FINA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Finance

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, September 17, 2003

¹

1540

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.))

Mr. Jim Lee (Assistant to the General President, Canadian Office, International Association of Fire Fighters)

¹

1545

The Chair

Mr. René Daoust (President, Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada)

Mr. Mark Goldblatt (Senior Consultant, Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada)

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. James Turk (Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers)

¹

1555

The Chair

Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Jim Lee

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Jim Lee

º

1600

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Mark Goldblatt

Mr. Monte Solberg

Mr. Mark Goldblatt

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ)

º

1605

Mr. Jim Lee

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. Jim Lee

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. René Daoust

Mr. Mark Goldblatt

Mr. Pierre Paquette

º

1610

Mr. James Turk

Mr. David Robinson (Associate Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers)

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.)

Mr. Jim Lee

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jim Lee

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jim Lee

Mr. Shawn Murphy

º

1615

Mr. Jim Lee

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jim Lee

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jim Lee

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jim Lee

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jim Lee

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jim Lee

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Jim Lee

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Mark Goldblatt

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Mark Goldblatt

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Mark Goldblatt

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. James Turk

º

1620

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.)

Mr. Jim Lee

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Jim Lee

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Jim Lee

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Jim Lee

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Jim Lee

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Jim Lee

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Jim Lee

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Jim Lee

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Jim Lee

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Jim Lee

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Jim Lee

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Jim Lee

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Jim Lee

º

1625

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. James Turk

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. James Turk

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. James Turk

Mr. David Robinson

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. David Robinson

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

º

1630

Mr. James Turk

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. James Turk

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

º

1635

Mr. Jim Lee

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Mark Goldblatt

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy

º

1640

Mr. James Turk

Mr. David Robinson

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. David Robinson

Mr. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

º

1645

The Chair

Mr. Timothy Page (Executive Director, Diving Canada, Sport Matters Group)

º

1650

The Chair

Mr. Victor Lachance (Director, Senior Leader, Sport Matters Group)

º

1655

The Chair

Mr. Paul Wiens (University Librarian, Queen's University, Canadian Association of Research Libraries)

»

1700

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre (President, Canadian Library Association)

»

1705

»

1710

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Paquette

»

1715

Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre

The Chair

Mr. Paul Wiens

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. Victor Lachance

»

1720

Mr. Timothy Page

Mr. Pierre Paquette

Mr. Timothy Page

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Paul Wiens

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

»

1725

Mr. Timothy Mark (Executive Director, Canadian Association of Research Libraries)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Timothy Mark

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre

Mr. Victor Lachance

»

1730

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Monte Solberg

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Victor Lachance

The Chair

Mr. Timothy Page

»

1735

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Timothy Page

Mr. Shawn Murphy

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Victor Lachance

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Timothy Page

»

1740

Ms. Maria Minna

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna

Mr. Timothy Page

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Finance

---

NUMBER 067

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, September 17, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): Bienvenue. Welcome. Pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), we are continuing with pre-budget discussions.

    I'd like to welcome the first panel of the afternoon. From the International Association of Fire Fighters, we have Jim Lee, the assistant to the general president of the Canadian office. Welcome, Jim, again.

    From the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, there is Mark Goldblatt, senior consultant, and René Daoust, president. Welcome. Bienvenue.

    And from the Canadian Association of University Teachers, we have James Turk, executive director, and David Robinson, associate executive director.

    I know we're anticipating some vote calls later this afternoon, so if you will just start with your presentations and take no more than seven minutes...up to seven minutes, and then I will cut you off, but please feel free. I think these are the instructions the clerk gave you earlier.

    We'll go in the order of the agenda and start with the International Association of Fire Fighters. Thank you.

    Mr. Jim Lee (Assistant to the General President, Canadian Office, International Association of Fire Fighters): Thank you very much.

    As was mentioned, my name is Jim Lee. I'm the assistant to the general president for Canadian operations of the International Association of Fire Fighters. I was a full-time firefighter in the city of Toronto for more than 30 years.

    On behalf of our general president, Harold Schaitberger, and the 18,600 professional firefighters we represent in Canada, the International Association of Fire Fighters is appreciative of the opportunity to submit our views as part of the annual pre-budget consultation exercise of the Standing Committee on Finance.

    I know you are all familiar with the two issues the IAFF brought forward in our submissions: the establishment of a national public safety officer compensation benefit, and federal funding for the IAFF's hazardous materials and weapons of mass destruction training programs. That being the case, I will not repeat the details contained in the written brief; instead, I will summarize our points on these issues.

    The IAFF advocates the establishment of a national public safety officer compensation benefit for the family of a firefighter who is killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty. We propose that this benefit be a direct, one-time payment of $250,000.

    The issue of the compensation fund has been around for a long time. Frankly, we are growing weary of hearing the same arguments when we advocate our position here on the Hill. We're given vague jurisdictional arguments as a reason for not acting on this issue; specifically, the firefighters are municipal, not federal employees. Yet there is a permanent national memorial for fallen police officers not 500 metres from where we're sitting right now, and a national ceremony is held every year. Many of the names on this memorial are of municipal officers who gave their lives in the line of duty.

    We're told that it may be too complicated to set up that kind of benefit at a national level here in Canada; yet the United States government has had such a benefit in place for its firefighters since 1976, which operates quite effectively.

    We're told by our federal representatives that firefighters have the admiration and respect of the Canadian people, a situation that is more evident than ever in Kelowna, B.C., this past number of weeks.

    A majority of the MPs even tell us during our annual lobby that they support the idea of this benefit. But year after year the issue fails to advance in the federal arena.

    We're told that we can negotiate a survivor benefit at the bargaining table, but the truth is that less than 10% of our members have been able to do so, and in most cases it's a mere token amount.

    We don't think it's a lot to ask the nation to recognize the sacrifice of a fallen firefighter and to take steps to ensure the financial security of a family who has lost a major source of income. We do think that the federal government has the authority to establish this fund. We respectfully urge this committee to make a positive recommendation so that this long overdue issue may advance at the national level.

    Regarding our proposal for hazardous materials and weapons of mass destruction response training, we used to say that weeks and months were passing without this important protection in place. Now, alarmingly, we can say that years are passing without this training in place.

