Finance Committee on Sept. 28th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

This is your final brief question.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

As a final brief question, has CFS been able to quantify with the investments in post-secondary education what benefits those bring to society? We have this obsession with corporate tax cuts in Ottawa, but if we invest in post-secondary education, what are the benefits of that?

[Shamus Reid]

A few studies have been done over the years on this. One was done by an economist at UBC in the British Columbia context. Obviously it was a few years ago, so particular policies at the time were being analysed. It found that there was at least a 4:1 return on investment in post-secondary education.

A study was done by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on the economic and social benefits of investment in the College of the North Atlantic, which is the college system that has a number of campuses throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. It found up to an 11:1 return on investment in those communities--and it's very community focused.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Pacetti, please.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses. As you can tell, there's a struggle for us to ask questions to everybody around the table, so please bear with us.

I have a quick question to the RIck Hansen group and Mr. Ewart. You're requesting some money for research for spinal cord injuries. How do you see that financed? Would it be through a foundation such as the CIHR, or would it go directly to your foundation?

[Colin Ewart]

Thank you for the question.

In the past, support from the federal government has come from a variety of sources, most recently from Health Canada. On this particular request, it's more than just research; it's also community-service-related--and some of our national network relationships with all of the provinces and territories. So a wide variety of organizations inside the federal government could participate in this: Health for sure, Industry, and the connection to centres of excellence. In the past we received funding from Western Economic Diversification, as an example.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Would there be any conditions tied to that money coming in? Would you have to raise money from the private sector?

[Colin Ewart]

Absolutely. The institute vision we shared with you requires much more than $100 million. We would be looking at bringing in not only corporate sponsors and partners; we'd also be looking to all of the provinces and territories, as we did during our 20th anniversary. We've had such an extensive interest in the progress we've been making in Canada from international partners that Rick and some of our leaders are already engaging with a number of key jurisdictions around the world. So we're looking for money to come in from international partners as well.

Lastly, we see individuals who have been very supportive of this over the last 20-plus years also participating. So multiple partners would be participating.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Reid, I may regret asking you this because your answers are sometimes long-winded, but the debate is changing even in Quebec now. I'm from Quebec, and there was a resolution passed by the Quebec Liberal Party on the weekend on perhaps having fees for CEGEP. I'm a big believer that CEGEP should be free. For people who are not aware, CEGEP is a junior college. It's a transition period before going to university, and Quebec has always used it as a promotion to maintain students in the educational field.

Now they're promoting that CEGEP should probably charge a fee. Quebec universities charge the lowest tuition fees, but we just heard that McGill is going to increase the cost of its MBA program. The price you now pay for an MBA program is $1,700, and I think McGill is going to increase it to $30,000.

We're seeing some different things going on in reality, and the Federation of Students always has the same demand. So where's the balance? I'm looking at more of a balanced approach. What do we need to do to make sure that students can continue to go to school and receive the right education?

I'm not questioning the fact that students should have debt. You are going to get an education. Is there a problem with having debt? Should there be an amount?

I come from a city where we have a choice of five, six universities. We have four francophone universities and two English universities, and one within an hour and a half. Do we need to go far away to get an education and be in debt after three or four years of education? Is that necessary? What's the balance there?

I don't know if it's an easy question for you to answer, but we need to have more of a balance.

[Shamus Reid]

To be absolutely clear, students are facing a level of student debt that has never been faced in this country before. It's not just whether a student should take on student debt; it's that it's at levels far exceeding what they ever have been. I don't think anybody disagrees that we need to ensure that low- and middle-income families have access to post-secondary education for our economy and our social fabric. Studies have shown that the best way to increase access among low- and middle-income students is a combination of investing in low tuition fees and student grants. We're looking for a framework within Canada, a post-secondary education act, that will ensure there are standards of access around the country as well as the reinvestment of those tax credits in the new Canada student grants program. That is the best way to ensure that everybody has broad access to post-secondary education.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Pacetti.

Monsieur Laforest.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for Mr. Ewart.

You spoke on behalf of the Rick Hansen Foundation. I think all the work you are doing is very worthwhile. I would just like some further explanation.

You want money from the federal government to continue spinal cord injury research. Are there other research centres elsewhere in Canada working in this field? If so—and indeed there must be others in the United States—how is your work different or innovative?

[Colin Ewart]

Are we looking for money from the federal government? The answer is yes.

In response to your second question, is there other research happening in Canada that is also being funded, the answer is yes.

With me here is the chair of the national Spinal Cord Injury Solutions Network, and if you wish, the chair can speak to this, but that organization coordinates many of the research projects on this subject, including researchers who are in Montreal, for example, who are participating at a national level on this research and advancing the science. Indeed, we have some of the leaders in the world arguably who are doing research in Quebec and in other parts of Canada as well. Our job is to connect all of those in a collective and unified effort to advance the work.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

The point of my question was precisely to see if there was coordination.

