Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue No. 96 - Evidence - May 28, 2019 (afternoon meeting)
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 28, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 1:30 p.m. to study the subject matter of all of Bill C-97, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures (amendments to the Old Age Security Act - Part 4, Division 7).
Senator Percy Mockler (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Percy Mockler, senator from New Brunswick and chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. I wish to welcome all those who are with us in the room and viewers across Canada who may be watching on television or online.
As a reminder to those watching, the committee hearings are open to the public and also available online at sencanada.ca. I would ask for the senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Klyne: Marty Klyne, Saskatchewan.
Senator Duncan: Pat Duncan, Yukon.
Senator Campbell: Larry Campbell, British Columbia.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Dean: Tony Dean, Ontario.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Josée Forest-Niesing, Ontario.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Chair: Today we continue our consideration of the subject matter of Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019 and other measures. For the first hour of our meeting we will focus on the changes proposed to the Old Age Security Act. To discuss these changes we have Mr. Ian Lee, Associate Professor, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University. Thank you Mr. Lee for accepting our invitation. Following your presentation, the senators will have questions.
We have via video conference from Toronto, Laura Tamblyn Watts, Chief Public Policy Officer, Canadian Association for Retired Persons.
I have been informed by the clerk that Mr. Lee will go first, to be followed by Ms. Tamblyn Watts and then questions.
Ian Lee, Associate Professor, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, as an individual: Thank you, senators. It’s an honour and privilege to appear before your august committee on this very important issue.
I want to run through my disclosures quickly, because I think they’re pertinent. First, I do not consult to anyone or anything anywhere in the world, directly or indirectly. I am paid only by my university and by universities teaching abroad. Second, I do not belong to or contribute to any political party.
Three, I co-authored a peer-reviewed article with Chancellor Professor V. Jog in 2016 in the American Journal of Public Finance and Management entitled “Reforming Canada’s Retirement Savings System – Solutions for a Non-existent Problem?” Four, I authored a single-author article in How Ottawa Spends, 2016 - 2017, edited by Professors Bruce Doern and Chris Stoney entitled “Canada Pension Plan Enhancement: Issues and Unexpected Outcomes.”
Five, I have made a number of presentations concerning Canada’s retirement income system to retiree associations, pension-planning institutes and financial planner conferences.
Six, for my research in teaching I only use data from sources such as Statistics Canada, the OECD, ESDC and Finance Canada. More broadly, I only use data from OECD governments and institutions such as the OECD because they are reliable.
Seven, finally on a personal note, I joined the “seniors club” last year, and I signed a form refusing to accept Old Age Security, and I do not receive it.
Before addressing the issue in question, it’s essential to briefly review the framework surrounding pensions and savings in Canada before we can address specific support programs and policies thereto. During the past five years in Canada, issues concerning the adequacy of the Canadian retirement system has been debated with increasing intensity among politicians, economists, academics, policy analysts, think tanks, NGOs and unions. Professor Jog and I reviewed and analyzed all recent peer-reviewed research in Canada and statistical evidence from StatsCan and the OECD considering the income of Canadian elders relative to the LICO, low-income cutoff — the so-called poverty line — and other OECD countries.
In our judgment, the central issue in this debate is whether Canadians are saving and investing enough through government, employer or private savings to provide an adequate income in retirement. If a retirement income-adequacy problem does exist, is it a universal problem for most Canadians or does it only affect some income groups or some age cohorts?
The third major question we address — and it’s relevant — concerns the appropriate policy response, which is really what you are dealing with.
Our findings will be stated as succinctly, quickly, bluntly and directly as possible concerning the situation we have determined in Canada. I’ll just run through them.
Canada is one of the 10 wealthiest countries in the world. Canada has an average income per capita equivalent to Germany, which is the wealthiest country in the EU, and the EU is one of the two wealthiest regions in the world. General poverty, as distinct from elder poverty, has collapsed to the lowest level in Canadian history at just under 10 per cent.
We also have a sharply progressive income-tax system where, contrary to another urban legend that the two top quintiles do not pay their fair share of taxes — in fact, the two top quintiles pay around 80 per cent of all personal income taxes in Canada, per former Statistics Canada senior executive Philip Cross — while the bottom quintile — and I’m supportive of this; I’m not criticizing it but putting the facts out there — while the bottom quintile, after transfers, pays less than 5 per cent.
We also found that the claim, repeated endlessly, of skyrocketing inequality in Canada is simply not supported by the OECD. They found that Canada is below the OECD average and below all other English-speaking countries.
Finally, in terms of general economic well-being, as Professor Stephen Gordon, another distinguished academic, has repeatedly demonstrated, the myth of middle-class collapse is simply not statistically supported. He has published this in The Globe and Mail, Maclean’s, on a blog at Carleton called Worthwhile Canadian Initiative, et cetera.
Now I’ll turn to statistics concerning Canadian elders. Elder poverty, once the core and face of poverty before the 1960s — as my late mother who grew up in the Depression reminded me of many times — has collapsed in Canada, whether you use 1970, 1985 or 2015 data. The OECD shows that Canada is in the bottom third of elder poverty in comparison with all other OECD countries. Moreover, the single wealthiest cohort in Canada, by far, are our seniors with an average household net worth of $650,000, as per the Statistics Canada National Household Balance Sheet.
Is there a problem at all? Yes, there is with the 7 to 8 per cent stats of elders below the poverty line. That is an OECD stat. Who are they? As Professors Mintz and Bezel, from the University of Calgary, showed empirically, elder poverty is concentrated in single retirees living alone. They are overwhelmingly female — 70 per cent. As Mintz notes, because of historically lower labour-force participation among females, such as my late mother, who stayed at home and raised her family — never worked outside the home — worked very hard in the home but not outside the home — they had little or no CPP of their own. When their husband died, the survivor’s CPP is cut almost in half.
We can now see light at the end of the tunnel. Rather than the universal solution so often advocated, it is clear we need to focus like a laser beam, to use Bill Clinton’s famous phrase, on a targeted solution to those who need help. It is for these reasons I endorse the provision of the budget bill that will shelter a modest amount of income for those who otherwise receive the GIS. This is a modest, low-cost initiative that will help our most vulnerable.
