore that concept, but it certainly is a very fruitful one from a longevity standpoint and a quality-of-life perspective.

I think our community is prepared to work with federal-provincial-territorial governments to explore what those tax incentives may be. This is a very new twist on inducing people around the world to be active. I know Australia is attempting to work out some policies around tax incentives. The Americans are just beginning to question the strategy as well. So if this is something the federal government would like to pursue, our community has individuals who would be more than willing to look at these alternatives.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Thanks.

Do I have any more time?

The Chair: Well, you can if you want another question.

¸ (1415)

Mr. Nick Discepola: I'd just like to compliment the Canadian Nurses Association.

I read your brief and looked at it again. I can't help but think that many of the recommendations in there are under provincial jurisdiction, but I do want to thank you for bringing up that one point, which was that we musn't be perceived as raiding the poorer countries when it comes to attracting a medical specialist, even though there is a shortage. I know, having discussed it with the Minister of Immigration, that this is one thing he's very conscious of. Even though we do need them, I think we have to look elsewhere.

I'm wondering if you could just briefly identify if there's any impediment to attracting nurses or more young people into the nursing profession. When I was growing up, it was a very high calling to be a nurse. I think right now, because of the demands on family time and others, fewer people are getting into it. I'm wondering if there's anything concrete the federal government could do.

Mr. Rob Calnan: There are some concrete things.

First of all, in talking with Minister Coderre about the immigration policy, although we don't believe we should be actively recruiting, we do say that there are nurses in the world who want to come to Canada. One of the things we have to look at is that before they leave their home country and come, we have to make sure there's a way of assessing whether they can be licensed in our country, because there are many countries where the standards of education and the standards of health care are not what they are in Canada.

We have specifically said to Mr. Coderre that rather than those people coming to Canada and then finding out that they don't meet the standard and are unable to practise nursing, if that's why they even came, we would like that investment on developing that assessment tool, where we could actually have people, before they even come to Canada, assess whether they're able to practise nursing in Canada. That's a specific thing that we have been pursuing with Mr. Coderre.

As far as actually getting people into the profession is concerned, every school of nursing in Canada has a wait list. UBC has a five-year wait list, the University of Victoria has a six-year wait list, and the various colleges.....

Although we have a shortage, it's not because we don't have men and women who want to become nurses; it's because the seats were closed in the 1990s and we haven't reopened them.

The other thing I think we can look forward to is--

Mr. Nick Discepola: Just as a point of clarification on that, when you referred to seats, were you saying the provincial governments actually regulated how many nurses or doctors would graduate?

Mr. Rob Calnan: Yes.

Mr. Nick Discepola: That's what happened in our home province.

Mr. Rob Calnan: I can tell you right now that in Victoria, I taught at Camosun College, and we had anywhere from 128 to 148 funded seats. In 1995, changes were made, and we now have 88 funded seats. That just gives you an example of the lost seats in one program, let alone right across the country.

The other thing the government has made an initiative of--and this was defined in the February health accord--is to move to nurse practitioners, and 50% of physicians will be in multi-disciplinary practice within five years. It's estimated that we'll need 10,000 nurse practitioners.

There's a real important role for nurse practitioners, but those additional 10,000 nurses also need to come out of the existing pool of nurses who are in our system right now. We then need the infrastructure for the master's and PhD faculty to also now be teaching these nurse practitioners. So there are strategic places where the federal government can work with the Canadian Nurses Foundation to even make funds available for those nurse practitioners.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Before I let you go, I am going to take a couple of minutes for myself.

To the nursing association, one of the things that I think seriously needs to be addressed in this country is palliative care. Our demographics demand it. I just want a short answer from you as to where you think the nursing education and interest are going. Are we getting somewhere? I know we have the Senate pushing this. How fast are we moving, and is it sufficient?

Mr. Rob Calnan: Senator Carstairs has led the whole initiative on palliative care. We now have a research chair at the University of Winnipeg, and they're developing the infrastructure for palliative care standards right across this country.

What I can tell you now is that every nursing curriculum in the country has a palliative care component, so every registered nurse will have an understanding of it. We still do not have full palliative care within our home nursing care systems, and that was in one of the reports. The Hollander report suggested that was a shortcoming and that where people wanted to be cared for and treated in their homes, it could mean significant cost savings to the institutional settings. But more importantly than that, we have now developed at a national level, through our association, certification programs in palliative care and hospice care, so we can also build our expertise for nurses in that area as well.

So we're about halfway there.

¸ (1420)

The Chair: Setting aside the demographics, palliative care is even for young children. It's for a stage of life, and I think sometimes we get sidetracked thinking it's an aging issue.

Mr. Rob Calnan: That's right.

The Chair: To Mr. Bell, I think some of the statistics in your brief need to be better understood and known by the population. I say this just as a suggestion. There are some wonderful statistics. If I had to do a speech on this, I could literally use your brief as a foundation piece, and perhaps it might not be a bad idea to send it to all of our MPs.

Sometimes I think we get so much great information at this committee and there are so few of us who see it, but you've put such effort into it and it's so good that I think you should do a wider distribution of it. I just give you that for your consideration; whether you follow up or not, that's your—

Dr. Rick Bell: We are becoming more politically astute in advocacy work, and in fact, that is the primary function of the Coalition for Active Living—thus my presence here. So thank you for the suggestion.

The Chair: Thank you.

And all of you from the friendship centre society, what's the timeline on Heritage Canada doing the evaluation on your renewal of funding?

Mr. Paul Lacerte: The evaluation has been completed. They had a two-year extension, which expires this coming March 31. So we are hoping to have a renewal agreement in place prior to March 31.

The Chair: Obviously for your planning cycles.

Thank you for the information, and also for the perspective of being inside the bureaucracy at a provincial level. I think that adds a different flavour to your presentation on transit, so I appreciate that.

Cece, I promise the next time I get up to NWT, I will make it to the Sahtu area. Thank you very much for being a strong advocate. I think you bring some common sense to an issue about which sometimes it's easy to say we don't have to worry. We do have to worry. Canada is for everyone in this country.

All of you, thank you for preparing your briefs today, for taking the time to come to us and give us your presentations, and to answer our questions. On behalf of my colleagues who had to return to the House, and who are working in the House and probably voting on supply money as we speak, I appreciate all of your input.

We are suspended for five minutes to do the next presentations.

¸ (1422)

¸ (1431)

The Chair: We're back in the afternoon in Vancouver with our second panel.

Next we have, from the National Anti-Poverty Organization, Robert Arnold, president. Welcome to you. With him is Jacquie Ackerly, secretary-treasurer. Welcome to you.

We have, from the Association of Yukon Communities, Glen Everitt, the president, who is also the mayor of Dawson and chair of the Northern Forum of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Welcome, Glen. We're happy to see you here.

From the Focus on the Family Canada, we have Derek Rogusky, who is the vice-president of family policy. Welcome.

From Grassroots Women, we have Rachel Rosen, who is the coordinator. Welcome to you.

From the Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network, we have Ted Kuntz, the president. We've met before, and welcome again. With him is Jack Styan, director of social policy. Welcome to you, sir.

