Finance Committee on Sept. 26th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thanks, both of you.

Before I turn to Mr. McLeod, I made my first error of the day, which is not bad, because we're at 4:45 p.m. The vote that I thought was tonight at 6 p.m. is tomorrow night at 6 p.m. We'll have to rush the witnesses tomorrow rather than today.

We will take one last question and then we'll change panels.

Mr. McLeod.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of quick questions. The first is to the Canadian Association of Social Workers.

I really appreciate your submission that draws attention to the need for greater mental health services in the north, and your suggestion is a good one. Most of the professionals we're trying to attract to the north are faced with challenges in acquiring housing. Sometimes it's a lack of policing. There's a policy in the north that if there's no RCMP in the community, they won't locate a nurse in the community either. There's a higher cost of living, isolation, and sometimes there's no Internet. A lot of people don't want to go where there's no Internet.

Could you explain how your fifth proposal could be implemented and how much of a financial incentive this would create for social workers to work in remote areas of Canada?

[Sally Guy]

Absolutely, and thank you for the question. The Canada loan forgiveness program already exists for nurses and doctors and professions like that. What we hear all the time, which is so tragic when we're trying....

We know that, first of all, continuity of care is so important. People need to be familiar with their communities and to stay in their communities and have excellent care. Second of all, the best people positioned to provide the best care for the community are those from the community, from within the community. We hear all the time that there are people who want to go home to first nations communities, or want to go home to rural and remote locations, and it just doesn't make financial sense for them. This is on top of how expensive things are in the north, their student loans, and the fact that they have to get out there and they have to buy their container of food and ship it out. It's just not feasible for them when they can get paid more to live in the city.

If we can do any small thing to just incentivize people to be able to go home a lot of the time, it would make a huge difference. This is something that is really close to the hearts of our membership base, so we would love to see it happen.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you.

I have one more question for Mr. Lemaire. It's regarding the proposal to increase fresh fruit and vegetable consumption by 20% over five years. I think that's a really good goal to try to achieve. In the north the snack of choice is usually pop or chips. Fruit, especially in the more northern part of the country, is sometimes hard to keep fresh.

I'm really curious to hear what you would suggest to the government to see that increase happen in the northern part of Canada.

[Ron Lemaire]

There's a combination of food hubs as a concept and looking at innovation that can enable it. There are pilots going on right now on what can be grown locally in northern climates, from new greenhouse technologies to vertical farming to container technology. The other piece is the government's focus on infrastructure: how do we actually get product effectively north?

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

I have one more question for you. It's regarding your comments on the labour gap.

We hear all the time different industries talking about not being able to find workers, yet I see all over the country, including in my riding of Northwest Territories, communities where we have almost half of the population unemployed. It's 50% unemployment, sometimes higher. We can't seem to connect the dots.

I've seen the mining industry do a good job. After they said out loud a number of times that they can't find workers, they were encouraged to increase assistance in mobility, literacy, all these different things. We've seen the mines starting to hire a lot of people who are indigenous. Can that happen in your industry?

We don't have a whole lot of people required for working in the produce industry in the north, but I think there are communities across Canada that are indigenous that would welcome the opportunity, with some assistance. Is there anything we can do, or is there anything that you can recommend?

[Ron Lemaire]

I agree with the philosophy and the potential.

The produce industry, within this entire supply chain, has invested heavily in not only housing and the health of its employee base but also on education. That does exist across the country within different jurisdictions. The challenge comes back to the skill, the training. Many of the workers who are currently in play are truly skilled technicians on how to pick, how to harvest, how to deliver. That can be taught, can be learned, if Canadians are willing to work and do the work in the fields.

Our challenge is not only in the fields but also in the supply chain. You go to the Toronto food terminal, and the work starts from two o'clock in the morning and goes hard until about six in the morning. You have people show up for work for one day and they don't come back the second day.

There may be opportunities around providing other tools or incentives to retain those employees, not only within the supply chain but in the field. Further investigation would have to be done to see what we could do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Ron, I have one quick last question.

You mentioned a trusted employer program. Do you have anything fleshed out on that? That's an intriguing idea. I know a lot of producers who have the same people coming back every year. They have to pay them money. It's paperwork and a stressful time.

