Finance Committee on Nov. 1st, 2010

[Palmer Nelson]

It's interesting. I've been a practising dental hygienist for 20 years in Newfoundland and Labrador, and there is no public health hygienist in the province. The federal government spends close to $5 million to $7 million a year on treatment, particularly for the Inuit, and they fly children into St. John's and extract all their teeth by the age of four--

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

Good for you.

[Palmer Nelson]

--and have to provide denturists and dental care for these children, and it's an ongoing situation.

There is no provision for public oral health care in Newfoundland and Labrador, yet the federal government spends money on public health for seniors in P.E.I., and they don't have to spend as much money on the treatment as a result of the prevention and the promotion of good oral care for seniors. Those are just two provincial examples.

Yes, I think there are opportunities. Dental hygienists have also become self-regulating, and we're able to go into homes and communities to do that. So we're looking for some funding.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Pacetti.

Thank you everyone. I want to thank you for your presentations and for answering our questions.

Colleagues, we will take about a two-minute break and we'll have the next panel come forward.

Thank you all.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'll ask everyone to find seats, please. We'll begin our second panel. We are discussing our recommendations for the pre-budget consultations for 2010-11.

We have another seven organizations for this panel. We have Encana Corporation; the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada; the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Canadian office; the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers; the Canadian Public Works Association; the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association; and the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

I'll ask each of you to speak for a maximum of five minutes during your opening presentation. We'll start with Encana Corporation.

[Eric Marsh, Executive Vice-President, Encana Corporation]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Standing Committee on Finance. My name is Eric Marsh. I am executive vice-president of Encana Corporation. Along with my two vice-presidents, Wayne Geis and Sam Shaw, it is my honour to address this committee.

Today we are proposing that the Government of Canada become a leader in a transportation policy that will offer an innovative solution to growing our economy, creating jobs, lowering emissions, and generating government revenue. We believe that with strong government leadership and the use of natural gas throughout the transportation sector, Canada would quickly marry the environmental benefits of natural gas with widespread economic growth and job creation.

Why choose natural gas? It's clean, affordable, and abundant. Natural gas emissions are lower than those from diesel or gasoline, so it's the right choice to achieve our emissions targets. Natural gas is abundant, and now discoveries of shale gas across Canada make it a resource that eastern and western provinces can develop and utilize.

The following proposal offers a long-term solution that would generate benefits through virtually every sector of society. We have summarized our plan on one page for the committee's convenience.

Encana is requesting that the federal government adopt and invest in a natural gas transportation policy for all of Canada. This policy has three measures that we will be requesting be in Budget 2011.

First, we request that the government make strategic investments by providing fiscal incentives to purchasers of natural gas vehicles in the heavy-, medium-, and light-duty ranges for fleet applications. These investments would help to reduce the substantial cost difference between natural gas vehicles and their diesel or gasoline equivalents. In addition, these investments would help to offset the business risk for early adopters who convert to using a cleaner, more affordable domestic fuel. This support could be in the form of a tax credit, a capital cost allowance modification, or a grant. We believe a declining per unit value incentive program should last 10 years to achieve the revenue generation, job creation, and emissions reductions that will be the hallmark of a successful program.

Second, tax credits for grants that assist with manufacturing and research and development could position Canada's auto sector as a global leader in natural gas vehicle manufacturing. This assistance would facilitate the introduction of expanded consumer vehicle choices, economies of scale, and technological improvements to reduce the cost of vehicles in increased spinoff companies developing new business opportunities.

Finally, to ensure consumer confidence, Encana would propose that government exclude any excise fuel taxation during the program. The incentives we are recommending are available in other jurisdictions, and the evidence is clear that adoption is accelerated when government participates in new industry. As many of you know, Quebec has adopted a provincial-level program. As a result, Robert Transport recently announced the purchase of 180 natural gas heavy-duty trucks with engines produced by Westport Innovations, the Canadian-based world leader in natural gas powertrains.

Our modelling demonstrates that government investment in this project would become revenue neutral within five years and would achieve investment payout within eight years through revenues generated by increased royalties and taxation. Cumulative government revenues would equal approximately $6.5 billion by the year 2025. Our estimate shows that the total government investment would average less than $300 million annually over the first five years of the program. This project would create 70,000 new jobs in all sectors of the natural gas vehicle value chain, including resource extraction, technology, and vehicle and equipment manufacturing infrastructure.