I think we'll go with seven-minute presentations in the order that you have on your agenda. So we'll start with the National Anti-Poverty Organization.

Ms. Ackerly, go ahead.

Mrs. Jacquie Ackerly (Secretary Treasurer, National Anti-Poverty Organization): I probably will jump a little bit, because we planned for longer, a lot longer.

First, I'll introduce the National Anti-Poverty Organization. We are a non-profit organization. We represent 4.7 million Canadians who are currently living in poverty. Our mandate is to eradicate poverty in this country. We are most commonly referred to as the national voice of the poor.

Over the last four years Canada has enjoyed tremendous economic success. Our standard of living has grown faster than any other country in the G-8, and yet for almost 5 million Canadians these figures and statistics have not translated into prosperity or even into an adequate standard of living. This is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that the number of people using food banks has doubled in the last decade and that 40% of food bank users are children.

There is little question that the prosperity suggested by economic statistics is bypassing significant numbers of individuals. No matter what the measuring instrument, pre-tax or after-tax LICOs, or the new market basket measure, and no matter the statistics, the fact remains that the rate and depth of poverty is getting worse for many groups.

In a country of Canada's wealth, there is no excuse for the level of poverty and the degree of disparity we now see. This poverty is apparent not only to Canadians but to the international community. The United Nations Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have repeatedly reprimanded Canada on its performance in the area of poverty reduction. In the past, both committees have expressed strong concern over the level of homelessness, the failure to protect people from discrimination because of their poverty, the manner in which the national child benefit program discriminates against families relying on social assistance, and the effects that cuts to social spending have on increasing women's poverty and the poverty of single mothers in particular.

The priorities of debt reduction and tax cuts have been the focus of the last several budgets. Not only have these objectives failed to help the poor, they have succeeded in increasing the rate and the depth of poverty.

It's our hope that the 2003-04 budget will truly reflect the interests and priority of poor Canadians. It is our hope that the government will strengthen and expand initiatives contained in last February's budget, such as increased funding for affordable housing. It is our hope that the government will put into action the all-party commitment to eliminate child poverty made in 1989 and that it will live up to Canada's international obligations under the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to provide secure housing, food, and clothing for all Canadians.

This submission presents several recommendations that will help the government achieve these goals. If these recommendations are implemented, the government will be able to legitimately claim that it is concerned about poverty and actively working to eliminate poverty, and it will also be able to demonstrate to the international community that it takes seriously its obligations under the international conventions.

Now I'm going to have to start skipping.

Recommendation one: NAPO recommends that funding to the CCTC be increased through the NCB to $4,400 per year for each and every child by January 2004 and that the clawback to the national child benefit provision be eliminated.

You need to note that approximately 200,000 Canadians are homeless and 1.7 million are in core housing need. Knowing this, we recommend that the government implement and adequately fund a national housing strategy, that they commit 1% of revenues to the construction of new affordable housing units and increase transfers to the territories and provinces to be spent specifically on the construction of affordable housing units and the renewal of existing affordable housing.

¸ (1435)

While the social transfer contains money for social services and post-secondary education, it does not set national standards for the social services, as the Canada assistance plan once did. NAPO recommends that the federal government clearly indicates standards for the spending of the Canada social transfer. We recommend that the conditions should be the same as those previously contained in the Canada assistance plan; that they develop and clearly communicate consequences for any province's failure to adhere to those standards, including the removal of funds; and ensure that any money transferred to the provinces is new money and equal to that provided by the Canada health transfer.

As far as unemployment insurance is concerned, currently only 37% of people who are unemployed and require unemployment insurance receive it. NAPO would recommend the loosening of EI eligibility requirements so that those who require it can access it, the use of the surplus from the EI program to fund income support for unemployed workers and effective employment programs and training, and that any surplus not be used to pay down the debt.

We recommend that we establish a fund for researching current and international models and practices of guaranteed annual income, and the development and implementation of a guaranteed adequate income. The funds should be accessible to poor people, organizations that deal with poverty issues, and other groups. Any proposed guaranteed adequate income should be set above low-income levels.

As you know, we have nine recommendations in our document, so I'm not going to read them all to you.

In the year 2000 budget, the government promised to use 50% of surplus revenue to support social services and programs and the remaining 50% to pay down the debt and provide tax cuts. This promise has been repeated by the Prime Minister and successive finance ministers. It has yet to be fulfilled. NAPO would recommend that the government fulfill the fifty-fifty promise by allocating 50% of the budget surplus to essential and social programs and services.

Economic numbers show that we have the resources to eliminate poverty. NAPO encourages the committee to fulfill the fifty-fifty promise and rebuild the social safety net. We also strongly urge the committee to take the priorities of Canadians who are living in poverty and make them the priorities of the upcoming budget and, in this way, ensure that the current economic prosperity is enjoyed by all Canadians.

Robert has the final thought.

Mr. Robert Arnold (President, National Anti-Poverty Organization): Madam Chairperson, my name is Robert Arnold and I'm the president of the National Anti-Poverty Organization.

I'd like to take a couple of minutes, if I may, to talk about the fact that one of the goals of government is to create a better economy, one that can support not only business but also education, health care, and social programs across this country. We believe this can best be done by using a trickle-up theory rather than a trickle-down theory. We base this belief on the fact that money, unlike water, trickles up rather than down. The illustration of this fact is that the large pools of money are all at the top end of this Canadian society.

The smart thing to do is to give money to poor people, who will spend it right here in our own communities rather than in the economies of Cancun, Honolulu, and other resorts.

I think of the economy as a river. The stronger the economy, the bigger the river. If you want to make a river bigger, you must put the water in where it will flow to the ocean. Putting water into the ocean does not make the river bigger at all. In other words, giving rich people money is like putting water into the ocean. Give the money to poor people, and it will trickle up and flow to the oceans of money owned by the rich and their corporations.

When poor people are given money, they become better consumers, creating more demand for goods and services. This, in turn, creates more jobs and a greater tax base. These outcomes are beneficial to the economy.

We believe there will be savings created by giving money to poor people. Poverty is one of the biggest indicators for poor health, for instance. If you give poor people money, we'll save money in health costs.

Furthermore, we believe there will be less crime, because crime grows out of poverty. We believe there will be huge savings, if we give money to poor people and stop putting people in a position where they have to rob people and stores to get by.

Homelessness has become a disgrace in this country. We believe the only way to eliminate it is to institute a universally guaranteed, adequate income plan. When everyone in the country can afford proper accommodations, the private sector will build it.

We at NAPO are afraid that if this is not done in the very near future, the economy will worsen and there will be more crime, more ill health, and greater chaos in our homes and in the streets.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to address you.

¸ (1440)

The Chair: Thank you. Be assured that we have your full brief, and we will review all of the recommendations contained therein.

Now from the Association of Yukon Communities, Mr. Everitt.

Mr. Glen Everitt (President; Mayor of Dawson and Chair of the Northern Forum of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Association of Yukon Communities): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I do apologize to this committee for not having written speaking notes. I was just involved in an election and, as didn't know if I would be here for sure, I wasn't giving my notes to someone else.