[Ron Lemaire]

Exactly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Do you have anything fleshed out that you could provide to us on that proposal?

[Ron Lemaire]

Definitely.

As the chair is aware, we work closely with allied partners, including the Canadian Horticultural Council, who really have their hands on the SAWP program and ensuring that it's successful. We'd be happy to share some conceptual models with you and with the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

If you could do that, that would be great.

I would certainly thank all the witnesses for coming and for your presentations earlier in August as well.

We will suspend for five minutes and then reconvene. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Just for the record, pursuant to Standing Order 83.1, the topic we are here for is pre-budget consultations in advance of the 2018 budget.

I want to thank all the witnesses for coming, and also those who did provide a submission prior to the mid-August deadline. Thank you for that as well. You will see members looking at their iPads from time to time, and that is because, with new technology, all the briefs are up on the iPads. I do expect there is the odd issue that's happened between August 15 and now that some people might bring up.

We'll start with Ms. Watts-Rynard, from the Canadian Apprenticeship Forum.

[Sarah Watts-Rynard, Executive Director, Canadian Apprenticeship Forum]

Thank you very much.

Thank you for the invitation to appear today as you undertake the pre-budget consultations.

The Canadian Apprenticeship Forum was pleased to submit a brief summarizing our recommendations about how the federal government can provide leadership in an underserved area of post-secondary education.

The Canadian Apprenticeship Forum influences apprenticeship strategies through research and collaboration. We connect employers, unions, regulators, educators, and under-represented groups to share promising practices and promote apprenticeship as a valued post-secondary pathway. Apprenticeship is the original and best example of work-integrated learning available to young people with a talent for practical, hands-on problem-solving. It's a pipeline for a talent segment that is critical to Canada's productivity. Quite simply, Canada would be at a standstill without its tradespeople, the men and women who keep the lights on, the water running, and our cars on the road.

While apprenticeship training is the primary responsibility of the provinces and territories, there is a significant role to play at the national level, and that's where I want to concentrate my remarks. Sector after sector identifies skilled trades positions as among the hardest to fill. Infrastructure investments rely on a workforce that's capable of building, repairing, and maintaining it. Autonomous vehicles, sustainable energy, and advanced manufacturing require highly skilled, hands-on professionals who understand how things work, and how to make them work better. Innovation, productivity, and competitiveness across economic sectors rely on skilled tradespeople, most of whom develop their skills as apprentices.

A highly productive country is one that encourages its citizens to fire on all cylinders. That means assigning value to the technical and mechanical skills developed in the workplace, at polytechnics, and in union training centres. To do so, the federal government must develop a national vision for vocational education and training. There is scope to support experimentation, measure and evaluate the impacts, and be a catalyst for national adoption of best practices.

While there are many excellent examples of world-leading programs, policies, and supports across the country, they are often isolated by geography and lack financial resources. For apprentices, access to these programs is often about luck of the draw.

As a user of skilled trades services, the government must also take a greater responsibility for linking its infrastructure and procurement spending to apprenticeship training. This makes apprenticeship a business imperative and addresses the job insecurity of apprentices, which can delay or derail their progression, completion, and certification.

While employers assume the bulk of the apprenticeship training burden, training isn't their primary business objective. Though there are business benefits, they must navigate the hiring process and on-the-job training, as well as regulatory and educational systems. Many employers consider apprenticeship training a no-brainer for their business, yet others sit on the sidelines unsure of how to get started or muddle through doing the best they can. To ensure that employers are empowered to deliver high-quality workplace training, they need on-demand supports and resources.

While I believe these to be important objectives, even national imperatives, for a more productive Canada, I am also aware of the real and on-the-ground consequences of inaction. An apprentice recently told me that he is disappointed with his training. Journeypersons on his job sites have little time to train apprentices, and little idea about what to teach. They aren't the mentors he was expecting. The work is sometimes precarious, and employers are reluctant to sign off on apprentice skills development, so this apprentice doesn't know if work will be plentiful next month, or if he will be sitting on the out-of-work list. When a job ends, he doesn't know if he will be unemployed for three hours or for three months. Apprentices need consistent employment to progress and complete their training, and government can lead the way.

