Evidence of meeting #177 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was funding.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Olympic Athlete, Sport Matters Group
Yes. I believe that it's very important for us to invest in the youth in Canada. It's really important. For myself, growing up with not a lot of advantages, I saw a lot of youth with untapped potential, who were not able to access certain sports or become involved in certain activities. I think it's very important that we increase funding to be more inclusive of these unfortunate youth. Like myself, who knows where they could go and what they can achieve with a bit more support?
Senior Leader, Sport Matters Group
I'll speak a little to the difference with some of the other countries.
Last week I had the opportunity to tour the WinSport facility in Calgary, one of the best facilities in the world. It continuously needs to be improved. The enhancements to keep it at that state are really important. You'll see a lot of the winter sport nations come to Calgary to train out of that facility.
However, while we have good funding at the international high-performance perspective, we can always use more because we're constantly seeing that other countries are injecting more and more funding. Yesterday, Sport Ireland made a significant investment into their high performance. Some of our other Commonwealth partners, let alone winter European countries, are continuously investing in high performance.
Having consulted with this sector this year, our position is focused less on the high performance and more on that core funding. You'll see that our sector and our national sport organizations are completely aligned on this request for this year. We will stay at it because that core funding is about getting more kids active and accessing programming, exactly as Marc and Neville have talked about.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
That's great.
Mr. Malloy, I would like to get your thoughts. The Naylor report was largely supported in the last budget with the exception of the research support funding. That's obviously crucial to a lot of universities and a lot of researchers.
Could you speak to what a research support fund would mean for certain universities if funded to the level that Dr. Naylor has requested?
There is a support fund, as we know; it funds keeping the lights on, basic equipment and so on. That stuff is still happening. Universities are pulling funding from elsewhere.
If the research support fund were funded, what would that mean for universities in a larger scope?
Vice-President, Research, Alliance of Canadian Comprehensive Research Universities
I think the research support fund in general is being spent very quickly at all universities, whether they are very small or very large. But the universities themselves are then kicking money back in to compensate for the loss. The cost of compliance alone has increased dramatically over the last 18 years. The funds haven't kept up.
What would we do with this? First of all, we'd continue to pay the hygiene factors of our needs. It would also allow us to expand the maintenance of our equipment. Other uses of the research support fund include space rental, library acquisitions, hiring staff to enable us to enhance our ability for compliance where there's legal or animal care and so on.
Conservative
Matt Jeneroux Conservative Edmonton Riverbend, AB
I would assume that a lot of it is being funded in a number of universities, so the presidents would pull from undergrad tuition to support the research support fund. That would have an impact on the undergrads.
Vice-President, Research, Alliance of Canadian Comprehensive Research Universities
That's absolutely right.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thanks to all our witnesses.
It's very important testimony. Particular thanks to Mr. Wright and Mr. Kennedy for proudly representing our country.
Chief Poitras, we have heard from a number of indigenous leaders, including most recently in Whitehorse. We had a terrific panel including Grand Chief Johnston. We have heard that we need to change how we fund first nations infrastructure, indigenous languages, health care, education, all those elements.
Aren't we really talking about a sea change in how we approach reconciliation, putting in place important investments so we can close all these gaps that you've clearly identified, to end the neglect in the history of colonialism and bring Canada to a new day of reconciliation?
Regional Chief, Alberta, Assembly of First Nations
Regional Chief Marlene Poitras
Absolutely.
I believe the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its 94 recommendations are very important in that. Although a number of areas you mentioned are funded, there needs to be more. Often the funding that goes through it takes a long time to get to the first nations that really need the funding. I believe that an investment in building the economic base of those nations will go a long way to reconciliation.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
We heard in Whitehorse about difficulty even in accessing funding that had already been approved for the budgetary process. Has that been your experience with Treaty 6 first nations, that even when it's budgeted and announced, the funding is very difficult to obtain?
Regional Chief, Alberta, Assembly of First Nations
Regional Chief Marlene Poitras
Yes the flow-through, the funding, is oftentimes an issue, because, like I said, it takes a while. For example, in Alberta, on the Trans Mountain pipeline, there were a number of first nations that were interested in becoming owners of the pipeline, but the funding was an issue, and in terms of trying to access funds, oftentimes they were denied.
Those types of barriers need to be eradicated so that our first nations and the people on the ground who are building the communities can to be taken seriously in terms of building the economy of our first nations.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much.
Mr. Roy, you are talking about an overall increase of about $60 million per year. What impact would that increase have on job creation nationally? We certainly know that the culture sector creates a great many jobs. It is a very good investment when the government provides funding to create jobs.
Do you have any idea how many new jobs could be created with this additional investment of $60 million per year?
Executive Director, Festivals and Major Events Canada
We have studied the economic benefits. We estimate that the major events industry in Quebec supports 5,000 to 6,000 jobs. Those are the figures for Quebec; I do not have FAME data on the number of jobs across Canada, but using the rule of three, I would expect that the major events and festivals sector currently supports 15,000 jobs across the country.
This investment would certainly have an impact on the number of jobs and economic benefits. In recent years, we have seen that each investment maintains the ratio of economic benefits and jobs. For every investment in the festivals and events sector, there is a direct return in taxes, economic benefits and jobs in the same fiscal year.
I can deduce that such an investment would definitely boost jobs by more than 20%, roughly speaking, and have many economic, tax and incidental tax benefits.
Executive Director, Festivals and Major Events Canada
Yes, if the rule holds true. The ratio holds true for tax, incidental tax and economic benefits, so if the ratio also applies for jobs, there would be considerable benefits.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Thank you very much.
Mr. Malloy, you have very effectively put forward the case of the urgency of providing increased funding. I was surprised from reading your brief to learn that only 34% of 25-year-olds to 34-year-olds are degree holders in Canada. That is a problem when we are compared to other countries.
When I read the brief, I don't get a sense of the size and scope of the financing that you're looking towards. When we talk about adequate funding for these projects and programs, what scale of funding should we be looking for in the next budget?
Vice-President, Research, Alliance of Canadian Comprehensive Research Universities
That's a very good question. Our association didn't specify exactly what amount we'd be asking for. Our interest was more pushing the agenda forward for support for undergraduate research writ large as well as just opening access to federal funding in a much broader way. We don't have a number. We can certainly report back to you to suggest a number.
NDP
Vice-President, Research, Alliance of Canadian Comprehensive Research Universities
It was more of a philosophical push than a financial one, but I would be happy to consult with my group and get back to you with a number.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
I think that would be helpful, so thank you very much.
Madam Andreas and Mr. Hamil, you have talked about the importance of ensuring an export market for agricultural manufacturing, and you put forward a very effective case for that. Could you give us some idea of what's happened to the domestic market? We've seen the elimination of single-desk marketing. We've seen a lot of—for lack of a better word—carving into our supply-managed sector. Have you found over the last few years as a result of those actions that there's been more of a challenge with the domestic market, that it's something that potentially we should be looking at, as well as stimulating exports?
Chair, Board of Directors, Agricultural Manufacturers of Canada
Thank you for your question, and please, Mr. Chair, stop me. I could talk about farming all day long. This is fun for me.
Chair, Board of Directors, Agricultural Manufacturers of Canada
Fair enough.
Actually, we find quite the opposite. The elimination of the Canadian Wheat Board and the abolishment of the Crow rate have actually stimulated investment, specifically investment in technology and new farming practice.
The rate of investment in technology in farming right now is unparalleled. I compare it to a subsequent agricultural revolution. The way farmers are approaching farms now, they have more choices available to them than ever before, and they're using our technology and our equipment to deliver that farm practice.
