Finance Committee on Sept. 27th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We'll begin the session. Welcome to our guests today and committee members.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance is mandated to consider and make reports on proposals regarding the budgetary policies of the federal government. This year our theme is Canada's place in a competitive world.

We have asked you, in advance, to make your presentations for five minutes, knowing that's a challenge. Nonetheless, we'll hold you to the five minutes. I'll give you an indication visually that you have a minute remaining, if you care to look, and that you have less than that. And I will ask you to draw your presentations to a conclusion at five minutes. That is, of course, in order to allow us to have an exchange with committee members and for you to have the opportunity to add with responses to their questions.

We'll begin today with our guest from the National Council for Graduate Studies, Philippe-Olivier Giroux.

Welcome. Five minutes are yours, sir.

[Philippe-Olivier Giroux, President, Quebec Federation of University Students, National Council for Graduate Studies]

Good afternoon. I will be making my presentation in French.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, we would like to begin by thanking you for inviting us to appear today to present our brief. The Conseil national des cycles supérieurs, or CNCS, is an organization whose mandate is to defend and promote the rights and interests of graduate level students attending Quebec educational institutions. We make representations on their behalf to the public and to the main players within the educational system and the research environment, primarily university research. The CNCS has some 30,000 members in Quebec.

We are here today to present our recommendations with respect with the Government of Canada's 2007-2008 budget. They will focus on three items: first, increasing federal transfers for post-secondary education; second, increasing funding for university research; and finally, enhancing university research by promoting the professional integration of master's and Ph.D. level graduates.

I will move quickly to our first recommendation, which is to increase federal transfers for post-secondary education. In order for Canada to be among the top five countries in terms of its investments in research and development, we believe more money must be invested in our universities. In that regard, it is our opinion that the appropriate lever is an increase of $4.9 billion in federal transfers for post-secondary education, beginning with the next budget. This step is needed in order to provide core funding to the universities and thereby allow them to properly carry out their mission.

Our second recommendation is to increase funding for university research. The CNCS believes that in order to ensure the renewal of the professorial corps in our universities, increase the number and quality of research projects that are carried out, and meet Canada's growing need for a highly skilled work force, the Government of Canada should, as a first step, increase the budgets of its funding councils -- namely the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the Health Research Institutes -- and, as a second step, strengthen the environment in which research is conducted in academic institutions by covering the indirect costs of research based on its actual value, and implementing a specific funding program for smaller universities.

I would like to elaborate somewhat on the second point, which is the need to increase the budgets of the granting councils. The goal here is to allow students and professors carrying out research to do so in a competitive research environment. In that regard, we are asking the government to provide the three granting councils with the funding they believe is necessary to meet the objectives set out in their strategic plan. For the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, that amount would be $75 million this year. For the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, we're talking about $10 million, and for the Health Research Institutes, some $110 million.

In terms of strengthening the research environment in our academic institutions, since we do recognize the fundamental role of knowledge creation, we should be funding the indirect costs of research. At the present time, only 27 per cent of those costs are being supported, when in fact we should be covering 65 per cent of the direct costs of research. As regards a specific funding program to support research in smaller universities, the idea here is to compensate for current inequities between the funding provided to large universities and that provided to smaller universities for the purposes of research. We know that small universities have a very significant impact regionally. In order to compensate for those inequities, we are proposing, as has been suggested by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, that a specific program be implemented at a cost of about $30 million.

Our third recommendation is to enhance university research by promoting the professional integration of Master's and Ph.D. level graduates. A number of recent studies show that Master's and Ph.D. level graduates have trouble making the transition from school to the workplace in their specific discipline, even though these are precisely the people that are largely responsible for transferring the expertise developed in universities to their communities. In order to foster the professional integration of Master's and Ph.D. level graduates, we are proposing that two programs, which so far have been successful initiatives, be appropriately funded. They are the Community-University Research Alliances, administered by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the National Research Council of Canada's Industrial Research Assistance Program.

That completes our recommendations with respect to the budget. I will briefly go over them again: a $4.9 billion increase in transfers for post-secondary education; increased investments in the three research funding councils; funding of the indirect costs of research based on their actual value; implementation of a specific research funding program for smaller universities; and enhancement of the professional integration of Master's and Ph.D. level graduates so that university expertise is effectively transferred to business and the community.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. Giroux.

