Finance Committee on Sept. 16th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call the 41st meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance to order.

I want to apologize to members and witnesses for the delay due to technical difficulties, but I understand from Mr. McKay that the Liberal caucus had a very boisterous meeting this morning and, I understand, put the mikes to full use.

We have with us here, for the first hour and a half, six organizations. I will list them in order of presentation: the Canadian Co-operative Association; the Canadian Union of Public Employees; the Canadian Olympic Committee; the Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance; Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies; and the Partnership Group for Science and Engineering.

If we could ask each of you to have a maximum opening statement of five minutes, we'll go down the line and then go immediately to questions from members.

We'll start with you, Mr. Anderson.

[John Anderson, Director, Government Affairs and Public Policy, Canadian Co-operative Association]

Thank you very much. My name is John Anderson. I'm director of government affairs and public policy for the Canadian Co-operative Association. I have with me John Julian, who is the director for international communications for our organization, as we also do a lot of international development work.

The year 2009 marks the Canadian Co-operative Association's 100th birthday. Co-operatives have been an important part of our economy for more than a century and today are more relevant than ever. The co-operative sector in Canada has over 8,800 co-operatives and over 17 million memberships, and it is one of the largest in the world on a per capita basis. It has about $275 billion in assets and employs some 150,000 people.

Our CCA is one of the two national organizations. There is also the Conseil canadien de la coopération et de la mutualité, our francophone sister organization. Together we have 17 million memberships. Our organization represents 9 million co-operative memberships.

What I would like to do today in the short time I have is really concentrate on a couple of issues. Those are ones that we think are related to the economic crisis in the following way, in the sense that we, first of all, believe that there are two kinds of stimulus measures that are needed to ensure prosperity in a sustainable future, which is the question that you ask. The first kind is tied to the need to improve our social safety net. We're not going to deal with those, although we think those are very important, simply because we only have three recommendations that we can put forward. But we are certainly in favour of such issues as a national anti-poverty strategy.

The second kind of measures are those dealing with establishing and enhancing programs designed to create and maintain jobs at the local community level. We're going to concentrate on those.

As well, we think that we cannot turn the Canadian world economy around by concentrating solely on our own economy. As citizens of one of the world's richest countries, we have a duty and an obligation to help those in developing countries. That's why one of our recommendations touches on international development.

The first of our recommendations is to help create more jobs at the community level by establishing a co-operative investment strategy. We're very pleased that the government renewed our co-operative development initiative, which is a program designed to help new and emerging co-operatives as well as innovative co-operative projects. That is now managed by the co-operative sector, but we also think more has to be done.

One of the problems that co-operatives have because they're differently organized is that they do not have the same access to traditional sources of investment capital. That's why what we're proposing is a co-operative investment strategy, consisting of a co-operative investment plan, which is a tax credit for members and employees of agricultural and employee-owned co-operatives. This is based on a program that has existed in Quebec since 1985 and still exists at the provincial level. In French, it's called a régime d’investissement coopératif, and it has been a very successful program in Quebec.

What's important about this ask is that it is not simply an ask for government funds. This is a partnership between co-operative members and the government in the sense that the government benefits from the investment of co-operative members and their employees in co-operatives, which helps create jobs.

As well, we are calling for a co-operative development fund, which would be a repayable loan fund rather than a source of grant funding and which also would involve credit union and co-operative involvement in the fund.

Our second ask is around expanding the community adjustment fund. We think this is an excellent program, but it's not enough. We're saying it should be doubled to $2 billion over the two years. We also think there should be a dedicated part of it that would touch on co-operatives and social enterprises.

Thirdly, very quickly, we're calling on government to increase our international aid spending and promote a greater role for civil society. We're asking the federal government to increase our international development aid spending by an average of 15% a year for the next 10 years in order to reach the internationally agreed upon target for aid spending of 0.7% of gross national income. We also want Canada to continue its leadership role in promoting a greater role for civil society, including co-operatives, in the delivery of development assistance.

