Finance Committee on Oct. 18th, 2018

[Matt Jeneroux]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to everybody again for being here, including those of you who travelled to be here as well.

I do want to talk to the universities in particular, but I would like to start with Ms. Fishback, if I may.

The PEARL program at the time was certainly something that was important up north. We saw back in 2012 the sustainable funding over what was a seven-year period for the CHARS program. It was eleventh-hour piecemeal funding that seemed to come together. It wasn't part of any budget planning, but the minister of science and the minister of the environment came in and decided that this was something they needed to fund. I think it was for 12 or 14 months, whatever the period was.

We're getting down to the end of that again. Have there been any conversations or discussions you have had or that you're aware of where there is a program coming forward for the extension of CHARS that would also indirectly help the PEARL program?

[Dr. LeeAnn Fishback]

Thanks very much for your question.

The vice-chair for the Canadian Network of Northern Research Operators, Dr. Jim Drummond, is just returning from the PEARL station right now. They're getting ready for the winter season up there when a large amount of their work does occur. The PEARL station is a challenge because it's not located in a community, and it's a very difficult station to access during the wintertime.

As you mentioned, the program that funded it came to an end, and it's really been running on piecemeal funding. I understand some MPs were able to visit the PEARL station this summer, and there has been a push for sustained, direct funding for that particular station to continue to contribute to atmospheric chemistry measurements throughout the polar winter. This is on the order of about $1 million per year that has been requested to keep that station running.

The PEARL station was constructed in 1993 just when I very first started working in the Arctic. I remember visiting the site where they were going to construct PEARL.

The request we're looking for from the CNNRO is to provide that sustained support, not just for PEARL, which is a very valuable station, but to have a sustained fund available for some of these longer-term monitoring stations to be able to have access to so there isn't this last-minute push or trying to find resources to keep these very expensive infrastructures working.

[Matt Jeneroux]

Which is what CHARS was....

[Dr. LeeAnn Fishback]

Which is what CHARS was....

[Matt Jeneroux]

In terms of showing that support, the extension of the CHARS program would be helpful, I assume.

[Dr. LeeAnn Fishback]

For that station, but for the entire network of field stations, I think it's important to have a research infrastructure fund for the Arctic so all stations are able to access those funds. We have about 50 stations in our network, and PEARL is one of those—

[Matt Jeneroux]

The science minister says good things about this, but, unfortunately, it has been three years now. We have yet to see the commitment.

[Dr. LeeAnn Fishback]

Yes.

[Matt Jeneroux]

I do want to turn to both Mr. Barnard and my good friend Annette Trimbee, former deputy minister of finance. I'm sure the former deputy minister of finance would actually have seen a number of these things over her career in Alberta.

I want to start with you, Mr. Barnard, on the research report funding from the Naylor report. We saw a good portion of the last budget funding the Naylor report, but it certainly did not address the research support fund as you indicated.

Can you give us an example of what's happening now? The research support fund keeps the lights on, the basic equipment, the maintenance, and so on and so forth. I imagine that's still happening. Your institution is still funding that. The lights are still on, but without the research support fund, how are you funding that now? If the research support fund were to be implemented, what would that mean to what you could fund with those funds?

I would assume some of it, perhaps all of it, is coming from undergraduate tuition right now. What would that mean, I guess, if the RSF were funded?

[Dr. David Barnard]

The dichotomy that you suggest certainly exists at the University of Manitoba and also in other universities across the country, and it's certainly one of the ongoing subjects of conversation, in particular at the U15 group of research-intensive universities.

There are indirect costs of research, and a lot of the programs that are in existence fund the direct costs, but the indirect costs—infrastructure within the institutions, recognition of space costs, and many, many things—typically are funded at higher rates in other countries than they are in Canada. How do we make that up? You're exactly right. How do we make that up? We make it up from other sources of revenue, which often means, in effect, subsidizing the research enterprise from the provincial transfers that are supposed to be in support of teaching. That's not a good thing, as you can imagine, because there's limited flexibility to do that. It puts stress on the infrastructure and the institutions.