I also want to tell you that it's a bit of an honour for me to sit here. It was a privilege that the electorate sent me back to this table, but it's an honour to be before this committee. The reason is that I've attended many committee meetings in the last 15 years, and as to the invitation that was extended last time by this committee for us to attend, I was leery about attending. I didn't know what the purpose would be and thought our requests, or our plight, would fall on deaf ears.

We reviewed the document that was produced, I believe, in November of last year by the standing committee, and it was very clear throughout the document that the concerns and the ideas that we tabled were listened to, because they were in that document. We were very excited and have used the document many times, both at the federation level and at the community level, to show people that this committee doesn't just sit there but actually responds. It is an honour for me to be back before this committee.

Our brief that was sent in focused on a proposal that we created, called “Infrastructure Works: Building Yukon's Future Together”. We actually created the document as a result of sitting before this committee, and we realized that our organization couldn't just ask for money. We really had to have a plan. We went back to Yukon and worked very hard. Although we represent only eight municipalities, we represent 93% of the population. We wanted to hear from everybody and did a complete Yukon-wide review. It didn't matter if you lived in a municipality or not. That's what produced the document that was provided to you last year.

I wanted to touch very briefly on the infrastructure programs that are currently in place, both the strategic infrastructure fund and the northern criteria that were in the throne speech, as well as recently announced by Minister Rock. I truly believe it is directly linked to the efforts of this committee that took place. It is a first for us to see that.

There are problems within the infrastructure program. We're kidding ourselves to believe there aren't any. We stressed over and over the importance that although it may be constitutionally argued that municipalities and communities are an entity of a provincial or territorial government and that the proper order of communication is from the federal to the provincial or territorial ministers, etc., we do believe communities are more accountable and can provide better accountability for dollars coming from Ottawa.

The reason I say this is that for transfers going to our territorial government, that may be intended. There's a lot of money that goes from the federal government to the provinces and territories. I heard from previous speakers that they don't necessarily make it to where they were supposed to go. The smaller your jurisdiction, the more politics is there. We do see, in the Yukon, a lot of money that's intended for good program development and infrastructure development that becomes very political when there's someone in the middle.

The other concern with the infrastructure programs is the matching criteria. Jurisdictions in the country with a small population base, such as some of the maritime provinces and the territories, may not necessarily have—and a lot have indicated they don't have—the money to match the matching criteria that Ottawa has put forward. Small communities definitely do not have the ability to apply, no matter the good intentions that are there with the application process. They just don't have the tax base to be able to apply, and costs are a lot higher in the north than they are in the south, but the impacts are greater.

¸ (1445)

Sitting at this table, I'm not going to ask you for hundreds of millions of dollars, which might be a surprise, because I know most people do, and it puts you in a difficult position to have to listen to the plights of many organizations. I deal with that on a federation level all the time. But I do want to take one more minute and speak a little bit about the gas tax proposal and urban migration.

I've spoken with 15 people living on the streets of Vancouver over the last couple of days. I wanted to find out where they came from. Out of 15 people, 13 were from northern and rural Canada, living in the city--urban migration. There are many reasons for urban migration, many causes, and when we talked...they didn't move there to have a worse life, for one thing, contrary to what some people might argue. Centralization of health care, centralization of education, lack of employment opportunities, a deplorable state of living on some of the reserves across this country--things like that have helped build this urban migration, and cities across the country are struggling to find the solution.

Ottawa has put a lot of money into the solution. However, it's a symptom of a greater problem.

What I want to just pitch out is a change in the way of thinking on addressing it. Sometimes you're pumping money into a bottomless pit. If you look at a lot of the urban migration as a symptom of a greater problem and see that the problem actually lies in the rural and northern areas, on the reserves, and start addressing it at that level with a true community grassroots movement and a holistic approach, you'll find that some of the solutions you are looking for may be right there.

I have spoken with the Minister of Human Resources Development, Jane Stewart, on this issue, and she agreed that maybe there does need to be a change. We've known it, growing up in the north or living in rural areas. We always knew what the solutions were, but nobody asked us. Our regional offices were located in the big cities in the south, thousands of miles away, with people making decisions who have never been where we live.

That's just a thought that I wanted to throw out.

I could talk about trains and stuff like that, but it's in the brief that I sent.

The last one is the gas tax and the potential promise of 5¢, or whatever it is, $2.5 billion a year of excise tax being transferred for municipal infrastructure. It did create a rift in the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, so much so that I stood against the entire board in opposition to endorsing that proposal.

I had reasons for that. One, if there is an increase in gas tax, it has a huge trickle effect in the north or tourism-related industry areas. We know that our rubber-tire traffic is our economy. It's heading that way, and they look at the price of gas to determine whether they're running their rigs up the highways through the northern and rural parts of the country.

But two, per capita distribution of that money, of the gas tax, would be disastrous, because I do believe that if they do the gas tax, it will replace infrastructure programs. It will be, “You asked for it; here it is.”

So at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities board meeting in September, there was a big move by the big cities to have the board unanimously endorse this proposal. They knew I was the one fighting the proposal. I had actually begun to build support from rural regions of the country on my concerns. We did pass a resolution and endorse the gas tax proposal, but it was conditional on following the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' criterion, which is that there is a 1% distribution of the fund prior to per capita distribution. So your large urban centres benefited from the volume of sales, but your smaller regions of the country also benefited, even though their gas sales may never have taken them into that area.

We'd end up with some $200,000 a year in the Yukon to address infrastructure. We have 4% of the highway system of Canada, with only 0.01% of the population to support it. But under this proposal, if it is $2.5 billion, it's a $25-million injection into our region.

That, in short, is my presentation. I really did think, as did the lady beside me, that we were provided with 15 minutes each. I don't know where I got that from. I'll have to go back through and figure it out.

¸ (1450)

The Chair: I hope it wasn't from anybody at our end.

Mr. Glen Everitt: I'm not sure where I got it, but thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you.

Actually, Mr. Everitt, the question you've put in the material you just gave me was going to be my question to you about what happened at FCM, because I know the normal distribution would not work on the gas tax for the northern region. That has been raised by some of our caucuses, and I'm glad there's some addressing of that.

We'll now move to Focus on the Family Canada, Mr. Rogusky.

Mr. Derek Rogusky (Vice-President, Family policy, Focus on the Family Canada): Thank you to the committee for allowing me the opportunity to present today. I want to concentrate on the issues of family finances and family taxation.

We did a poll that was conducted by The Strategic Counsel in 2002, and interestingly, financial and economic issues were the number one concern raised by families in terms of challenges they were facing--higher than education and health, which surprised us.

As noted in our written submission, the cost of raising a child is significant. The Manitoba Department of Agriculture and Food has calculated the costs of raising a child until the end of the 18th year to be in excess of $8,000 per year, and that doesn't even include the cost of post-secondary education. Most of these expenses are non-discretionary, and in fact, the failure to provide necessities for children can result in parents being prosecuted. Unlike other non-discretionary expenses, parenting expenses are generally not recognized in Canada's tax code. In fact, according to a 2001 Status of Women in Canada report, we are only one of two OECD countries to have a tax system that fails to recognize the non-discretionary nature of parenting expenses.