I'm going to stop there, and I'll be happy to answer questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll now go to the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

[Toby Sanger, Senior Economist, Canadian Union of Public Employees]

Thank you very much. My name is Toby Sanger. I'm a senior economist for the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Thank you very much to the committee for the opportunity to present our recommendations for the upcoming federal budget.

I just want to say at the outset that I think this is a really important exercise. I think we all appreciate it, and it is really great that the pre-budget consultations are going ahead this year. I believe there should be more public participation in the budget-making process; it's the most important thing that government does. I think we all appreciate that. So I'm really glad it's happening this year, instead of necessarily going to the polls at this time.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Toby Sanger]

CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, is Canada's largest and most diverse union. We represent approximately 600,000 people who work and live in communities all across the country, who work in hospitals, schools, municipalities, universities, libraries, seniors' homes, child care centres, electric and water utilities, the transportation sector, and in many private businesses as well. Every day, we depend on and benefit from the work our members do.

As we all know, this past year has been an extraordinary year for the economy. For the first time in over 60 years, overall global economic output has fallen. Worldwide, this recession is expected to put 50 million people out of work by the end of this year, including an additional 500,000 in Canada. Just this morning, an OECD report came out that said unemployment is expected to rise to 10%. Just a week ago, the head of the IMF said that the unemployment problem is likely to be the third wave of this economic crisis.

The situation would be much worse if governments around the world had not taken unprecedented action to stimulate the economy. I think we really need to take this lesson to heart, as people are getting concerned about the deficit. There would not be growth in the economy now if governments had not taken this action. I commend you and government officials for recognizing the severity of this crisis and taking strong action. As a result, we are starting to see signs of growth in the economy and GDP.

Still, we are not out of this. While GDP and the stock markets may be rising, people are still unemployed, and unemployment is likely to keep rising through next year. Most economists expect this recovery to be relatively slow, sluggish, and fragile. There would be no economic growth without these stimulus actions, and withdrawing them too soon could plunge the economy back into recession.

For these pre-budget consultations, the committee asked two questions and requested no more than three specific recommendations. We have a lot more priorities than that, but we tried to stick to three.

The first question is what stimulus measures have been effective and how could they be improved? Our submission attempts to answer these broad questions, but I'd like to emphasize a few key points.

Public investment and spending and support for the unemployed and people with low income provides much more bang for the buck and generates many more jobs than tax cuts do.

Infrastructure and construction stimulus spending could be improved by focusing it on areas that would provide greater long-term benefits, for instance, as part of a national green investment plan.

Going forward, the federal government needs to reinvest more in public services and not use the deficit as an excuse to cut. Working families did not cause this recession and should not be forced to pay for it through reduced public services.

Even if GDP starts to grow this year, job markets and working Canadians will still be in recession through next year. That's why our three specific recommendations deal with immediate needs.

Our first recommendation is that the federal government create an economic recovery fund to provide funding for pressing social and economic needs, to be cost-shared with other levels of government. The recession has meant a big increase in the need and demand for social services and training and education, while the agencies and institutions providing these services are facing shortfalls in their revenue. As a result, we are seeing cuts in programs just when they should be expanding.

Our second recommendation is that the employment insurance system be improved. We have a number of recommendations on this. Extending the duration of benefits is a positive step, but we've also called for a uniform entrance requirement of 360 hours for access to regular benefits. Too many people, and especially women, who pay into this system are denied benefits when they become unemployed through no fault of their own.

Our third recommendation is that our public pension system be improved. We have a number of recommendations on this. We've called for a national pension summit and a phased-in doubling of CPP benefits, but neither of these is really a budgetary matter. Our priority recommendation in this area for the budget is that the federal government increase the guaranteed income supplement for seniors by at least 15%. This would help lift almost all seniors out of poverty and would cost approximately $1 billion per year. The cost of either of these measures for one year could be paid for by cancelling what we consider the wasteful billion dollar P3 fund that uses the public's money to subsidize privatization and private profits.

Thank you for inviting us to present this morning. I welcome any questions that members of the committee may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to the Canadian Olympic Committee, please.

