Finance Committee on Oct. 21st, 2009

[Paul Charette]

I think it has definitely been helpful, yes. It's a good program. We have problems with apprenticeship training across Canada. Industry needs to step up and do more, and we are working on that.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

That's a good point.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Menzies.

We're going to go to Mr. McCallum.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, also, to all the witnesses for being here today.

My first question would be for Mr. Manahan.

When you call for infrastructure funding to be on a more rigorous priority-setting basis, it kind of implies that the current system is shotgunned all over the map, with which I agree. My first question is whether you would be in favour of having part of the infrastructure program funded by a gas tax type of mechanism through which the funds can flow directly to municipalities.

[Andy Manahan]

Yes, I would be, to a certain degree. Or it could be a similar formula. My one cautionary remark about using any one particular formula, such as the gas tax, is that what we're seeing in the United States--and I think it's going to happen in Canada--is that consumption of fuel is trending downwards because of more fuel-efficient vehicles. There will be more electric vehicles, hybrids, and the like, so there will have to be some sort of replacement for the gas tax portion over the next 10 years. But certainly that would be a much more predictable model for delivering those sorts of funds.

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

Thank you very much.

My next question is about colleges, and a few people here might have comments.

I'm from a university background, so I'm strongly in favour of funding university research. But like John, I have a college in my riding, a very good one, Seneca College, and I'm highly sympathetic to their cause. I guess I have the impression that traditionally in Canada colleges have received short shrift from the federal government. They have not been treated seriously. To solve that problem, maybe it would be helpful to have a better understanding of why.

I certainly support what you're saying, but I'm wondering why it is that colleges have had little funding or little expression of interest from the federal government over the years. Is it because they seem to be more creatures of the provinces than universities? Is it a status thing--universities get more attention because they seem to have higher status?

Would one of you, or perhaps both of you, like to comment on that?

[Linda Franklin]

I could take a first crack at it.

I think there are a lot of things in play. One of them, frankly, is that most policy-makers in government are university graduates, so they don't come to the table with an understanding of colleges. In fact, it's something that the president of Seneca has been fighting for a long time. There's an actual prohibition on the federal government hiring college graduates. So we have a stigma, I think, among policy-makers, both in the civil service and oftentimes in the political realm.

I think, too, that people are stuck in a view of the college system that is very old, which is that these are vocational training institutions. Today, when you look at colleges, we do everything from literacy and skills upgrading through to degrees, diplomas, certificates, and post-graduate work. We train university graduates who need training and skills. I'm not sure that the message has been communicated as effectively as it probably should have been about the range of things we do.

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

Thank you.

[Paul Charette]

If I can just add to that, my understanding is that the college system was created in the fifties by the vision of the federal government providing 75% of the capital funding for colleges. Since that time, the federal government has done virtually nothing, except in the January 27, 2009, budget. They created what was called the CCIP program. It's very much needed and very much overdue, but it really only touches the tip of the iceberg.

The problem with the colleges, I believe, is that as my colleague has mentioned, there's a stigma attached to them. But colleges have changed dramatically. They've become way more technical. And I guess the real issue is that there are a greater number of university graduates in key positions who have not seen the college system in the right light. I believe we have to change that.

There is a report out that says that we will need six college grads for every one university grad in our coming years, and if we don't address the capacity issue, we're not going to get them.

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

Thank you. That's good.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. McCallum.

We'll go to Mr. Dechert, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your presentations this morning. They're very instructive.

I have a question for Ms. Franklin and Ms. Fralick and perhaps Mr. Charette and Mr. Charlebois. You've all made good arguments for increasing funding to research in colleges.

By the way, I want to say that I'm very pleased that the government has supported a new campus for Sheridan College in Mississauga this year. It's something that's long overdue for Mississauga.

[A voice]

And it's not even in his riding.

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

It's not in my riding. It's in Mississauga East.

But the point is that it's going to do a lot of good for the people of Mississauga and Peel region by giving them the skills they need to compete in the future.

You've all asked for an increase in research funding. We know that we live in a world of limited resources. Recently I was in China and visited a number of universities there. I saw how the Government of China is concentrating its research funding in certain areas of research so that they can become world leaders in specific areas. I'd like to hear, from each of you, your views on whether the Government of Canada should have a national strategy on concentrating these research dollars in specific areas of research. Or should we simply leave it to the college and university sector to decide if they want to support research in every area under the sun?

I'll start with Ms. Franklin.

[Linda Franklin]

I'd suggest that a specific area of focus for us is probably small and mid-sized enterprises, as opposed to IT or biotechnology. The reason for that, frankly, is that it's the sector that's received very little attention in this area.

We had a pilot project in the Ontario colleges where we had 10 colleges that started an applied research network focused on small and mid-sized enterprises, and boy, did it ever get a big bang for its buck. I mean, the amount of success stories out of that small three-year pilot project from folks who started new companies and advanced new ideas.... Some of them started with one person working in a basement and now have a few hundred employees.

I think it tells you that if you could focus some resources around applied research, particularly for small and mid-sized companies as an area of focus, you would see a tremendous uptake and a lot of economic activity. If we're looking at focus, that would be my proposal.

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

That's interesting. Thank you very much.

Ms. Fralick or Mr. Charette, do you have a comment?

[Paul Charette]

I would second that. I think there's a tremendous amount of collaboration between the colleges and industry. I think we need a focused approach in that area, leaving it up to the colleges to determine the great projects to research, but with industry in collaboration. I think industry will come to the table if there is a starting point.

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

So you would suggest some kind of formula whereby the government says it will contribute funding, along with a private sector partner, up to a certain amount, perhaps with matching funding or something like that.

[Paul Charette]

I think that's a starting point.

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

Ms. Fralick, did you have a comment?

[Pamela Fralick]

I'll just add one thought. I do support what my colleagues have said on the tremendous benefit of focused funding that sometimes produces magical results, but I'm also a true supporter of not directing so much, of letting it emerge. That's where we do get some magic as well. It has a balance between those two.

Certainly in health research there are examples where government has set policy directives, identified areas where we want research, and put funding in there, and it has produced tremendously. But it is sometimes the random research that can really lead us as a nation and produce innovative things.

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

You don't want to close off any area of research--

[Pamela Fralick]

Exactly.

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

--but on the other hand, do we have to focus? We're a relatively small country in the world.

Maybe we could hear from Mr. Charlebois, if he has a comment.

[Tyler Charlebois]

I would echo the comments that have been made by my colleagues around the table. But as I focused on in my presentation, I think we do need to look at this and stop doing one-off deals and segmenting our dollars into certain areas. We have to look at it as a strategy, at where we are going and at where Canada wants to go.

Maybe there are specific pools and specific areas that we need to focus on, but we do need to make sure that we have a national strategy, not only in education but on the research side. As you've said, other countries are doing that. They are doing it as a country rather than leaving it up to different segments of their population to do it.