The impact of growing Canada's natural gas economy will be profound, but we must act to seize the opportunity. As oil prices continue to rise, gas prices remain low and stable, and this is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. The new abundance of natural gas will provide price stability and ensure affordability for future use as a transportation fuel with lower operating costs.

This government investment proposal will create jobs, return revenues, and drive down emissions. Encana looks forward to working with industry and all levels of government to help this nation realize this opportunity.

Thank you. We look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for your presentation.

We'll now hear from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada.

[Dr. Andrew Padmos, Chief Executive Officer, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Andrew Padmos. I'm a physician specialist in hematology and the chief executive of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, an organization created by a special act of Parliament in 1929 to represent the public interest in choosing and defining “specialists” in medical and surgical practices. We have 42,000 members, 30,000 in active practice in Canada. We're known for setting standards in the public interest and overseeing the education and certification of all specialists, with the exception of our colleagues in family medicine.

It's my privilege today to expand on four recommendations in our brief: firstly, to create a pan-Canadian health human resource observatory to leverage our human resource investment in health care; to support the further invigoration of research to retain thought leadership in this huge and important industry; to support leading innovation to develop leading practice that is going to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of health care; and lastly, to dignify our aboriginal peoples to provide a continuum of health care as a model supported by the federal government, a model expected by all Canadians.

Our first recommendation concerns an observatory for health human resources. Our colleagues from industry and business would consider it laughable, if not catastrophic, to see an industry the size of health care, nearly $200 billion a year, that expends literally nothing on tracking its most expensive resource—that is, the health human resources in our personnel, and not just physicians but all categories—although we spend 70¢ of every health care dollar on personnel costs.

We're facing incredible changes in the health care environment and we have no means to track the directions or the ramifications of these, including a great sucking noise from the south of us because of the health care improvement act in the United States. They look to Canada as the best and most able source of health human resources to fill a huge gap they have.

We also have expended very little time, energy, or effort on deciphering what the impact of electronic tools and resources will be in health care. We know a little bit about Google Health, but we don't know very much about when the electronic records will be established in Canada for all practitioners and all patients.

We want to ensure that Canadians have the best of health care through innovation and research, and yet our investments in health care research fall far behind those of our neighbours to the south. The importance of this also impacts on health care human resources, because now there are over 3,500 Canadian-trained Canadian physicians in the United States, where they have taken up residence because of the improved opportunities for research and for practice.

We'd like to promote innovation in health care and recommend the establishment of a body at the federal level, working in a pan-Canadian environment, to boost productivity and to examine and disseminate information about leading practices. Again, our colleagues in the United States have invested heavily in this area, and we have some examples in our provinces, such as the Saskatchewan Health Quality Council, which has adopted collaborative methods. These are spreading in other provinces as well.

Lastly, we want and we call for investment in the health and well-being of Canada's aboriginal peoples. We invite you to consider a community near you where heart disease occurs one and a half times more commonly than in your family home; where diabetes is three to five times more prevalent; where tuberculosis occurrence is ten times more likely; where the life expectancy of women is less than that of other groups of women by six years; where infant mortality is twice that of the general population. These figures are a stark reality in a call for federal action. The government's $285 million commitment to aboriginal health initiatives in Budget 2010 isn't enough. We ask that the government extend its support for the aboriginal health human resources initiative funding, which was announced in 2010, beyond its two-year term, considering the long lead time required to make these recommendations come forward.

Thank you for the opportunity. We look forward to any questions you might have.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for your presentation.

We'll now hear from the AFL-CIO, please.

[Robert Blakely, Director, Canadian Affairs, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Canadian Office]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

With me today is Mr. Chris Smillie. Mr. Smillie, from my office, has cufflinks today, which is explained by the fact that, first, his mom is going to be watching today, and second, he had to beg them from me in order to be here.

Thank you very much for the opportunity. We'd like to say to the committee that we've made pitches here in the past. Thank you for the stimulus program; it put a lot of our people to work. We're not here to beat that one to death.

A number of presentations that have been made to you or will be made in this cycle will talk about labour supply issues. Labour supply issues, at a time when you can't pick up a magazine or a newspaper in this country without reading about skill shortages, are going to affect us in the near run.

We have a mobility problem in our industry, the construction industry. The truth is, we have enough people to do the work, but we don't have enough people who live in the provinces where the work is, and the work is of such a short duration that it's neither reasonable nor feasible for people to move their homes and families for a two- or three-month job.

Labour shortages are going to go on. We believe the Government of Canada can and should do something about that. We proposed in our material, and I will propose to you today, that what can be done is both efficient, an insignificant interference with the budgeting process, and something that in the final analysis will actually benefit financially the Government of Canada. We're proposing a sensible approach to a structural problem.