[Thérèse Brisson, Director, Toronto Office, Canadian Olympic Committee]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me just take a moment to introduce myself and tell you a little bit about why I'm here.

My name is Thérèse Brisson. I was a member of the Canadian hockey team for many years. I was also captain of that team for three years. That team won six world championships as well as the gold medal at the 2002 Winter Olympic Games and a silver medal in 1998. Sport inspired me to pursue excellence and be the very best I could be as I moved on to build my business career.

What you might not know about me is that I actually trained as a scientist. I did a Ph.D. before going on to a first career as a professor and researcher. After leaving my job in academia to train and compete at the Salt Lake City games, I went back to school, did an MBA, and joined Procter & Gamble shortly thereafter in Ms. Finley's riding, where today I run the largest business in our home care division.

I'm a member of the COC board of directors, and accompanying me here today is Chris Rudge, who's our CEO and secretary general, as well as Alex Baumann, our chief technical officer for Own the Podium. He is, of course, a multiple Olympic gold medallist and a world record holder in swimming, and one of my personal Olympic heroes.

I first experienced the power of sport to inspire the hopes and dreams of the nation as a child at the Montreal games. Yet even as a very little girl of nine years old, I wondered why we weren't doing better. It really challenged my view--a youthful and inspired one--that Canada was the best country in the world to live in, and even my own potential as a Canadian.

With Own the Podium, we have been doing better, a lot better. I'm here today because of my deep pride in Canada, my passion for winning, and a vision to inspire Canadian excellence in sport and through sport. It's a vision that I know you share and one that you can really help achieve with the $22 million investment in Own the Podium that I'm here to ask you for today.

What is Own the Podium? It provides enhanced high-performance sport programming to Canadian athletes and teens with medal potential.

Let me give you a personal example. With Podium 2002, which was a precursor to Own the Podium, our women's hockey team had a month-long summer training camp at the military reserve in Valcartier, Quebec. We had a full-time massage therapist who travelled with the team, and a sport psychologist. For the first time, we had a goalie coach--and we all know how important that is in hockey. We had a lunch meal plan right on campus at the University of Calgary where we trained, which cut down on all the running around and allowed a real 100% focus on the training. These are things we didn't have in 1998, and they're the little things that make the big difference. That's what Own the Podium does.

What are the results? That's what we're all about in sport, and I know that here we're all about results. Let me tell you a little bit about that.

Own the Podium has delivered outstanding results. In winter sport, we've moved from fourth in 2002 to first in the world rankings in 2009. That makes our goal of being first overall in the medal count in Vancouver within reach.

In summer sport, we tied for 13th in 2008 in Beijing. That's up from 19th spot in 2004 in Athens. That's a key result.

Another important thing is that athletes believe in Own the Podium. For the first time, we believe we're on a level playing field with all our competitors. Our competitors actually now believe we have something they don't, and that gives us a competitive edge.

Finally, and I think most importantly, Canadians believe. They see the leadership and they see smart government investment that delivers results for Canadians. And all Canadians will share in the success and celebration of sport in Vancouver.

One of the best things about being an athlete is sharing the Olympic experience with Canadians. I actually brought my medal here today and I'd love to be able to share that with you. Please feel free to pass it around the room.

I have learned two things. First of all, Canadians really care. In Salt Lake City, one in five Canadians watched the gold medal game, something that blew me away. That's how much it engages Canadians. The second thing is that Canadians were really inspired by our win versus the U.S. home team favourites, facing the adversity of nine penalties in a row from the American referees. I think it's because Canadians identified with us. We were the girls next door and we reacted to adversity in a way they'd like to react when faced with the same. That's what Canadians tell me, that our win has helped them face challenges, whether it be starting exercise programs or dealing with illness, family breakups, or job losses.

The challenge we face today is that $22 million of the $70 million in Own the Podium annual funding will not be available after 2010. That's the investment we're looking for from you today. Why should you invest in Own the Podium? Because a small investment makes a big difference. It allows our best young athletes to reach their potential. International success unites and excites Canadians from all regions, unlike anything else. Striving for excellence and achieving it sets an example. It inspires Canadians in all walks of life, whether in sport, the arts, education, or business.

