Finance Committee on Oct. 7th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Lafleur, please keep your response brief.

[Gaston Lafleur]

Okay.

We want the federal government to play a leadership role to ensure—I agree that we should be thinking about harmonization that is in line with constitutional jurisdiction over environmental matters. However, we have to make an effort to try to work together, which is what the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment is trying to do. We support that.

For example, harmonization might be the right way to go with issues surrounding internalization or in our sector. There are retailers all over Canada. We think that the idea of internalization, which we have already talked about in a parliamentary committee, was associated with concerns about the right to transparency and visibility regarding costs related to an environmental program for retailers so that they can clearly post environmental costs on labels or elsewhere.

Elsewhere in Canada, there are not necessarily any legislative constraints in this respect. In Quebec, a provision in the Sustainable Development Act requires cost internalization. This principle does create problems with interpretation, but it does have the advantage or the disadvantage of being the only one of its kind in Canada. People talk about trying to harmonize. The point is to strike a balance so that our businesses operating across Canada can do this in similar, but not necessarily identical ways.

Nothing is perfect, obviously, but we have to work toward harmonizing this because there are major costs involved. If the 10 provinces and the territories each do their own thing and create different ways of doing things, a business in our retail sector with locations in Vancouver or Halifax will have problems. This will involve tremendous costs.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Lafleur.

Thank you, Mr. Mulcair.

Mr. Pacetti.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Blouin, I have looked at the recommendations, and I would like to know how you reconcile your first recommendation with your second.

Perhaps you can explain to me how the procedure works? Even if the federal government commits $100 million for immunization, it will not actually provide the services. So that is related directly to the second recommendation.

[Christian Blouin]

I could give you a long answer, but I will try to be brief.

The $100 million is an incentive to encourage the provinces to act. If we look at funding for the national immunization strategy over the past six years, the $300 million that was invested every three years has had an impact, as I explained earlier, on vaccination coverage in Canada, which was not the case when there was no funding. That being said, if possible, I would rather not have to come back here every year or every two or three years to ask for more funding.

Our second recommendation suggests that the federal government and the provinces should work together to establish a permanent mechanism like that in other countries. We have to look at global best practices and develop a system that gives people access to vaccines.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

There is a system in place right now.

[Christian Blouin]

Right now, there is no funding system. Funding comes from the provinces. In 2003, your government allocated $300 million because there were four pediatric vaccines at the time that were not covered, except in Alberta, because it had more money. Your government realized that it was important to ensure fairness across Canada. So the vaccines were covered. As soon as the $300 million was put into a trust fund, pro-rated on the basis of population, the provinces implemented vaccination programs. The same thing happened with the second $300 million for the HPV vaccine.

New vaccines are available, but they are not funded. We want the federal government—

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

If they provinces want it, they will choose to—

[Christian Blouin]

They could fund it, but there is not really any leadership in the infectious disease field or in public health. It is important to remember that health is under provincial jurisdiction. But when it comes to public health, the provinces cannot work in isolation. The threat of a pandemic, West Nile and SARS have shown that viruses and bacteria can travel. This is not like a scan in the hospital where the provincial health minister decides that it is under his jurisdiction. Public health is the responsibility not only of the provinces but also of the federal government.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Meikle, I am a McGill University alumnus too. I would like to congratulate you on the good work you are doing and the fact that you have two Nobel laureates. Maybe I will be one too one day.

[Some hon. members]

Ha! Ha!

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

We have travelled all across Canada. Many colleges and universities have asked for more money for research. In the past, they have even asked the government to cover indirect costs. You mentioned that too, but I do not see a recommendation about it. You are sometimes eligible for funding for research, equipment and capital costs.

How will indirect costs be covered? Have universities found a way to absorb these costs?

[Victoria Meikle]

I am not sure I understand the question. I am sorry.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

We used to get a lot of requests for indirect costs. We don't have that in any of the recommendations.

[Victoria Meikle]

I believe that other universities have recommended increasing funding for research, including indirect costs associated with research, particularly in research-intensive universities, because they do not receive full compensation for the money they spend.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

In the past, you asked for a percentage.

[Victoria Meikle]

Research-intensive universities have an estimated $375 million shortfall. On average, these universities are now being compensated for just over 21¢ per dollar invested in direct research.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Would the $60,000 for post-doctoral training cover all costs associated with post-doctoral studies? I would have thought it would be higher than that.

[Vaughan Dowie]

That would cover most of it. Right now, we are getting nothing or next to nothing. That would be a step forward. The $60,000 is a guideline.