There's considerable debate over whether a universal child deduction or a universal child tax credit would be the best solution to address this; however, the bottom line is that the important and costly role of parenting needs to be recognized within our tax system.

Our first recommendation to this committee would be that in recognition of the non-discretionary spending that all families raising children must incur, the federal government should introduce a modest per-child deduction or a child tax credit for all families. This deduction or tax credit should be increased annually until it fully reflects the non-discretionary expenses of raising a child in Canada.

Another issue that we find of concern is the high marginal tax rates. As a result of the clawback provisions of the Canada child tax benefit and the child portion of the GST tax credit, some lower-income families face marginal tax rates well over 50%, and certainly a few years back they approached 70% in some cases. This is simply a strong disincentive and burden for working families. The issue is a complex one involving the federal, provincial, and territorial governments; however, the problem is a real one for many Canadian families and it needs to be addressed quickly.

Therefore, we recommend to this committee that the federal government, in cooperation with the provincial and territorial governments, examine options and implement the solution that would reduce the economic disincentives created by the high marginal tax rates as a result of the Canada child tax benefit clawback provision.

We don't get into a specific recommendation, because everything is so contingent when you're talking about the tax code and these marginal tax rates. So depending on what other avenues and options are taken, different solutions may be appropriate, and that's why we haven't necessarily identified a specific solution. But we do know the issue has to be dealt with.

On the issue of horizontal tax equity among families, the current tax system treats families with similar income levels very differently based on whether they are one-earner families or two-earner families. This results in horizontal inequity. The issue was studied in depth in a 1999 finance subcommittee, but unfortunately there has been very little action since then to address the problem.

According to examples published by the Department of Finance, a typical one-earner family of four with an annual income of $50,000 will be assessed $4,618 in federal tax, whereas a two-earner family of four with the same income will pay only $2,140 in federal tax. Single-earner families are bearing a significantly greater federal tax burden, in some cases twice as much as two-earner families with the same income.

Raising the spousal deduction to the equivalent of the personal deduction is one approach to help reduce this horizontal inequity. Another approach, albeit one that has a more significant impact on overall tax revenues, is to raise the income threshold for the higher tax brackets. Therefore, we recommend the federal government examine options aimed at improving horizontal equity among families earning the same income and implement solutions to effectively address this issue.

¸ (1455)

Our final area of concern is in the area of child care choices. Intended or not, the federal government's approach to child care is biased toward a regulated day care style or approach. Canadian parents and their children deserve a more flexible system that provides the opportunity to make choices.

While it is important to recognize that the child care expense deduction is associated with the cost of employment, it is also important to recognize the financial and time contributions of parents who choose other child care options.

Jane Jenson and Sharon Stroick of the Canadian Policy Research Networks write that two-parent families with a stay-at-home parent or one who is working part-time out of the home have loudly complained about their treatment by tax legislation. Their target was the CCED, described by its opponents as a discriminatory tax advantage given only to families who purchase child care services.

Such a reproach fails to acknowledge what the CCED is, a deduction for a necessary cost of employment. It is not too far-fetched to imagine, however, that such parents might have reacted less negatively if they felt their own contributions via their investments of money and time in their own families were receiving the recognition they deserve. Whereas in the past such parents would have been acknowledged via a tax exemption or family allowance, now they are alone in having to absorb all the financial burdens of choosing to have children and caring for them by themselves.

A universal child deduction or child tax credit, as recommended earlier, would be helpful in providing Canadian families more child care choices. Public opinion clearly indicates that Canadians want choices, including the opportunity for one parent to stay at home.

In addition, the federal government's recent five-year funding program for child care programs has been unusually rigid in requiring provinces to spend federal transfers earmarked for child care and early childhood education on regulated day care spaces. This bias toward one choice of child care simply does not meet the diversity of family situations and fails to offer the flexibility Canadian families need.

With a greater emphasis these days on work-family balance and the emergence of more flexible work patterns, the diversity of child care approaches will only increase. More Canadians are working from home or working flexible schedules than ever before. Canadian parents are also placing more emphasis on spending more time at home with their children, yet our tax code and other federal programs tend not to reflect this variety.

Public opinion indicates that Canadians want access to more child care options than just regulated day care centres. As a result, we recommend to this committee that the federal government implement a universal child deduction or child tax credit, echoing our earlier recommendation, and that the remaining $800 million in federal government funding for child care programs announced in the 2003 budget allow for more flexibility on the part of provinces and territories in the remaining years of that commitment.

I thank you for your time and look forward to some questions.

¹ (1500)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now we'll go to Grassroots Women. Ms. Rosen, go ahead.

Ms. Rachel Rosen (Coordinator, Grassroots Women): Thanks very much for having us here today.

For a little bit of background about Grassroots Women, we are a B.C.-based women's organization that was started in 1995. We do research in education, advocacy, skills training, and empowerment programs with marginalized and working-class women. We're based here in Vancouver, and we also have a chapter in Manitoba.

Our campaigns, activities, and educational programs have tackled issues such as privatization of health, the conditions of working women, and child care. What we would like to speak with you about today is our call for child care.

In preparing this brief, and to present to you today, we've actually had a series of focus group forums, talking with women about their experiences of child care. The presentation today represents some of the voices of these women who've participated in the focus groups in the last few months, and also our previous work since 1995.

On our experiences here in British Columbia, as I'm sure you know, in November 2002 the British Columbia government cut $64 million from the budget for regulated child care. While there was an announcement in 2003 from the federal government—there's a multilateral framework on early learning on child care—it hasn't resolved the issues facing many marginalized women here in B.C., and I'm sure also in other provinces, particularly because of the low levels of funding in the first years of the agreement and, secondly, because the funding is not tied to the implementation of a universal child care program. In fact, what we're experiencing here in B.C. is that the funds are used merely to replace funds that have already been cut from child care.

I wanted to share with you some of the experiences that women have shared with us in our discussions. One of the major issues is the lack of spaces. Currently, there are only 67,000 licensed childcare spaces in B.C., yet there are 653,000 children under the age of 12. This is a major shortfall in terms of spaces.

Women in our focus groups and discussions have shared that often when they're looking for childcare, they're put on a waiting list that could be up to three years long. If you have a child who is two years old, and you're desperate to find childcare in order to go to work, three years it not an option for waiting.

Secondly, women have raised concerns over the issue of the high cost of child care. In British Columbia, child care subsidies are given based on income. The subsidies already fall well below the costs of child care, even when a family is eligible for the full amount.

Again because of local cuts, over 10,000 children have lost their subsidy or parts of their subsidy. We have a situation where women are being forced to spend often up to half of their income on child care costs, even when they're receiving a subsidy. This has a huge impact on their lives and also on their ability to feed and house their families.

What has happened is that the lack of spaces and the high costs threaten the quality and safety of the child care options available to women. Many women are forced to accept child care situations that do not meet their own personal standards of safety and quality education. It's because of the lack of accessibility and affordability of programs. This will have an impact on generations of marginalized communities in Canada.