Now is the right time to invest in Own The Podium. During these challenging times, as we climb out of this recession, Canadians need their heroes more than ever. Don't put ceilings on those young hopes and dreams.

Thank you for your attention and for your support of this recommendation to provide $22 million a year for support for Own The Podium.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation. I think all the committee members would like to thank you for representing Canada so well.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I know there are a few hockey players around the table here, so you'll probably get some very good questions later.

Next we'll go to the Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance, please.

[Peter Valiquet, Treasurer, Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance]

Thank you very much. My name is Peter Valiquet. I'm here on behalf of the Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance. Once again, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today as a representative of that association.

Heavy natural gas vehicles provide a proven cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions and improve local air quality using Canadian technology. Greenhouse gas emissions from on-road heavy diesel vehicles are a growing problem in Canada. Heavy diesel vehicles include trucks, buses, and heavy work vehicles.

Emissions from heavy diesel vehicles have increased by 19 megatonnes since 1990. This represents about half of the growth in carbon emissions from on-road vehicles since 1990. Heavy diesel vehicles are also expected to be one of the fastest-growing areas of energy use through 2020. Natural Resources Canada expects that efficiency gains will only partly offset the projected growth in emissions from heavy diesel vehicles. Existing federal policy measures and changes to diesel vehicle technology will have little impact on emissions from heavy diesel vehicles.

There are proven lower emission technologies that can reduce emissions. Compared to heavy diesel vehicles, heavy natural gas vehicles from original equipment manufacturers are a leading green technology solution. Canadian companies are world leaders in the area of lower emission natural gas engine technologies. Westport Innovations and its joint venture company, Cummins-Westport, produce the lowest emission internal combustion engines available for heavy vehicles. These engines are available in a range of heavy trucks and buses that are sold by original equipment manufacturers.

The Government of Canada needs to encourage the use of best available commercial technology if current heavy diesel vehicle greenhouse gas trends are to be slowed and ultimately reversed. Canada's natural gas vehicle industry has three recommendations to reduce the harmful environmental impact of heavy vehicles.

One, invest $1.5 billion in sustaining long-term fiscal measures to lower the capital barrier to adoption for commercial fleets that purchase lower emission vehicles, including heavy natural gas vehicles. This funding would target 10% of heavy vehicles used in Canada. It would accelerate the replacement of older higher emission diesel vehicles. There would be a 7.5 megatonne carbon benefit over the life of the vehicles as a result of implementing this recommendation.

Two, tie fiscal measures to emissions reduction effectiveness, as measured on a well-to-wheel life cycle basis. For example, heavy natural gas vehicles reduce carbon emissions by 20% to 25%. If renewable natural gas or bio-methane produced from waste sources is used, the carbon benefit increases to 85% to 90% on a life cycle basis.

Three, support early stage market development activities, including vehicle demonstrations and education and outreach efforts so as to build awareness, reduce perceived risk, and engage heavy vehicle commercial fleet owners. Fleet owners want to reduce their fuel costs and green their fleets. Heavy natural gas vehicles have a lower cost per kilometre and can reduce the environmental impact of fleet operations. Encouraging the use of heavy natural gas vehicles also means more green collar jobs for Canadians in vehicle, component, and refuelling station manufacturing.

The Government of Canada can act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from heavy diesel vehicles. Heavy natural gas vehicles provide a cost-effective lower emission solution using made-in-Canada technology. This means cleaner air for Canadians, more jobs for Canadians, and increased Canadian competitiveness, all while, one, capitalizing on Canadian technology and, two, with little to no lifestyle impact.

Thank you for your interest in this issue. I would be pleased to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll now go to Rx&D, with Mr. Williams, please.

[Russell Williams, President, Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D)]

Thank you very much.

My name is Russell Williams, I am President of Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies.