    The IAFF's hazardous materials and terrorism response programs are just waiting to be taken advantage of by the Canadian government. They would be an extremely cost-effective way for the government to bolster current initiatives and to significantly enhance the number of Canadian first responders who have access to this important training. Remember, firefighters are the first line of defence in any emergency, including an attack or an incident of a chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiological nature.

    We are the first ones on the scene, but if the firefighters are not specifically trained to respond safely and effectively to these dangers, the public is not adequately protected. That was the case in Guelph, Ontario, four months ago when a van carrying radioactive materials was involved in a traffic accident and overturned. Fortunately, the materials did not leak. But the city's firefighters still have not received specific training from anyone to deal with radioactive incidents.

    As a starting point, we stress and encourage the funding of a single-site demonstration using our curriculum as a means of illustrating its merits. But again, annual funding of just $500,000 would train thousands of first responders—not just professional firefighters but other responders too.

    In closing, the two items we bring forward for the committee's consideration constitute modest budget allocations, especially considering the significant benefits they would bring to the Canadian public and to the nation's professional firefighters. We ask you to take advantage of this opportunity and to view these items favourably in your deliberations.

¹  (1545)  

    Again, I thank you for this opportunity, and I would be glad to answer any questions from the committee.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lee.

    We'll now proceed to the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. Commencez, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

    Mr. René Daoust (President, Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada): Good morning. My name is René Daoust and I'm a resident of the Nouvelle Ère housing co-operative in Longueuil. This year, I have the honour of serving as the President of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. With me today is Mark Goldblatt from our Ottawa office.

    For over 30 years, the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada has spoken out on behalf of the nation's housing co-operatives. Working in partnership with the Canadian government through CMHC, we have helped to set up over 2,200 housing co-operatives across the country, which translates into 91,000 affordable housing units for over 250,000 people.

    In a recent study, CMHC clearly stated that the co-operative housing formula was the most economical of all available social housing options. However, despite the progress that has been made, over 306,000 households still allocate more than 50 per cent of their income to rent. In our opinion, this proportion is unacceptable in 21st century Canada.

    Our representations have not fallen on deaf ears. In 2001, the federal government introduced an affordable housing program. However, very few provinces have stepped forward with matching dollars.

    In February 2003, the federal government announced an additional commitment of $320 million. However, the Minister responsible for the CMHC, Steve Mahoney, wants some assurances that these funds will be used in the best possible way to create affordable housing. We're pleased that the minister is planning to involve community stakeholders, including housing co-operatives, in efforts to resolve the affordable housing crisis.

[English]

    Mr. Mark Goldblatt (Senior Consultant, Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada): I'll just add a few remarks.

    As our president has said, the key issue in rental housing today is rental housing that's affordable to moderate- and low-income households who cannot afford market rents.

    The interesting fact is that vacancy rates are starting to rise in some of Canada's major cities, like Toronto and Ottawa. The reason for this is that with interest rates at historically low levels compared with the last 40 years, people are moving out of the rental market and purchasing homes or condominiums. Where this is so, however, this is a great time to be buying existing rental housing and converting it into non-profit housing cooperatives, which will create moderate- and low-income rental housing in perpetuity.

    This is a great time for the government to finance such housing cooperatives. Private developers are not interested in financing moderate- and low-income rental housing projects. The reason is quite simple: it's not their line of business and they can see no return on their investment over time. However, if you give the private sector enough money in the way of tax credits, combined with direct subsidies, they're happy to develop some rental housing and create a private asset based on these public subsidies, but they are not willing to keep that housing affordable over the long run.

    The only other point we'd like to make is a bit more specific, which is that for the 30-year period the CMHC was financing not-for-profit rental co-op housing, it provided 100% mortgage insurance for the total capital costs of social housing projects. From our point of view, this program was a profit centre for the CMHC, where premiums collected more than paid for losses incurred by the mortgage insurance fund. As we move forward to an era in which we hope the federal government will be back in the social housing business, we hope it can reintroduce this mortgage insurance fund product to solve the problem of social housing groups racing around trying to find second mortgage money, which at the end of the day does not create any more affordable housing.

    Thank you.

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We'll now go to our next presenter, Monsieur Turk from the Canadian Association of University Teachers. Bienvenue.

    Mr. James Turk (Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers): Thank you, Madam Chair. The Canadian Association of University Teachers welcomes the opportunity to present our views to the Standing Committee on Finance.

    Founded in 1951, CAUT now represents more than 32,000 university and college teachers across Canada, including academic librarians, researchers, and other academic staff at institutions in every province. Our commitment is to improving the accessibility and quality of post-secondary education and to defending academic freedom.

    This year the committee is seeking advice on what measures the government can take to ensure stronger economic growth in job creation, achieve greater progress in investing in and caring for all members of society, and enhance the development of rural and remote communities in Canada.

    CAUT strongly believes that renewed federal investment in an affordable, accessible, and high-quality post-secondary system is absolutely essential for achieving these goals.

    Universities and colleges are vital to the economic, social, and cultural development of their communities and of the nation as a whole. Post-secondary education promotes critical thinking, effective communication, and independent inquiry that's crucial to the functioning of an open and democratic society. High-quality education nurtures human talent and intellectual curiosity, helping to advance the personal development of individual citizens, promote a more equitable and inclusive society, and contribute to the long-term economic, social, and cultural life of our communities.

    I suspect all of you know that. In fact, I would ask members of the committee how many of you have, in a speech you've given in the past year, talked about how 75% or 70% or whatever percent of all new jobs will require post-secondary education in future.

    We're having the kind of discussion today about the importance of post-secondary education that was held in this country in the 1920s—except then, people were talking about high school education. Arguably, post-secondary credentials are more important today than high school graduation was in the 1920s. In the 1920s, when they had this discussion, they came to the conclusion that it was indeed important and decided then to make high school education universal and free. Having the same discussion about post-secondary education in 2000, we're now making it more expensive and less accessible. In real dollar terms, tuition fees are higher than they've been at any point since World War II.

    In fact, if the situation that exists in Canada today had existed when each member of this committee graduated from high school, many of you who have a post-secondary education would not have been able to get it then, and those of you who would have been able to get it might well have had to make different career choices because of the substantial debts you would have had to incur in order to get your post-secondary education.

