Finance Committee on Nov. 7th, 2013

[Dr. Michael Julius]

Okay.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

What does that 45% have to become so that the cost to the government is zero?

[Dr. Michael Julius]

The 45% is real, and I've articulated in my brief what activities that 45¢ on every $1 covers. If eventually the government decides that we're going to cap the finances in support of indirect costs, then we should ensure that whatever moneys we have are distributed at whatever flat rate we can afford, to the places where research is being done. So 45% is pretty close to real costs, but if the government can't afford 45% but only 30%, to accommodate giving more to the—

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

The government needs to know how many millions of dollars 30% is. That's what I'm—

[Dr. Michael Julius]

I'm suggesting that all of this can be done with the current envelope. Basically what has to change is the method of deployment. Flat rate to 45%, or what we can afford, would be an excellent start. Using the envelope currently in hand—

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Does that mean it's not going to affect the budget, the overall cost—

[Dr. Michael Julius]

I am suggesting that without more funds, which are needed, we could do a better job with the moneys we are spending--same moneys, no additional money. Get the money to where the research is happening directly is the recommendation.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Okay.

My second question is for Monsieur Patry.

I've seen the CFI ads at the bus stops around the Hill, and I have two questions related to that.

One question is whether you think that extra money should be given to researchers, especially basic researchers, to engage in public outreach. For example, I believe the budget for the Perimeter Institute has a piece for public outreach.

The second question, and I don't mean to embarrass you, but I kind of scratched my head when I saw these advertisements because I know that the CFI is funded by the federal government. I was a little bit surprised that you'd be advertising on Parliament Hill. There's something funny about that. I wonder if you can address that.

[Gilles Patry]

To the first question, our first recommendation is to advocate for more support for the granting council. As I have said, it's important to ensure that we keep pace with the needs. When you mentioned basic research, absolutely, I think there is a tremendous need to continue our investments in basic research.

I simply want to say that I think the debate between basic and applied is an artificial debate. You can have some wonderful basic research that emanates from applied research.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have one minute.

[Gilles Patry]

For example, there's the work that's being done at CERN where Canadians have been involved in particle physics. Some of the greatest developments in technology have taken place because of the basic research that's been done there. So that has been a very important aspect.

To your second question, it's part of our outreach activities. It's very important for the CFI. We have a very small budget for our outreach activities to communicate to the public and elected officials the importance of investing in research and innovation. That was meant by the campaign.

You'll see in a couple of weeks—without divulging too many things—a major spread in The Globe and Mail . All of this came at no cost to the CFI. It's all our member institutions, colleges, and universities that have been participating in that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for that.

We'll go to Mr. Keddy now please.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome to our witnesses. My first question is for the Forest Products Association. I'm going to take this from a slightly different angle. Your first testimony was interesting, but it was all on the manufacturing end. I want to go back to actually growing the product and looking after the product. I think that's something that's been particularly overlooked. You briefly mentioned the mountain pine beetle and the devastation it has caused in the British Columbian forest, and is now spreading through Western Canada.

Where are we on our research and our ability to control these epidemics? We've done it in agriculture for many years with more of an integrated pest management approach to insect outbreaks. Where is your association on that same approach in forestry?

[Catherine Cobden]

I mentioned FIBRE. Actually, a significant portion of the FIBRE group is dedicated to this very question. In addition there is governmental in-house research going on through the Canadian Forest Service. It's very critical.

I couldn't agree with you more. If I glossed over it, it's just because I only had five minutes. Fibre supply and the pressures that the fibre resource are facing.... By the way, Canada's natural resource advantage in this area is huge. But those pressures that are mounting on us are driving this need for transformation. So everything I talked about today is fundamentally driven by the challenges you're putting forward on the forestry side. So if we have to cut a tree, we want to get the most value from it, but we want to make sure that we're protecting that natural resource to our maximum ability.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

What about on the government side and the trade side of the equation where we're constantly coming up against a new trade rule? For instance, the pine wood nematode is keeping timber out of the European Union unless the timber's kiln dried. We shipped timber to the European Union for 500 years and all of a sudden there was a new regulation put in 20 years ago that prevents green wood from going in.

[Catherine Cobden]

We just stay very vigilant in protecting our softwood lumber industry from trade barriers that come out of nowhere—or actually in some cases they may or may not. But the idea is that we need to stay quite vigilant in ensuring that others are not using it in a protectionist way for their own industry. We are a globally trading industry. So this is critical.

I thought you were going to ask me about soft woods. So the softwood lumber agreement is an important agreement. The prevailing view of the forest industry is that it should be renewed.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Do I still have a little time?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Yes, two minutes.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Okay, we're doing okay.

My next question is for Ms. Robinson of Polytechnics Canada.

Your recommendation to improve LMIs—labour market innovation—is interesting. Your suggestion is that we put in $5 to $10 million for that total cost. Do you have any further information on how this would actually update in the two surveys that you've done and how further information would be asked for? More specifically, how does this help our skills shortage?

[Nobina Robinson]

Thank you very much for your question, Mr. Keddy.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

It's a bit of a tangled question, I know.

[Nobina Robinson]

The thing is, we can't get to the bottom of the skills shortage and skills mismatch if we don't have the data. The point of principle here is that the federal government, in its shared jurisdiction with the provinces, runs a series of surveys administered by Statistics Canada. Many of those surveys have been left inactive and should be revitalized, because what we need to do is to connect education, employers, and governments for knowing and tracking outcomes.

We have recommended two surveys that are not our own but Statistics Canada's, the youth in transition survey and the workplace and employees survey, to do just that. But who benefits? High school students would now get reliable information on employment outcomes five years out. Educational institutions would know about Pathways. Employers will get granular local data, which they're all calling for no matter whether they're the Chamber of Commerce, John Manley's council of CEOs, or industry sector organizations.

And at the end of the day, a publicly funded education system would be held to account if we knew what was happening to publicly funded learners across the system. That's why the time is now to solve the skills discussion with evidence. This is LMI.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

You're right at the end of your time, Mr. Keddy. Thank you.

Mr. Caron, you have the floor.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank the witnesses for these excellent presentations. Research and innovation are crucial areas. The fact that Canada lags behind most OECD countries in these areas generally explains, according to most experts, why we also perennially lag behind in productivity.

Mr. Christie, you were ignored until now and I am going to put my first question to you. Your third recommendation is intriguing, and concerns...

Can you hear me?

[Iain Christie]

If you could speak English, it would be easier for me.

I'm sorry to use your time in this way.

Just a minute, please.