I'm with Debbie Murray, director of policy development of Rx&D.

I appreciate this opportunity to appear before the committee and discuss this important issue with you. You have our written submission and my comments will focus primarily on the three recommendations.

Our company is comprised of 50 Canadian pharmaceutical research companies that employ more than 20 000 employees. Our goal is to develop medicines and vaccines that can help save lives.

We're dedicated to health outcomes and knowledge-based economy in this country.

Let me give you a couple of figures here. We are the largest single source of health R and D from the business enterprise sector. We invest well over $1 billion in research and development in new medicines and vaccines in Canada, and this has been maintained over a number of years. Almost $150 million of that goes directly into our Canadian universities. Access to new medicines for patients, as well as stability, sustainability, and predictability are very important to us if we are going to maintain the presence we have and in fact grow our presence in this country.

Our industry has a number of challenges that we hope to be able to address soon. One is difficult access and a reimbursement environment that is more and more stringent. Another is increased global competition for research and development dollars. Still another is expiration of patents. Over the next few years—2011, 2012, and 2013—you'll see a number of patents terminate in something we call “the patent cliff”. It's a huge challenge for us. Another challenge is a great risk and a lot of cost in the whole development of new medicines.

If we want to remain competitive with the rest of the world, we must ensure that we have an environment that can help the presidents of each company obtain mandates on the international market for making investments.

Approximately 1% of our investment is in research, but we account for 3% of the market. We are not asking for money, but we do want to be able to create an environment for investment in Canada. We want to increase the size of our investment. We do not want to stay at 1%.

As you do your budget preparation, our first comment would be to look to the future. Be focused on the future, and look at the long-term policies and investments that will build on our health care system and strategically place Canada in a position where we can compete for those global mandates.

To develop a sustainable world-class innovative pharmaceutical sector in Canada and build a continued investment into life science research, the federal government should look at the following areas. I'll focus on three.

One is an expanded scientific research and experimental development, or SR and ED, definition. Right now, in the OECD countries, Canada has a very limited definition of what is considered an acceptable tax credit in terms of SR and ED. It doesn't include some of the epidemiology studies or some of the post-surveillance marketing studies we're doing. They'll be working with Health Canada. It doesn't include social services. So we'd like to see an expanded definition of that. If the government can move forward to not more than the OECD countries but to that same level, it would make a huge difference.

Secondly, stability and predictability with respect to the protection of intellectual property are very important. We are struggling... we are wondering whether or not we should increase funds at the international level.

Third, we have to come up with appropriate budget adjustments to the various regulatory and policy environments in Canada. To cut through, there's a lot of jargon there, but put the money in a good place where there's good compliance and it doesn't need increased funds, where there are growing challenges and expectations, like in Health Canada. Adjust those funds to be appropriate. Change the business model. Work with them and build partnerships with the industries. Strategically use the limited dollars.

Just to highlight at the end—and let's not forget the value of medicines—we do save lives. We now have people living with cancer much longer than they ever did. We've reduced hospitalization and mortality in cardiovascular illness by almost 60%.

We are a health care partner. If we can build that innovation agenda so that there is a strong partnership in health care and the economic incentives that I've mentioned, then I think we could move towards what the Council of Canadian Academies has suggested, that we could play a leading role in health innovation as we are improving the productivity in our health care system.

Time doesn't permit going further, but thank you very much for this opportunity to give you our three recommendations.

Merci beaucoup.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Williams.

We'll now go to the Partnership Group for Science and Engineering.

[Rees Kassen, Chair, Partnership Group for Science and Engineering]

Thank you very much.

Honourable members of the committee, my name is Rees Kassen. I'm the chair of PAGSE. With me is Denis St-Onge.

There's a natural tendency during times of crisis to retrench and wait out the storm. But taking this approach to the current global recession will not promote sustained economic recovery, largely because the nature of the global economy will change in the meantime. The Canadian science and engineering community feels that Canada must not only be ready to accommodate these changes but lead them as well.