But it does not go far enough and does not address many of those below the poverty line. Thus, I strongly endorse Professor Mintz’s proposal to grant 100 per cent survivor — I know you are not discussing this, but I’ll use this opportunity to put this out there — CPP benefits to any person who has not earned a CPP in their own right. If this proposal were adopted, it would cost an additional $2.8 billion annually, in 2013 dollars. As a share of the overall Government of Canada annual spending of over $300 billion, it’s a rounding error. Moreover, if this were adopted as part of a larger reform to roll OAS into GIS, the problem of elder poverty could be eliminated.
In conclusion, OAS and GIS reforms should only support targeted means-tested reforms to focus only on those who need help and not affluent professors, senior public servants, retired judges, medical doctors and people in the top two quintiles.
Laura Tamblyn Watts, Chief Public Policy Officer, Canadian Association for Retired Persons: Thank you. I should say that while I am the Chief Public Policy Officer at CARP, I assure you that you do not have to be a retired person in order to be a member of CARP. We thank you for the opportunity today to present. We wish to acknowledge the traditional owners of the land and offer our respects to their elders, past and present.
CARP is a membership-based organization with about 320,000 members coast to coast to coast. We have about 30 chapters across the country of volunteers who are active in their community. When we create public policy, we work closely with older adults involved in surveying and quantitative data. We also work with think tanks, in other words, to ensure the data we use is correct.
We launched our national seniors platform in October 2018. One of the key areas we pushed for was to ensure that the GIS had both an upping of the exemption and a reduction of the clawback provision. I also wish to endorse the notion that when we are looking at seniors poverty, we are very often looking at it through a lens of gender.
Poverty in old age is not exclusively a women’s issue, but it has an important lens to bring to it.
When we reviewed the budget — and I know we’ll focus on particular aspects of the budget — we did so through the lens of our national seniors platform, The FACES of Canada’s Seniors. I will take a minute to explain what those five things are and then focus directly on the points before us today.
When we talk about FACES, we are looking at financial security, which is really the focus point of our conversation. Also, in a correlated fashion, abuse prevention, caregiving and housing supports, social inclusion, as well as exceptional health care.
We are very supportive of the changes proposed in the budget, particularly with respect to the GIS. We see this as a very helpful win for low-income older adults who might otherwise only be able to keep about $18,000 and who now will be allowed to earn up to about $30,000. We know that this can make a difference for the lives of older people. We hear this on a regular basis. About 54 per cent of our surveyed members indicated they were very worried about making their financial security stretch into old age.
I would offer that when we had a look at the demography of those surveyed, they were above the usual type of StatsCan report. We know from our own member data how important it is to ensure financial security. We would also like to underscore that those who are at the lowest end of financial security, those who would receive the GIS and OAS complement, are often in a difficult position of having to choose between heating and eat. They are choosing between having a roof over their head and taking medications. They are choosing how to spend their day, either as a caregiver of somebody else or to leave the home in order to try and earn a little bit more money in hopes that they have a bit of buffering in their lives.
We know the provisions suggested in the budget can make a significant difference. We also know there is a very vulnerable and precarious market for people who are working under the table. For those people who are trying not to trigger a GIS clawback, it puts them in an increasingly precarious situation as workers. We would also like to note that this area has an ability to be a protective force in the labour market.
While we are not entirely focusing on this, I want to spend just a moment to flag the inclusion of the changes in bankruptcy and insolvency. We see it as an important part of the conversation. We have the public pension. We also commend this government for its first steps towards insolvency and pension reform. We support the notion of greater transparency for governments over companies who are in dangerous decline into insolvency, including those provisions which would inhibit CEOs and other executives from divesting assets that are needed.
While these are important preliminary steps, we note with concern that these are not adequate steps, in actual fact, to protect pensioners. To that end, we have adopted joint submissions with the Canadian Pensioners Federation, which was previously submitted to you by Mike Powell. We believe that seniors need to have both a public pension security as well as to be aware that there is also security in their private pensions.
As well, we wanted to make a quick note on the aspect of deferred annuities, which is found in this budget. We are supportive of the changes that the deferred annuities have made. However, we caution that the opportunity to remove 25 per cent off of the top and move it into a deferred annuity off of your RRIF at 71, while it is a modest support to some people, it would not really be the primary concern. It is the strong submission of the Canadian Association for Retired Persons that instead getting rid of the requirement to divest at 71 for RRIFs is a much more appropriate way to do so, while also encouraging the opportunity to have deferred annuities. We are extremely disappointed to see that this budget had a significant miss. It did not address the question for most older people, which is how to stop the double dipping and double taxation for older people who are trying to ensure their own financial security, safety and social inclusion by stopping the discriminatory requirement to divest assets at 71.
We were also extremely concerned to see that this budget did not close a glaring gap for the ombudsman for banking services and investments. We know that for the ombudsman, about 50 to 60 per cent of all claims against financial institutions are by older vulnerable people who cannot afford to lose the finances. This government did not take the opportunity to close the loophole and now 75 per cent of all banking customers — of which about 60 per cent are seniors — have to go to a private pay “ombudsman,” which the bank covers.
Looping back to the point about OAS and GIS, we support the new income exemption. We endorse the $5,000 expansion of that exemption. And we are supportive of the reduction of the clawback provisions. We believe that it will help those most in need and will also help to encourage positive employment and self-determination. Those are my submissions subject to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Watts.
Senator Marshall: I’m going to start with Mr. Lee. You gave some interesting statistics in your presentation. Do you have any information on how many individuals will be impacted by this change, both in terms of number of individuals plus any financial impacts?
Mr. Lee: I’m glad you asked that question. I was in the middle of helping my daughter move this last three days, but I was working on that. I didn’t get the numbers yet; I am working on it. I should mention I’m presenting in Vancouver on Tuesday before the Institute of Financial Planners. I have a 65-slide deck, 100 per cent graphs, sourced all to OECD, StatsCan and so forth. I’ll be pleased to provide those to the clerk of the committee. And every graph is cited with the URL to its source.
Senator Marshall: It sounds like a fairly significant change. I would like to know exactly what the magnitude is, how many people are affected and the dollar amount.
Mr. Lee: I’ll report that back to the committee when I get it because I’m working on the numbers.
Senator Marshall: You have 320,000 members. Do you have any indication as to how many of your members would be impacted.