The University of Manitoba and others in the U15 group would love to see support for the full costs of research come up to the same kinds of levels that exist in other countries. The costs here are not different; we're just stressing other parts of the university's budget in order to meet them.

[Matt Jeneroux]

All right.

Ms. Trimbee.

[Dr. Annette Trimbee]

Basically, my answer is the same. The provincial money is for teaching, and if we don't have that, if we wind up subsidizing that, it causes some issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay. We're going to have to leave it there. Thank you all.

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses. Your statements were very interesting.

I'm going to start with you, Mr. Rebeck.

You raised the issue of a universal pharmacare program. What we have heard from some business groups as we've gone across the country is that they would prefer to fill in the gaps that exist in the current series of drug programs, which would make it very much more like the patchwork that we see in the United States. Can you give us a sense of why it's important to have a universal pharmacare program rather than just trying to fill in some of the holes?

[Kevin Rebeck]

Absolutely. I think pharmacare is the issue of the day. It can make a real difference. Canada is the only nation that has a national medicare program that doesn't include a pharmacare program, and we're losing out as Canadians by not having that.

Filling in the gaps or providing only for those without isn't a fair system. It creates a bunch of inequities, or perpetuates inequities, and doesn't achieve the full savings that could be realized by having a universal system that's accessible to everyone. Everyone should be entitled to the same amounts. They shouldn't be dependent on their personal relationship with an employer, or with a program, or with an agency that provides those services. We should all have equal access. It's an issue of fairness. It's something that Canadians believe in and stand up for, and it would make a huge difference in people's lives.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much for that.

You referenced a number of other issues in your statement. One was the issue of pay equity. Another was the issue of apprenticeship programs.

In a sense, for this next budget, there's a choice to make between trickle-down, where there's more handouts, if you like, to the very top, in the hope that it circulates down to Canadians. The other approach is to build up from a foundation stone. As I think everyone is aware, we're now experiencing a crisis in family income in this country. Debt levels are the highest we've had in our history per Canadian family. Canadians are under more and more stress, and have fewer and fewer services.

How important is it to establish pay equity so that we're building that foundation of family economics rather than starting at the top? How important is it to build into our economy apprenticeship programs so that we actually have people trained to do the jobs of tomorrow?

[Kevin Rebeck]

Pay equity is such a simple issue that people should be able to wrap their heads around it. If we do the same work, we should get the same pay, and we shouldn't have discriminatory practices based on gender. They continue today and they need to be addressed. That's an issue of fairness.

When people who are underemployed or not making sufficient funds start getting more, they spend every penny of that in the local economy and build things back up. That's how we need to support Canadians to help our country be successful.

As well, making sure people have good jobs and have the training and skill sets they need to be able to participate fully in the economy means supporting people in their training efforts, in apprenticeships. When we do huge infrastructure projects through the federal government, which we're providing funding for, it would be a huge loss not to ensure that we make it a criterion for apprenticeships that people who are underemployed or facing additional barriers get the supports they need to get those opportunities.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to move to Mr. Barnard and Ms. Trimbee.

My brother is an alumnus of the University of Manitoba. You both made a very eloquent case, particularly you, Mr. Barnard, about the importance of investing in reconciliation efforts, which means really moving to establish funding in a whole variety areas for indigenous peoples.

We've heard from a number of first nations chiefs and indigenous leaders and a couple of the regional grand chiefs as well. They've all stressed the importance of this budget being a sea change. What we really need to do is talk about multi-billion-dollar investments for access to education, health care, housing infrastructure and indigenous languages. All of those things need to be tackled. Rather than just having small amounts that are only symbolic, it's about really fundamentally changing how we approach the federal budget.

How important do you think it would be for us to put in place that sea change for the next budget, so that we're really investing in reconciliation efforts, including in the education sector?

[Dr. David Barnard]

There's no question in my mind, and I believe others would agree, that we need to do a better job than we're doing in all of these areas you've mentioned. Making it a priority for the country to invest in some of these activities would certainly be consistent with our image of ourselves as a nation and what kind of society we want to build.

There are a number of pinch points in the system, and to make a sea change, it would be necessary to see what's working and fuel those programs, and note things that are maybe not working as well as they could be and do more there.