¹ (1505)

Finally, I want to talk about child care workers. I work at a preschool, so I'm also speaking from my own personal experience. Child care workers in licensed settings are notoriously underpaid. Very few have full benefits. It's often part-time or casual work.

People who are providing family day cares often spend 40% of their income on work-related costs.

The most marginalized of all child care workers, who also participated in our discussions, are women who are working as domestic workers under the live-in caregiver program of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. These women are being used to provide a package deal--child care, yes, but also cleaning, cooking, laundry, dog walking, helping the family business, you name it. These women are the package deal under the live-in caregiver program, and instead of implementing a national child care program, this live-in caregiver program is being used.

The women who come under this program, because of immigration regulations, are tied for 24 months to both work and live in their employer's home. These women have shared stories, as they are providing child care, of not having a lock on their door and their employers can walk in at any time, or of being forced to leave their rooms so that guests can stay in the home, or of facing sexual, emotional, or physical abuse from employers, created by the conditions of this live-in caregiver program.

This brings up the question of women's equality. As Grassroots Women, we advocate strongly that women should have equality here in Canada.

Canada is one of the only industrialized countries that does not have a publicly provided child care program for all children. What child care policy does exist has tended to focus on freeing mothers, and particularly single mothers, to work in low-wage work. This has nothing to do with achieving women's equality or with the reduction of poverty.

With over one million mothers of preschool children in the paid labour force and many more seeking to enter the paid labour force for their family's survival, we really believe there's a need for a child care program. It's also an issue, when we're looking at the question of women's equality, of women's development, comprehensive development, in many different areas, within the home, but also the ability to participate in the cultural, social, and economic life of the country.

Through our focus groups and discussions, women have stated over and over that in order to fulfill a commitment to women's equality, Canada must implement a universal national child care program for all families.

These are our recommendations for the committee, and it's not just for this committee, but it also impacts on other government departments and ministries. Our recommendations are to implement a universal national day care program immediately, and this is one that's flexible, affordable, and accessible; to increase federal funding for child care programs, child care spaces, and wages and benefits of child care workers; and finally, to scrap the anti-women and racist live-in caregiver program.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now we'll switch to another subject and go to Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network, and we'll go to the president of that association.

Mr. Ted Kuntz (President, Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network): Actually, Jack Styan will start us off.

The Chair: All right. Thank you.

Mr. Jack Styan (Director of Social Policy, Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network): Thanks for the opportunity to present to the committee.

Canadian families are resilient, in our experience. In British Columbia this year, families in the Okanagan after the forest fires and families in Pemberton after the recent flood are showing their resiliency and rebuilding their lives. What we'd like to do today is present you with three solutions that we think build upon the resiliency of Canadian families, provide tools for families to find their own solutions, and benefit Canadians with disabilities.

For a little bit about PLAN, Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network, the organization was created in 1989 by a group of parents who were seeking answers to the question, “What will happen to my child with a disability when I die?” At that time, they decided to pool their resources and form an organization called PLAN. After about a decade and a half of thinking, questioning, and innovating, the organization knows a lot about securing the future for people with disabilities and their families. Our expertise has been well recognized.

In British Columbia, we have about 5,000 members, 12 organizations, and about 22 groups around the world have formed and begun to implement solutions that were developed here in B.C.

I'd like to leave you with some of the tools of our trade. We've brought you a copy of our most recent newsletter “PLAN facts”. We've also brought you a copy of one of two books that we've produced. One is called Safe and Secure, and we brought you copies of it.

We ask that you take a look at it. It may or may not be relevant to you. There's a pretty good chance that you'll have someone with a disability somewhere in your network, and so it will be useful. If not, we're sure that someone you know has someone with a disability in their network, and you can pass it on to them. We're confident it would be of benefit to them.

The other book that we've produced is called A Good Life. If any of you are interested in a copy of it, please contact me at PLAN and we'll get you a copy.

In the course of our time looking at the question, “What will happen to my child with a disability when I die?”, it became clear to us that securing the future leads also to a good life in the present. What we found in our learning is that there are a number of things common to a good life for pretty well everyone. That includes things like having a home of one's own, sharing one's life with friends and family, making choices in one's life, pursuing one's passions, and making a contribution. Most of us would probably take that for granted. Folks with disabilities don't have that luxury.

We've also found, in our experience, that to be successful in securing a good life for persons with disabilities it's important for us to be guided by four principles.

First, relationships are the key to safety, security, and a good life. At PLAN our work is based on the development of relationships for persons with disabilities.

Second, we've found that it's essential for us as an organization to be self-sufficient in order for us to advocate on behalf of individuals and families.

Third, being directed by families has been critical. Families are guided by the best interests of their children and they keep us true to what our mission is.

¹ (1510)

Finally, contribution is essential to the attainment of citizenship. Contribution is fundamental to our organization, and it has worked because it's the foundation of citizenship. As we've brought people with disabilities into relationships with others, it has become apparent that true citizenship is conferred through contribution.

We have three recommendations. I'll speak to the first.

The first recommendation is to permit parents and grandparents at their death to transfer funds from their RRSP or RRIF directly into a discretionary trust to benefit their child or grandchild with a disability, without requiring the purchase of an annuity. We'd like to start by thanking the minister and the government for the changes that were made in the 2003 budget, which permitted the rollover of RRSPs and RRIFs to sons and daughters and grandchildren with disabilities. We think it's progressive to assist families in securing a good life for their family members with a disability. We think it's good social policy to strengthen families and provide them with tools to find solutions they might face. Most importantly, we think it has benefited Canadians with disabilities.

We've seen families respond in droves to the changes that were made. They're using the mechanism to secure the future for their family members with disabilities. We know because we receive many calls each week asking about its implementation and use.

Many families, however, have also told us it can be further improved. Presently, in order to transfer RRSP or RRIF funds into a discretionary trust, it's necessary to purchase an annuity. It's important to know that discretionary trusts are essential planning tools for families trying to secure the future for a family member with a disability. There are a number of reasons for this, but the most important is that the use of a discretionary trust is one of the few ways families can help a family member without disqualifying them from provincial disability benefits. If most families were wealthy enough to replace provincial disability benefits, this wouldn't be a problem, but we all know that most families aren't that wealthy.

Second, the conditions for achieving a good life are different for each Canadian with a disability. For some, the steady stream of income from an annuity is adequate to achieve a good life, but for many, more flexibility is required. For example, if a person needs a wheelchair lift or other lump sum expense to achieve a good life, then regular monthly payments from an annuity may not suffice. The requirement to purchase an annuity is sometimes a barrier for persons with disabilities securing a good life. Our recommendation is therefore to remove the requirement to purchase an annuity, to roll over RRSPs and RRIFs to a discretionary trust for a family member with a disability. This advance will make the rollover mechanism more useful to more families trying to secure a good life for their family members.

I'll pass it over to Ted at this point.

¹ (1515)

Mr. Ted Kuntz: Madam Chair and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to be here.

I'm going to speak to the last two recommendations.

The first is to allow, under the medical expense tax credit system, receipted expenses to build networks or connections between citizens. Let me just explain that a little bit. What we know from our work is that the greatest handicap to people with a disability is not the disability; it's actually loneliness and isolation. The solution to that is actually quite simple. The solution is to facilitate relationships between people with disabilities and other members of the community.