Pour continuer, Monsieur David Flewelling, from the Canadian Automobile Association. Five minutes are yours.

[David Flewelling, President, Canadian Automobile Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Bonjour tout le monde. I am David Flewelling, president of the Canadian Automobile Association. We represent nine regional associations, with a total of 4.9 million members from coast to coast.

We have addressed this committee before from the viewpoint of traffic safety and the deterioration of our transportation infrastructure. My remarks today will focus on Canada's competitiveness from two perspectives: congestion and delays on our roads and highways, and the need for a healthier environment.

Canada's road network is the key element in sustaining our productivity levels and ensuring our ability to compete globally and in enhancing our standard of living, yet we are facing a $22 billion maintenance deficit in our national highway system.

The by-product of this deficit is a combination of ever-increasing congestion for international and domestic trade, for tourists, and commuters.

In 2005, according to Transport Canada, six congested border points accounted for more than 70% of cross-border truck movements. A 2005 binational study indicated that in 15 years delays at the border will likely cost Canada over $450 million a year in productivity losses related to tourism.

Tourism is a billion-dollar industry, yet recent figures indicate that Canada has slipped to eleventh from seventh as an international tourist destination. The continuing deterioration of our roads and highways only exacerbates this decline.

In 2005, commuters in Canada on average spent 63 minutes each day on the round trip between their place of residence and their place of work. This means the average Canadian today is spending 17% more time each day in commuting, the equivalent of one extra work week every year, than was the case 13 years ago. These delays cost Canadians and damage our productivity. The phenomenon of job growth in the suburbs, combined with increased levels of domestic and international commercial traffic, will exacerbate losses in productivity due to congestion. The benefits of just-in-time delivery, in which products are shipped directly to markets rather than warehoused, will be jeopardized if goods are stuck in traffic.

Projections foresee a continued increase in the number of vehicles in operation in Canada in the decades ahead, both for personal and commercial use. Delays in trade traffic, for tourists and in commuting, all negatively affect productivity.

There is much talk these days about creating a fiscal balance, and the CAA takes the view that federal investments in national strategic assets such as transportation infrastructure are key. Federal leadership should protect the national interest and reflect tax revenues generated from federal excise taxes on motor fuels, which remain the most logical source for funding our national highway system.

CAA calls on the federal government to do the following: one, develop a national highway policy in conjunction with the provinces; and two, support this policy with sustainable long-term funding, using 50% of the fuel excise taxes.

While addressing delays is crucial to Canada's competitiveness, this must be done while maintaining a healthy environment.

To that end, CAA has partnered with Pollution Probe to develop an eco-mobility plan that incorporates motorists, roads, and vehicles. The plan will consist of the following three parts: one, eco-driving, or the development and support of programs that lead to fuel conservation through smarter vehicle driving and maintenance practices as well as the use of other energy-efficient transportation options; two, better and safer roads, investment in road infrastructure that leads to safer driving conditions. Better highway design and the use of advanced traffic management systems can make roads safer and reduce congestion--all of which help motorists to conserve fuel.

A third point relates to improving vehicle fuel efficiency. We believe there is a need to develop and implement effective fuel efficiency standards for vehicles sold in Canada. We are also in favour of supporting the development of automotive and fuel technologies that will ultimately lead to reduced greenhouse gas emissions from the light-duty vehicle fleet in Canada.

Since the global demand for fuel-efficient automotive products is growing, demand for fuel efficiency in Canada will support the competitiveness of our vehicle industry. As this committee will be recommending to the Minister of Finance what should be in the budget, from CAA's perspective it is imperative that the minister provide economic leadership on the environment file and set the tone for other federal departments to be both bold and pragmatic. Our three objectives are in line with that challenge.

In conclusion, it is clear that investment in Canada's roads and highways and in a healthier environment will ensure that Canada's place in the competitive world is maintained and grows.

CAA's recommendations are balanced and fiscally responsible, and I am confident they will contribute to this objective.

