Finance Committee on Oct. 20th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

I'm just wondering how the interpreter has translated “frigging”.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Just say it in English.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

We'll go to Mr. Pacetti again, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Just quickly, Mr. Bell, in terms of your municipality's applying for any of the new stimulus money, how has your municipality fared in the latest escapade?

[David Bell]

Very well, thank you very much.

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

Very well. How many projects?

[David Bell]

We were able to do 15 of 44, in terms of a water treatment retrofit.

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

You say 15 of 44. Your small municipality of 10,000 submitted for 44 projects and got accepted for 15.

[David Bell]

The one retrofit project was an incredibly large, many-component project, and we were able to do 15 of those 44 required pieces to upgrade our water utility.

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

That has already been approved and ready to go?

[David Bell]

We're working on that as we speak.

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

Great. Thank you.

[David Bell]

That doesn't preclude us still coming and asking, so we're very clear on that.

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

I just wanted to make sure it's working.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

It's interesting what you learn in this business, including that “frigging” is now a parliamentary word.

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

And bilingual.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

And it's bilingual, yes.

My question is to Lori Van Rooijen, and it's with respect to the growth of Canada's R and D expenditures. In the previous government, there was a substantial increase in public funding of R and D. Canada went from a pretty dismal position to a number one position in public R and D. What didn't follow was private R and D. Canada seems to be a bit of a laggard in that, and continues to be a laggard. With the bankruptcy of Nortel, it's going to be even more dismal for private R and D here.

I'm interested in your observations with respect to public R and D and whether in fact it has increased lately or has flatlined or is reducing.

You have a bunch of scientists who are about to be laid off. With respect to private R and D, presumably, if your largest R and D researcher is now in the hands of the bankruptcy court, it can't really look good for R and D in this country.

[Lori Van Rooijen]

I can't speak to the increase in R and D, because I don't know that area. I do know that our university, in particular, has in recent years been a recipient of more R and D funding from federal government sources. For that we're grateful. But I can't speak to it overall. I'm just not sure of the figures, and I wouldn't want to suggest that I would know that.

What I can say, though, is that I agree with you that industry has not stepped up to potentially increase R and D funding from federal government sources. I think that's a very complex question, because it has a lot to do with a whole bunch of different areas. What I can tell you is that when we speak to corporations about funding a particular project that our university is undertaking, one of the things they ask first is whether the government is funding it. They will not come in unless the government has already given funds or has committed funds for that particular project. I know there is a mindset in this industry that government is an integral part of funding for ICT R and D.

That's about as far as I can speak to that.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

It's kind of curious that you should say that industry won't look after itself unless the taxpayer of Canada ponies up dough first. In some respects, it speaks to the cultural difficulties of our industry and the cultural difficulties of surviving as a nation with a manufacturing base. If industry thinks it can put the taxpayer on the hook first, then why should we have an R and D lab, and so on?

I'm curious as to how your specific university handles that issue. How do you handle, for instance, patents that are developed at your university? Who gets to own those?

[Lori Van Rooijen]

In our university, we own them. That is not the case in all universities. We're very different in that instance. So our faculty members do not own the IP for a particular thing.

What I can tell you is that companies like Nortel were good examples of companies that wanted government funding in there first. There are other companies, however, such as Xerox, that are not part of that component. They spend a significant amount of money on R and D and have come to us. We have a partnership with Xerox. We are looking with them at mobile learning, in particular. We have their support, and now we're going to government, and government has been very supportive of it.

It's not all corporations, but there are some, particularly ones that have been around a long time, that are looking for that component of government.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

It's curious that Nortel is a Canadian company and Xerox is an American company.

Thank you.

[Lori Van Rooijen]

You're welcome.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

I'm just going to take the final round and follow up on a couple of issues, first, with the Canadian Federation of Students, Manitoba division. In your first recommendation, you say that the federal government should, in cooperation with the provinces.... You know that this is a very loaded phrase in Canadian federalism.

The issue is that the students outside the province of Quebec have a fairly uniform message, which is similar to yours. The students inside Quebec have a completely different message, in my view, and have made a strong argument that the federal government ought to stick to areas under its own jurisdiction and should leave the areas under provincial jurisdiction to the provinces. So we have two markedly different views within the student population of Canada. It's not just the difference between students and the government.

I want you to argue with them. Their argument is that we're further away from the people as a federal government. It's not our area of expertise. It's a rather paternalistic attitude for us to be attaching and for us, as a federal government, to say that a transfer is unaccountable. They would argue that provincial governments are closer to the people and are thus more accountable to the people. That's not necessarily my argument, but that's the argument they've made.

How do you counter that argument?

[David Jacks]

Certainly, if post-secondary education was simply a provincial issue, then the $800 million transfer from 2007-08 would not have been imposed; neither would the federal stimulus of $2 billion. The federal government does have a really important role to play, and has been playing that role, especially in most recent years, in ensuring that our institutions have the funding they need to operate.

That funding has been going to Quebec as well. It's just a matter of working with the provinces. I know the relationship might be a little bit difficult for some people to be able to discuss with their counterparts within the provincial governments, but post-secondary education is not a game to be played on political whims. It's something that needs to be funded. We need to make sure our institutions remain of quality and affordable, and that no students are left falling through the cracks.

As I mentioned in the presentation, the federal government recently has been funding and has been stepping up to the plate in terms of that funding. Now, just like with other countries around the world, we'd like to see that enshrined in some form of legislation within the federal government so that this funding is being allocated effectively and efficiently with cooperation from the provinces.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. I want to thank you for that.

The second issue I want to follow up on is with the Manitoba Child Care Association. I think it's a valid public debate in Canada as to what level of government you fund it through. I'm in agreement with Mr. Wallace, but that's a valid debate, and I recognize that.

Can you just give me some information in terms of the Province of Manitoba and how much funding it devotes to child care each year? How many children currently receive child care in Manitoba, and how many are not but would receive it if there were funding for that? What's the gap in funding provincially? Could you give us more information? I know you have some in your brief, but could you answer that?