Finance Committee on Sept. 16th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Kassen, you have about 30 seconds.

[Rees Kassen]

My group is the Partnership Group for Science and Engineering, so that would be the answer. Of course I'd be supportive of post-doctoral funding across the board. Right now the Canadian post-doctoral funding landscape is very limited, particularly relative to our competitor countries, so we'd like to see that expanded and opportunities given.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

We'll go to Mr. Laforest.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon to all the witnesses. My first question is for Mr. Sanger.

Today, you're asking the government to establish a uniform entrance requirement of 360 hours for access to employment insurance benefits. I would presume that some members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees would be hurt by this because certain standards are different across Canada.

Could you provide us with an example? I am assuming that there are some people who do the same work in British Columbia, Quebec, Ontario or the Maritimes. When they receive their severance, they are not given the same treatment. Can you think of any examples that reflect this?

[Toby Sanger]

Thank you very much for that question.

Our membership is about 60% to 70% women, and a lot of them are not very well paid. A lot of people work in part-time jobs in long-term care facilities and other facilities. Certainly a number of them might not qualify if they were laid off in various ways in different parts of the country. I cannot give you specific names, but there would certainly be an impact on some of our members.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Brisson, you mentioned a $22 million shortfall in the Canadian government's contributions for Olympic athletes in the years following 2010.

Do you have any comparisons with other countries? In order to be fair, we perhaps need to draw comparisons on a per capita basis. What is the percentage? Do other countries give more or less? Where does Canada fit in?

[Thérèse Brisson]

Thank you for your question.

I am currently working in Toronto and I have got out of the habit of speaking French. I apologize.

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

Your French is already very good.

[Thérèse Brisson]

With the Own the Podium program we've done things a little bit differently, and we have brought all the funding partners to invest in one pool. That's very important and very different from what we've done in the past. We have actually increased the investment through federal government support as well as through VANOC sponsors, or Vancouver Olympic sponsors, so that has made a big difference. We've had a lot of results.

When we compare ourselves to other G-8 nations--and these are the countries that are aiming to be first in Vancouver and are among the top countries in the world--we are at the bottom of the list. Certainly when we look at countries like Australia--a very small country with extraordinary performances and very focused on summer games--we are at the bottom of that pack.

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

I do not often have an opportunity to speak to athletes who have won Olympic medals. So I would like to give you my hearty congratulations.

My question is for Mr. Williams. I know that several pharmaceutical research companies have set up shop in Quebec. During the 80s and 90s, the Government of Quebec adopted measures that resulted in a significant number of pharmaceutical companies setting up in Quebec in order to do research.

What type of measure should the federal government be implementing to achieve some equivalency?

[Russell Williams]

Thank you for your question.

Indeed, Quebec continues to work in partnership with the pharmaceutical industry. It is precisely why slightly less than 50% of all Canadian research is done in the province of Quebec.

With respect to what the federal government can do, I believe that there are three factors that can encourage company heads to invest. Firstly, market access can be facilitated as to ensure that drugs are made available quickly. Secondly, the tax credit regime for research can be modernized. In addition, there is the matter of intellectual property, which definitely falls under federal jurisdiction. As an example, we are the only country to not have the right to appeal decisions.

So those are the three things that Canada could address to improve our international standing.

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

As far as the intellectual property regime is concerned, you are making a presentation about fiscal measures before the Standing Committee on Finance.

Have you made similar requests before any other committee at the federal level? I think that would be important because the issue does not concern just financial measures, but rather, incentive measures. A different piece of legislation must be adopted to help your sector.

[Russell Williams]

Indeed, we have made presentations in many fora. We try to convince our audiences that now is the time to act. We have also talked about tax credits for research.

Let us now talk about the long term. Merck Frosst maintained its operations in Quebec because we have a favourable system there, at a time when other research centres in the United States were being shut down. It is a combination of intellectual property, market access, and tax credits.

This is why we are making these three recommendations. We will certainly continue to take our message to other places.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci, monsieur Laforest.

Mr. Dechert, please.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all, ladies and gentlemen, for your presentations today.

To Ms. Brisson, I want to welcome you as a fellow resident of Mississauga, a town that creates and is responsible for many great Canadian hockey stars, including yourself and Johnny Bower. I'm very pleased to see you here, and thank you for your presentation.