I look forward to answering any questions you might have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you.

We move now to Mr. Collin McMillan, representing the Canadian Medical Association.

You have five minutes.

[Dr. Colin McMillan, President, Canadian Medical Association]

Thank you, Chair, ladies and gentlemen. It's a pleasure to address your Standing Committee on Finance as part of your pre-budget consultation. I'm joined by our CEO, Mr. William Tholl.

In keeping with the general theme set by your committee, our presentation, “Medicine for a More Competitive Canadian Economy”, focuses on enhancing Canada's place in a competitive world from a health perspective.

I'm going to speak to you briefly today about three important issues: one, nutrition and child obesity; two, wait times; and three, electronic health records.

Firstly, in relation to nutrition, in order to improve competitiveness there is no better way to start than investing in people. Few things threaten the future productivity of our workforce more than our growing childhood obesity epidemic. Here are the facts known to you: over a quarter of our children are overweight, obese, and not active, and the percentage is growing. This leads to health problems down the road. We feel there are direct links between these health problems and absenteeism, which costs employers $16 billion per year.

What you might consider is measures such as tax incentives and disincentives to encourage and empower Canadians, particularly younger Canadians, to make healthier choices for themselves and their families. I would urge the committee to address nutritional and obesity issues with the same resolve as given to tobacco control. When it comes to health, especially the health of our children, government must use every policy lever at its disposal, including the tax system, to empower Canadians to make healthy choices.

Secondly, in relation to wait times, as detailed in our brief, health care investments not only lead to a higher quality of life, but they drive overall economic competitiveness and productivity. Nowhere is this link between health and economic performance more evident than in the impact of excessive wait times on our economy. This year alone, we estimate that in just four of the ten provinces alone, on recent data, this cost could be as high as $2 billion. Not only are Canadians suffering because of excess wait times; businesses and governments are feeling the pain through absenteeism and lower tax revenue.

In our brief, we recommend a number of strategic investments to reduce wait times and improve the quality of care to our patients. Key to achieving meaningful reduction on wait times is a patient care guarantee, and therefore once again we would urge the committee to endorse the CMA's Canada health access fund.

As well, we've included a very modest but very important recommendation to sustain and increase funding to the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

Finally, I'd like to bring to your attention that Canadian physicians own and operate in excess of 30,000 small businesses and employ about 142,000 people across the country. In many cases, governments have not placed an appropriate emphasis or level of investment on developing and cultivating innovation in this unique sector of the small business community.

An example of how the federal government could invest directly in innovation in the small business sector is by automation of our offices through the development and implementation of the electronic health record, the so-called EHR. It is estimated that EHR could provide annual systemwide savings in the range of $6 billion and both reduce wait times and absenteeism. However, this can only be realized if all physicians' offices across the country are fully automated. Therefore, we have recommended increased funding for Canada Health Infoway to develop and implement EHR with a targeted investment towards total physician's office automation.

In conclusion, I would ask the members to consider us as investments, not costs. In profiling nutrition, children's health and obesity, wait times, and the electronic health record here today, I hope I can show you that investment in health can offer both short- and long-term investments. In sum, sir, I urge you to invest in people, to invest in our health care system, and to invest in infrastructure, particularly the electronic health care record.

I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, Mr. McMillan.

Our next witness is Mr. Eliot A. Phillipson, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canada Foundation for Innovation.

Five minutes, sir, are yours. Please proceed.

[Dr. Eliot A. Phillipson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Foundation for Innovation]

Merci, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the members of the standing committee.

Today I want to talk to you about the role of the Canada Foundation for Innovation in helping to secure Canada's future prosperity and competitiveness by strengthening our capacity for leading edge research.

Nine years now into its mandate, the CFI has committed $3 billion to over 4,700 research infrastructure projects at 128 institutions in 28 municipalities across the country. These investments are made on the basis of a rigorous assessment of merit, using international standards to determine the potential of the project to increase the capacity of Canadian research institutions, to compete internationally, and to produce knowledge that will benefit all Canadians.