    We're really seeing the effects of high tuition fees, not only on who gets in but on what career choices they make. So, for example, in medicine today there's the smallest enrollment in family medicine that there's been in several decades, because medical students anticipating massive debts when they get out of medical school are choosing to go into specialities where there is a much higher possibility of earning the kind of income that will allow them to repay the debt. The same thing is happening in law and in other professions, and it has enormous social consequences for everyone.

    Like health, post-secondary education is indeed a provincial responsibility. But as with health, Canadians never would have had a good quality, accessible, and regionally equitable post-secondary education system without the direct and substantial federal financial contribution to the core operating expenditures of our post-secondary educational institutions.

    Prior to the 1950s, our education system was small, elite, and regionally inequitable. That only changed in the 1950s after Prime Minister St. Laurent, following the Massey commission, began to inject federal funding directly into the universities. Since then, federal funding has been decisive in expanding access to high-quality post-secondary education regardless of where you live in this country.

    This began to reverse, however—that is, we're becoming less accessible, with growing regional inequalities—over the past decade as the federal post-secondary education funding was first buried in the Canada health and social transfer block funds, and then the total transfers were cut, and then the federal government subsequently decided it was going to put new money into targeted programs such as the Canada millennium scholarship fund, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, and so forth, and not in ways in which the federal government could ensure that the money they were spending was expanding access and promoting a high-quality public post-secondary system.

¹  (1555)  

    I'd like to conclude by saying that there is no solution to this dilemma without first a new funding mechanism—and the one we're suggesting is modelled on the Canada Health Act—with national guidelines and a dedicated fund, the Canada education transfer, not unlike the Canada health transfer the federal government has recently established, so that the federal government and Canadians can be assured that the more substantial federal contributions will lead to the high-quality, regionally accessible, and equitable public post-secondary system Canadians want and that we as a country need and deserve.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    We will go to rounds of questioning now. I'll start with Mr. Solberg; you'll have up to seven minutes.

    Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Canadian Alliance): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

    I appreciate the presentations and I appreciate all of you taking the time to come here. I want to start with Mr. Lee.

    First I want to express on behalf of my party that we appreciate the work firefighters do. In the last few years I think everyone has started to appreciate a lot more the work firefighters do, especially after 9/11, but even in the course of their ordinary work, day to day, I think most of us pay a little more attention than we used to.

    Certainly we're familiar with some of these issues. Many of us have been lobbied by firefighters, who've done a good job that way. My question is this. Obviously, you've had some discussions with people in government—I assume with National Defence—with respect to some of the training issues and that kind of thing. If you have had those discussions, could you elaborate on them and give us some sense of what the government's response is when you're asking for training and money and that kind of thing?

    Mr. Jim Lee: The vast majority of the responses we're getting from members of Parliament are very positive with regard to the training. Where it seems to be falling down is when it gets into the bureaucratic process. There are training programs being put on by the federal government right now—by OCIPEP, by other organizations within the government—but the training is not getting to the firefighters on the street. That's our problem, and it was evident in the Guelph situation. That's why I brought it forward; it was the most recent example. It's going to a select group of higher-ranking people within the fire departments across Canada; it's not getting out to the firefighters, the guys who have to do the job.

    We're saying our program would do that. We could train 1,600 firefighters each year. That's a “train the trainer” program, where those 1,600 would go out to train other firefighters. Everybody seems to be positive, but nobody's moving forward with the $500,000 yet. That's why we're suggesting that maybe a one-site demonstration using our curriculum would get it moving in the right direction.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: When it comes to national emergencies and that sort of thing, my understanding is—and you'll correct me, I'm sure, if I'm wrong—that the Department of National Defence takes the lead and works through fire departments and that sort of agency to address some of these problems.

    The question I have—and maybe you're the wrong person to ask this of—is if we had the defence minister here today and said “Our understanding is you're responsible for ensuring these people are trained and ready to deal with issues”—such as dealing with radioactive materials—he would have to say that he is, but I guess at this point we're not adequately prepared. That's basically the message.

    Mr. Jim Lee: The rank and file firefighters, the guys who actually have to do the job when called upon, are not adequately trained at this time. It's as simple as that.

º  (1600)  

    Mr. Monte Solberg: All right.

    On the question respecting cooperative housing, I'm interested to know how helpful in specific terms cooperative housing is to people. With vacancies falling now because of low interest rates, is the gap in rents between private housing and cooperative housing still being maintained? Are you staying competitive with rents? And could you give me a rough idea of what kinds of rents people would be paying in a city like Ottawa, for instance, or in Calgary, with which I'm a bit familiar, having a son in university? Can you give me a rough idea of what the differences would be between private and cooperative housing?

    Mr. Mark Goldblatt: First of all, I think the main point is that not-for-profit housing cooperatives create rental housing that is available to moderate- and low-income households in perpetuity. This is the key difference between what we and the private sector offer—which, of course, is not because they're bad people, but because their role as investor-owned companies is to maximize their return on investment. Therefore, the higher the market allows them to raise their market rents, of course, they'll do so. In cooperative housing, however, we're not trying to make any profit whatsoever. So as the years go by, our rents do track upwards because of property taxes, heating, and so on, but they track upwards at cost. So our housing is rental housing in perpetu on an at-cost basis.

    Also, about 50% of our 91,000 units are low-income households who cannot afford market rents but are receiving personal rents geared to income subsidies to help them pay their share of the rents in the cooperatives they live in.

    As for the comparison with co-op housing between, let's say, Toronto and Ottawa, the original rules under which CMHC financed co-op housing for 30 years started us at market rents, not below market rents. But then over time there got to be this separation between prevailing market rents as they advanced over time and our rents, which tracked upwards at cost, at cost, at cost. So that's the general structure of our relationship with the private rental sector.

    But with respect to your very specific question on the gap between current market rents on, let's say, a two bedroom townhouse in the private, for-profit sector and the not-for-profit sector, I can't give you an exact figure because it varies over time. I can say to you, though, that if you look at those co-ops that are 15, 20, or more years old, people are now paying about 60% of the prevailing market rents for similar accommodation, after all those years of at-cost rental increases. So, over time, the at-cost renting in perpetuity really does make a significant difference in affordability to moderate- and low-income households. It's a very significant difference.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: You probably mentioned this in your presentation, and I may have missed it, but basically you're saying you're at zero vacancy. Is that the biggest reason, or is it just that the housing stock is getting older and...?

    Mr. Mark Goldblatt: What's going on in the rental housing stock situation isn't really that complex.