I have a question for Mr. Sanger of CUPE. I want to thank you for your presentation as well. You pointed out the positive impact that infrastructure stimulus spending by our government has had on our economy so far.

Earlier today I noted that the current chief economist of the Royal Bank of Canada, Craig Wright, says the economy is advancing because aggressive policy actions are taking effect; “We expect that Canada's recession will turn out to be the least severe of the past three.” I think that is good news for everyone.

I was interested in your proposal about green infrastructure investments. As you know, in our budget of 2009 the government launched the green infrastructure fund that committed over $1 billion to support sustainable energy and municipal waste water management infrastructure investments. I wonder if you can comment on the impact of the green infrastructure fund and what you suggest should be done in the future to enhance that program.

[Toby Sanger]

I don't have all the details on the impact of the green infrastructure fund. I frankly think that a much higher share of the infrastructure spending should have been connected to various environmental objectives in various ways. I think there was a requirement previously to have some sustainability planning in place for communities that received infrastructure spending. I think that was a positive move and more of that should be done.

There is a problem in that you're trying to get the money out quickly, but at the same time you need to look toward long-term productivity and benefits.

On this recession, the GDP may start to increase, but unemployment is expected to keep on rising. When most people experience a recession it's through their jobs and their income, not through measures such as the stock market or GDP.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

What would you suggest in terms of dollar amounts that the government should be investing in green infrastructure? I note, for example, that in my area the government, jointly with the Government of Ontario, is investing $500 million in GO Transit, which will help people leave their cars at home and take transit. Obviously that has great benefits for our environment. There is also a lot of money being spent on waste water treatment and new water supply management infrastructure investments. Just in my riding alone there are 2,000 new parking spaces being created at GO train stations to take 2,000 more cars off the road every day.

Is that the kind of thing you'd like to see more of? Could you give us an idea of what dollar amount you think should be spent?

[Toby Sanger]

We included some dollar amounts in terms of an additional green collar jobs program as part of this, as a recession recovery fund, but as I said before, a key thing is to tie more of the infrastructure spending that is going out right now--which should be increased--to further environmental objectives. It is not just the dollar amount but tying it to those things.

There also needs to be a focus in terms of the jobs in that area. There is a great opportunity. We are really missing out on it.

This is a really serious point. The infrastructure we're putting in place right now is going to last for decades. We've been told that we need to reduce our emissions by 80% by 2050. If we're putting in infrastructure now that is going to last four decades, until that time, let's get it right now.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I have a further question for Dr. Kassen.

I was very interested in your presentation as well, Dr. Kassen. You mentioned that you would recommend that the government increase federal funding for research. You probably know a fair amount was done in that regard in our most recent budget, including $200 million for industrial research assistance, $87.5 million for the Canada graduate scholarships program, $750 million for research infrastructure through the Canada Foundation for Innovation, $120.4 million to fund 134 new or renewed Canada research chairs in 37 Canadian universities, and $48 million to expand the new college and community innovation program to establish research partnerships between colleges and local businesses across Canada. Of course, there was the $2 billion knowledge infrastructure program, which is creating in Mississauga a new $70 million building at the University of Toronto, Mississauga, to create laboratories and classroom space for 700 new students a year, and a new campus of Sheridan College in Mississauga.

I wonder if you could give us a sense of what, in addition to those investments, additional investments you would suggest, and again, how much would you suggest the government spend in this regard?

[Rees Kassen]

Invest in people, quite simply.

Certainly the infrastructure investments have been welcomed and they have added immensely to university centres and research institutes across the country, but they will be hollow investments unless you also invest in the people who do the research.

That's as much as I have to say.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

For example, there is an investment of $50 million in quantum computing. I believe that is for people. There is $136 million in university-based social science and humanities research to support 2,500 of Canada's best researchers. That's more of that sort of thing--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Very briefly, Mr. Kassen.

[Rees Kassen]

I would emphasize that it's through basic research and discovery-driven research, for example, through the funding councils, the tri-councils, CIHR, NSERC, and SSHRC, that--

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

For example, we announced $250 million to upgrade federal labs, including the National Research Council--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Dechert.

Do you have a final two seconds, Mr. Kassen?

No. Then we'll go to Mr. Mulcair.