CFI's investment of $3 billion has leveraged a major influx of funding into the Canadian R and D enterprise. By 2010, the total capital investment by the CFI, the research institutions, and their partners will exceed $11 billion. These investments are creating jobs and are leading to innovative solutions in some of today's most important and exciting areas of investigation, from advanced materials to pharmaceuticals, renewable energy, high performance computing, and early childhood education. Furthermore, discoveries are moving from the laboratory to the marketplace. Spin-off companies are being created to supply high demand technology for the biotech, communications, aerospace, and other industries. Highly qualified personnel are being trained for careers in both the public and private sectors.

Last summer, however, the CFI launched its last major competition with the decisions to be made public in less than three months. Thereafter, our capacity to invest in cutting edge research infrastructure going forward will be largely depleted. Unless it is known well in advance that additional funding will be available after this last competition, universities and colleges will find it difficult to undertake the planning of the infrastructure projects, whose design and construction span several years. As a result, Canada will begin to lose its hard-earned competitive advantage in public sector R and D.

Simply put, if Canada is to remain competitive in the knowledge-based economy, the funding of research infrastructure at institutions will have to be proportionate and appropriate to the total investment in science and technology because S and T cannot proceed in the absence of up-to-date tools. To be competitive, Canada's investment in research infrastructure must be comparable to that of other developed industrialized countries. Equally important, however, is that investments in infrastructure be planned and implemented within the context of an overall S and T framework, in which all the sectors--academic, business, and government--are involved, and in which an appropriate balance of investments is maintained among the elements of the R and D enterprise, the direct and indirect cost, human resources, and infrastructure.

The CFI therefore proposes that, going forward, the foundation should assume an even greater role as the major instrument for implementation of policy regarding research infrastructure. In this capacity, CFI would continue to invest in R and D infrastructure, based on institutional research priorities, so as to sustain and enhance the capacity for the broad base of R and D activity and the training of highly qualified personnel who are required for a thriving and competitive S and T enterprise.

Importantly, however, CFI would also promote supra-institutional planning that would focus on new directions and initiatives, that would be designed to support the broad and related objectives of enhancing Canada's competitiveness, prosperity, global impact, and international status, and enhancing the transfer of knowledge from the academic to the private and public sectors. To achieve these objectives, the CFI estimates that at minimum, an additional investment of $1 billion would be required between 2007 and 2010 if it is to continue playing a significant role in helping to secure Canada's future prosperity and competitiveness by strengthening our capacity for leading edge research.

Thank you. Merci.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. Phillipson.

We continue now with the representative from the Canadian Consortium for Research, Roland Andersson.

Welcome sir. Five minutes are yours.

[Roland Andersson, Chair, Canadian Consortium for Research]

Thank you very much.

Our advice is straightforward and the same as we have been giving for the past several years. To build a dynamic and productive economy, one in which Canadians enjoy the best quality of life and the highest possible standard of living, the federal government must significantly increase its spending to support, one, the core operations of post-secondary institutions through a dedicated transfer; two, the federal research granting agencies; and three, its own research infrastructure. Let me speak briefly to each of these.

One, we are advocating the creation of a dedicated federal-provincial transfer mechanism to increase funding for the core operating costs of post-secondary education. Great things have happened in the country since 1997 with all of the spending that we have seen for the research community--the researchers, the professors, and public institutions. But the infrastructure has definitely been falling apart in the last 10 years or so, and you only have to go to schools, take a look at these, and see where we are with infrastructure of universities, colleges, libraries, laboratories, and buildings. It is not in great shape.

Another statistic, one that surprised me, was that in 2004 Ontario ranked 59th out of 60 North American state and provincial jurisdictions in per capita spending on post-secondary education. It seems a little strange that the mighty economy of Ontario was ranked right at the bottom.

To be successful, we are advocating that the transfer should have established principles, ensuring accessibility, quality, and academic integrity; contain binding enforcement mechanisms much like the Canada Health Act; and be set at a fixed percentage of GDP so that the provinces and the federal government will not have to review this each and every year, possibly something like 0.05%. That would take it to the federal funding level of the late 1970s as a percentage.

Lastly on this, this could help address the fiscal imbalance of the country. It's an opportune moment for the federal Government of Canada to take the lead.