Ms. Tamblyn Watts: We have some early numbers. I would offer that we will be conducting a survey, which we can again make available to the Senate at your pleasure. I can offer in round numbers the degree of positive feedback that we have had. We are not purely quantitative data, but I can tell you that in our discussions at the chapter level and feedback we are routinely getting, this is an extremely positive move. The GIS changes for the OAS and the top-up are considered much needed. When we did our policy-making to begin with, we ensured that it was robust. One of the pieces was extremely engaged outreach with older people. When we created our top five priority list, we can assure you it’s with the strong support of our membership.
Senator Marshall: Does CARP take a position on, for example, encouraging seniors to continue working? It seems now a lot of seniors are working if not full-time then part-time. And not only for the financial aspect but people also like to keep their minds working. Do you promote any material in that regard or is that not your area?
Ms. Tamblyn Watts: We are engaged in that issue. In our FACES platform, you will see that the F is for financial security and the S is for social inclusion. Part of what we are doing in social inclusion is challenging ageist barriers, like this particular barrier for 71 for RRIFs, which inhibits older people from working longer because you end up with a double taxation problem. We are also very aware that the best way forward is to encourage people to live their fullest life and ensure they have the most number of options available to them. To that end, we would encourage the Senate to have a look at the quite robust evidence around senior entrepreneurship.
The most number of entrepreneurs that we see they call senior entrepreneurs. If you’re looking for where new startups are coming from, they are coming from older people. If you’re looking for where new business is coming, it’s looking to older people. That’s wonderful. We want to make sure that they’re able to invest in communities and their own business. At the same time, we need to break down the barriers that inhibit that kind of investment, like Bill C-71 as a barrier.
What we do not agree with is to dissemble a system that older people have been paying into for their whole lives and have relied on in their lives. That would be a sharp concern to CARP. We are strongly in support of the CPP, the OAS and the GIS. We want to encourage the opportunity to work longer and harder and to challenge those barriers that keep people away from living their fullest lives.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much.
Senator Klyne: Thank you to our guests here this afternoon. A couple of quick questions for Mr. Lee. When you talk about targeted solutions, it’s only those who need help and they wouldn’t be in the top two quartiles, referring to the bottom two quartiles. Do you do that by household net worth or income, or a combination of those?
Mr. Lee: I’ve looked at both, but normally we’re looking at income. I say, “we.” People who have researched this look at income, I’m sure CARP does, because you buy your groceries with your income coming in and not the equity in your house. Having said that, I am one of those of the school that believes there are four pillars not three, with the fourth pillar being personal financial wealth, including one’s home. When we’re looking below the poverty line, that’s an income measure.
Senator Klyne: Where is the poverty line today?
Mr. Lee: For singles it is, and I stand to be corrected, but from memory it’s $22,000 or $23,000, and for a family I believe it’s $38,000 right now with StatsCan.
Senator Klyne: That would be two and two?
Mr. Lee: I hope we get to that and I’m not trivializing this issue. There is some serious research from John Baldwin who just retired after 35 years at StatsCan and also Malcolm — my memory is faint. There are three of them who have done very good work — Fred Vetesse at Morneau Shepell — showing that seniors only need about 50 per cent of their pre-retirement income. One of the great myths is you need 100 per cent of income in retirement, others are saying 70 per cent. There are some very hard empirical studies showing you only need 50 per cent in retirement. At my age, we don’t go to bars anymore.
Senator Klyne: I want to know about the poverty line. When you talk about the average household net worth being $600,000. A lot of the boomers did come into wealth over the years through a lot of measures. Probably the next generation will inherit that wealth. Did you cast out any demographics further to find out what happens to the generation after that?
Mr. Lee: Just let me just correct a couple of things. The figure I quoted was $650,000 and, not to mislead, that’s for family seniors, not individual seniors. Individual seniors, again, I’m speaking from memory, I think it’s $400,000. These are averages. It’s very easy to do it just quickly for everybody. It’s the total gross assets of individuals in Canada minus that famous 2 trillion —
Senator Klyne: Thanks for that. What does the demographic say about this continued wealth? It’s a lot of inherited wealth that is at work here.
Ms. Beauchesne: One point five trillion is the estimate over the next 20 years in Canada.
Senator Klyne: After that, is it seniors in jeopardy or does that continue?
Mr. Lee: I haven’t seen studies beyond 20 years. There have been different estimates. Right now the inter-generational wealth transfer that’s going to occur in the next 20 years estimated to be $1.5 trillion from above the boomers and the boomers to the next generation.
Senator Campbell: Ms. Tamblyn Watts, my question is for you. You’ve heard Professor Lee and what he has to say. What are your comments from the point of view of CARP? I’m especially interested in the idea that poverty, both general and the elderly, is a myth. What are your comments?
Ms. Tamblyn Watts: With great respect, it’s not a myth. In particular, there are assets owned by some people but we have very clear understandings of segments of the population where seniors poverty is a daily concern. Overwhelmingly, I would point out older women who have been divorced and widowed are some of the poorest Canadians in our country. We know that older people are living longer and their finances are needing to stretch longer as part of the longevity dividend.
I’ll take the boomers as an example. When they were planning for their retirement, they weren’t necessarily using the benchmarks of age that we have now when they were doing their retirement planning. We’ve doubled our age longevity over the last 100 years. If they were at their financial planners 20 or 30 years ago, they were not planning on living well into their 90s, which is what it looks like.
I would also like to raise the point of assets and debt and understanding what poverty means. We are often relying on the assets to be a family home. Housing markets go up and down. There is great danger in assuming that value in assets is going to be a stabilized value. We know that there is going to be, at some point, a decline in our housing market and as a result significant assets are assured to be lost.
We also know that about one in six older adults are subject to financial abuse. At this point, the tipping point is coming about 50/50 between family members and friends for financial abuse, frauds and scams. We see people losing entire assets over very short periods of time, which is incredibly concerning. We know that assets are tenuous.
The last thing I would offer: While it is true that there is wealth, that inter-generational transfer of wealth doesn’t address the fact that the boomers are the single most indebted generation that Canada has ever had. It is becoming the norm for boomers to retire with mortgage and consumer debt of 1.67. I caution the notion that elder poverty is a fiction. What I would suggest is that some people are very well off over the course of their lives and some people are not, but people can sometimes drop overnight from well off into poverty.
Senator Campbell: Thank you. I’ll go second round.