We need skilled people to build the infrastructure. If you don't have skilled people to build the infrastructure.... One of the significant drivers for people who are investing in major projects is knowing whether or not there will be someone to do the job. Shortages have the effect of creating uncertainty and insecurity within the contracting community and among the owners who actually put up the money for projects.

We spend a significant amount of our money in this country on post-secondary education. A portion of that is for the apprenticeship system. We train apprentices in every territory and province in the country, but frequently there is not enough work at home to allow someone to actually complete an apprenticeship. We want to be in a position to be able to move those people across the country so that they get varied experience and they get to complete their training. It is moving people from areas where work is slow to areas where demand exists. Across this country, people in trades are being trained no longer to an Alberta or an Ontario or a British Columbia standard, but rather to a national standard. We need an effective way to get people to work.

In some cases, employers will assist someone in getting across the country, but they won't absorb all the costs. We need an opportunity to let people claim net expenses by way of a tax credit. We're not talking here about commuting, but about people who move long distances across the country, are not able to return home daily, are generally flying to go somewhere, and are maintaining a second residence.

There is a cost to inaction. Inaction in these circumstances means the employment insurance account either staying with the same level of employment or unemployment, or else going up. We're suggesting a program that will foster a decrease in the draw on EI and decrease the horizontal spending that HRSDC and Citizenship and Immigration Canada currently undertake—about $64 million—on the temporary foreign worker program, labour market opinions, labour market information, and administering those programs.

Rather than remain on EI, the program we're suggesting gets skilled tradespeople to move across the country, to go where the work is, and to pay taxes. In our materials you will see the costs that we have looked at for the program. One dollar invested this year by the Government of Canada returns four dollars the next year and for each succeeding year.

We certainly have had some policy buy-in from the people at HRSDC. We now need the buy-in from the Department of Finance to do something that will benefit construction workers in this country and the people who employ them.

As a final and closing note, we're quite heartened to see our colleagues and industry partners from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers here today. We certainly support their pitch on the accelerated capital cost allowance. It's a game changer for them and a game changer in terms of employment for our members.

That's my submission.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

That's actually a good segue into our next group, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

[David Collyer, President, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I'm Dave Collyer. I'm the president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. I'm joined by Mr. Tom Huffaker, who is our vice-president of policy and environment.

I recognize that you have our pre-budget submission, so I will try to be brief in my remarks.

CAPP represents the upstream oil and gas sector in Canada. Our members comprise an industry that is the largest single private sector investor in Canada, and we believe a vital part of the Canadian economy.

CAPP submitted three pre-budget recommendations.

Our first recommendation is that the government take steps to encourage Canadian competitiveness in the natural gas market. I'll comment further on that recommendation in a moment.

Our second recommendation is that the previously recognized need for tax incentives to assist in developing carbon capture and sequestration projects and other greenhouse gas reduction technologies be implemented in this budget. CAPP is already on record with detailed suggestions in that regard, specifically recommending broadening of class 43.2, which is a 50% declining balance reduction for renewable energy technology, to include expenditures on CCS and other emergent carbon reduction technologies.

Our third recommendation is that the government implement tax measures to encourage responsible reclamation of pipeline infrastructure.

Let me now focus on the first recommendation, which is intended to encourage the competitiveness of Canadian natural gas during what we believe to be very challenging near-term market conditions.

The Canadian natural gas industry—and it is truly a national industry—is important for several reasons. It provides jobs and economic growth across the country; it contributes significantly to government revenues; it provides clean, safe, reliable energy for use by Canadians and by export markets in the United States; and its abundance, at least a 100-year supply at current production rates in Canada, and responsible development provide, we believe, the opportunity for natural gas to play a foundational role in the energy supply mix in North America going forward.

Having said that, the economic downturn and the emergence of large shale gas resources in the United States have made the natural gas production business in Canada very challenging in the near term. Our Canadian industry is facing lower prices, relatively higher production costs, and in some cases long distances from markets.

The U.S. industry is attracting investment, infrastructure, and labour, which, once firmly established, could result in economies of scale and market capture that could make it more difficult for us to compete for markets as Canadian suppliers.

And finally, growth in shale gas development in the United States is reducing market share for Canadian suppliers.