One of the things we've learned at PLAN by doing this for the last 15 years is that relationships are the key to equality of life. Not only do they increase safety for the person with a disability, but they allow that person an opportunity to make a contribution to the community. We've come to realize that the contribution is actually the key component to our sons and daughters with a disability being recognized as citizens.

You're probably aware that in British Columbia we closed our institutions in 1986, and people with disabilities are living in the community. But we've come to recognize that living in the community does not necessarily mean that you are part of the community. What we've learned makes the difference is when our sons and daughters are able to make a contribution.

It was interesting listening to my colleague here talk about making people who are living in poverty better consumers. What we're talking about is making people better contributors to their society. I want to share with you a simple story that might give you a flavour of the kind of contribution we're talking about.

I have a son who has significant disabilities. He was severely damaged by his vaccine shot at five months of age, such that he developed an uncontrolled seizure disorder that resulted in severe mental retardation.

The story I want to share with you occurred when he was going into grade 7. That particular year, there were two grade 7 classes. Both of the teachers were male. They decided that the way they were going to divide up the students for the coming September was to flip a coin and then alternate, pick back and forth to decide who their students would be for the coming year--not a traditional way of selecting students, but that's how they decided to do it.

They flipped the coin, and a teacher by the name of Jeff won the coin toss. He looked at the list of over 70 students, and when he came to make his first selection, he chose my son.

The other teacher was relatively new to the school, but he knew that my son was severely handicapped. He said to Jeff, “I don't get why you did that. On the list there are students who are bright, students who are good athletes, students who are good-looking, students who are humorous. Instead, you selected the student who has an uncontrolled seizure disorder, has the mental capacity of a two-year-old, requires full-time care, and requires all his materials modified.”

Jeff's answer was interesting. He said, “I've watched Josh around the school the last few years. I've watched how kids have sat with him at recess, how they've assisted him at lunchtime, how they've taken him to the washroom, how they've read stories to him. One of the things I've noticed is that when they're with him, they're kinder and gentler. I think that if I have him in my class, my class will become a kinder and gentler class.”

What Jeff represented is somebody who saw the part of my son that was full. When we look at a glass like this, most of us, when we have disability issues, look at the part that's not there. What Jeff was able to do was to look at the fullness part. He saw that my son had a contribution to make, and as a result of that, my son had a much larger role to play in that classroom.

At PLAN, we believe everybody has a contribution to make. We also know that contribution can't be given unless you're in a relationship. So most of our work is about facilitating what we call “networks of support”. We invite the community to be in a relationship with our sons and daughters because we know there's value in that.

¹ (1520)

What we're looking for in this tax credit is to allow those kinds of extraordinary expenses to facilitate those networks of support to be considered. We believe that will increase the capacity of our sons and daughters to make contributions. In doing so, it makes them fuller citizens of Canada.

The other thing the research has taught us is that safety in our society is not dependent upon the number of police officers, social workers, or law enforcement personnel. Rather, safety is dependent upon the number of relationships the person has. The more relationships, the safer they are. The fewer relationships, the more vulnerable they are. We see that relationship is actually a key component to both a safe life and a life that's meaningful.

So that's what our second recommendation is about.

The third recommendation is a fairly simple one, but I'm sure in its implementation it's much more complicated. It's about establishing a disability savings plan much like the RRSP. Our experience is that parents, siblings, grandparents, and extended family members want to contribute to the future welfare of their relative with a disability.

Unfortunately, when they do that there is no tax incentive to do it. If anything, there's a disincentive to doing that. When they make a contribution to their relative with a disability, it affects provincial funding and money gets clawed back. We think through the creation of a disability savings plan we can create a vehicle by which families will contribute more to the future of their relative. That will increase the security of the relative with a disability; encourage future planning, which we think is important to do; and reduce reliance upon government.

That's what our third recommendation is.

What all of these recommendations really are about is assisting families to take more responsibility and more care around creating a future for their sons and daughters that's safe and secure. We think together we can do that better.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I'm always very grateful for what I learn here.

I will go to Mr. Discepola.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Okay, Madam Chair. We may as well start with our last presenters, because it's fresh in my mind.

In your first recommendation, where you're obligated to roll over the RSP, the only concern I would have--and maybe I'd ask you to elaborate there--is that, yes, I guess reasonable lump sum amounts should be allowed, but when we were studying the RSP uses, many small-business people appealed to the government to allow them to dip into it for funding or as a source of financing. At that time I was a small-business person and I thought it would be easy to do and should be allowable, but the finance officials gave me a compelling argument as to why it shouldn't be done.

So I'm just wondering in this case--and I presume they're not vast sums of money that are available--if you allow for uses such as a condo, for example, or any other investments and they go bad, is that the right approach, or should we be protecting or sheltering parents from being obligated to do such a thing, much like we shelter small-business people who in times of difficulty would probably be compelled to dip into their life savings to keep their businesses afloat?

I guess what I'm wondering is whether it wouldn't be better to allow a child with a disability a guaranteed certainty that they're going to have a monthly payment for the rest of their life versus the need to have to dip into the one or two examples that you gave, or other examples that maybe I'm not aware of.

¹ (1525)

Mr. Ted Kuntz: Why don't you start, Jack, and I'll respond too.

Mr. Jack Styan: I have a couple of quick responses. I guess the first would be that the rollover provision is available only when the parent passes away, so it's not a matter of needing to protect the asset for the parent for the future.

Mr. Nick Discepola: What I was getting at is that as a parent, I'd much rather know that my son or daughter was going to be taken care of through a monthly revenue as opposed to having them or their executors dip in and make a bad decision.

Mr. Jack Styan: The second thing, then, is this. The way we think about it and the way families have talked to us about it is that the flexibility is really quite important, as it is with all of us when we, at some point, have to turn our RRSPs into RRIFs.

There are a variety of options in terms of how we can use that funding over time. Each of us will probably use it a little bit differently, depending on what our needs are. For folks with disabilities, it's much the same.

The other question you're asking, I think, is how do parents ensure that it's well spent beyond their lifetime? Ted might better be able to answer that. It's a question they certainly wrestle with when determining who's going to be the trustee, for example, in a trust. This is a difficult matter for families. Our overall philosophy is that families are in the best position to make decisions about how the future will be laid out for their son or daughter with a disability. In some cases they may want the flexibility because they know what the future may or may not bring. In other cases they may want the security of that monthly income stream. We're asking that the choice be there for families.

Mr. Nick Discepola: So the operative word is “flexibility”, and give them the choice.

Mr. Ted Kuntz: I guess my thoughts on that are that, in my particular case, I have a discretionary trust set up for my son with three co-trustees managing that trust. So it means they have to reach some level of agreement for funds to be disbursed. I think that takes away anything that's spontaneous. It allows us a fair degree of discussion.

The other thing in my experience with other families like mine is that we tend to be fairly conservative, because we want to make sure the money is there. If anything, we err on the side of being conservative as opposed to being frivolous with that money, because the most important thing for us is that our children are well taken care of.