    Again, there are some urban areas where vacancy rates are still very low, or below 1%. In those cases, new supply is needed. The numbers are just coming in, and we'll wait for CMHC's annual rental survey in October and early November, but in those markets, vacancy rates do seem to be rising.

    As I said in my brief remarks, with interest rates at 40-year lows, people are naturally moving out of every kind of rental housing—co-op or whatever—to buy that first home, be it a home or a condominium. That's the basic structure of the situation. So in those markets, vacancy rates are rising.

    But hey, we still have the problem with the large number of moderate- and low-income households who cannot afford market rents. But hey, what a great time to be buying existing rental housing when prices are becoming progressively depressed and thus capture it as non-profit co-op housing, which will then serve those low-income households at cost in perpetuity. With high vacancy rates now, it's a great time for not-for-profit co-ops to be buying in the marketplace, fixing up those units, and offering them on an at-cost basis in perpetuity.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Paquette.

    Mr. Pierre Paquette (Joliette, BQ): First off, I want to thank all three witnesses for their presentations.

    I'll begin with the International Association of Fire Fighters. Your association is calling for the establishment of a national compensation benefit for firefighters. I believe you recommended a similar initiative in last year's submission, as you mentioned at the outset. I probably put the question to you, then, but I don't recall your answer, so I will ask it again. You argue that this is not a matter of jurisdiction, and we understand that full well. We're talking about very serious, human drama. However, in Quebec, the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité au travail provides compensation to workers in accordance with established guidelines, regardless of the sector in which they work.

    How would this national compensation benefit fit in with the Quebec compensation system in the case of persons injured on the job or suffering from a work-related illness?

º  (1605)  

[English]

    Mr. Jim Lee: In our presentation and the submissions we made to the committee, it wouldn't be harmonized at all. It would be up and above anything you would get from your provincial and municipal governments. This was something that would recognize the line-of-duty debt by the federal government, not something that would be taken away from.... If you have $50,000 life insurance from your municipality, it would not be reduced by $50,000. We think it's something that has to be recognized by the federal government, up and above anything else you would have got.

[Translation]

    Mr. Pierre Paquette: Therefore, the benefit would be paid over and above any compensation awarded pursuant to Quebec's occupational safety and health legislation.

[English]

    Mr. Jim Lee: That's correct.

[Translation]

    Mr. Pierre Paquette: Fine then. Thank you.

    To the representatives of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, I must say that you are not being very hard on the federal government and the minister. I imagine you're being polite, but on several occasions, you noted that the federal government made some modest contributions, that the minister has undertaken to put this money to good use and that you're prepared to support him on this. Yet, you mustn't lose sight of the fact for years, the federal government made deep cuts to social programs. During the 1980s, 24,000 social housing units were built in Canada, whereas fewer than 1,000 units a year were being built as recently as one or two years ago. Therefore, while I can understand your strategy of not wanting to alienate the federal government, it's equally important to view matters in the proper perspective.

    If the one per cent of federal spending approximates the $680 million announced for the next five years, what do you think the federal contribution should total annually?

    Mr. René Daoust: As far as numbers go, I don't wish to comment about the technical aspects. However, from a political perspective, we're certainly pleased with the efforts the government has made, because this is the first positive step in quite some time. We know the federal government has pulled back from this sector and that this has led to some problems. Therefore, we're pleased with the federal initiatives and with the response of certain provinces, notably Quebec. Only Quebec answered the federal government's call to get involved in the affordable housing program. Prior to the federal announcement, only Quebec and British Columbia had programs in place in this area. These initiatives have not addressed 100 per cent of the needs, but they are a step in the right direction.

    Mark, I don't know if you have any figures to...

[English]

    Mr. Mark Goldblatt: I don't have the exact numbers, but we have to give credit where credit is due.

    Your criticism is actually correct. Right? In 1992, the federal government got out of financing social housing completely.

    But now, all these years later, the government is poised to move back into supporting social housing. So we just have to give credit where credit is due. The minister currently responsible for CMHC, Steve Mahoney, is doing his absolute best to try to move the federal government back into the field.

    Time will tell, of course.

[Translation]

    Mr. Pierre Paquette: You talk about one per cent. I've heard that groups like the FRAPRU in Quebec are asking for $2 billion annually. Therefore, if you calculate one per cent of this amount, that means that the federal government should be contributing approximately $1.5 billion, with the rest of the money coming from the provinces. In any case, if you can share with the committee your target figures, that could be very helpful. I find that both of your groups have gone quite easy on the federal government.

    For example, in recommendation 1, when you call for a Canadian education act, with separate funding, I'm willing to... In the case of the Fédération québécoise des professeures d'université, we agreed with the idea that education should be funded separately to clearly see how the provinces spend the money. However, we mustn't lose sight of the fact that the federal government has slashed the CHST by some $24 billion. That represents a loss of $8.7 billion for Quebec. Some funding has been restored since 2001, but each time this happens, very specific conditions are attached. In my opinion, a Canadian education act would be no different from the Canada Health Act. There would be no guarantee that the federal government would uphold its commitments and the provinces would be left to administer the federally enacted legislation.

    Wouldn't a better solution be to have Canadian education legislation that requires the federal government to achieve the stated funding objective of .5 per cent of the GDP? That would be a worthwhile initiative. We'd have some assurances that in Quebec and elsewhere, the federal government is prepared to assume its responsibilities and would not play politics at the expense of education. It's a suggestion and I have to ask if you think this approach might work better, because we've seen how the Canada Health Act didn't stop the federal government from stepping away from the health field during the 1990s.

    Let me also advance another argument that holds considerable water in Quebec. If a body such as the national board is established, where the provinces must account to the federal government for their spending of the federal funds doled out to them with numerous conditions attached, then we change the accountability framework of provincial government, including Quebec. Provincial governments should be accountable first and foremost to their citizens, not to the federal government. Therefore, your proposal is fundamentally weak, from a democratic standpoint.

    Having said that, on the substantive issue, namely reinvesting money in health care, you can rest assured that we support the overall thrust of your recommendations.

º  (1610)  

[English]

    Mr. James Turk: I'm actually quite anxious to answer the question while my colleague, whom I failed to introduce, David Robinson, who is our associate executive director, is even more anxious to answer than I am.

    Since I made the opening remarks, may I turn it over to him to comment on this?

