Evidence of meeting #22 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was women.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
In the budget in the spring I think there was $200 million allocated to research. How much of that would have gone to NSERC?
10:40 a.m.
President, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
There was $100 million that was added to research, $17 million of which came to NSERC.
10:40 a.m.
President, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Yes.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
That's a lot less than the $400 million you requested.
10:40 a.m.
President, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
That is a lot less, that's right.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Okay, thank you very much. I wish you continued success.
I read somewhere...it might have been Martha Piper who wrote something I saw that said China and India now are graduating half a million engineers and scientists a year, compared to the United States at 60,000, whereas before that was a lot different. So those emerging economies are certainly investing an awful lot, and we have to keep the pressure on research.
10:40 a.m.
President, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
That's right. That's why we take very seriously our investment in our human capital. We truly believe it is important for this country to give opportunities to all of our talented people to contribute. We truly believe in our vision. In fact, in everything we do we refer to our vision.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thank you very much.
I'd like to move to Mrs. Watts. Thank you for your presentation. I want to ask you specifically...you talked about providing tax relief for all families and you indicated that reducing the heavy burden of taxes has many benefits, including reducing child poverty. If the taxation system is going to be used to reduce child poverty, would we be better off reducing the GST or would we be better off increasing the basic personal exemption and reducing the lowest level of personal income tax?
10:40 a.m.
Researcher, REAL Women of Canada
The needs of the family have been neglected for so long, to the point where we need to reverse the direction of taxation to make the family stronger by any means we can. High taxation is a difficulty for families. Now, Statistics Canada tells us that the intact family is the best environment for children.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Okay, I accept your point of view on that. I don't necessarily agree with it, but—
10:40 a.m.
Researcher, REAL Women of Canada
Well, there's discrimination against the intact family, the family who choose the traditional way of approaching the formation of the next generation. This is what I—
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Okay. I don't have a lot of time and I want to get the most out of your presentation.
The issue is that the government has a certain number of dollars, and how we allocate those says a lot about the government. If you reduce the GST, you assist marginally low-income people, but you certainly assist people who make a lot of money. That in itself is unfair, but it also means that government has less money to allocate to those who are most in need, which I think is a responsibility of the government.
I don't see anything in here about the needs of lowest-income families. Do you think the government has a role in assisting those who are most in need?
10:40 a.m.
Researcher, REAL Women of Canada
Absolutely; we have no problem with that. But the problem is that the government funding has been directed away from the family. The family has been neglected. We have billions of dollars a year going to all sorts of groups, and we believe the money would be better invested in the future of Canada and Canada's social infrastructure if the unit of the family were taken into consideration in taxation.
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Okay. Thank you very much.
I only have a few seconds. I can't really ask a question, but just to speak on the national immunization strategy that I think Mr. Brenders brought forward, I think expanding the $100 million we have now is really important. Would it go directly to provinces on a per capita basis to administer themselves or does it go—
10:45 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, BIOTECanada
Yes, where the Public Health Agency of Canada allocates into the provinces, it's a support for provincial programs.
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
Michael Savage Liberal Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I know there are things such as cervical cancer for which we can do an awful lot through immunization.
10:45 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, BIOTECanada
And that's the challenge, that there's not enough money in there to allow for the new vaccines to come after these treatments.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
10:45 a.m.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Despite the fact that the presentations were very interesting, we cannot put questions to everyone, and that is always frustrating. So I am going to ask a question that is for most of you, given that you are, closely or not so closely, associated with research and development.
For 20 or 25 years, Canada has been aware that it is lagging behind on research and development. So how is it that we are still at the stage of identifying where we stand, at the back of the pack? Your finding is the same finding as when I was in university or on the finance committee three or four years ago. There seems to be no movement.
Is it due to a lack of public investment or entrepreneurship, or even to the quality of our researchers? If we are unable to understand why we are not getting a better return on our investments in research and development as a percentage of our GDP, we may end up investing money in the wrong places for a long time.
That is a general question for everyone.
10:45 a.m.
President, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
First, I would like to point out that in a number of fields, we are not at the back of the pack. As a matter of fact, our position is better than it should be given the size of our population relative to the world and the value of our investments.
However, it is true that we live in a world that is highly competitive, especially in research and development. So we are making added efforts and investments, but at the same time, other countries are doing the same, if not more. In fact, since I joined NSERC, around six months ago, I have seen articles every week in the scientific journals about very substantial investments made in other countries in research and development and innovation. The competition is truly very stiff.
That is why an athlete who breaks a world record has to keep on training. Because there is always going to be another athlete to beat that record the next day. It is pretty much the same in our field. The benefits are very significant in terms of the economy and prosperity, and countries realize that.
10:45 a.m.
President, Association of Canadian Community Colleges
I agree with Ms. Fortier. However, I am not sure I agree that there has been no movement. There has been a lot of development in recent years. As Ms. Fortier said, the fact is that there is movement in other countries too. It is truly a very competitive environment.
The only argument we would raise is that there may be other partners closer to industry who would be equally well placed to meet research needs.
10:45 a.m.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
In one of the briefs, it says:
Currently, Canada's expenditures in R and D as a percentage of GDP (1.99) are lower than the OECD average (2.26).
As we all know, the OECD, which Turkey belongs to, is huge. Why is the effort not up to the OECD average? I do not know if you spoke to that.
10:45 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Partnership Group for Science and Engineering
Actually, Canada has invested heavily to increase university research and development, and we are doing well there. The problem is with the private sector. If you compare Canada to its competitors, the proportion of research and development in the private sector is far lower than in the United States, Sweden and a number of other countries.
If you don't mind, I'm going to switch to English, because I see that you're using the translation, translating my French back to English, which I can perfectly understand.