Senator Dean: Thank you for the great presentations. It’s very helpful. I think the most important thing I’ve heard is that the budget measures appear to be targeted to segments of our population who need the most help. It’s taken us a long time to get to targeted programs of this sort. Are there dials in the financial support system or in terms of government programming that could also be targeted to these particular populations, or are these the major ones in terms of the pension and income support system?
Mr. Lee: You’re referring to OAS and GIS?
Senator Dean: Yes.
Mr. Lee: They are major, they’re in pillar one. More people are working, and I’m referring to women in the last 30 years, so that the issue of elder poverty — I’m talking about 85 plus years of age — is going to eventually go away because younger women are working and will have their CPP in their own right.
To correct something, I never said there is zero elder poverty. I’ve never ever said that. OECD is very clear, it’s eight per cent. I’m hard evidence-based. I never said there was a myth of elder poverty. What I said is the myth of elder poverty or the general poverty is going up. It’s not, it’s going down and that’s been widely reported. That StatsCan data is out there. We are going in the right direction and we are one of the most successful countries in the world because, to give full credit to the reforms of the 1960s OAS, GIS and CPP, when elder — poverty was elder people. My mother drilled that into my head a million times in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, and so forth. Those days are behind us. Poverty today is overwhelmingly single mothers.
Senator Dean: Anything to add, Ms. Tamblyn Watts?
Ms. Tamblyn Watts: Are you asking if there are tactical things that we could be doing which are also targeted that would help to move the needle?
If that’s the question, then I would say that there are a few things, one of which was proposed and that we are also supportive of in this budget. We know that people who are most vulnerable often have challenges in terms of getting tax returns and enrolment in. There is some movement in this budget about recommendations for auto-enrolments. We are supportive of that.
If we are looking at another opportunity to move the needle, we believe that the existing GIS level for single people is not adequate. We know that this government provided some increase in early days, but we suggest to you that increased targeting, which would overwhelmingly benefit single women who are of a very low-income, would also be an opportunity to increase a very specific target.
If we’re looking a bit blue sky, we would like to see a move to instituting a system as found in the United Kingdom, where individuals are not required to file their own tax returns. At a minimum, this would apply to very low-income wage earners and pensioners. This system could be used to automatically calculate and distribute GIS to low-income seniors. That was not found in it, but some auto-enrolment was.
Senator Dean: Thank you.
Senator Eaton: Professor Lee, countries are raising the age for retirement eligibility. I have here Denmark at 74, in the Netherlands it is 71, in the U.K. it is 68 and in the U.S., Australia and Norway the age is 67.
Under Prime Minister Harper I think we tried to raise it to 67 and it was pulled back again. Do you think that OAS at 65 is sustainable if people keep drawing on it for, say, 20 to 25 more years at the age we’re living now?
Mr. Lee: Thank you for that question. I really do because it’s something I’ve dealt with separately; I have not dealt with it so far. The OECD has called on every Western country to increase the pensionable age, but not the retirement age. There’s a distinction. You can retire whenever you want. The question is: When are we going to give you a pension?
I strongly support raising it to 70 and not 67. I didn’t think 67 was enough. We’re living far longer. If you look at the latest statistical forecasts, a 20-year-old today is going to live to 100. That’s one issue.
The second, and I say this very respectfully, is that people took the debate off-course by asking whether it was sustainable. Of course it’s sustainable. It’s the Government of Canada. I don’t mean that flippantly. It has a printing press. It has a Bank of Canada, like any sovereign country. That’s not the question.
The question is: Are we squandering scarce public resources for an activity that shouldn’t be funded? In other words, shouldn’t we be saving those monies for people who are older and need help? That myth that all of us are working on the construction assembly line with our hands and can’t work past 65 is nonsense. Less than 5 per cent of the working population are doing real, hard physical labour and we can develop exception policies for those to retire early. Overwhelmingly, we are in the services sector, education, broadcasting, legal and accounting. All the high-rise buildings across Canada are the services sector. They’re not building tractors on the 70th floor of First Canadian Place.
Those jobs are very different. I’m almost 67. I’m going to 70 or 75 as a teacher. They may not like that, but that’s where I’m going.
Senator Eaton: You’re a baby compared to me.
Mr. Lee: I’m a Baby Boomer.
I just want to be clear that it’s not the sustainability that’s the issue; the issue is we’re squandering resources that we don’t need to spend when we should be saving it for low-income, elderly women below the poverty line.
Ms. Tamblyn Watts: What I would offer is some caution in apocalyptic demography and in making broad statements where we know we’re looking at a position of privilege that can dissipate. As you may have seen, the CPPIB has just posted its updated numbers and it’s at $392 billion. I just had a meeting with the CPPIB and we are in good hands. There is no evidence of a need for concern that we are in any type of apocalyptic situation.
What we would offer is caution. Older people have section 7 rights and section 15 rights under the Charter and rights to work, as well as the rights to determine their own lives. What we are asking is for a lens highlighting blockages that we have, such as the requirements to take out RRIFs at 71 and other requirements, which stop people from their own self-determination, financial well-being and security.
Of course, I concur that older people are living longer. I caution this idea that halcyon days exist and if a person once has assets and income nothing will ever befall them. Our social safety net is critically important and we do support it.
Senator Eaton: I don’t mean to interrupt you. I remember we went through this some years ago when they were raising the age to 67. One of the witnesses said that in the old days they made it 65 because people lived until they were 66 and they drop dead.
Now, I agree with you that we shouldn’t be making these wonderful statements. If people are now living to 95 and 100, is it sustainable or are we squandering money by still letting people retire at 65? You seem to think that, yes, they should retire at 65. Is that what I’m hearing?
Ms. Tamblyn Watts: Madam, what we should do is unpack the ageist ideas of people having to live their lives and work and retire in very constructed fashions. What we should do is allow people to live their life, to have flexibility in retirement and the ability to engage in their own savings and well-being. We worked hard to reduce things like mandatory retirement and other types of ageist concerns. We need to ensure that we don’t create new barriers.
Whether you believe that 65 is the right number, the question of our long-term pockets of money should be analyzed. I take that conversation with respect, but it needs to be one of a suite of tools. The ones we have in front of us right now are targeted to supporting those who are in great poverty and there are a number of barriers we can get rid of right now that would allow people to have their own abilities to save and work. I think we should focus on those because around that there are some good movements in this budget.
Senator Eaton: Thank you.