Mr. Nick Discepola: The registered disability savings plan is intriguing for me. I think it has an awful lot of merit. Could you elaborate on what the needs would be, how much should be allowed to be deferred? It's not a tax shelter, as you know; it would be deferred. What kind of costs or what kind of needs are we looking at?

Mr. Ted Kuntz: Jack, I don't know if you can answer that one. I think we put this forward as an idea. When we talk with families across Canada, this is one of the ideas they get the most excited about. I think we have more discussion and more planning to do about how to do that properly, but it would be interesting to begin to move in that direction.

Mr. Nick Discepola: Let me ask the question differently, then.

When we establish RRSP limits, we always seem to focus on a target annual pension revenue that we want Canadians to have. So what should that target be for people with disabilities? What kind of fund should we allow them to accumulate, to start? I don't know. In the RESP, for example, we decided to put the ceiling at $2,000. I presume there was good, logical argument there over the needs of a child to get educated at $50,000 or $60,000. Could we be looking at something similar, in the $1,000 or $2,000 range, or do you have any concrete suggestions?

Mr. Jack Styan: I don't think we could give you a number. We were thinking about a larger number, but as Ted said, we wanted to engage in some discussion around it.

The goal would be that there would be funds available, for example, for a down payment if at some point in the person's life they wanted to purchase a home. Or if there were some other significant disability-related expense that the provincial system didn't cover, there would be funding for that. So it could be a revenue stream, but it could also be for some larger items.

Mr. Nick Discepola: For the Association of Yukon Communities, I don't have any questions per se. I took note of your suggestions on the gas tax. I took note of your suggestions on per capita funding, especially the particular needs of the northern territories.

I really don't have any statement other than maybe saying it would be an honour for us to have you back next year too. You're very articulate, and I think you serve your community very well.

To Grassroots Women, I think the time has probably come for the need for a national child care program. I think the question is how we negotiate with the provinces to make sure it has the flexibility the provinces are after.

One of the concerns I have, coming from a province that's always been pro-union or I guess pro-left--that being Quebec--is that any funding that does go may not go to the targeted need, which is providing child care spaces. You've alluded to that too, because you claimed that the wages and benefits for child care workers aren't sufficient.

I'm just saying that if we invest x billions of dollars...and I think the group on national poverty, NAPO, alluded to the need for child care programming also, although it's surprising, coming from your anti-poverty group. I thought you'd have other priorities.

Where do we draw the balance between making sure the target funds are there for the actual need versus spending on administration, workers' compensation benefits, higher salaries for workers, and the ultimate, which would be to become unionized workers--in my province that's the first thing that would happen--and then you'd have all kinds of...as these costs escalate, you would defeat the purpose of the program, I think. Is there a balance we should be looking at?

¹ (1530)

The Chair: Ms. Rosen.

Ms. Rachel Rosen: I think treating child care workers to decent wages and benefits does not defeat the purpose of a national child care program. It actually would enhance the national child care program. The reason I say this is that there is incredible turnover right now because child care workers are not able to earn a living wage by working in the child care system. So you have a constant turnover in terms of the staff, in terms of people being forced to leave the field because they can't survive in it. The impact this has on the programs and on the children is a lack of stability, a lack of continuity, and a lack of development in terms of the actual programming.

I think if we look at it in terms of the working conditions, to develop the working conditions for child care workers would enhance the program itself. I think we shouldn't see them as being opposite. As someone working in the field, I can tell you that, absolutely. If we're happier working in the field because we are under decent working conditions, the program will be better.

Mr. Nick Discepola: One of the recommendations you also make is the live-in caregiver program, and you were very strong about it--scrap it, get rid of it. I thought that was an excellent program for allowing people--and usually, though not in all cases, it's women--the opportunity to come into Canada, at least. It's only a two-year commitment on their behalf. But you're saying the negatives far outweigh the advantages.

I don't know how many people benefit from the program. I don't think it's substantial. But you don't see it as a negative at all, preventing women who otherwise may not have the opportunity to come to Canada to actually avail themselves of that whole program?

Ms. Rachel Rosen: I think we ask the question, why are teachers and nurses being denied the right to come to Canada as immigrants if we have a shortage? That's basically what's happening. Women who are being forced from their homes because of desperate poverty and chronic unemployment have no other options, so they're being forced into this program. Once they're in the program, the stories we hear are horrific.

Mr. Nick Discepola: What's the solution, then? If you abolish the program, they're going to be forced to stay in their countries.

Ms. Rachel Rosen: We also presented to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where we said that we do need to change our immigration laws to be more reflective of the needs of Canada but also the needs of people coming into Canada.

In Canada we have a charter of human rights, so how can we have people in this country who are being treated as basically modern-day slaves? That's the experience of these workers in this program, of whom I think over 90% are women; they're really in virtual slavery. As a country that has this charter of human rights, that has an international humanitarian goal, I think we really have to reflect on what this program is doing to the women in the program.

¹ (1535)

Mr. Nick Discepola: Thank you.

The Chair: I have to say something on that. I know in my own life with three kids I use day cares, and much of the reason why people go from a licensed day care to a caregiver is because the day care gets too expensive when you have more than one child in it at one time, especially if they're young, and most people do group their children.

When you say 90%.... I know there are horrific stories out there, but there were also good opportunities for people who have been able to stay in Canada, get their education, get a good life, and were not treated in that way. Sometimes generalizations are a little too extreme. Even though I recognize that there are those situations, there were also very good opportunities for some people. I know of those opportunities first-hand for many people.

Having said that, I appreciate that this is your position, so we'll move on.

Before I take it over to Ms. Leung, I have to say, Mr. Styan, these books are so great. Do you have them on the Internet? You do? Good.

I wanted to ask you, have you testified before our disabilities subcommittee in Ottawa? You probably should be asking to testify by contacting that clerk. I think it would be very valuable for them to hear you and to get this type of input, and at the very least, right now you should be sending them copies of this book. Carolyn Bennett is the chair of that subcommittee, so I appreciate that.

With that, I'll turn it over to Ms. Leung.

Ms. Sophia Leung: We don't have much time.

The Chair: We have 10 minutes if you want.

Ms. Sophia Leung: No, because I don't want to add to--

The Chair: We have a plane to catch, but we have 10 minutes and we can go a little later.

Ms. Sophia Leung: I just want to make a comment to Ms. Rosen. I agree. Society should not allow any abuse because of a lack of skill or a lack of knowledge. But I think that program is a good one. I also know a lot of families who benefit.

They are also treated very fairly. They're kind of live-in nannies. But I think we should try to advise the women that they should learn how to protect themselves. Give them the knowledge of where they should turn to if any abuse occurs. Many people can benefit by coming in that role. I think we even have a colleague who came in that role and became an MP. She was not abused. Now she is in the cabinet. So I think there are many positive sides too.

In any profession there may be some abuse, mistreatment, or poverty. This always occurs with minorities. Discrediting the whole opportunity and denying the opportunity to others who may benefit I don't think is fair. Not everybody has the ability beyond...they can only deliver that kind of service, and in this society a lot of working parents need those kinds of services. I'm just saying that perhaps we can look at different ways to help them.