    Mr. David Robinson (Associate Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers): Sure, thanks. I've been accused of many things before but never for being indulgent with the government. That's interesting.

    I think your point is well taken. Actually, if you read the proposed framework we're developing, I think it addresses all of the concerns you raised.

    What we're envisaging here is a new fiscal framework, a new partnership with the provinces that would require the federal government to live up to its side of the bargain. Precisely what has happened over the past decade is that we've seen, for various reasons, a withdrawal of federal funding from post-secondary education, along with health care and social services.

    What we're arguing here is that we need a new kind of fiscal framework that holds the federal government accountable as well on meeting the objectives that we believe Canadians want met in the public post-secondary education field.

    I will leave you with a copy of our proposed act. You can read through it. I'm sure you'll see that your concerns were addressed.

    The Chair: C'est tous.

    Mr. Daoust, if you're going to send in any material, it can go to the clerk. It will be translated and distributed to all the members. We'll make sure of that.

    Now we go to Mr. Murphy for seven minutes.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you, presenters, for the presentations.

    I need a little bit of elaboration, Mr. Lee, on the national compensation fund, if I may. I only want to follow up a little bit.

    As you found out from your meetings, I think every member of Parliament, and probably every member of the provincial assembly, agrees that anyone who is killed or injured in the line of duty should be compensated financially. There are two different streams of benefit. There's the income continuation to the firefighter's family and there is, I guess, a lump sum spousal benefit. I take it you're only talking about the second one. Are you?

    Mr. Jim Lee: Yes. We're talking about the lump sum.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: You're talking about the lump sum. Income continuation, I assume, would be for negotiating collective agreements that would be merged with all the provincial workers' compensation programs. There'd be a whole hodge-podge out there, but there would be reasonable income continuation, I assume.

    Mr. Jim Lee: I can tell you that in my experience as a negotiator on behalf of firefighters across Canada, there are very few collective agreements that have salary continuation. In fact, we were the only one in the province of Ontario, the city of Toronto. It's gone now.

    We have life insurance, but we did have a salary continuation. When the amalgamation happened, the salary continuation plan was no longer there.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: How would that work? Would it be a top-up from the existing workers' compensation?

    Mr. Jim Lee: It would be a top-up.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Okay. I don't want to bring up the word, but there is a jurisdictional issue here. Death is an easy thing to decipher, and you can tell me exactly what it would be.

    When you get into the disabled...firefighting is a very demanding job. It's a very physical job. I assume that at any given moment there are a lot of disabled firefighters in this country. Do you have any idea of the number?

º  (1615)  

    Mr. Jim Lee: I don't have any idea of the number of disabled firefighters. I can tell you that in the protocol they have in the United States there's a distinct pattern for the criteria they have to meet on the disabled aspect.

    We're saying that we're prepared to sit down and talk to any minister who wants to take this on. We're prepared to sit down, talk, and come up with some type of protocol to look at the disability aspect of it.

    You're quite right, death is death. It's pretty straightforward. On the disability, we're prepared to sit down and talk about it.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: I've practised law for 25 years and I've had hundreds of cases on the disabled. I don't recall any firefighters, but often it's a tough issue out there.

    Is the number of firefighters in Canada 186,000 or something like that?

    Mr. Jim Lee: It is 18,600, approximately.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: I would assume that given the nature of the work you probably have a certain percentage, quite a number, of disabled firefighters out there.

    Mr. Jim Lee: There are definitions. When we look at long-term disability plans, it's probably what you're talking about.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: I'm talking about the long-term disability plans, yes.

    Mr. Jim Lee: There are clear definitions on what a disability is and how long they would pay. They determine the disability. There's own occupation disability and then there's any occupation disability. I am well aware of that.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: I am well aware too. I don't think it is as clear as you say it is. It's very complex apparently.

    Mr. Jim Lee: We'd be prepared to sit down and talk with one of the minister's people on that.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Do you have any idea of what the costs would be? Can you give us an estimate?

    Mr. Jim Lee: I can tell you that last year, from April of this year to April of last year, we had 11 firefighters across Canada who died in the line of duty.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: That's the easy part. On disability, do you have any idea?

    Mr. Jim Lee: No.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: You have no idea.

    Moving on to the cooperative housing, I have a few questions. I don't know, and I don't pretend to know, what's going on in the rest of Canada. I come from a part of the country where we do have a lot of co-op housing projects. On the most recent round, the one that's out there now for affordable housing with another tranche coming, the co-op housing organizations don't seem to be at the table.

    Is that the case for the rest of Canada, and is there a capacity issue?

    Mr. Mark Goldblatt: I'm not sure quite what you mean by “at the table”. We feel “at the table” at the federal level, for sure. As we were saying, the current minister, Steve Mahoney, is pushing forward an agenda to create more social housing, and in particular co-op housing. We feel very much at the table. We've been consulted on a week-over-week basis. We certainly have no complaint there.

    The program that's currently under way is a federal-provincial program, but as we all know, the resources in Prince Edward Island with respect to federal-provincial programs are quite limited. In terms of being at the table, no, we're not directly negotiating right now with your province, but that has more to do with the lead on this program being a federal government lead. Hopefully, each province will have the fiscal resources to match the federal money that has been put on the table.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: On the programs that are out there, and there have been some announced, I understand there haven't been many yet in Ontario. I know there are some.

    I'm getting back to this jurisdictional argument. I know all the problems that Minister Mahoney is having, especially here in Ontario.

    Mr. Mark Goldblatt: In Ontario, yes.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: In Ontario they're legend. I believe the co-op housing is an excellent model. I really do. It has worked and it is proven.

    Do you foresee it being used with the programs that are out there now?

    Mr. Mark Goldblatt: Hopefully, yes. We'll see how it all ends up. The programs, for the first time, are open to the private sector and not only to the social housing/co-op housing sector. We don't know how the money might go in terms of how it's directed.

    I know I'm repeating myself, but I will say that we couldn't get any better ministerial level support than we're getting right now from Mr. Mahoney. We'll see whether his efforts translate into some new co-op housing units on the ground in the next three to six months.

    That's where we are now in our sector. We have the projects. We have the technical delivery capacity. If we can get the financing, then the public will see the housing.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: I only have one last question to the co-op representatives. This is a tremendously important issue and it's something we deal with every day of our lives. We deal with students and the importance of this issue.