It is an economic certainty that we need young men and women to become skilled tradespeople. In your deliberations about the upcoming budget, and innovation and productivity, I urge you to consider how we can best support apprentice learners on their journey to certification. It will be this group that makes up the next generation of builders, fixers, operators, and creators.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You can think about it, but I will ask you later how you expect us to do that.

From the Canadian Cancer Society, we have Ms. Hudson and Ms. Masotti.

Welcome.

[Lynne Hudson, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Cancer Society]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It is my privilege to be here today on behalf of the Canadian Cancer Society, the country's largest health charity and the only charity that supports people with all types of cancer.

My remarks today focus on recommendations numbers one and two in our pre-budget submission: a $10 million partnership with the government of Canada to improve the continuum of care, and the strengthening of the federal tobacco control strategy.

Every single hour, 24 Canadians will hear the words "you have cancer” and join the more than 810,000 Canadians already living with this disease. One in two Canadians is expected to be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime, and by 2035 we expect there to be 35% more new cancer cases than there are this year. We continue to make progress in having more Canadians survive cancer, but as many studies show, including the work from the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, cancer patients, survivors, and families still face challenges in getting the health information and practical and emotional support they need. Patients who are well informed are more likely to feel empowered and comply with treatment, improving outcomes and saving health care dollars. This emotional support improves not only mental well-being but also individual productivity.

The Canadian Cancer Society is in a strong position to connect more patients and families with the support and services they need when and where they need them. We are Canada's trusted source for cancer information, and every year our services help millions of people access treatment, care, and support, often while they continue to live at home or in a community setting. Our 80-plus community offices across Canada and 100,000 volunteers give us a powerful local presence, and our connection to cancer treatment and research centres from coast to coast provides a vast network for engaging and informing patients, health professionals, and the public.

CCS can help transform cancer care in Canada by complementing the health care system and improving the transition to community care. We propose a $10-million partnership with the federal government to help us empower Canadians so they can better meet their health care needs. With government support to expand our reach and increase our capacity, we will help Canadians learn more about their diagnoses, locate home and palliative care services, connect with peer-support programs, and navigate the health, social, and financial services available to them. By doing so, we will improve quality of life, reduce emotional stress, and help Canadians be more productive in their lives as they remain engaged with their communities and workplaces. In addition, this will drive efficiency within the health care system.

This partnership will achieve four important goals to meet the needs of cancer patients and caregivers: first, increase reach and accessibility of programs and services; second, offer patient-centred, integrated, and seamless access to a suite of services; third, improve engagement with patients and families throughout the continuum of the cancer journey; and fourth, use strategic partnerships with like-minded organizations to enhance services through innovative collaboration.

Our second recommendation is to strengthen the federal tobacco control strategy, scheduled to expire in March 2018. Tobacco is the leading preventable cause of disease and death in Canada, causing 37,000 deaths annually including 30% of all cancer cases.

In terms of lost productivity, the Conference Board reports that, on average, each smoker costs an employer $3,842 annually. To reach the objective of under 5% tobacco use by 2035, Canada needs a high-impact strategy. Previous budget cuts have undermined impact, with Health Canada's current annual tobacco control budget of $38 million annually representing only 1.2% of the $3.2 billion in annual federal tobacco tax revenue and representing just $1.04 per capita compared with $3.39 in the U.S.

Increased Health Canada investments should at least match the U.S. per capita amount. This amount would allow for enriched incentives for cessation, youth prevention, mass media, indigenous populations, and it would complement pending plain packaging requirements through Bill S-5. The bottom line is that a strengthened tobacco strategy would have a dramatic impact on preventing cancer and saving lives. These two recommendations are practical and affordable steps we can take together. The Canadian Cancer Society is asking for your help and is eager to work with you to achieve these goals.

On behalf of the one in two Canadians who expect a cancer diagnosis and their families and loved ones, we thank you for your time today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Lynne.

Turning to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, we have Mr. Wudrick, director.

[Aaron Wudrick, Federal Director, Canadian Taxpayers Federation]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and as always, thank you very much to the committee for the invitation.