How do we do this? Canada must nurture and promote a culture of discovery and innovation. It is only through new ideas and new ways of seeing the world that we will be able to identify opportunities and ensure economic prosperity for the future. Just like Wayne Gretzky did for hockey, we will lead by being the ones to change the way the game is played.

Economic recovery therefore requires a toolbox of sorts that contains, on the one hand, a mixture of short-term stimulus measures and, on the other, longer-term investments to support and promote a culture of discovery and innovation. In this light, PAGSE makes three recommendations.

The first is that government increase productivity by improving Canada's research and technical capacity. The simplest way of doing this is through a strong federal commitment to funding basic and applied research. Investments made now will translate into economic productivity in the future.

President Obama, for example, recently committed the United States to investing 3% of GDP for research, an amount that exceeds that spent during the golden years of scientific and engineering research during the space race. By contrast, Canada invests just 1.9% of GDP.

This, taken together with the increase in competition for talent from abroad, means that Canada is in danger of reversing the gains in our capacity for research and innovation that we've made in recent years. Indeed, there's some evidence that this reversal may have already started. Star young researchers have recently left Canadian universities for academic positions in Australia and the United States. They've cited the loss of funding for key climate change research programs as a major reason.

Stemming this impending tide requires increased federal investments in research, ideally to at least the level committed by President Obama. This can be accomplished through support for the federal granting councils, key agencies, and government labs.

Our second recommendation is that the government provide long-term support for major research facilities and collaborations. These initiatives play a vital role in generating knowledge and training students. This knowledge is crucial to well-informed policy and regulatory decisions.

We can take as an example the experimental lakes area, or ELA for short, in western Ontario. Since the 1960s, this facility has been playing the role of laboratory mouse, if you like, allowing us to study the health of our freshwater resources directly through experiments. This work at the ELA has led to regulations that have helped stave off the massive die-offs in fish populations in the Great Lakes that were due to acid rain and phosphorous coming from detergents and sewage. Continued support for this and comparable facilities across the country, especially in the Arctic, is essential to sustaining both a healthy environment and a vigorous economy.

Our third recommendation is that the government create a prestigious research fellows program for post-doctoral researchers. Canada continues to export its best and brightest Ph.D. students abroad to complete their training post-Ph.D. Let me share with you an experience of my own in this regard.

I recently lost a star student, one who had published a paper in Nature after completing just one year of his degree. To put that into context, that's probably the equivalent of winning the Stanley Cup or a gold medal as a 15-year-old in hockey. I lost him to a major U.S. school simply because I lacked sufficient funds to keep him here in Canada.

Furthermore, Canada is not looked upon internationally as an attractive place for post-doctoral studies, especially next to competitor countries such as the U.K., the United States, and Australia, which all have prestigious post-doctoral programs designed to help young researchers establish their careers.

We therefore strongly urge the government to create a premier post-doctoral fellowship program aimed at young Ph.D. graduates. This program would fill the gap in training for Canadian students and attract outstanding international graduates to Canada. It would also constitute a major injection of intellectual capital into our system--if you like, an ideas-ready program that would complement and capitalize on the investments created by the shovel-ready stimulus projects of last year.

To sum up, let me reiterate our three recommendations. One, increase federal investments in research. Two, ensure long-term support for major research projects. And three, establish a premier post-doctoral research fellows program.

These recommendations provide the tools necessary for economic recovery. They would constitute a strong federal commitment to discovery-driven research and the people who do it.

Finally, I would like to add that one of the activities of PAGSE is the Bacon and Eggheads breakfast series. Our first one for the new session is September 29. Frank Plummer is coming, and we hope to see you there.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for your presentation. I was going to thank you for your role in that. Obviously, H1N1 will be a very topical issue with Dr. Plummer.

We'll start with questions from members.

Mr. McKay please, for seven minutes.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you witnesses.

My first question is to Mr. Anderson, and it's with respect to recommendation 3, to increase our international aid spending and promote a greater role for civil society. You and your organization were very helpful with respect to Bill C-293, the “better aid” bill. It received royal assent in May 2008. The first reporting period is at the end of this month. The government has had a year and a half to improve its delivery of aid, focus on poverty alleviation and human rights, and take into account the perspectives of the poor. Over that period of time, have you seen any change in the government's approach to aid?

