Finance Committee on Sept. 16th, 2009

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Like all other colleagues, I wish to welcome everyone who has appeared today.

Ms. Brisson, you in particular made a presentation on the Olympic movement which was indeed quite moving.

As the chairman pointed out, there are hockey players sitting around this table. We should therefore disclose our conflicts of interest: Mr. Williams and I played on the same hockey team against Ontario members of Parliament, including Minister Flaherty. We remain the reigning champions because we refused to play again. The good news for Russ and me is that all of this happened before YouTube, and there is no record of our last game.

I would like to address the representatives from the Canadian Co-operative Association. I wish to thank them very much for their presentation. I have a semi-technical question about terminology.

In Quebec, every time there is talk about the pressing need for greater federal government investment in housing, one tends to avoid the term “affordable housing”. In fact, the fear is that the term “affordable” is synonymous with “private”, and that the project will somehow find its way onto the market and perhaps receive subsidies. Actually, people are more inclined to use the term “social housing”.

I would like you to elaborate on one of your first recommendations calling for the construction of new affordable housing that promotes the use of cooperatives and social enterprises. If I understand you correctly, we are in fact in agreement. For you, affordable housing comes as either one of those two structures. Am I understanding you correctly?

[John Anderson]

Yes, certainly. We use these two terms interchangeably.

I'll say this in English.

The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, which is one of our members, has approximately 95,000 co-operative housing units in Canada, and those are geared to middle- and lower-income families. You could look at them all as affordable housing, or logement abordable, but also as social housing, because they all have a component in them for low-income citizens to get access to housing.

We think the co-operative model, because it is a model where the citizens themselves control and manage that housing, because it's based on one member, one vote, is a very good model in the ways of delivering affordable housing.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

We share your view, and we're also quite concerned that a lot of co-ops that have existed for a certain number of years and had long-term agreements with the federal government might be lost if those agreements are not renewed.

[John Anderson]

That's certainly one of our concerns, and we hope this situation will be looked at in the near future, because it certainly is coming to an end.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Williams, now that I have disclosed my conflict of interests... You mentioned that making innovative medicines available in Canada raises a specific problem.

What concrete measures can the federal government take to improve the situation?

[Russell Williams]

Thank you for that question and for rekindling our hockey memories.

I think the federal government can make sure that public money is spent appropriately. In fact, in departments such as Health Canada, there is an increasing number of requirements and challenges. We must make sure that we are properly equipped to address needs and to understand the beneficial effects of drugs, etc., and by doing so, make sure that there are no delays. As well, other federal agencies such as the PMPRB, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, work well, and perhaps do not need to continue receiving the same investment amounts.

Allow me to answer your question in broad terms: this will depend on the decision-making process, licences, and notices of compliance. The government must be more strategic in how public money is spent. Then, as you rightly point out, it falls to the CDR, the Common Drug Review, and the provinces.

One other thing: we can insist that the government no longer allow artificial delays. We must put ourselves in the shoes of patients. Nobody wants to see delays in access to life-saving medicines.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you very much.

I would like now to turn to Mr. Sanger and ask him specifically what his thoughts are about the possibility that the next wave of layoffs could occur in the service sector and what information he is hearing on the ground.

We also fear that cutbacks in the public sector will be society's next subject of major debate. Since the current and precarious economic situation was created by the state and its bad decisions, there is a real fear that the next wave of hardship will result from state cutbacks.

I would like to hear Mr. Sanger's thoughts on that.

[Toby Sanger]

Yes, we're very concerned about this. Most of the job loss so far has been in the private sector, but it's just recently that we're starting to see some public sector job losses. I'm not saying this just because we represent public employees, but during a recession public sector employees should not be laid off. I mean, the government should be trying to stimulate the economy. And it was very refreshing to see a change in economic philosophy over the past year on this.

We're very concerned that governments have now become fixated on reducing deficits. All of a sudden there was a change in perspective, and people recognize that we need spending in this area. We're seeing some layoffs--more in the educational sector just recently--and we're very concerned about that expanding later. If there is rising unemployment, there is a possibility that we may have a double-dip recession in this way.

In the past two recessions, governments essentially caused the recessions by hiking up interest rates. That, to a certain extent, is a fact. So they were able to get the economy going by lowering interest rates. Now we can't get interest rates any lower, so we have to have fiscal policy and we have to have a strong public sector to keep the economy going--not just to provide public services, but to keep the economy going so we don't have a double-dip recession.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you.

Do I have time for another question?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Is your question brief?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I will make one single remark to thank Mr. Kassen for his excellent presentation, and Mr. St-Onge for being here.

I loved your expression that they will be hollow investments unless we invest in people. We're going to remember that one and we're going to keep pushing. And in your presentation at these hearings, it is very helpful to remind us that you're the upstream part of Mr. Williams' downstream equation with regard to the importance of research and development in our country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Mulcair.

We'll go to Ms. Hall Findlay, please.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much, everyone, for being here.

Ms. Brisson, I may be the only one around the table who is not a hockey player, but having been a competitive skier, I do appreciate everything you do. And I think, Mr. Rudge, we've encountered each other a couple of times at the bottom of Ski Canada and Alpine Ontario events, so it's good to see you again.

I want to just add briefly a thought on what you have proposed. Maybe my bias is showing, but I do appreciate your effort to continue the funding beyond the Olympics. In addition to your excellent presentation, on the value I will add that from an athlete's perspective we do understand that development of an athlete isn't something you can do just a year or two ahead of the Olympics; it is long-term.