I have some good news for the committee. I did not provide a pre-budget submission this year. That is because the government did not see fit to adopt any of our recommendations from last year, so you've saved me the time. However, hope springs eternal, and I direct you to last year's submission for some ideas.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would be remiss if I did not use the few minutes I have to talk about the issue—and I'm sure we all know what that is—that has been dominating the news over the last few months, since it is the single largest issue that our organization has been hearing about.

I should point out to the committee it is rather unique, in that, as an advocacy group, we take it upon ourselves to draw our supporters' attention to issues. This issue is not like that. Our supporters brought this issue to us. I think that signifies how big of an issue this is. I'm certain the members around the table have heard likewise from their constituents and will know I'm not exaggerating when I say this is not a small issue.

I want to make clear up front, though, that our organization agrees with the government's broad objective of tax reform. The problem is not with the government's goal, it is that the specific proposals on the table will not achieve these goals and could actually make things worse by having many negative unintended consequences.

First of all, our view is that these proposals further complicate the tax code rather than simplifying it. The fundamental driver of incorporation among Canadian-controlled private corporations has been the gap between personal and business tax rates. Unless and until this gap is addressed, any attempts to close so-called loopholes will simply incentivize the search for newer and more complex loopholes. Whac-a-mole may be a very fun game at the county fair, but it does not make for an efficient tax system.

Second, the government's failure to guarantee that any new revenues received through these changes will be returned to Canadians through cuts to general tax rates feeds the suspicion that these measures are not actually about fairness but instead about a government that is short of money and looking to find new revenue.

Third, on the issue of fairness, the government's credibility on this matter labours under the handicap of the rest of its record, and of other tax measures that have gone untouched. Is it fair for small business owners to pay taxes only to see the proceeds go into the pockets of corporate welfare recipients like Bombardier or Ford? Is it fair for the government to trumpet its litany of subsidies to selected industries while insisting that it wants a level playing field for all?

Even if we focus on tax measures alone, is it not reasonable for Canadians to ask why, for example, the tax treatment of unions has been left out of this discussion, including the labour-sponsored venture capital tax credit which costs taxpayers $115 million a year, or the tax deductibility of union dues and professional fees which cost taxpayers nearly $1 billion a year.

I would be remiss if I did not point out the federal political donation tax credit that provides a 75% taxpayer subsidy on the first $400. A cynic might say—and I try very hard not to be a cynic—that such a generous tax measure serves as a testament to the ability of politicians to safeguard their own interests.

In any event, addressing these issues would go a long way to giving the government greater credibility in arguing that it is truly interested in a fair tax system.

As a final point, I want to reiterate that I do not think the government should abandon tax reform altogether, but if it is serious, it needs to slow down. There are two concrete steps that could help to achieve this. The first is to launch a royal commission on tax reform. In fact, the last time that similar changes of this nature were implemented, it was following a royal commission under Kenneth Carter, with three years of study rather than 75 days in the middle of the summer. Second, the government should release the results of the tax expenditure review that it conducted following the 2016 budget. This would give a more complete picture of the costs associated with the various complexities of the tax code.

I'll leave it there, and I'm happy to take questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much.

We'll turn then to the Business Council of Canada, Mr. Kingston, vice-president.

[Brian Kingston, Vice-President, Policy, International and Fiscal Issues, Business Council of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for the invitation as always to take part in your pre-budget consultations.

The Business Council of Canada represents the chief executives and entrepreneurs of 150 leading Canadian companies in all sectors and regions of the country. Our members employ 1.7 million Canadians, account for more than half the value of the TSX, and contribute the largest share of federal corporate taxes. They are also responsible for most of Canada's exports, philanthropy, and private sector investments in R and D.

In the council's pre-budget submission to this committee, we urge the government to boost Canadian productivity by increasing female labour-force participation, supporting women in STEM, enabling seniors to work for longer, and helping Canadians navigate the changing job market. While no single policy or program will boost labour productivity across the board, I'll just highlight two specific policies.

First, the government should replace the existing child care expenses deduction with an income-tested refundable tax credit. Second, increasing the eligibility age for OAS and the GIS to 67 from the current 65 would address the reality of an aging society and longer life expectancies.