I have a question for Mr. Dirom.

You said that it would be a good idea to harmonize environmental assessments. Can you give any examples of collaborative efforts going on now or that have already happened? Are certain examples more negative than others? There are more instances where assessments are delayed or tangled up in red tape.

[Gavin Dirom]

Thank you for the question.

Indeed I do, and maybe I'll start with the Major Projects Management Office, which was a $15 million investment made by this government a few years back. That office is charged with finding efficiencies and effectiveness between provinces, territories, and the federal government.

One example that comes to mind is the Galore Creek project. It's in process and probably has another two to three years before it gets under way, because there are some decisions at the corporate level being made. However, I do think that's a good example of a harmonized effort between the federal and provincial governments. Timing wasn't completely in synchronicity, but it was within two to three months. That's a good example.

A poor example, and I know you have many of them, sir, is Mount Milligan, where you have the provincial assessment completed but they're just now getting under way with the federal assessment. It's not streamlined, it's not parallel, and it ought to have been.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you.

I will give the rest of my time to Mr. Davies. I believe he has a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First I want to mention how much I appreciate the evidence of the Canadian Federation of Students. It's very valuable for you to come here and give us the experience of your members. From the New Democratic Party's point of view, that's extremely helpful to our discussion, so thank you.

I want to talk a bit about child care. I think the economic benefits and multiplier effect of a national child care program are clear in study after study. Our party has long been convinced of that. In fact, I think there is a historical precedent. I don't think it's a coincidence that after World War II the introduction, really, of universal education from grades one to 12 coincided with one of the most phenomenal periods of economic growth in Canadian history—from the 1950s to the 1970s. I think this would do the same thing as it unleashes the economic potential primarily of women more than anybody else.

In a way, it's tragic that we have to speak in economic terms when we talk about child care. These are our children. Do we have to justify everything in economic terms to make sure that our children are taken care of and are nurtured and educated? During the last election campaign the number one issue I heard on the doorstep, by far, was child care. Our party will be going to Parliament and pushing for a national child care system. I want you to know we're completely behind that.

If there are any comments you want to make, please go ahead, but I just want to make that statement.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'll remind members that we have a flight to catch, which if we miss is the chair's fault. We have another panel and we're supposed to leave here at 3:30 p.m. It's not me marching the time; time marches on. So let's be brief.

I think Ms. Harney wants to comment.

[Susan Harney]

I just want to say thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Are there any other brief comments? Thank you.

Mr. Cannan will be the final questioner.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, witnesses.

What a healthy debate we've had, and discussion. Think about the good fortune we have in this country that we can sit around with opposing views and not have to worry about missiles falling from the sky and things like that.

I share the perspective of the two Susans and the professor, as a parent of three children, with a daughter who is a single parent of a two-and-a-half-year-old. I understand Mr. Mowat's perspective too, because I have many constituents who have that perspective on cutting back. So it's all about finding the right balance.

Also, in terms of the Canadian Federation of Students, I represent Kelowna--Lake Country, UBC Okanagan, which is a member of the federation. You're doing great work, and I appreciate your efforts.

I have a couple of quick questions. The first one would be just to clarify. You were asked about discontinuing the tax credits for tuition fees and rolling that into increasing the student grant assistance levels. Do you have a dollar value that it would equate to?

[Shamus Reid]

I'll turn it over to Ian.

[Ian Boyko, Research and Communications Officer, Canadian Federation of Students (British Columbia)]

Some of the details are included in our submission, but in terms of the annual expenditure for education-related tax credits—there's the education tax credit, the tuition fee credit amount, and there's student loan interest in there—the total price tag each year that the federal government sees go out the door in terms of federal tax expenditures on education is over $1 billion.

I think now it's close to $1.12 billion per year, which, as Shamus said in his remarks, is double the budget of the new grants program.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you. I'll move around the table to your colleagues from the mining industry.

Mr. Dirom and Mr. Giraud, I appreciate your comments on the fact that we've put $130 million in the northwest power line. There was talk about infrastructure investments and being non-partisan. A big portion of that is in opposition ridings, so we're making sure it's going where the projects are making economic sense, not only for today but for the future.

In your submission, I know the ongoing request with regard to the tax credit. We'll continue to look at the mineral exploration tax credit and see if it can be made on an ongoing basis.

I have a supplemental question for Mr. Dechert for clarification on harmonization. We have set up a major projects division, and Minister Lunn announced that. Have you seen any improvement with the introduction of that major projects program?