We expect market conditions to improve over time, but in the near term we believe there is a strong case for action. Our recommendation is therefore that the federal government join producers and shippers and pipeline companies, who are working very hard to reduce their production costs, and the producing provinces, who are advancing both fiscal reform and regulatory reform, in taking action to encourage competitiveness during this very challenging period.

Our specific recommendation is that for a 30-month period the Government of Canada should allow drilling and completion costs for natural gas to be deductible on a 50% straight-line basis.

We estimate the positive economic impact over 30 months to be $1.2 billion to $1.3 billion in investment and something on the order of 17,500 jobs, 2,500 of which we believe to be in central and eastern Canada. This does not require any direct stimulus funding, and we estimate that over time there is no overall cost to government.

We acknowledge that you may find it difficult to support a recommendation that is directed to the oil and gas sector, but we think there are three very good reasons for doing so.

The first is competitiveness. This puts in place a tax regime for the Canadian natural gas sector that is on par with that which competing producers in the United States enjoy and is also comparable to that which is afforded to the manufacturing and processing sector in Canada. It's time limited; it establishes a tax treatment for a fixed duration of 30 months, over which time we believe there is an opportunity for the market to continue to recover, and for broader opportunities, such as those that Encana talked about, to be pursued.

Finally, we believe natural gas is a vital part of a clean energy future for Canada, and this plays a key part in sustaining an industry that we believe is going to be very important over the longer term.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we look forward to your questions and the discussion to follow. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much.

We'll now hear from the Canadian Public Works Association.

[Darwin Durnie, President, Canadian Public Works Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Darwin Durnie. I'm the president of the Canadian Public Works Association. With me here this afternoon is Mr. Clarke Cross, who is CPWA's federal government relations coordinator.

Our membership is composed of over 2,000 public works practitioners from across Canada, representing all disciplines of public works. In a nutshell, public works is the backbone of our communities, large and small, urban and rural. All the public assets above the ground, below the ground, and on the ground are public works. It's our infrastructure.

Additionally, we provide services that make our communities safe and sustainable and fun places to work and grow. Snow and solid waste removal, urban transit, signalling and street lighting, and cultural spaces are but a few of the services our members deliver to Canadians 365 days a year, 24/7.

Today we'll focus on two recommendations. First, like other infrastructure stakeholders, we are encouraging the government to build on and sustain investment in infrastructure and to adopt a long-term approach to funding and investment beyond the end of the EAP in 2011 and the Building Canada fund in 2014.

Second, we encourage government to work with municipalities and provinces to ensure the smooth and orderly completion of the economic action plan. There's no denying that the billions of dollars invested in infrastructure through stimulus spending and the Building Canada fund have created an infrastructure legacy and economic benefits across the communities in Canada. However, as stimulus funding is withdrawn and the Building Canada fund becomes fully subscribed, we believe that governments need to begin planning for the next generation of infrastructure programs now and begin implementing new tools to improve delivery.

Some of those basic requirements or tools were created during the EAP. Others are still required. For instance, a national vision for infrastructure first requires long-term assurances on funding, which will provide municipalities and industry with the predictability they require for the renewal of existing assets and for building new infrastructure to keep Canada competitive. Second, this new national vision for infrastructure should obviously include a tool or method for measuring success.

Next, all orders of government and first nations need to share analysis, research, and best practices to leverage and maximize the return on infrastructure investment and to incent innovation. CPWA has been working actively on this front, but the federal government has a coordinating role to support and foster forums that allow this exchange of information to take place. Issues that have emerged from these discussions include the need to address capacity challenges facing small communities and first nations and the need to explore alternative infrastructure financing solutions, such as public-private partnerships.

We want to briefly talk about the March 31, 2011, deadline for stimulus spending.

First is the good news. From an on-the-ground perspective, an end-user's perspective, there have been significant and positive results. The stimulus programs brought forth an unprecedented need to approve applications and get money to projects as soon as possible. Government had to adapt its methods. No longer would delays to approvals be permitted, and our industry had to nominate thousands of shovel-ready projects and fill out innumerable applications.

In response to these challenges, a streamlined and simplified application process for project funding was developed. This was welcomed by CPWA and its members, and particularly by those smaller communities with more limited administrative capacity.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have one minute.

[Darwin Durnie]

Thank you.

This simplified application process, backed by proper due diligence, is a model for the next generation of infrastructure programs. As legislators, you should all take some pride in that accomplishment.

We're equally hopeful that the government will extend the same common sense approach to the end of the program that it applied at the outset of the program. This means that on a case-by-case basis, the federal government should consider extending the funding period for projects that could not be completed on time.