In our submission we also called on the government to adopt a competitiveness agenda that includes simplifying the tax system and streamlining the regulatory environment. Doing so would position Canada as a more attractive investment destination. On that point, I would like to share with you the results of a survey that we just conducted over the summer with our member companies. Sixty-one of Canada's largest companies took part in the survey, and almost two-thirds said that Canada's investment environment has worsened over the past five years. Only 20% said the investment environment has improved. This is extremely worrying for us, and to improve this trend and reverse it, we believe that the following actions should be taken to improve business confidence here in Canada.

The first is reforming Canada's tax system. Our country's tax competitiveness is slipping, in part because provincial corporate tax rates have crept higher. Our combined federal and provincial corporate tax rate now sits above the OECD average, and we have the 13th-highest tax burden on investments among the 34 OECD countries.

Mr. Chair and committee members, I know that earlier today you held hearings on the government's plan to rewrite the tax rules for private corporations. Our president and CEO, the Honourable John Manley, will be submitting views to Minister Morneau later this week. I'll make sure I share those with the committee, but one thing is sure: the proposals will do nothing to help Canada's tax competitiveness, and, in fact, we believe they risk driving investors and entrepreneurs away.

Rather than making incremental changes to an already complicated tax system, we believe now is the time for comprehensive review aimed at strengthening fairness and efficiency. In our view, the best way to achieve this is to broaden the tax base and lower rates. Of equal importance is the need to ensure that the tax system does not favour certain kinds of businesses over others.

The second is enhancing regulatory certainty. Delays in approving new projects, as well as compliance costs associated with regulations, can impede investment and innovation. To fully support private and public investments in innovation and infrastructure, the federal government must make regulatory approval processes more transparent, predictable, fact-based, and capable of rendering decisions in a timely manner. Where possible, we urge the government to develop new regulations collaboratively with industry and to undertake regular reviews to identify outdated rules for elimination.

The final action is achieving fiscal sustainability. While the Business Council supports moderately expansionist fiscal policy that allows for investments in productivity-enhancing infrastructure, we are very concerned by the federal government's failure to set a clear target for balancing the budget. The government's own long-term fiscal projection suggests that it will run deficits through to 2050. The next time Canada enters a recession, the tax revenues will decline while demands for higher spending will increase. Balancing the budget now would help ensure that Canada is positioned to weather this inevitable downturn.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee. I look forward to answering questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kingston.

From the Canadian Credit Union Association, we have Ms. Mentzelopoulos and Mr. Pigeon.

Go ahead.

[Athana Mentzelopoulos, Vice-President, Government Relations, Canadian Credit Union Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to be here today. I'm just two weeks in this role, so I'm happy to have a wingman with me. I feel a little bit better having Marc-André here.

I think all of you know how important the credit union sector is to Canada. Our association represents 275 credit unions and caisses populaires outside of Quebec. Our members are full-service financial institutions. We serve 5.6 million Canadians. We employ 56,000 people, and we add $6.5 billion to the country's GDP. We are co-operatives: the people who bank with us are the same people who own us. In repeated surveys by the CFIB—I think this is the 13th year in a row—Canadians have ranked us ahead of federally chartered banks for customer service excellence.

All but one of our members are provincially regulated, but the fact is that policies set at the federal level affect every credit union. That's why, as an association, we are highly engaged in the statutory federal financial institutions review that is currently under way.

My remarks today are focused on three measures that we believe will improve competition in the financial services sector. I had the opportunity to walk around the room and introduce myself, so I think I'm quite predictable, based on what I heard. You know the first issue I will raise. That is the matter of the terms “bank” and “banking” used by credit unions. Credit unions are the only domestic competitors to the federally chartered banks, and for decades have used the verb “bank” and the term ”banking” to help Canadians identify the other regulated financial service options that are available to them.

In June, OSFI issued an advisory to cease use of these terms. The step was unusual for two reasons. It put aside many decades of their own common-sense enforcement of section 983 of the Bank Act, and it put aside Parliament's intent in that section of the act, which is to prevent consumers from being deliberately misled. Credit unions don't want to be confused with banks, but we do want to be able to use the same common terms that Canadians use. A ban on the use of these terms would force credit unions to popularize phrases to replace “online banking” or “bank with a credit union”, and it would cost our members an estimated $80 million to change their signage, websites, and advertising.