Senator Klyne: This is a question for Ms. Tamblyn Watts. You’ve talked about those who receive OAS and GIS making difficult decisions around the basics of food and shelter. Some avoid the GIS clawback by topping things up and going back to work under the table. Earlier, Mr. Lee said there should be solutions targeted only to those who need help — the most vulnerable — and that would probably be a similar group you referred to.
Neither of you mentioned a means test, but it sounds like there would need to be a means test. Those who are living in the two bottom quartiles or striving to make ends meet should be able to top that up to a level of being self-sufficient. I’m not sure if the poverty line is too low or should be higher. If people are struggling, why not allow them to top their earnings up by going outside to work instead of clawing things back if they do? Do you have any comments on that notional idea?
Ms. Tamblyn Watts: I would offer three major points. First, you’re right: the way that we calculate seniors poverty is outdated. In fact, one of the hopes that CARP has been advancing for many years is an update and a refresh of the seniors poverty index. It’s been talked about for a long time but we have not seen it. We know that the seniors poverty index as established by Stats Canada is out of date and it’s our strong recommendation that we update that. Thank you for that question.
The second piece is we believe that those in the greatest need should have the solutions prioritized to them first. That is why we are in support of the GIS exemptions and reduced clawback provisions.
Third, I would offer when we are looking at how people are trying to retire or make their money stretch into old age, we should not miss the fact that right now overwhelmingly defined benefit pension plans are being reduced. We don’t want to have people solely rely on things like the CPP, GIS and OAS, which is an important leg of the stool. We want to make sure that we lift people out, reduce those barriers that stop people from being able to earn and ensure they have the ability for top tax optimization. That’s why we want to get rid of that Bill C-71 requirement for RRIF withdrawals. It doesn’t make any economic sense.
Senator Klyne: I missed your point on RRIFs. What adjustments do you want to make to that?
Ms. Tamblyn Watts: It was simply to get rid of the mandatory requirement that older adults at the age of 71 have to start withdrawing. We should be able to get rid of the requirement so that older people can make their own financial decisions about the right time for them to draw down on those earnings. At age 71, as my respectful colleague mentioned, is often the case when people are still making money and right now they’re in a double taxation period. I have to suggest to you that it makes no policy sense. The economists who have looked at the matter said it doesn’t cost the government anything. It’s revenue neutral or positive because people are earning and paying income tax, as well as reducing their reliance on that leg of the stool that we’re talking about right now. It also preserves the money. Let people work for when they want to work. Don’t force them by ageist policies.
I would point out with respect that when we put age 71 in, the average age of death was about 74. That is an artifice from ages past.
Senator Klyne: Does that argument get any traction with the decision makers?
Ms. Tamblyn Watts: I’ve had an opportunity to speak with Minister Morneau about it. We have a coalition of about 5 million people. According to our pension coalitions that are looking at this matter and supporting it. It’s certainly one of the key issues that’s going to be in this election, but leadership from the Senate challenging this ageist notion would be helpful.
Yes, we want to preserve the public funds. We similarly don’t want to require people to have to retire simply because they don’t want to be paying double taxation.
Senator Klyne: Thank you.
Senator Duncan: Thank you to both presenters for your information. Both of you have mentioned the poverty line and poverty in Canada, looking at poverty through a lens — a gender lens specifically was mentioned.
I would also like to encourage your presentations to include the examination of poverty in Canada through a geographic lens. It’s critically important. As you mentioned, the choice between food and heat is one choice in Victoria or Vancouver. It’s an entirely different choice in Iqaluit and a different choice again in Whitehorse versus St. John’s. That’s critical in terms of income level.
You spoke about CPP, CPP solvency, and so on. I would encourage you have to an examination of provincial practices and CPP. Senator Marshall is smiling because we discussed this. Perhaps this could be a question I could forward to the clerk to investigate, namely, the level of provincial borrowing against the CPP contributions and where that currently sits today.
Those are the two points I’d like to make for our presenters.
The Chair: Any comments on the two points, starting with Mr. Lee.
Mr. Lee: I meant to raise this earlier. It’s tangential but critical, namely, the unfunded government and private pensions. I have spoken to actuaries on this. My hypothesis which I’m working on — and I hope to do a paper with Professor Jog on — is that a large part of unfunded liability is due to early retirement. I spoke to the retired federal actuary. He wouldn’t allow me to quote him so I can’t quote his name. I said, “Is not a large chunk of the federal pension due to the fact of early retirement before 65? He said, ”Of course. If you can’t go to 65 instead of 55, then you’re going to be paying out a lot less and it would eliminate most of the unfunded liability.” Then I spoke to Jack Mintz about the private pensions, that is, the defined benefit private pensions of which there are very few. If you look at these — and I’m talking about Sears, and so on — a lot of the liability has been created by people going relatively early. We know about the statistical age of death. If you go at 55 instead of 65, that pension plan is paying out a lot more money.
One of the easiest solutions — its’ not easy politically, though — to getting rid of unfunded liabilities in pension plans is to say you can’t go before 65. Minister Flaherty did this with the federal government, but unfortunately he grandfathered every living, breathing public servant in Canada so it won’t kick in for another 35 years. I hope Minister Morneau brings that forward and says we’ll give you a 10 year grandfathering from now. Nobody can take your pension before 65 — MPs, public servants, whatever. It will get rid of a very large chunk of that unfunded liability. This is not a public versus private sector. It’s the same math and it applies to private pensions. When CARP is saying they’re really worried about these private pensions that are near insolvency, well don’t let them retire early and you will not solve all but a good chunk of the problem.
Ms. Tamblyn Watts: A few pieces on that. First, with great respect, we would not be in support of that. Indeed, we would challenge the constitutionality from the beginning. The constitutionality is very clear. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on that subject. I’ll leave it to the side. It is quite clear that that would be unconstitutional.
I’ll just pull up the question of unfunded liabilities of pension and call to your attention the submissions of the Vibrant Voices Coalition, comprised of 5 million pensioners of which we are one; the Canadian Federation of Pensioners, the National Pensioners Federation, the CLC, Canadian Labour Congress, and others. The notions of super priority, as well as an employer-funded insurance program, similar to the U.S. and the U.K. have been suggested in this regard. I would encourage you to have a look at those submissions and, if not, I’m pleased to provide those to you.