And I will add also that the success of athletes raises our collective level of confidence for everything that Canada and Canadians can achieve. So I just want to thank you very much for being here, and of course I congratulate you for your successes. Thank you for being here today and for your presentation.

My question is for Dr. Kassen. We've had a number of really interesting presentations on a number of issues already, but we heard representatives from the polytechnics a few days ago. They raised a very important point and a question to be addressed, and maybe you can shed some light on it. It may put you on the spot a little bit, but it was the fact that money--as it is from governments in this country--really focuses still to a much larger extent on pure research as opposed to applied research. They had a number of examples of the work of the polytechnics in terms of applied research, both within the institutions themselves but also in cooperation with businesses and other participants. There are some really wonderful success stories for them and for the country, ultimately. But their point was that the level is out of proportion.

I appreciate your effort here in asking for more support for post-doctorate research fellows, and I don't disagree with that. I think we're all very supportive of seeing increased investment, and I share the point of my colleague, Mr. Mulcair, about it's being empty if it doesn't support the people. But can you shed a little bit of light on the differences, and where we can see improvements or benefits from investment in pure research, basic research, as opposed to applied research?

[Rees Kassen]

Well, I'll give it a shot.

Basic research is where new ideas and new knowledge come from. It depends on how you define applied research. There are no agreements on what applied research actually is. One could say that all basic research is applied research or you could say the reverse.

If applied research is directed research to solve a particular problem, we support that, absolutely. We would support investment in that. Certainly, our granting councils—NSERC, for example—do support that as well.

The important thing is to recognize that we don't want to restrict the focus of our researchers unnecessarily. If they choose to work on applied problems, that is appropriate; it's their decision. But we don't want the funds available to be narrowed in any way.

[Dr. Denis St-Onge, Past Chair, Partnership Group for Science and Engineering]

If I could add to that, it's important to understand that applied research is impossible without the pure research beforehand. It's virtually impossible. Therefore, to ask for a balance between the two is particularly difficult because there's no such thing. If you don't have pure research, you will not have applied research.

One of the fundamental problems we've had in this country—and we've made presentations to this effect in the past—is that compared with other countries, industry in Canada has very low research endeavours, the pharmaceutical industry being an exception. But generally speaking, we have a problem with industry translating pure research into innovation. That is the fundamental problem. It's not a question of balance, but a question of who does what, and why don't they do more.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Hall Findlay.

We'll go to Monsieur Roy, s'il vous plaît.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am somewhat in a conflict of interests when it comes to talking about the system, because my son is a beneficiary of it. However, there is a technical detail that frustrates me. In the span of one month, my son won two scholarships. The first scholarship was not awarded by the government, and was deductible, but the second one was not. I find this a bit odd; does the government believe that he earned the first scholarship, but not the second one? I will not question you on that, but this system bothers me.

What you say is true. My son spent the summer in Washington, and it is possible he will go to the United States because of this sort of thing. In fact, he would now be treated much better there than here in Canada.

Mr. Williams, you talked about intellectual property. As you are most certainly aware, there is an issue that prevails throughout the world, that of counterfeit medicines. In Europe, the problem has become extremely dangerous, practically catastrophic. I don't believe that Canada is immune to this problem.

Since this is a matter of intellectual property, I wish to know if the current system as it stands, would allow the government to intervene with sufficient force to prevent the problem of counterfeit medicines from affecting Canada to the extent that it has affected Germany or France.

[Russell Williams]

Thank you for your question.

According to my information, the government and the appropriate tribunals are currently examining the issue. It must be said, and I believe you said the same thing, that Canada's system is very secure. There are rather significant verification measures built in. Right now, we are talking about ways to better protect ourselves. Because of the Internet, and unofficial supply systems, we must make sure that Canadians are indeed protected. Can we do better? Our industry continues to work in partnership with the government to make sure that we are protected against bad counterfeit medicines. We are working to improve the system.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Can it be said that Canada is currently affected by the problem? Perhaps we are not affected to the same extent as Europe, but do you believe that the problem has had an impact here?

[Russell Williams]

We must be cautious. As I stated, I do believe that we have the best safeguard system in the world. Nonetheless, we must constantly make sure that we are protected against new waves. What can we do better? I hope I answered the question properly. Certain departments, such as Health Canada, and even the RCMP, are currently looking into the issue. Canada must not act alone, but in collaboration with other countries, because as you know contraband knows no boundaries. This is why we cannot settle on just protecting ourselves; we must also work in close collaboration with other countries.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Unless I am mistaken, you are saying that if this problem were to strike us tomorrow morning, we are not necessarily in a position to deal with it. You are currently working with the government on ways to defend yourself, but ultimately, we would not necessarily be able to tackle the problem.

[Russell Williams]

I'm not an expert on that subject. The situation is constantly changing. Those who break the rules put all their energy into finding ways to do so. The authorities that protect us constantly have to adapt to this.

I can check to see what stage the discussions are at, and I would be very pleased to provide you with information later on.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Quite an incredible operation may be required to make up teams of investigators to deal with this problem. It can go quite far.

[Russell Williams]

In that respect, we are working at the international level. We would be very pleased to check, and we will provide you further information in the weeks ahead.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Williams.

My next question is for Mr. Anderson.