    There is one question I have. Your request is for considerably more money to be put into post-secondary education. Is there any suggestion or any recommendation coming from your organizations to reconfigure existing funds? Right now we have certain tax deductions and tax credits for education and we have tuition tax credits. We have the RESP rebate that has cost the federal government sufficient funds. Your organization had the exact amount of money. We have the student loan program, which of course we can't do away with.

    Are there any of those programs that your organization feels could be reconfigured to more effectively and efficiently provide funds to students, particularly to students who need the money?

    Mr. James Turk: We've been concerned, as I was trying to say in my opening remarks, about the funding structure we have that predisposes the federal government not to put more money into block transfers. They argue it gives them no credit and therefore have been putting new money, after the massive cuts of the previous decade, into targeted programs like the millennium scholarship fund and others, as well as the significant amount that's spent on RESP top-ups and so forth.

    We think part of it is an artifact of the structure. If we move to a structure—and that's where we are proposing a model of the Canada Health Act—where there would be agreed upon national guidelines, then the money that's going through all these channels could be concentrated on the most important thing, and that is money going into the core operating budgets of universities.

    As those have been cut back, universities have found themselves unable to carry on their activities in the way they want to, except by increasing tuition fees dramatically. We have the problem of inaccessibility, and we're going back to the problems we had in the 1940s and early 1950s.

    It is a fundamental reconfiguration. It's using some of the money that's currently spent in a better way, but there is also going to have to be a substantial amount of money to bring us back to where we were in 1993. It is about $1.5 billion to $2 billion that the federal government would have to put in each year to get us to the level of funding in real dollar terms that we were at in 1993.

º  (1620)  

    The Chair: Honourable Maria Minna.

    Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches—East York, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for coming today, all of you. I think I've met all of you before.

    Mr. Lee, I wanted to clarify something with respect to the firefighters' national fund. I think our colleague from Quebec was talking about workers' compensation outside of Quebec.

    Do the firefighters in Ontario fall under the Workers' Compensation Board? I'm trying to remember how that works.

    Mr. Jim Lee: They fall under the Workers' Compensation Board.

    Ms. Maria Minna: For major injuries or death, what is the compensation? In Ontario is it one lump sum or is it a payment to a spouse?

    Mr. Jim Lee: It depends on the option of the surviving spouse. She can take a lump sum or she can take a monthly pension.

    Ms. Maria Minna: It's an option.

    Mr. Jim Lee: Yes.

    Ms. Maria Minna: So the national fund would be above that then?

    Mr. Jim Lee: Yes.

    Ms. Maria Minna: Is there a percentage of salary? Have you looked at an amount?

    Mr. Jim Lee: We're saying in our submission--

    Ms. Maria Minna: Sorry, I haven't read it.

    Mr. Jim Lee: --it's $250,000.

    Ms. Maria Minna: Lump sum?

    Mr. Jim Lee: Yes.

    Ms. Maria Minna: I wanted to be clear as to how the jurisdictional things would work out in the two areas.

    Mr. Jim Lee: I've heard the argument on the jurisdiction--

    Ms. Maria Minna: Tell us what the problem is.

    Mr. Jim Lee: The firefighters in Kelowna who are in there fighting those fires right now are from all over Canada. And they're not there to protect the citizens of Kelowna; that's a national disaster there. They're there on behalf of Canada. The firefighters--

    Ms. Maria Minna: What happens if they're injured there? I'm sorry to interrupt, but I'm curious. What happens if an Ontario firefighter is injured in B.C.?

    Mr. Jim Lee: They would get workers' compensation.

    Ms. Maria Minna: Under the B.C. plan or the Ontario plan?

    Mr. Jim Lee: Under the Ontario plan.

    Ms. Maria Minna: I want to be sure.

    Mr. Jim Lee: I was saying the firefighters are there because it's a natural disaster--

    Ms. Maria Minna: No, I understand that.

    Mr. Jim Lee: --and God forbid that we should lose any firefighters there. They wouldn't be recognized by the federal government in any way, shape, or form.

    I was there. I went to Kelowna and saw what those guys had to face, and I'm saying we were very fortunate that we didn't lose a lot of firefighters there. When that fire came up the valley and up the canyon and got those houses, we had about 300 firefighters on that ridge who saved thousands and thousands of houses. We lost 248, but the potential was to lose thousands of houses in that city and they stopped it. And not one firefighter was hurt, thank God. We had twisted ankles and small burns, but nothing other than that.

º  (1625)  

    Ms. Maria Minna: Thank you. I wanted to clear up some of those things.

    I'd like to go to the teachers' association.

    I want to go back to what my colleague was talking about just a few minutes ago. The Canada health transfer is something I support tremendously. I totally did not support the CHST because it had no strings, and while my colleague doesn't like the strings, I think they're necessary; it's important to see where the money flows and that the money is in fact used for the purpose for which it was given.

    I want to ask you, though, to follow up a little bit on what my colleague was saying earlier. There are all these different plans, and you touched on it, but when you say you would have an education transfer similar to the health transfer--someone else was talking about establishing a social transfer now that we have the health transfer, and it would include education as well, but whatever we call it, are you suggesting that in this education transfer that would be beefed up you would roll in all of the other programs and provide education free of charge to all Canadian students? Would you go that far, or are you suggesting something else in between?

    I'm curious because it's a discussion I've had with some people, and I'm not sure where you're stopping when you say rolling up. Are we rolling all of the education program, post-secondary student loans, all of it?

    Mr. James Turk: I'll start. I know David wants to comment because he's done a lot of work on this issue.

    What we're saying is that the dismantling of the CHST into three components is what we think would be desirable. The federal government has already taken the first step with regard to the Canada health transfer. Similarly we think there should be a Canada education transfer and a Canada social transfer.

    The Canada education transfer would not roll up student loans and those kinds of things but would be a block of money that the federal government transfers for the purpose of core operating expenses of universities and colleges.

    Ms. Maria Minna: So it would be much of what we had before under the RAF, I think it was called--

    Mr. James Turk: Yes, but--

    Ms. Maria Minna: --if it is accepted?

    Mr. James Turk: There would be guidelines and there would be an accountability structure and a national accountability council that's worked out between the provinces and the federal government. And there would be a recognition of the distinctiveness of Quebec and a recognition that arrangements would have to be negotiated with the Province of Quebec that may not be available to other provinces, given the historic aspect. So there's a sensitivity in what we're proposing to that particular part of it.