I will stay neutral on the question of provincial borrowing. I don’t think the apocalyptic demography on our pension funds are warranted in this regard. I would also suggest that there are important promising practices that we can look to — and I will pull out the U.K. and United States in this context — to see that there are some very good protections put into place with regard to pension liability. We applaud this government for its steps towards greater oversight in insolvency. We acknowledge the fact that of the pensions that we’re looking at to this point, 93 per cent are provincial and territorial, that’s true. We believe this government could fix the problem of super priority and unfunded insured liability to bring up those pieces.
The last piece, and the one I want to focus on, is comments by Senator Duncan about the geographic notion that we should look through as a lens. We strongly support that. We understand the importance, in the North as well as rural and fly-in communities,where older adults are literally trying to make the decision whether to have one meal that day or pay rent because the cost of food is so exorbitant. When we see there are 44 care beds in all of Nunavut and we know that many of our Inuk elders need to be taken to Ottawa or Edmonton to live because they can’t have the financial or health security to live in the North, these are decisions that make an enormous difference.
If you look at who is living in remote and rural communities — that information is available, but I’m happy to provide it to you — you’ll see that overwhelmingly the majority of people living in rural and remote communities are older adults. We also commend the investment that this government provided with regard to social inclusion including digital. It’s critically important that we consider geographic lenses.
The Chair: Thank you. Before we completely close, I have two questions. First, with your professionalism and what I have heard from both of you, how do you define the middle class?
Mr. Lee: I’m glad you asked that question. I have my numbers in there. I’m getting old so my memory isn’t as good as it was. I’m going to quote from memory. Professor Stephen Gordon at Laval University has done the best research on this. I believe he has put the cutoff at around $100,000 or thereabouts, I believe.
Ms. Tamblyn Watts: I think the question of what the middle class is can be differentiated between what people self-identify in a social norm as middle class and what actuaries may decide is a financial cut-off. I think that’s an important differentiation. We would suggest that the bottom of the middle class as we currently understand it with our outdated seniors poverty index is quite impoverished. If you look at the traditional norms of where we divide the income and asset splits, I would suggest that a significant portion of those who fall in the bottom end of above the low income index are actually lower class. The piece I want to bring forward is the fact that people can move in and out of the middle class depending on things like financial security, caregiving and housing. It’s a flux state. We accept whatever demarcators that StatsCan has been using from a purely financial point of view. We implore a revision of the seniors low income.
The Chair: I know you brought your attention to individuals versus family. When you define your middle class, and you say less than $100,000, is that for an individual or family?
Mr. Lee: I’m going to have to get back to you. There are five quintiles. The top quintile is the rich, the second quintile from the top is the upper middle class, the middle middle quintile is what I have always called the middle class, the fourth is the lower middle class. The bottom quintile is the poor. The middle middle quintile is the middle class.
The Chair: Therefore you can provide that information to the clerk?
Mr. Lee: Yes. I have to look it up.
The Chair: My last question, when we look at inheritance, going forward in the next 20 years, Canadians will inherit approximately $1.5 trillion.
Mr. Lee: That’s right.
The Chair: That said, knowing that you are going to talk to financial planners next week as per your comments earlier, what program will you recommend to them going forward, for the best of Canada?
Mr. Lee: They don’t like to hear what I say because they are predicting doom and gloom and saying hire our services to save you from — they are like NGOs, no disrespect to CARP but you know financial planners and NGOs are saying the same thing. My message is very different, which is that most of us are in excellent shape and there is a small percentage at the bottom who do need help and CARP has talked about them. There is 8 per cent, you can say 9 or 10 per cent. It’s a small number. That’s who needs help. The vast majority do not need help except for investment advice. This idea that you are going to run out of money before you die is a scare tactic, I think, by financial planners. I’m going to argue they should focus more on investment advice rather than scare tactics.
The Chair: I could not conclude without asking Ms. Watts, do you have any comments about what you have just heard?
Ms. Tamblyn Watts: I think it’s really important to understand that people are living longer, that retirement is more expensive, that health care is increasingly going to be privately paid. I don’t think that scare tactics are in play. I would also offer the intergenerational transfer of wealth is not assured, that financial abuse of older adults is at about a rate of 1 in 6 and the boomers are the most indebted generation. It is not scare tactics. It is statistics.
The Chair: This will conclude our first panel. We will suspend to bring in the next panel.
For the second panel we will focus on payments included in Bill C-97. I’m referring to Part 4, Division 4 as listed in the summary of the bill. To discuss payments to the Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service or STARS, is Ms. Andrea Robertson, President and Chief Executive Officer. And also Ms. Wendy Beauchesne, Executive Vice President, Foundation.
I have been made aware by the clerk that Ms. Robertson will make a presentation to be followed by questions from the senators.
Andrea Robertson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service: Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you senators for inviting our organization to participate in your study of the budget implementation act. Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service, commonly known as STARS is a non-profit organization that provides critical care transport across the prairies and eastern British Columbia.
As you know, this legislation is of great importance to our organization and the communities we serve as it authorizes a $65-million-dollar investment in the renewal of our fleet of helicopters.
Our mandate is to provide life-giving care to western Canadians and to ensure that those living in rural and remote communities have the same access to care as Canadians living in urban centres. STARS helicopters fly on average 8 lifesaving missions a day often to support Indigenous communities, the RCMP, the Canadian Forces and response to natural disasters.
Our aircraft are more than 34 years old, are difficult and costly to repair and in urgent need of replacement.
That is why we have been working over the last number of years on the most important fundraising campaign in our history. We have been working to expedite our fleet renewal to ensure we maintain service.
Our current fleet consists of Airbus BK-117 and AgustaWestland 139s. Our analysis determined that switching to a single-aircraft platform is a best practice. It will help streamline training, improve efficiency, reduce costs and time for repairs.
As you evaluate the merits of this funding, it is important to understand that, in western Canada, the broader community comes together to support STARS. Our funding includes generous donations and grants from individuals, businesses, municipalities as well as service agreements with our provincial governments. Western Canadians do their part to support our operations as fundraising accounts for the majority of our funding. Our model is unique and it suits the needs of our region where communities and the industries that support them are often isolated from emergency and essential public services that help bind us together as Canadians.
We work hard to leverage every dollar we receive from donors and partners. The message we heard loud and clear was that we needed government support to assist us in covering these crucial capital costs. We are grateful that the Governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta have supported STARS by providing ongoing operating funding and also the purchase of one helicopter each per province.