Our second recommendation is to increase the budget of the federal research granting agencies. This is important in Canada because our research in public institutions is a much higher percentage versus the United States. There are many more international head offices in the states, and consequently that percentage difference. Research in Canada is critical--SSHRC, NSERC, CIHR--and the funding increases there are not just strictly for the research, but also for the competition of bringing in the best and brightest minds from around the world. Of course, each and every western economy is in the same battle.

Lastly, on that recommendation, we ask that the federal government take a look at the SSHRC funding and give consideration to giving it a special boost in percentage. Things have changed over the last number of years in our societies. There are new issues, and understanding cultural differences is something that scientists and engineers will not tackle, but social scientists will. Their recommendation is to reinvest in government research infrastructure. Many of these projects are long-term, statistical, and last for decades.

I believe the public believes that we need to have a strong government research arm. We have major challenges in environment, energy, pandemic response, food and drug safety, and national security. The program review in the early 1990s cut out the funding for many of these agencies and departments, and it's time to review that and to bring it back up to where it should be. I think this would also go a long way toward addressing what's happening in the public service and bring back a much stronger public service in the future.

In conclusion, the structural factors in the Canadian economy, notably a high level of foreign ownership and a reliance on resource extraction, means that a large portion of the research conducted in Canada is performed in the public sector, and that's the reason for those recommendations.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, Mr. Andersson.

We continue with the representative from the Canadian Immigrant Settlement Sector Alliance, Wai Young.

Welcome. Five minutes to you.

[Wai Young, Executive Director, Canadian Immigrant Settlement Sector Alliance (CISSA)]

Greetings to you from the settlement sector from across Canada.

My name is Wai Young and I'm with the Canadian Immigrant Settlement Sector Alliance, or l’Alliance canadienne du secteur de l’établissement des immigrants, also known as CISSA-ACSEI.

Our members represent the 450 settlement agencies that provide direct services to immigrants and refugees in small communities and in large cities across Canada. CISSA-ACSEI harnesses the expertise of the refugee and immigrant settlement sector and is the sector's national voice to help build a Canadian society in which all immigrants and refugees are able to participate fully.

We thank you for the opportunity to present today and, for the record, want to have it noted that the Community Foundations of Canada wish to express their full support for our presentation as well as our brief to this committee.

This pre-budget consultation process poses several compelling questions. The focus of our presentation will be about how Canada's aging population and low birth rates are creating an imminent labour market shortage and population shortage that will negatively impact Canada's ability to compete in an increasingly competitive world.

In June 2006 the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce tabled a report called “The Demographic Time Bomb”, mitigating the effects of demographic change in Canada. In this report the Auditor General of Canada is quoted as saying:

The demographic die is cast: there is little we can do to reverse or even slow the ag(e)ing of Canada’s population over the coming decades. But it is certainly within our power to plan better for it. And better planning begins with better information concerning the long-term fiscal implications of the coming demographic shift.

Not since the days of Clifford Sifton in the early 1900s has Canada needed immigrants as we do today, to once again provide a new population base and a critical workforce to stabilize Canada's efforts to compete in a global economy. In report after report, the demographers and economists have called for an increase in immigration to 350,000 annually or more, in order for Canada to begin to meet our population and workforce needs. In the year 2012, which is only six years away, immigration will become the sole source of Canada's new workforce. However, over the past decade, although close to two million immigrants have arrived in Canada, funding support for the settlement sector, infrastructure, programs, and services have remained static during that time.

What does this mean in a tangible way? In the year 2005, last year alone, Canada welcomed a recent high of 262,000 permanent residents. This is 26,000 more than the city of Saskatoon, over two-thirds the population of Victoria, half the city of Kitchener, and twice the city of St. John's. This figure does not include ancillary services to international students or visitors, who number again in the hundreds of thousands.

On average, immigrants arrive in Canada better educated, in better health, in their peak working years, and with higher fertility rates than those born in Canada. However, studies now show that over 35% of immigrants arriving in Canada in the 1990s are living in poverty, according to the 2001 census. This means that while newcomers arrive, often with the skills that Canada needs to help us compete in a global economy, they do not have the support or the services they require to unlock their skills to contribute to our economy. We've all heard about the real live situations where trained doctors are driving taxis or nurses are housecleaning. For the past two decades Canada has undervalued immigrant skills, resulting in lost revenues of between $4.1 billion to $5.9 billion each year, as reported by the Conference Board of Canada.

