Finance Committee on Oct. 17th, 2012

[Shannon Bittman]

Actually, I believe the cost of the government study was $90 million, not $20 million.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you for the correction: $90 million, not $20 million.

[Shannon Bittman]

It was not $20 million. It was Deloitte & Touche.

Our position was that it was unnecessary dollars being spent, which costs taxpayers. Quite frankly, the expertise to properly evaluate programs and to look for efficiencies is in-house. Instead, this government chose to go outside. The government is spending a lot of money—roughly $6 billion or $7 billion a year—on contracting out of IT services, again where we have the expertise in-house, and where it would actually be a savings to Canadians.

The government has implemented Shared Services Canada. Again, based on studies that the government has contracted out—the Pricewaterhouse track 2 study—it's looking more and more like the government is looking to outsource services to Canadians when the expertise is already available in-house and where our members could provide the services to Canadians at a lower-cost model through non-profit....

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

I'm just going to finish this round.

I do want to thank all the witnesses.

Mr. King, perhaps as a comment, I want to thank you very much for pointing out the linkage between the important sector you represent and the financial services sector. I was at your last annual conference in Toronto, which I believe is the largest mining conference in the world and which was incredibly impressive. I do appreciate the fact that you're linking these sectors, because a lot of times in Canada we tend to put sectors in silos and that's not in fact how the economy works. I do appreciate that very much.

[Tom King]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I just want to return to Ms. Bittman.

In your presentation, you talked about Moody's and Fitch criticizing Canada's budget cuts, and you recognized them as the world's two leading rating firms. Can you tell me what is the highest credit rating a country can obtain?

[Shannon Bittman]

Actually, I can't provide that information at this time—my apologies.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

Well, it's triple-A.

What credit rating does Moody's give to Canada? It's triple-A, the highest.

What credit rating does Fitch give to Canada?

[Shannon Bittman]

Triple-A.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

It's triple-A, the highest.

I'll read from the Fitch report, headlined “Fitch Affirms 'AAA' sovereign rating for Canada”: Fitch Ratings has affirmed its 'AAA' sovereign rating for Canada, noting that the government has demonstrated fiscal responsibility and has a plan to further reduce debt.The rating agency affirmed its rating on Canada with a stable outlook, saying that the ratings are supported by Canada's institutional and structural strengths, which are, in turn, underpinned by effective policies and a history of macroeconomic and social stability.

It also says:

Given the Conservative majority, which was awarded to a government running on a platform of fiscal austerity, Fitch expects Canada's fiscal conservatism to continue...gross general government debt is expected to decline as fiscal consolidation proceeds and GDP growth remains steady.

I think it's important to get on the record what Fitch, Moody's, and Standard & Poor's are actually saying about Canada and the government.

I do want to turn, however.... You were very critical in your presentation about our government's approach to science, so let me just read from another document. This is from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada: Canada's universities welcome the smart, strategic investments in research and innovation contained in today's federal budget. “In the face of tough fiscal choices, the government showed leadership by continuing its investments in research, innovation, research infrastructure and university-private sector collaborations,” says Stephen Toope, the chair of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada's board of directors and president of the University of British Columbia. “These investments will build a stronger future for our society and economy.” In a climate where...federal government departments are seeing reductions, the federal budget provides ongoing funding for research and innovation through [SSHRC, CIHR, and NSERC] to enhance their support of industry-academic research partnership programs.

It talks about an additional $500 million over five years for the Canada Foundation for Innovation. It talks about investments in Genome Canada and CANARIE, and investments in McMaster, in the lovely city of Hamilton.

Do you want to comment on the AUCC's comment on the last federal budget? It is saying exactly the opposite of what you're saying here today.

[Shannon Bittman]

As I was a last-minute replacement for President Corbett and science is not my portfolio, I would prefer to defer the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Bleyer, if you want to, answer, but this—

[Peter Bleyer]

Absolutely. First of all, I think, with regard to the rating agencies, the point was that these rating agencies were implying that some of the extreme nature of where the government was going was unnecessary, given what they had: a relatively positive assessment of the circumstances in Canada.

There was a news report—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

That's not what they said. I just read to you what Fitch said.

[Peter Bleyer]

They said that, and they said this as well.... There is no doubt that they're generally very pleased with your government and the direction your government is heading in. There's no doubt about that. What they were identifying was the fact that it was unnecessary to go to the point that you were intending to go to.

Now, on your next question around the science situation and where the university community may very well be at, as you know, a number of major programs fund the sciences in this country, including the university sciences—the major projects funding—as well as issues around NSERC. Some of what you're quoting there are positions that are.... Clearly, there are difficulties for many organizations. You're our employer, our members' employer; that's a difficult relationship. You're also the major funder for these organizations and we're all trying to ensure that the resources are there to have the things done that we believe need to be done on behalf of Canadians—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'm sorry. We have a point of order.

Mr. Jean.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I was just wondering whether Mr. Bleyer....

I agree with you: I have not seen those particular comments being substantiated with text.

I would like to have that tabled by Mr. Bleyer.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I don't know that this is a point of order, but....

[Peter Bleyer]

I'm not sure which comments you're referring to.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

In the future, you can pass it to the committee. Otherwise, this evidence is quite frankly—

[Peter Bleyer]

Is it the Moody's and Fitch that you're...? We'll provide you with that—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay—

[Peter Bleyer]

—but with regard to where the general scientific community stands, there is no doubt that there's an issue around how much funding and support there is for intramural science. Many major scientific projects in this country require the participation of the private sector, absolutely, and require the participation of universities, most certainly, but they also require ongoing, long-term major project funding, some of which has to be done through intramural science. That is the issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Here is one final question for you.

In what fiscal year has the Government of Canada—any government of Canada—provided more public support for research and development in this country?

[Peter Bleyer]

In what fiscal...?