Finance Committee on Oct. 25th, 2006

[Gilles Gagnon]

Insulin was discovered in Canada. Some anti-psychotics and products to control schizophrenia were also discovered in Canada. SINGULAIR, by Merck Frosst, was also discovered in Canada. These are great innovations.

Therefore, the research companies who are members of Rx&D represent 60 per cent of all the research done, second after the universities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we must move on to the next speaker.

Mr. McCallum, you have four minutes.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to thank the witnesses. It is always a pleasure for us to visit Quebec City. We ate very well last night.

My first question is for Mr. Robitaille. You mentioned the budget cuts to museums. I would like to know, as far as museums and perhaps as well as far as the literacy programs that may have been affected by such cuts, what the impact of those cuts were here in Quebec.

[Jack Robitaille]

I am not an expert with regard to museums in Quebec. I know, however, having participated as a stakeholder in the promotion of certain exhibitions for museums, that the museums make a great effort to broaden their public. In fact, part of the funding that was cut was used for that promotional effort.

So on the one hand, the museums are criticized for living in an ivory tower, and on the other hand, their promotional budgets are cut. That is what I am hearing.

As far as literacy is concerned, unfortunately, I cannot answer. I don't know if there are other people here in a position to do so, but I unfortunately cannot.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

I believe that Mr. Paquette would agree with me on my next question, because we are both economists and also because, as the former Dean of the Faculty of Arts at McGill University, I was very pleased to see that you wanted to include research in social sciences in the definition of the tax credit for research and development, which is not presently the case.

Can you explain to us why, in this case, research in social sciences is important?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

That is a good question, John.

[Christian Blouin]

I am not sure that I know the answer; that is why my colleague Rob Livingston is with me today. In fact, all levels of research are important to Merck Frosst in Canada. This is true not only for basic research, for clinical research, but also for social research.

It is the same thing for vaccines. We set up immunization programs at the Pan-Canadian level, at the provincial level, and often we do not measure the real impact of the vaccination nor how these programs are set up.

Therefore, if we want to break out of these silos and ensure that we make the Canadian system much more effective, it is important to include almost every aspect of these interventions.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

I have one final question, this time to Mr. Godbout. I believe that, obviously, it is very important for Canada, in order to be able to compete with China and India, to be aware that it is not our salaries that count, but rather ideas, creativity, innovation, research, etc. The previous government had invested billions of dollars in this area. We heard from witnesses that some researchers who came from the United States were thinking of going home, because of the lack of funding.

What has the government's response been up until now? Do you have the impression that the government supports the innovation program, or is it too early to say? What is the situation?

[Dr. Martin Godbout]

Thank you, Mr. McCallum.

Up until now, our government representatives seem to be saying that the intention is to support Genome Canada, but the issue is how to fund it? That depends on senior officials at the Department of Finance.

As far as the brain gain is concerned, I can assure you that Genome Canada created a brain gain. But today's generation of researchers are mercenaries; they will go where the money is. Therefore, there is a brain game between countries.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

But if the funding is not maintained, there is a brain drain—

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I am sorry to interrupt you.

Mr. St-Cyr you have four minutes.

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

Thank you very much to all of you.

Mr. Trevor, I saw in recommendation No. 2 in your brief that you were asking that federal post-secondary education transfers be unconditional. I'm very happy to see that the Quebec Federation of University Students wants Quebec's areas of jurisdiction to be respected. All of the organizations from the rest of the Canada who appeared before us asked for national standards according to which the federal government—somewhat as it is doing or trying to do in health—would impose criteria on the provinces. I asked them if they were ready to accept an asymmetrical system that would allow Quebec to choose to opt out. The responses varied: some said that national standards should apply to everyone without exception; others said that if Quebec wanted something else, that was acceptable.

Do you feel that if there were national standards for the rest of Canada and that Quebec had full jurisdiction in the matter, you could live with that?

[Trevor Hanna]

Yes, we have no problem with national standards so long as it is clearly indicated that they do not apply to Quebec.