In conclusion, I'd like to quote from an e-mail sent to me from the director of public works in Three Hills, Alberta:

The Stimulus Fund has been a...positive factor in regards to our infrastructure...in...Three Hills. It has allowed us to upgrade roads, underground and drainage infrastructure. Our issue is the March 31st...deadline.... Due to wet weather conditions our project has been delayed and we are not sure if we're going to get [the asphalt down] this fall. I know there are many other communities in Western Canada with this issue.

I think that says it all.

As we're nearing the end of the time, we'd be pleased to discuss possible solutions in the question and answer period.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll now hear from the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association.

[Bernard Lord, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. My name is Bernard Lord and I am the President of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association.

I'm pleased to be joined by Jim Patrick, our vice-president of government affairs.

We're here today to ask you to consider two very specific recommendations to include in your report. We have circulated a short slide deck to all the members of the committee.

It is clear in the 21st century that wireless networks are a very important economic driver. Wireless networks are a major driver of economic activity in all regions of Canada across all sectors of the economy.

As I've just said, wireless is an economic driver throughout Canada, but one thing to note is that wireless data traffic is doubling every single year in Canada. If vehicle traffic were growing at the same rate on the Trans-Canada Highway, we would need to expand the Trans-Canada from a four-lane highway to a 64-lane highway in just four years. That would not be the right time to put a new tax on asphalt. Well, we don't think this is the right time to put a new tax on spectrum or to put a new tax on innovation and productivity growth.

The benefits of wireless for Canada have been recognized in an international study based on 2008 figures and produced by the international firm Ovum. In 2008, wireless communications generated a total economic value of some $39 billion for the Canadian economy, or $16 billion in terms of direct contribution to the GDP, $14 billion indirectly to the GDP and in economic spinoffs, and $9 billion in consumer surplus. The wireless industry employs nearly 300,000 people in Canada.

One of the obstacles to further and faster growth is the fact that Canada's spectrum fees are the highest in the G-7. The chart on page 3 of the slide deck shows clearly that our fees are not just somewhat higher, but a lot higher, than anywhere else in the G-7. By comparison, Canadian wireless carriers hold less than 2% of all licensed spectrum, yet pay over 50% of all the spectrum licence fees. Obviously somebody's getting a better deal than we are.

The Canadian Senate recommended taking other countries' regimes into account when setting the Canadian fees, looking particularly at the U.S. If the U.S. spectrum fee regime had been in place in Canada in 2009, instead of paying $130 million, the carriers would have paid $4 million. As the Broadband Canada program distributes $225 million over 36 months to subsidize rural broadband, Industry Canada will have taken close to $400 million just in licence fees in that same period of time.

A spectrum fee increase will not support the government's digital economy strategy objective. Just like a tax on asphalt at the outset of a national highway strategy, it would not be the right approach.

That is why we are making two very specific recommendations. One recommendation is to include in Budget 2011 a temporary accelerated capital cost allowance for broadband-network related assets, increasing the current CCA rates of depreciation to 50% for most areas, and to 100% for the hardest and most-expensive-to-serve areas of the country, as identified by Industry Canada.

Our second recommendation, and the one we feel is extremely important, is to include a recommendation in the pre-budget report that government should not increase the already excessive spectrum licence fees paid by Canada's wireless network operators. In fact, we may talk about it as a fee, and the government may want to describe it as a fee, but it really is a tax. Increasing it would be a tax on innovation and an additional tax on productivity. We don't think that's necessary as we see this sector of the economy continue to grow.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the committee members. It would be our pleasure to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much.

We will now move on to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

[Paul Davidson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada]

Good afternoon. I'm Paul Davidson, president of AUCC. With me is André Dulude, the vice-president of advocacy.

Since I've seen you last, many of you have been out across the country seeing the knowledge infrastructure program at work. I hope you received a copy of our progress report to all members of Parliament last week.

I want to assure you that the knowledge infrastructure program is working. It's transforming classrooms that were built in the age of the Sputnik and creating 21st century learning and research environments.

I hope also that you're watching the economy as closely as we are, and if you remember one fact from today, keep in mind that from September 2008 to September 2010, during the worst part of the worst recession in 60 years, across Canada there were net 280,000 new jobs for university graduates and 250,000 jobs eliminated for those without higher education. I think that speaks to the changing nature of Canada's economy and the move to the knowledge-based economy.

I also want to underscore that students, parents, and employers recognize the value of a university degree. Earlier this fall we released data that showed that those with a university degree will over their lifetime earn $1.5 million more than those without a university degree and that university graduates contribute 40% of Canada's tax base. In short, Canada needs more university graduates.