    But at the end of the day it's our view that the federal government is not going to make the size of commitments it needs to make unless it has some assurance that the money will go to meet certain agreed upon guidelines, like an accessible, high-quality, publicly administered post-secondary educational system.

    David, I don't know if you want to add anything.

    Mr. David Robinson: Sure. On the funding envelope I think our position as an organization is that tuition should be free, education should be free, just like education was made free at the secondary level, because it's such an important element of social and economic progress. But on the overall funding envelope, the federal government has already committed a substantial amount of resources to programs like the Canada education savings grant, which is a top-up to the RESP program, and yet all the evidence we have shows that those most in need are those least able to take advantage of that program. So it's for people who are able to afford to save who get to take advantage of a grant. And we've already committed--

    Ms. Maria Minna: That's what I was asking, because I have difficulty with some of that too.

    Mr. David Robinson: We've already committed well over $1 billion to that program and yet it's not going to those families who have children who are most in need, who can't save the money to begin with. So I think it's a very inefficient program.

    I'd also argue that the Canada millennium scholarship foundation was a serious mistake on the part of the federal government, after taking money out of transfers to the provinces to set up what was called a “boutique program” at that time. That money would have been much more effectively used in the support of core funding, as well as the money in the Canada education savings grant, and whatever deferred tax advantages come from the RESP program as well. There's a lot of money there.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. Thank you, both of you.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

    I'd also like to thank all the presenters this afternoon. In my seven minutes I'm going to try to ask a question to each of the groups represented.

    I'll start with the Canadian Association of University Teachers. You've provided us with an excellent brief. It gives us lots of assistance in this process.

    For the benefit of my colleagues across the way, I would suggest that if you really want to realize and understand the full impact of Paul Martin, just look to the charts on pages 5 and 6, where you can see what happened when Paul Martin brought in the CHST and gutted so many of our social programs, including education. That's why we are here today. I think we're trying to figure out how we make up for lost ground and how we stabilize the education system in our country today, which is, as people always say, the great remaining equalizer among us.

    Jim, you've been at it a long time in terms of this idea, which I think many of us support, of a national act enshrining principles for education similar to the standards of medicare. You've long advocated a separate investment fund for education. We didn't see any movement of that in the last budget. Have there been any signals from the government? Do you have any reason to believe that this is on their agenda somewhere, that it's a glimmer in their eyes anywhere? And, more importantly, has Paul Martin said anything around this idea?

º  (1630)  

    Mr. James Turk: There has been movement in the direction that we've been advocating for some time. There's been growing interest and expressed support for the proposal we're making from a number of national and Quebec organizations and a number of representatives of different political parties, including a number of backbench members of the Liberal Party.

    The federal government I think did take a step in the right direction when it pulled the Canada health transfer out of the CHST. We'd really encourage it to take the next step. There are those recognitions, but the fundamental problem is a political one.

    You make reference to the charts on pages 5 and 6, the cuts. If you make reference to table 1 at the beginning, the projected surplus, the issue in this country is not “Do we have enough money to do this thing or that thing?”, it's “What are our political priorities?”

    What we're suggesting is if every member of the House of Commons took seriously his or her own rhetoric about how essential post-secondary education is to the future of the country, then we would have the kinds of resources to restore funding to the level it needs to be at.

    If you look at figure 3 on page 6, which tracks the federal cash transfers as a percentage of gross domestic product, that's probably the best measure to look at how much we can afford to give. It indicates what is the total wealth of the society and what percentage we give for post-secondary education.

    What we're advocating is that we get to half of one percent, in other words, one half of one penny of every dollar generated by the economy. Surely we can afford to put this into our post-secondary educational system. We were at that level in the late 1970s, and if we got back to that level we'd have the kind of system that would be accessible. Can we do that? Is there a glimmer in somebody's eye? It's a political question, and we're doing all we can to put that glimmer there, and we hope appearing before you will be part of that.

    Thank you.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a follow-up. Yes, it does come down to the surplus and general fiscal policy. We know in the past a lot of the surplus has gone to tax cuts. We know that in terms of the debt issue we're one of the better countries of the G-7.

    What kind of breakdown would you recommend in terms of the surplus money? Would you see most of that now going into public programs, or would you still want to see a split in terms of debt and tax cuts and spending?

    Mr. James Turk: David, who has done a lot of the work on this, can comment. I can give you my answer. I think it's time to start restoring our social spending. Heavy cuts were made in the 1990s. Canadians are paying the price for that in terms of their children not being able to go to post-secondary education or incurring massive debts to do so and skewing many of their career choices afterwards, not having access to the kind of health care we all want, and so forth.

    There is a huge social deficit and I think we need to address it, and we certainly feel that this is the direction that the surplus should be put to.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I want to say to Jim Lee that I join with my other colleagues in congratulating his association for their incredible contribution to so many difficult times Canadians have had to face recently.

    We've already had some questions on the PSOC, so I'm going to ask about the hazardous training program. It seems to me that what you're recommending is a fairly cost-effective way for government to spend its allocated dollars in the interest of training first responders to deal with hazardous material and in the event of a bioterrorist threat.

    I think you're asking for--and I think you've been at this for quite a while as well--a $500,000 allocation to go to your association to be administered through your system to train first responders. The government has passed this from department to department to department and has not given a positive response today. Do I have the right analysis? It's obviously meeting a need we all agree to and it's the most cost-effective way to go.

º  (1635)  

    Mr. Jim Lee: We believe it's extremely cost-effective. This is the way to get the training to the firefighters who are actually doing the work.

    This program is in place in the United States. We can't bring it here to Canada because it's fully funded by the federal government in the United States. That's why we need the $500,000 from the federal government here to be able to bring a tried and tested program to Canada.

    We're saying that firefighters and other first responders--we're not specifically saying this should be firefighters, but also ambulance, police, hydro workers, you name them, anybody who goes to an incident--should be trained to a certain level. Our curriculum, our trainers, will be able to do that.

    This is not something we're going to make money from at $500,000. We were prepared to come in and train the trainers. As I said, it's working in the United States right now. There's nothing that says it won't work here. We're saying let's give it a shot.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Finally, too, but not last at all in terms of the priority of this, the question of housing and the state of housing--especially coming from an area like Winnipeg north--is critical. We're desperately trying to find ways to work in partnership as a community with all levels of government.