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

Thank you.

My second question deals with the $4.9 billion amount you spoke of. Can you remind the members of the committee where this amount came from? How did you calculate it?

[Trevor Hanna]

The cutbacks at the time were $2.2 billion. If we account for inflation and the increase in the student clientele, we come to the figure of $4.9 billion.

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

Finally, you would like to get back to the pre-cutback level, in term of settling the fiscal imbalance. In the short-term, we can do that—that is what the Bloc Québécois is asking for—but in the mid- or long-term, should we not be thinking about a tax field transfer to Quebec, rather than a cash transfer? In fact, if we obtain a simple transfer, there is no guarantee that in 5 or 10 years, the federal government will not play the same trick on us again by reducing the transfers. The same battle will have to be fought again.

[Trevor Hanna]

It is clear that there are advantages, in terms of provincial autonomy, related to a tax field transfer. However, because one tax point is not worth the same thing in each of the provinces, in order to balance the value of the tax points, we would have to reopen the equalization debate, which currently generates different opinions from the various stakeholders. It is more pragmatic for the moment to ask for a return to the 1996 funding levels.

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

All right.

I saw your third and fifth recommendations. The third indeed asks that cash transfers be given priority rather than tax credits; you spoke about that.

In your fifth recommendation, you asked that compensation be granted to the provinces that chose accessibility for the various credits paid out to them. Finally, it is linked—I knew it; I have often talked about it with the members of the committee—to child care, an area where Quebeckers are penalized because they have made that choice.

Are you telling us that the federal system currently penalizes provinces, including Quebec, who have chosen accessibility, and do you want there to be compensation?

[Trevor Hanna]

That is exactly right. We do not want the provinces to be penalized for the social choices they make.

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

All right.

You talk about the fiscal imbalance in your brief. When Mr. Harper came to Quebec City and promised to settle the fiscal imbalance, how did Quebec students or the federation perceive that? Did they believe that the fiscal imbalance would be settled, or did they believe that if everyone agreed, everyone would get along?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, Mr. St-Cyr. Unfortunately, you took a lot of time for your preamble.

Mr. Dean Del Mastro, you have four minutes.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Thank you.

Good morning. My French is terrible,

so I will speak in English.

I'm very excited, Mr. Blouin, about what can only be described as a huge development on the cancer front, in my personal opinion. Can you talk about what the impact would be of this immunization?

There's a number of people on this committee whose lives have been really affected by cancer. To me, this is much bigger than a women's rights issue; this is an issue that affects families, it affects people from all walks of life. Can you talk about what type of impact this will have on cervical cancer?

[Christian Blouin]

Absolutely. Thank you for your question.

I think for women's health, it's a very important breakthrough. In fact, pap testing many years ago, in the 1940s, was probably the most significant achievement in the prevention of cervical cancer, but even with pap testing, there are still 1,400 women in Canada suffering from cervical cancer and genital warts. In fact, 400 women die from it every year, so the vaccine will have a tremendous impact in the long term.

I don't think we're going to see the 400 women not dying a year from now if there are immunization programs, but it will have a long-term impact. I think we should have the vision of implementing an immunization program as soon as we can.

Dr. Francoeur has mentioned it and most medical societies have clearly mentioned that it is a breakthrough. We're not talking about something that is a “me too”, we're talking about something that is innovative and deserving of funding to ensure that women in Canada will be protected, not only with pap tests but with a vaccine against cervical cancer.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

Great.

The $400 million that you're basically seeking for the national immunization strategy, have there been any studies to indicate what type of savings that might mean in the long term to the health care file?

[Christian Blouin]

There's a bunch of studies under way right now, but in terms of the cervical cancer cost annually in Canada, the most conservative number at this stage is about $270 million. This is only direct cost right now. So when you're talking about societal costs and the impact on women's health, psychological health and things like that, and you're adding all components, it's a lot more. And this is only for cervical cancer at this stage.