Besides that, on the positive side, I'm very much for child care. Again, I think I'm repeating. We have heard many presentations about that. In Ottawa we are going to try to come up with some kind of a recommendation or strategy for child care.

I want to turn to NAPO. I'm very interested in what you are saying. You make a lot of sense. Education, training, and retraining are very important--to give a second chance. Have you come up with something like that?

¹ (1540)

Mrs. Jacquie Ackerly: It's certainly a component of what is needed to deal with poverty. When you talk to most poor people who are trying to access training, there are a lot of problems with the programs. I could probably sit here for hours and tell you about different programs that don't work.

I think one of the largest problems is that over the last decade getting any kind of post-secondary education has become more and more a matter of going into debt with student loans. Quite honestly, facing $20,000, $30,000, or $40,000 worth of debt as a means to get yourself out of poverty is ludicrous. It makes no sense. It makes no sense to a single mom with two kids, who is trying to give her kids a better life, to commit herself to spending the next 20 years paying off a student loan if the kids are going to be raised in poverty anyway.

So I think we need to really seriously come up with ways of delivering training and education programs that work and programs that are financially accessible to low-income individuals.

Mr. Robert Arnold: If I could just say a word, training is all well and good, and retraining people who don't have jobs or don't have good skills is fine, but we need the jobs. There just aren't enough jobs, and in our view we are never going to get back to a place where there are enough jobs. In this country, we've got one of the best trained bodies of workers in the world who are out of work.

So I think we have to make sure they've got the basics through a guaranteed adequate income, and then we can talk about training for the jobs that do exist.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Something I always try to think about is that we have many new immigrants or new Canadians. A lot of them who came here literally lived in poverty, but I always ask the question, how did they turn that around? Of course, not 100% do, but the majority or a lot of them do.

Mrs. Jacquie Ackerly: I think one answer is a really sad commentary on the general Canadian society, as opposed to the immigrant society. Very often in immigrant families the whole family is working together to create a new change; they have a very strong sense of family, and a very strong sense of responsibility. Second- and third-generation Canadians don't have that, and so we have single parents with two kids trying to make it on their own, and there really isn't that family effort to get together. It's a huge societal problem that I don't think anybody around this table has an answer to, but I think it's one of the major differences.

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you.

Mr. Robert Arnold: You're right that these families and people have, historically, pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps. But I refer you to the increased gang-related activities in some of these communities at this time because of poverty. So I don't think things are as rosy as they once were, and it's a direct result, in my view, of the poverty that people are suffering from.

The Chair: Glen, welcome.

You mentioned the matching criteria for infrastructure. I agree that some communities, cities, or municipalities find it very difficult. I just want to know whether you have had any sort of help in the past for infrastructure in your city's council.

Mr. Glen Everitt: Yes, we have. The infrastructure programs from the past have benefited most of the territories, the small communities, but where we run into problems is with the amount of money. I can use Dawson as an example--a $17-million requirement for a sewage treatment facility for 800 toilets. We don't get that money. We could never match that money. We could never even come close. We just get charged federally for not addressing an issue when we don't have the capacity to actually address it. You go to the territorial government, which is supposed to have the money, and it will tell you it doesn't have the money. Then you look to the infrastructure program, and you're required to have matching contributions. It becomes very difficult.

When it was $200,000 that the Yukon used to get...yes, as the mayor I could come up with $40,000, but the infrastructure that's required is in the millions. And there's the whole issue here about training opportunities. We have southern workers who come up, take the contracts, and leave, and our young people are sitting there with no training to do any of the work. So the money that goes to the north still trickles all the way down to the south.

We have benefited from infrastructure programs throughout, and we will moreso now that they've reversed that per capita distribution, but it's the matching that's going to make it difficult.

¹ (1545)

Ms. Sophia Leung: Thank you.

I just wanted to say to the PLAN group that you made a very forceful, touching presentation. It makes a lot of sense to me. I agree with the chair that you should maybe reach out to the disabilities subcommittee of our health committee.

Thank you.

The Chair: In a former life I used to practise law, and I think in my career I drafted 3,700 wills. The most difficult wills to draft were those for parents of disabled adults who knew they would have no career or support systems around them, and they didn't want to use it for the public guardians.

I tell you, the outreach you could do--to the lawyers, the legal community--with a book like this would be very much appreciated and useful, because you sit there trying to produce the answers, and sometimes it is very, very difficult. You've made a great contribution here.

Anyway, to all of you, thank you so much.

Glen, before I let you go, I have to get your input. On the nuances you made about the FCM, if we go gas tax--which is the direction we seem to be headed in--it's not going to change. You're still not going to have the ability in small communities--small rural communities, also--to get that share.

Has that been worked out or is that a work in progress?

Mr. Glen Everitt: The federation's unanimous support was that number one, the question of matching doesn't work. When we looked at it as just a base...if you have a base amount that goes to each province and territory off the top, based on 1% distribution, without the required match--so there's not a match required, like for a territory or a province to come up with a gas tax match--the amount of money going into the small jurisdictions such as Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, or even the three territories is a lot greater than what we get even under the current infrastructure programs.

The Chair: But there's still no requirement to match.

Mr. Glen Everitt: There's no requirement to match.

The Chair: It's just pure allocation.

Mr. Glen Everitt: It's a pure allocation of the $2.5 billion or whatever Paul Martin's announcement was, without having that match lock on it. And what we're working on--which is clearly happening across Canada in each jurisdiction--is how the communities can guarantee that the money actually goes for infrastructure in the communities.

The Chair: I know that, and I definitely knew that you needed it. I just didn't have the detail on it, and I'd like our committee to have that detail.

Mr. Rogusky, thank you so much for putting an alternative view on the table for us to consider also. It's appreciated, and I know you speak for some families in Canada. I can tell you that we have heard over and over again the need for regulated day care. I also appreciate hearing another viewpoint, and you have provided that for us today, so I thank you.

Ms. Rosen, thank you very much for coming.

Mr. Everitt, your input on infrastructure for the north has been very valued by this committee. Without the testimony from the northern territories, we couldn't have written our report, Canada: People, Places and Priorities, last year. Thank you for that.

Ms. Ackerly and Mr. Arnold, thank you very much for the contributions that you continually make. I know it must sometimes be frustrating working in your field, but you do, and you keep coming back, and I think that's important. You're welcome at this committee—and I hope in other committees on the Hill.

Mr. Kuntz and Mr. Styan, I think your eloquence today spoke to your commitment, so thank you again.

We hope to see you again. If we don't get a chance to write our report because of prorogation, at least you have your words on our record. I don't know if prorogation is going to happen--

Mr. Glen Everitt: What that means slips right over me.

The Chair: Oh, that just means.... For instance, this testimony is obtained so that we can write our report, but if for some reason the House prorogues, then our membership is gone.

¹ (1550)

Mr. Glen Everitt: You mean if Paul calls an election?

An hon. member: No, the Prime Minister prorogues... [Inaudible—Editor].

The Chair: So we have a situation where all of your testimony will be on the record for other people to use.

Thank you very much for your contribution.

We are adjourned.