In April 2006 the federal government increased funding for settlement programs for the first time in over a decade. However, this is just a drop compared to what is needed out there. This amount, while a welcome first step, is still woefully inadequate as a planning tool to help attract, retain, and optimize immigrant contributions towards building Canada's economy.

The settlement sector is where the rubber hits the road, as they say. In the past few decades we've experienced waves of newcomers arriving at the doors of our agencies. We've cried with them, shared their successes, and felt their pain. As you know, the issues are many and complex: refugees arrive; there are victims of torture; highly educated doctors cannot get accredited; and families are separated because of long wait times.

My task today and the task of the settlement sector is to make it all better. Within our agencies, within our communities, greater and greater needs, and more and more groups want to partner with us to attract, retain, and integrate newcomers to their communities.

To do this well and to do it effectively, the Canadian settlement sector needs your help. Out of the hundreds and possibly thousands of issues that we cope with every day, we believe that the Standing Committee on Finance can be a better leader by providing resources and therefore direction to identify the immediate and long-term solutions that are required to ensure that Canada has a sustainable population and a skilled work force.

We welcome this opportunity to speak, and our brief holds more details about our position. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Ms. Young.

Thank you all for complying with our five-minute limit and compressing so many good suggestions and thoughts into a brief period.

We'll move on to questions immediately now. We'll make them five-minute rounds just to allow more questioners today because of the time constraints we have.

We'll begin with Mr. Savage, for five minutes.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Chair,

Thank you all for taking the time to present. We have heard from other witnesses that a number of your organizations are doing great work, and they are asking for some of the same things as you are.

CFI, Mr. Phillipson, in my view is an absolute success story in Canada in the last number of years.

Mr. Andersson, you've spoken about the investments in research, and I know that Dr. McMillan and Mr. Tholl are involved in that as well.

The expansion of research has gone a long way in Canada. It has created a few problems too, almost an abundance of riches, in that there was a request from Monsieur Giroux that we go to 65% of indirect costs. If we go to 65% of indirect costs to the universities, the Heart and Stroke Foundation doesn't get indirect costs and it makes it more difficult for them to get funding. It's a matter of where we put our priorities. As a former executive director at the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Bill Tholl knows that and knows how that organization reformed itself in many ways to take advantage of CIHR in particular.

My question, first of all, to Mr. Phillipson is, if Canada hadn't invested, going back into the late 1990s, in research, in CFI and CIHR as well as in NSERC, SSHRC, and all of those things, what would it look like in Canada now? I think that's a good judge of how we should go forward in making these decisions.

[Dr. Eliot A. Phillipson]

If the investments had not been made, what would the situation look like now? Well, one can never be sure about predicting the future, but I think we can look at what the situation was in the 1980s and early 1990s. Hardly a day that went by when a newspaper didn't feature an article about the so-called brain drain. We were losing highly skilled personnel--university faculty, graduate students, post-doctoral fellows--to other jurisdictions, particularly the United States. I don't think it is rocket science to state that we would have been depleted at the very time that so many university and college faculty members are reaching retirement age. The advent of the investments in CFI and the research councils has essentially stopped the brain drain and in fact reversed it.

We know, for example, based on grants made by CFI--and those are only a portion of them--that in the last five years there was recruitment of 7,200 new faculty members to Canadian universities and colleges, of whom 40% came from outside Canada, because as we just heard, Canada will not be able to depend on simply its own population to produce. Many of them are, of course, returning expatriate Canadians, but they weren't rushing to return prior to the advent of these investments.

I could go on, but I think that is probably the greatest threat, that we would have simply depleted ourselves of highly qualified personnel.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I absolutely think that's right, and we've talked about it. We've heard from witnesses how this has transformed Canada. In terms of research, if you ramp up and then stop, you may as well not have done anything at all. We need to keep the focus on that.