[John Anderson]

Thank you very much. I'm going to turn the answer to that question over to my colleague, John Julian, who works specifically on the international development front.

[John Julian, Director, International Communication and Policy, Canadian Co-operative Association]

At this point, it's difficult to comment on that. Our programming is mostly long-term and multi-year. We haven't seen any immediate changes. However, I would say that we, like you, are very much looking forward to the end of this reporting period and the first report back from CIDA and the government on Canada's development assistance program. As the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act enshrines, our organization is very much committed to the idea that Canada's official development assistance should be about poverty alleviation first and foremost. We're anxious to see the proof that in fact that's been enshrined and that we're moving in that direction.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you.

Do you have any comment with respect to the minister's announcement of the reprofiling of our aid recipients, where they move from the “desperately poor” to the “less desperately poor”? In both the minister's speech and the press release and announcements to follow, none of those items mentioned poverty alleviation or anything to do with that bill.

[John Julian]

We certainly are somewhat concerned about the reprofiling and the change in country focuses. Our organization, like many others, works in all of the regions of the world. We work in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. But again, the “desperately poor” are primarily in Africa. We are certainly concerned by any sense that we're backing away from Africa. We have excellent partners there, incredible capabilities, human resources to work with, and they just need the assistance of organizations like ours and for the Canadian International Development Agency and Canadian government to move ahead.

So we certainly would encourage the government to look again at that list of countries, to look again at Rwanda and Sierra Leone and some of the other countries that seem to have fallen off the map—places that are on their knees but able to stand if we give them a bit of a hand up.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you for that, Mr. Julian. Unfortunately, I have a limited amount of time, so I have to move on to Mr. Sanger.

With respect to your second proposal of making it 360 hours for access to regular employment insurance benefits, it appears that one party in particular would prefer a long-tenured extension as opposed to more equity in the system, shall we say.

If you had a choice between 360 hours and the long-tenured extension, what would you choose?

Second, do you prefer the government's analysis of the cost or the Parliamentary Budget Officer's cost analysis, which seems remarkably parallel to your own?

[Toby Sanger]

Thank you for the question. Yes, I did notice earlier this week that the Parliamentary Budget Officer had come up with estimates that were fairly similar to the ones we used in terms of the 360 hours.

We were restricted to three recommendations, unfortunately. We think the employment insurance system needs to be improved in a number of different ways, in terms of duration, in terms of access, and in terms of benefits. The one we have in this submission is 360 hours, in terms of having access to regular EI benefits. I think the changes that were announced—I understand there was some legislation introduced—are a positive step, but they're one step. I think further steps need to be made.

I also just want to use this opportunity to talk about other problems. At the same time that we're talking about improving the employment insurance system, we also need to be concerned about the number of people who are becoming increasingly unemployed. Half of the increase in unemployment has been among youth. It was interesting hearing from Mr. Kassen. We're starting to see universities lay off or not renew students as teaching assistants. At this time, the public sector should not be cutting jobs in this way. There should be more funding in these areas.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you for that, Mr. Sanger. Indeed I would like to carry on with that line of questioning.

I just want to say to Ms. Brisson that for those of us who pretend to be hockey players, you make us all proud. I can't imagine any party that wouldn't support your proposal, so thank you for making the effort to come here to make that excellent presentation. Unfortunately, I have a limited amount of time, so I'm going to move on to Dr. Kassen.

On recommendation 3, that the government create a prestigious and competitive research fellows program post-doctorate, I have a personal bias on that point. I have a son in a program such as that, but he is not in this country. A lot of those programs seem to get sucked up for people who do financing. They just seem to die on the ground with lawyers, MBA people, etc., and all of the money seems to end up in that kind of research. I see that you are even concerned about social sciences here. Is your idea here hard-core engineering, medical research, that kind of post-doctoral...?