The $65 million included in this year’s federal budget will allow us to replace five aircraft, helping us get that much closer to completing our fleet renewal. The remaining funds will come with the support of the community through a fundraising campaign and the disposition of our current fleet. This investment aligns with important federal responsibilities and I’d like to highlight a few here.
STARS support the needs of Indigenous peoples across the prairies. Over the last five years, we’ve flown over 1,000 missions to those communities. STARS provides emergency services where natural disasters such as wildfires threaten public safety and security. In fact, we are currently on standby for deployment in Alberta.
STARS is a crucial part of the support network for eight national parks including search and rescue services. STARS partners with the Canadian Forces and RCMP as an additional local response. The commitment of the Government of Canada is not just an investment in STARS; it’s an investment in the future of Western Canadians, especially those who live, work and play outside of our population centres.
Many of the missions we fly involve major traumatic events such as the Humboldt Broncos bus crash, the Fort McMurray wildfire and major floods in both Manitoba and Alberta. These moments stand out because they captured the hearts and minds of Canadians through heartbreaking stories of tragedy, national unity and community heroism. It is what our dedicated teams of medical professionals, pilots and crews do each and every day and they do so with pride and distinction.
STARS has become a core part of Canada’s emergency preparedness and response across the Prairies. This investment will ensure we do not compromise the operational effectiveness of our mandate. We thank you for the opportunity to be here and look forward to your questions.
Senator Marshall: My first question is have you received the money or is it pending?
Ms. Robertson: It is pending.
Senator Marshall: Tell us what’s in your fleet now. You mentioned you are going to replace five aircraft with that $65 million. What’s in your fleet now and what will be in your fleet after?
Ms. Robertson: We have 11 aircraft. There are eight BK117s; those are the aircraft which are 34 years old. We have three AgustaWestlands which are newer aircraft. We received objective third-party advice on the functionality of our fleet. It was recommended that we go to a single platform. As you can imagine, we have two kinds of inventory and training and the like.
Senator Marshall: What will you have? You will replace five of the eight. Then private fundraising will replace the remaining fleet?
Ms. Robertson: Yes. Thank you for that question. We will actually reduce the number of aircraft when we go to a single platform. We believe we can go to nine aircraft, total. We are receiving funding for one aircraft from the Saskatchewan government, one from the Alberta government, and funding for five from the federal government. That leaves us needing to purchase two more. We will fund those through a combination of the sale of our current fleet, as well as fundraising.
Senator Marshall: Thank you very much. That’s a good overview.
Senator Forest-Niesing: That is the perfect segue. I’m interested in knowing what portion of your financing is provided by the provinces. I’m also interested in knowing what proportion is dependent on a fundraising effort.
Ms. Robertson: You bet. I can give the broad strokes and maybe Ms. Beauchesne can fill in a little. We receive, globally, 55 per cent of our funding from the community. Each provincial government has a different relationship with us and I’d be happy to go through what Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba do. We have transfer payments between British Columbia and Alberta for the patients we fly from British Columbia.
We raise a great deal of money but we also have major skin in the game from each provincial government.
Wendy, do you want to add to that?
Wendy Beauchesne, Executive Vice President, Foundation, Shock Trauma Air Rescue Service: I will add the breakdown provincially. In Alberta, we raise close to 80 per cent of the funds we need to operate every year. In Saskatchewan, it’s about 50/50, so 50 per cent comes from the government, 50 per cent from fundraising initiatives. In Manitoba, it’s different; it’s 90 per cent from the government and around 10 per cent from community fundraising initiatives.
Senator Forest-Niesing: Why so disproportionate?
Ms. Beauchesne: It’s really historical. STARS was founded in Alberta over 30 years ago with no government support. Right from the beginning, it was completely driven, led and supported by the community. When STARS was invited to operate in Saskatchewan and Manitoba seven years ago, we knew we just couldn’t start offering a service of that magnitude 24/7 without government support. It grew in Alberta over time. In Saskatchewan and Manitoba, that’s how it began.
Senator Klyne: I did have some questions, but that just kind of threw me right off. Is there a lottery in Manitoba?
Ms. Robertson: There is no lottery in Manitoba.
Senator Klyne: That’s interesting. I got an answer on the aircraft make-up so I guess I’m done.
Senator Duncan: Thank you very much for your presentation. I’m quite familiar with STARS. I am also very familiar with the whole issue of medical transportation, which is what this is — emergency but emergency medical transportation. I appreciate that right now you have a limited operation in B.C. but Alberta and Saskatchewan are your main areas. Does your organization have a long-term plan? Has there been any visioning exercise in terms of examining other provinces and/or the North?
I ask this in particular because medical transportation for Indigenous folks in the north of Canada is a Government of Canada cost. They are making a significant contribution to STARS. I’m wondering if there shouldn’t be a look at Government of Canada participation in a STARS model of medical transportation elsewhere in the country. That is my question.
Ms. Robertson: It’s a great question. We, too, believe we could do more to support Indigenous people, more so from a call-centre perspective of understanding what’s going on right across Canada. We did look at it a few years ago. It’s a complex problem. We frankly didn’t know if we could financially afford to invest more time figuring it out.
As an organization, we have never tried to pick up work, as it were. We have been responsive to governments that have asked us to come. Our first touch with Manitoba was in 2008 when they had terrible flooding. They asked if we could come in and provide air support. We provided that under contract for a limited time. We were asked to go back in 2011 and they asked us to stay. That’s how we ended up in Manitoba.
In Saskatchewan, it was far more thought out. How do we provide access throughout Saskatchewan? It was a more thoughtful, planned process as to how we got in there.
In terms of the North, we ask that question often. The issue is that with small populations in a large geography, how do we keep our staff competent? Is it worth the dollar value to be sitting there for long periods of times and not do transport? How do you efficiently and effectively look after those people?
We think virtual care is part of that solution. In fact, we do a lot of that today. If, for instance, we flew 50 times last weekend, we would have provided an additional 250 consultations with a physician helping somebody remotely staying in their community. We do a lot of outreach into the North and into our areas today because you actually do better if you stay at home.
And in terms of serving the North, we have some examples. Following the crash in Fond-du-Lac last year, no other aircraft could get in. There was no landing and the weather was bad. Typically, we would not take a helicopter that far north but we just refuelled and refuelled until we got there because we were the only means to get in.