We appreciated that the Department of Finance has opted to roll this question into their current public consultations, and we've urged the minister to amend the Bank Act to make it clear that credit unions may use these terms in the same way that Canadians do.

I want to acknowledge the support of many of you around the table who have worked so hard on this ask. We are asking the committee to urge the Minister of Finance to amend the Bank Act to make it clear that credit unions can continue to use the verb “bank” and the term “banking”.

Our second issue is mortgage insurance risk-sharing. Mortgage lending is one of the ways credit unions help our members attain their life goals. It accounts for more than half of credit union loans. This represents about 7% of the Canadian mortgage market outside of Quebec. A portion of our portfolio is in CMHC-insured mortgages. The arrears rate on insured mortgages is 0.29%, yet for the past year, the federal government has been considering imposing a deductible on CMHC-insured mortgage contracts issued by credit unions and other lenders. This risk-sharing proposal will increase costs for credit unions, but we think it will do little to improve what is already high-quality, prudent lending in insured mortgages.

We've seen that the federal government has moved very cautiously on the file. We urge them to step back from the risk-sharing proposal for several reasons, not the least of which is recent evidence that the Toronto and Vancouver real estate markets are already slowing. With these considerations in mind, we ask the committee to recommend that the Minister of Finance not proceed with proposals to introduce a mortgage insurance deductible.

Lastly, in the next 12 months, Parliament will be asked to consider changes to the Bank Act and other acts as part of the financial institutions framework review that's currently under way. We believe that the changes must support more innovation and more competition in this sector. Since the financial crisis, Canada has seen the largest banks achieve even greater dominance in the banking sector. In our view, there is good reason to believe the current framework could be improved by tackling the disproportionate regulatory burden effects on smaller entities in two ways. The first is to implement a categorization approach to prudential rules. Under this approach, policy-makers would develop two sets of rules depending on the size and scope of the institution. Second, a formal competitive balance lens needs to be applied to the policy formulation process.

To that end, we recommend that the committee work with the Minister of Finance to ensure that as part of the 2019 review, the government institutionalize the perspectives of federal credit unions and small banks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you very much, Athana.

We'll now go to the Association of University Research Parks Canada. Ms. O'Blenis is the co-founder and managing director.

[Laura O'Blenis, Co-Founder and Managing Director, Association of University Research Parks Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. It's my pleasure to be here with you today to speak on behalf of the Canadian Association of University Research Parks, also known as AURP Canada, and our 27 innovation districts across the country. I co-founded the association 10 years ago, and currently act as the managing director.

AURP Canada is the Canadian chapter of the U.S.-based international association. We are a national not-for-profit association that advocates on behalf of our members to drive standardized policies, access to infrastructure, connection points through domestic and international network development, and identification of emerging opportunities and trends in sectors and economic growth-potential areas. Our mission is to support and drive the Canadian knowledge economy and support sound policy decision-making that will ultimately and fundamentally support the 1,400 companies and 65,000 knowledge-based workers who are located in our parks across the country.

The economic impact of research and technology parks is significant, at over $4.3 billion in annual GDP, which is forecasted to grow to $6.2 billion in the next five years. You may know the research parks by their individual names. Just to name a few, there's the David Johnston Research and Technology Park in Waterloo, located at the University of Waterloo, MaRS Discovery District in Toronto, Innovate Calgary, Technoparc Montreal, and Knowledge Park in Fredericton. You may know them by their individual names, but our membership is the landing place for leaders in business incubation and acceleration, private research and development, government research facilities, and a wide range of organizations advancing innovation in Canada, from start-ups to SMEs to large multinationals. Nearly 50% of the companies in the parks are already exporting, with the United States and Europe topping the list, and another 49% are planning to expand.

We are an important partner in moving Canada forward into the 21st century. One of our core strengths is our network across Canada, the United States, and the globe. In June our organization appeared at the industry committee to detail the proposed IP matchmaking program in our budget submission. In addition to this IP matchmaking program, AURP Canada is looking forward to expanding our role to support the federal innovation agenda by building out the research park network through international partnership expansion, including a soft-landing exchange with the 67 Fraunhofer institutes throughout Germany.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. O'Blenis, could you slow down a little bit? Translation will be having a hard job keeping up.