In looking at the situation facing Canada, Canada's universities considered the concurrent challenges of demography, productivity, and innovation and developed a three-part plan to help ensure Canada's economic renewal and global competitiveness.

Let me get to the recommendations right away: first, continued and increased investments in Canada's science and technology strategy; second, new investments that support a major international education marketing effort to establish a national brand for Canada around the world; and third, investments in programs and services that will help more aboriginal students graduate from university.

I know people in Ottawa are wrestling with how to communicate the productivity challenge. For me, the clearest example is that over the next 20 years the number of people of retirement age is going to double and the number of those entering the workforce is only going to increase by 8%. What that means is that we have to increase the skills and talents and abilities of every Canadian to meet that challenge.

That's also why investing in research is so critically important. Canada's science and technology strategy is delivering results, and AUCC recommends that the Government of Canada continue to build on its previous initiatives to attract and retain top talent—the Vaniers, the Bantings, the Canada excellence research chairs. These are important initiatives, and we are encouraging, this year specifically, renewing and growing the commitment to fund the Canada graduate scholarships program.

We're also calling for continued investments in Canada's granting agencies. These investments are foundational to the science and technology strategy and ensure that Canada remains an international leader in research. It wouldn't be an AUCC presentation if we didn't mention that we would hope these increases include support for the full costs of research.

I want to turn for a moment to the question of international education marketing. I understand there were some good presentations earlier today, and I just want to reinforce the message of those presentations, that bringing international students to Canada enriches the learning experience for all Canadians, helps Canada meet its labour needs, boosts local economies, and builds long-term links overseas.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade last year estimated that international students contribute $6.5 billion a year to Canada's economy. This year, we're pleased to report, international student enrollment is up 10%. Although this is good news, there is a lot more work to be done. The U.S., the United Kingdom, and Australia are simply outpacing us. We need to aggressively promote higher education to bring more international students to Canada and to build Canada's brand internationally.

Let me say two things that have happened since I've been before this committee that are significant. The first is that the national education stakeholders around the country have agreed to form an international consortium to market Canada overseas. Second, every Canadian premier has identified this as a priority. It's pretty rare when there's that kind of consensus in Canada.

I will mention briefly that next week we'll be leading a delegation of 16 university presidents to India, and we are hopeful that the Government of Canada will consider targeted investments to support our India strategy.

Let me close by speaking to an issue I spoke about last year, and that's engaging the capacities of every Canadian to their full extent. There are 460,000 aboriginal Canadians who are entering the job market, and the question before this committee and every Canadian is, are those young people going to have full access to every opportunity in this country, or are we going to let another generation go? We need to increase financial support for aboriginal students, we need to increase the graduate scholarships for them, and we also need to support the pilot projects that demonstrate how they can be successful and full participants in Canadian life.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll start members' questions with Mr. Szabo, for seven minutes, please.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

These are excellent presentations, and there's a lot to work with.

This is for Encana. I'm delighted about the specific proposal with respect to natural gas vehicles. There are dimensions here, and it says to me that you're concerned about not only jobs, but the environment, our competitiveness, and a whole bunch of things that are really important to us.

Do you want to elaborate on the 70,000 jobs by 2025, basically to be paid for, preferably at the outset, by a tax credit? It's almost too good to be true.

[Eric Marsh]

First of all, thank you for a very nice question.

The way it works is that as you begin to increase the production of natural gas in this project, we've noticed from a lot of the different research we've done that for every Bcf a day of incremental production that Canada can produce, we create between 50,000 and 70,000 jobs. What we're able to do here is not only take the upstream sector of it, but also model what the manufacturing sector could add, as well as the downstream side in our business—this is the pipeline and the distribution sides.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Okay.

Because we have very little time, I'm going to give a few questions out here.

I want to address this question to the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. I note that your first recommendation—this has come from many of the health-related groups—is about human resources for health: a disciplinary task force. It doesn't on its face evoke a feeling of comfort about where we are today. How serious is it?

[Dr. Andrew Padmos]

Thank you for the question.

It's serious to patients across Canada who can't find access to medical practitioners, to nursing practitioners, to care in a rural environment. It's a very real and palpable concern.

The concern that we're underlining today is that we're not even tracking the very large-scale shifts in demographics, in production of various disciplines within the health human resources envelope, so we don't know where we're going. We're shooting in the dark. This is a huge industry.