We have talked a lot as an organization about whether there are other places in northern Canada where we could exist and reach a number of populations. I think it’s up for consideration.
Our volunteer board of directors is from across the prairies and we have that big conversation every year and are coming up to it. Very interesting questions. Thank you.
Senator Day: Thank you very much explaining STARS to me. I’m from Eastern Canada and I have not been familiar with your service in the past. My first question is: Do you anticipate a similar type of outreach? You explained the growth out west. Do you expect or anticipate a growth further east of a similar type of service?
Ms. Robertson: There are some services out there other than ours, shockingly. With complete respect, there is a great service in Ontario called Ornge. It’s a primarily big-government service that serves a very large population. It’s quite different than the sparse population across great geography that STARS serves.
There are a couple of services in British Columbia that are contracted with government. There is one in Nova Scotia that serves part of New Brunswick. A lot of eastern Canada, of course, is covered by the coast guard.
There are many different solutions in Canada. We have talked a little about Quebec. Quebec is doing some rotary wing trials. We would be happy to help but we haven’t been asked and we haven’t gone racing after that. We have been busy. We just think it’s a very, very small population we serve of critically ill and injured. We now have a national association of physicians that have just come together to talk about critical care transport with that small number of people. We are trying to share our learnings right across the country and continue to push the bar higher on how we provide that care.
Senator Day: I’m familiar with the coast guard back home. Its mandate is somewhat different but it’s been called upon from time to time to transfer a young person to the sick kids hospital in Halifax when we don’t have one in Saint John. That service is critically important. Is there an overlap of mandate between what your organization would do or does out west and the Canadian Armed Forces’ search and rescue? Can you help me with that?
Ms. Robertson: I sure can. If we take the example of a few years ago when there was bad flooding in Calgary, Alberta that came along unexpectedly as a perfect storm of bad weather and deep snow pack, the military was mobilized right away. I was in the car driving and our crew phoned and asked if we could put on a few extra helicopters. I had just left Calgary, but that’s how fast it happened.
We put on two extra helicopters with crews and ended up evacuating a lot of people. It wasn’t that the military wasn’t coming. It was just they weren’t able to get there that fast. We see ourselves as an adjunct service to whoever needs us. We have many examples with the RCMP and the Armed Forces. We live in this vast country and how fast could any of us be there? We see ourselves as a partner to serve Canadians.
Senator Day: I’m starting to get a feeling for how you cooperate. Are your pilots and crews full-time employees of your organization? Do you have a limited company corporation that employs not only administrators but also operators and maintainers of these helicopters.
Ms. Robertson: We essentially run three entire businesses under the auspices of STARS. One would be aviation. All of our aviators are employed by us and fly full-time for STARS, as it is with the engineers who look after our aircraft.
We also operate a critical care medical system. That is really the core business. We employ 100 physicians but none of them work for us full-time. They are all critical care physicians in major centres who work for us part time.
It is truly a passion because they get to do the very high end of their business. Nurses and paramedics are a combination of full-time but mostly part-time. Our paramedics would work on the street as advanced care paramedics, as well as for us and our nurses are critical care nurses who would work in quaternary-level centres as well as work for STARS.
The third business is Wendy’s.
Ms. Beauchesne: Essentially, the fundraising arm.
Senator Day: That’s always an important part of this. This will give you a nice shot in the arm to get going.
Thank you very much.
Senator Klyne: Being from Saskatchewan, I’m very grateful that we have STARS there. I can’t imagine not having it. Whenever I see one fly over, I hate to think where it’s going but I’m grateful it’s providing that service because it’s likely a traumatic situation. You mentioned funding comes from donors, partners and lotteries. Would partners be the province? Which category would that be?
Ms. Robertson: Partners would include government.
Senator Klyne: Let’s talk about Manitoba. How many aircraft are there?
Ms. Robertson: We describe our fleet as the fleet. They go wherever they are needed. With maintenance, training and all other components, it takes about 1.5 helicopters per base. It depends on the day. You could walk into Saskatoon today and there could be three aircraft there, and tomorrow there might be one.
Senator Klyne: Not to make this a numbers game, because we are dealing with lives. It’s difficult to put an amount to a life, but if you weren’t in Manitoba, let’s say, how would they function without the service in traumatic situations? It’s a densely populated critical mass in Winnipeg, but to get to rural natural development and forestry where accidents happen, how would they fill the void if STARS wasn’t there?
Ms. Robertson: In all of our provinces and in Canada we did that for the longest time using ground and fixed-wing. STARS started in Alberta 34 years ago. There were a group of physicians who had had enough of seeing lives lost that could have been saved. The way it was run was by ground and other sources.
It’s not that you don’t get care in Canada. This is an additional resource. In part, that’s how the funding began. How could we possibly pay for that, too, with all the pressures on health care?
Senator Klyne: If Manitoba wanted to do this themselves, it would be very expensive and this is probably a good deal.
Ms. Robertson: We are a good deal because we do the fundraising. If you wanted to pay for the entire organization, we would be competitive with any other company.
Senator Klyne: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Before we close, I have one question, if you permit me, honourable senators. Do you also provide telecare in your services?
Ms. Robertson: We do.
The Chair: Could you expand on that?
Ms. Robertson: We have a communications centre. The easiest way to describe it would be that it’s like a typical 911 centre, but it’s focused singularly on critical care.
If I am a paramedic in the mountains, I’m alone and I’ve come along someone who is very badly injured, we will put you in contact with anyone you need to speak to, likely a critical care physician. In addition, we also do some video teleconference with some of our physicians from certain centres, particularly in Saskatchewan, where they would video in and wherever our physician is, they would be able to look at that patient and give advice on what to do. That’s just beginning. We know that’s a big part of our future.
We use a lot of technology, as you can imagine, with what we do. It is not unusual for us to send images and real-time information so we can make the right decision for our patients. It’s a combination, multi-pronged approach to telemedicine.
The Chair: Thank you very much. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for sharing the information. It has been informative. You’ve been precise and it is a real needed service across that section, that region of Canada. On this we, no doubt, we are unanimous; we have a common denominator: Thank you for a job done.
Ms. Robertson: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we will meet at 1:30 tomorrow afternoon in B14, the Canada Building room.
(The committee adjourned.)