The particular perspective we bring is that of people involved in education, and we see what can happen when we are able to make investments specifically to advance the cause of education for indigenous peoples. A good number of people in this province and all of the post-secondary institutions in the province, not just our own, are working very hard to increase access and increase success. An infusion of additional resources would be much appreciated and very helpful. I think in this province at least we have a very active working collaboration, a lot of single-mindedness about how we could move the agenda forward and what some of the priorities could be.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Ms. Trimbee.

[Dr. Annette Trimbee]

I think education is key. I'm not only saying that as a university president; I would have said that as a deputy minister, to be honest with you, because I think it starts with developing that talent. I think we also need to be mindful of the economic part of reconciliation. I think sometimes that part gets a little bit confused. I do think investing in indigenous youth leads to their economic success.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Next we'll have Mr. McLeod.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to all of you for your very interesting presentations.

I think I have questions for everybody, but I'm going to focus on the University of Winnipeg, because what I'm hearing you say is music to my ears.

I'm one of the few MPs—I think there are only two—who are indigenous MPs living in indigenous communities, and I think I'm only one of two indigenous MPs who went to residential school. It was called a hostel program when I went there.

The whole reason I ran, to get into a position such as this, was to try to change the conditions that I see every day in our communities. I represent Northwest Territories, and I also see the need for us to move forward in getting our youth educated. I think it's crucial to moving out of some of the very difficult conditions that we live in. A lot of our leaders are saying that.

As we settle land claims, and as we make agreements with mines and everybody else and start to see revenues come in, we're seeing a lot of indigenous governments invest in post-secondary education. But we're starting to realize that it's not enough.

We need to start looking at a whole wraparound program that starts when the girls are pregnant, so that we can reduce the number of children being born with FAS and FAE. The numbers are staggering. We need to have programs that are going to help us make sure that the babies are fed healthy food: no more seeing babies with pop in their baby bottles. The toddler, also, has to be in a safe house, and a lot of people don't have that.

It goes on. As a child hits elementary, we know they're already getting addicted to drugs and alcohol. As they go into high school, the sexual abuse is rampant in our communities.

So many of our indigenous governments are saying that we need a blueprint. We need a path, a strategy, that starts when a mother is pregnant, and continues to the time that they enter university. Otherwise, the challenges are even more difficult.

Is that something you envision? You talked about an indigenous blueprint. That really caught my attention. I think that's what we're talking about in the Northwest Territories with indigenous governments.

[Dr. Annette Trimbee]

Thank you.

When I talk about a blueprint, I think first and foremost, indigenous youth should, like non-indigenous youth, have the possibility to imagine a bright future and have choice.

Sometimes when we start on this journey, we think about short-term quick fixes. I know when I was in Alberta, in the early days the focus was on indigenous students getting into forestry or oil and gas, and then the next wave was indigenous students getting involved in health care professions. I'm an advocate for encouraging indigenous youth to participate broadly, across all of the offerings in our post-secondary institutions. I believe that Canada's future requires indigenous people with Ph.D.s standing in front of students in our universities. We require indigenous engineers. We require indigenous philosophers.

I think first and foremost it is about going back to youth, and it is about good transitions from high school into post-secondary, with those wraparound services and with that opportunity to connect with future employers.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Yes.

I sat on a committee that studied suicide in our indigenous communities. There are many things that contribute to that. One of the things that came to the surface was cultural disconnect, with indigenous people, indigenous youth, not proud of who they are anymore.

Many students who have gone on to post-secondary who are graduating—some of them with very impressive degrees—are committing suicide. The ones who reported back and who we were able to talk to indicated that they've lost touch with who they are. They go to university. They lose their culture. They lose their language. They no longer can talk to their grandparents. They feel like they've failed.

Many of our indigenous governments are now saying that the young people have to live in two worlds. They have to live in the traditional world, where they know how to hunt and trap and all the skills of living on the land, and they also have to live in the modern-day society. I like to use the saying that the Tlicho people of my riding always use, that they have to be "strong like two people".

How important is that? Is that something the institutions can start looking at, ways of incorporating that into studies?