I do want to ask Dr. McMillan and Mr. Tholl this. You mentioned childhood obesity in your brief. Is the CMA part of the trans fats task force that was put together from the health committee?

[Dr. William Tholl, Secretary General and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Medical Association]

I'm not sure.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Pat Martin mentioned to me in the lobby of the House that New York City or New York State is actually looking to ban trans fats. That's an initiative that was passed by the House of Commons. Canada should be doing a similar thing.

Is the CMA, Dr. McMillan, doing some stuff on its own about childhood obesity?

[Dr. Colin McMillan]

In Charlottetown last August, we had a major discussion at our annual meeting in which the broader determinants of children's health were discussed in detail, with a phenomenal public and media response. To deal with the issue, we're trying to organize a November summit with some of our professional and government colleagues. Out of that summit, we are hoping to produce a charter for children's health to map the future. They are our future generation, and that's why it's so important.

We know the facts; the future is what we're looking at. Perhaps out of that charter we could determine some health goals in that area. We haven't been that good in this country, in the last 20 years or so, at defining health goals. Maybe this would be the way to get it back on track.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We go now to Mr. St-Cyr.

You have five minutes.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you.

Thank you for taking the time to come and make your presentations. I realize it must be frustrating for you to have only five minutes to explain your views, but I can assure you that it is just as frustrating for us to have only five minutes to ask our questions.

I have a question for Mr. Giroux.

I was pleased to note in your brief that you talk about the need to increase federal transfers for post-secondary education by $4.9 billion in the next budget. That would really just allow us to return to 1995 funding levels. I am also pleased to note, unlike what we often see in this Committee, that you are not asking for national programs or performance criteria to be established. At least, I did not see that in your brief.

Am I to understand that the students you represent believe more strongly in the need to respect the provinces' jurisdiction and that national programs would interfere with Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction in this area?

[Philippe-Olivier Giroux]

Yes, absolutely. As far as CNCS members are concerned, education is the prerogative of the provinces, meaning that the federal government should be providing core funding to the universities through what is called a dedicated transfer for post-secondary education. There is consensus on that in Quebec.

As recently as December 2005, the Quebec Minister of Education, the Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d'université, the Conférence des recteurs et des principaux des universités du Québec, the Fédération des cégeps, CEGEP and university student unions, and even representatives of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and the Conseil du patronat all said that they are in favour of a $4.9 billion increase in the transfer for post-secondary education. Of that, Quebec would receive approximately $1.2 billion. That would be more than adequate to address the problem of underfunding that Quebec universities currently suffer from.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you very much. I just want to say once again how happy I am to hear you say that. The fact is that people frequently come before this Committee asking that the federal government interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. That is the case again today. People are asking for national highway policies. It's just as frequent in such areas as health care and immigration. Committee members may be thinking that you are from another planet. Or maybe you've just come from another country. In any case, the difference is quite striking.

I would like to take your reasoning one step further. You are asking for a post-secondary education transfer. What the Bloc Québécois is asking for is that, with a view to resolving the fiscal imbalance, there eventually be a fiscal transfer -- in other words, that this money be paid directly to Quebec, to be used as Quebec saw fit. To avoid a repeat of the 1995 cuts, the $4.9 billion would be paid out now, and in two or three years, when the federal government's priorities change, we would come back again.

Do the members of your organization support that position or would they simply prefer, even over the long term, that the federal government be the one to set these amounts?

[Philippe-Olivier Giroux]

As regards the dedicated transfer, accountability is what we find attractive about this. Indeed, with this kind of transfer, it is very easy to determine exactly what the federal government's contribution to education is. That is perfectly feasible. That was done at the time the Canada Health and Social Transfer was split into two separate transfers. It's also a way of respecting provincial jurisdiction.

But to answer your question directly, I would say that for our members, the transfer constitutes a first step towards addressing the fiscal imbalance. The work in that area would need to continue and, in that context, tax transfers or tax point exchanges, for example, are certainly something that could be envisaged.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I see.

I have a third question with respect to the indirect costs of research. You said in your presentation that the government currently supports about 25 per cent of the total cost of scholarships in this area, as opposed to 65 per cent, which is the actual level and what should be supported.

Did you conduct studies to determine that percentage?