The Vanier doctoral program that was announced a couple of years ago allows doctoral students to receive up to $50,000. So the $60,000 is to say that post-doctoral students should be earning more than doctoral students because they have more experience. It would cover a lot of those costs, especially if there were a compensating program in it for the direct costs of research.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Pacetti.

Ms. Gagnon.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Thank you.

I am pleased to see you all here this morning. This debate raises a number of issues.

Over the course of my 16 years in the House of Commons as a member of Parliament, I have been asked to work on all of the issues before us this morning. One of the first files I worked on was poverty. Talking about poverty means talking about the social safety net. We are therefore familiar with all of the issues covered in the CSN's employment insurance submission. There was also the employment insurance file in 1995-96, as well as SCPI, implemented by Ms. Bradshaw, whose heart was in the right place. However, we had to work very hard to bring certain realities to light and really understand homelessness issues, as well as issues facing universities, which need $800 million more to overcome their challenges. There are also heritage issues. As you can see, it is very hard for us to ask all of you about the realities you face. Let me just say that I will begin with something I am passionate about.

I worked in the cultural sector. It is often hard to understand why spoiled children want more, if I may say so. Mr. Gilbert, I would like you to explain further. You want a Canada-wide cultural infrastructure network that is better suited to the demands of the arts and the realities of artists' day-to-day lives, things that people have a hard time understanding. Around 1984, I was working to promote Quebec film—that was a long time ago—and I remember the hoops we had to jump through to promote Quebec film abroad. It was very difficult.

Can you explain it to us in terms that we can use to accurately convey these realities during debates in the House of Commons? Maybe that will help us get PromArt and Trade Routes back or get bigger budgets.

[Bastien Gilbert]

Thank you, Ms. Gagnon.

Later on, Ms. Samson will do a better job than I could of telling you about problems facing the film industry and distribution in Canada and abroad.

As to the arts we are talking about, the Mouvement pour les arts et les lettres is an association of Quebec artists. These artists are operating in a relatively small market and they have to disseminate their work abroad as well as in Canada. It is not easy for them to get their work out to the rest of Canada. Canada is huge, and the population is spread out and so on. So we need help from the federal government to do a better job of promoting the professional work being done in various sectors, including visual arts, which is my field, contemporary dance, classical music, multimedia, arts and crafts and more. Quebec arts and crafts have an excellent reputation in Canada and abroad. We need help from the federal government to promote our work, to help our performers, our organizations and our artists get the funding they need to survive, grow and develop.

The cultural infrastructure mentioned in our submission also refers to physical spaces. People need professional spaces to get their work out there. We mentioned the Canadian Conference of the Arts, which stated that much of the physical and cultural infrastructure—theatres, dance halls and exhibit halls—was created as part of the buildings paid for by funding to mark the centennial of Confederation in 1967. Many of these buildings need renovation, restoration and so on, and that will cost a lot of money. That is why the Canadian Conference of the Arts, the foremost Canadian organization representing the arts and culture sector, recommended significant increases to funding for Canadian Heritage's cultural spaces program because that is the department that provides funding for the infrastructure that is so important to cultural and artistic expression in Canada.

I do not know whether my answer will help you defend or express our position in the House of Commons, but I hope that I have answered your question.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Thank you.

My next question is for Réseau SOLIDARITÉ Itinérance du Québec. I understand what is at stake. More funding should be made available. Unless I am mistaken, there is an urgent need. However, employment insurance also has an impact on people's daily lives and their ability to support their families.

I do not want to engage in partisan politics, but we are being told that it could cost $4 billion. So can $1 billion really be an accurate number if we were to adopt a 360-hour threshold?

[Pierre Patry]

We are not the ones who said that. It was the Toronto Dominion Bank that calculated a cost of $1 billion if employment insurance eligibility is reduced to 360 hours.

I would like to go back to what we were talking about earlier. We believe that there was a huge surplus that the government unfortunately took away. If the government creates a real employment insurance fund, an independent account, which does not yet exist but is in the planning stages at the new board, and if it is funded adequately, there would eventually be a surplus. Then, during a recession or an economic crisis, even if it cost a little more to support unemployed workers, the government could still afford it.

Now, because the $57 million is gone and there is an economic crisis going on, the government says that there is no money left. However, these amounts are relatively small compared to the total Canadian budget.

We could get the money from employer and employee contributions, especially since the Conservatives have cut corporate income taxes significantly since coming to power—15% by 2011-2012. They could take the money they are saving on taxes and spend it on employment insurance contributions. That would improve the system and help the government deal with difficult situations like the one we are going through right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Gagnon.

Mr. Wallace.