    We were very disappointed with the last federal budget. I'd like your comments on the last federal budget and what impact it's having, but more importantly, how do we get the federal government back into the housing policy field? What can we do to actually ensure that we're moving from a minimalist position of helping one-tenth of what was needed for housing, as far as I can tell in the last budget, to really stop this erosion and this decay that's happening in so many older neighbourhoods?

    Mr. Mark Goldblatt: As for the last federal budget, the federal Government of Canada announced an additional $320 million for affordable rental housing, or affordable housing in general. None of that money has been spent so far.

    As I said earlier, we are being consulted on a week-over-week basis with the current minister responsible for CMHC, but there's no deal yet. There are no shovels going into the ground or units being purchased and renovated. But we have put forward a comprehensive plan for doing some more not-for-profit cooperative housing, and I guess like all interest groups we're just hopeful. We're doing our lobbying thing, as they say, and we're just hoping something concrete comes down the pipe. But as we sit here today, it's a possibility; it's not a reality. It is, though, under active discussion.

    As for the amounts, there is a new coalition called the National Housing and Homelessness Network, which is your front-line people working with homeless households across Canada. I think they've been at the front end of the lobbying activity from the people representing, in a sense, the moderate- to low-income households out there who do not have affordable rental housing. They were saying $1 billion to $2 billion a year of additional federal spending would generate 25,000 to 30,000 new units of social housing a year, and that would seriously put a dent in the need for affordable rental housing if it were pursued over each of the next 10 years. But those are the kinds of dollars we're talking about, and we'll just see how the chips fall. We don't know.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have more--

    The Chair: I've given you three minutes more.

    Actually, I'll just go to Mr. Murphy, and if you did want one question.... Well, let's get these questions done first.

    Go ahead, Mr. Murphy.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

    I'm reluctant to get into this area, but I feel I have to go back to Mr. Turk.

    I do agree with a lot of your submissions, especially on the millennium scholarship and the RESPs, and so on, and I agree that the government breaking out the health money from the CHSTmakes a lot of sense from the accountability point of view, but in the graphs on page 6 to which you referred, the information there, where do the figures come from?

    Before, we had the CHST, which is social services, post-secondary education, and health. You've come up with very definitive numbers as to the federal cash transfers for post-secondary education. Where do these figures come from?

    The reason I ask this--and I'm a little reluctant to get into this debate, but we went through it last year in health. If this came from the provinces, when they were doing those ads, that it was 11%, in the province I come from it was 68% and in the rest of Canada it was 38%. They were buying ads in the paper saying it was 11%.

    My two questions are, where did this come from and does it include the tax points?

    Again, I'm reluctant to bring it up, but I'll tell you, if it came from one of the provinces, I would suggest it's not truthful.

º  (1640)  

    Mr. James Turk: David, do you want to answer?

    Mr. David Robinson: Sure, I'll answer that one.

    The numbers prior to 1996 come from the federal government. It's the fiscal reference tables produced by the Department of Finance. Prior to that period they had a breakdown for where the various transfers allegedly went. Post-1996, we don't get those numbers from the federal government, but if you assume that the share is roughly the same as what it was before, you get a decline in the overall pot available for post-secondary education. Between 14% and 16% of the total fiscal transfer for health, social services, and education went to post-secondary education.

    The provinces--and some of this does come from the provinces--argue that because of rising health costs and demands there, more is going to health now and less to post-secondary education. Also, the federal government, as you know, over the past number of budgets, has put special one-time top-ups into the CHST that were dedicated to health care, so the overall share of post-secondary education then does decline because of those targeted numbers.

    That's how we came up with this figure. It's not a definitive figure, but it gives you a sense of the range in which we're working.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Does it include the tax points?

    Mr. David Robinson: Oh, sorry. This doesn't include tax points, because what we're looking at is just the federal cash transfer, the cash support for post-secondary education.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: All right. Thank you very much.

    The Chair: I don't have any more questions, unless Ms. Wasylycia-Leis has some.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have lots, but I understand from the clerk that in fact you'd like to start the other panel, because we have a vote at 5:30.

    The Chair: Yes. We've all had a round right now, so I'm going to thank this panel.

    Thank you very much, not only for coming today and answering our questions, but for getting your brief in on time so we could get it translated and distributed in advance. I appreciate that.

    I'm going to suspend for about three minutes and then bring up the next panel, because I'm aware that we'll have votes during our time period.

º    

---

º    

º  (1645)  

    The Chair: We will recommence with our second panel of the day: from Sport Matters Group, we have with us Victor Lachance, director and senior leader; and Timothy Page is executive director of Diving Canada. From the Canadian Association of Research Libraries, we are joined today by Timothy Mark, executive director; and Paul Wiens, university librarian, Queen's University. From the Canadian Library Association, we have Madeleine Lefebvre, president; and Don Butcher, executive director. Welcome.

    Before we get started, I'm anticipating bells ringing sometime within the next 45 minutes, and then we should have a 15-minute bell. By starting a little bit early I'm hoping not to put you through waiting through four or five votes. So we'll try to wrap up.

    Please make your full presentation as you had planned, and we will cut back in our questioning if we have to. That way, you have everything you need to say on the record.

    Please go in the order of our agenda today. We'll start with Sport Matters Group.

    Go ahead, Mr. Page.

    Mr. Timothy Page (Executive Director, Diving Canada, Sport Matters Group): Thank you, Madam Chair.

    It's a great pleasure to be with you this afternoon. As you mentioned in your introduction, I'm joined by Victor Lachance, the executive director of the Sport Matters Group.

    We enjoyed the opportunity to appear before this committee last year and we thank the committee for mentioning us in its report to the House.

    Our focus this year, like last, is to speak about the role we believe sport is playing and can continue to play in supporting Canadians' concerns over health and wellness issues. We believe that the success of Canada in winning the 2010 bid to host the Winter Olympics in Whistler and Vancouver provides a great platform from which our efforts and those of governments across the country can be married to achieve a common objective.

    Simply to remind you, the theme of the 2010 bid was “Thirty million Canadians--one dream” and “It's our time to shine”.

    In 1976, when last the Summer Olympics shone on Canada, we left those games without having won a single gold medal. We hope that the outcome of 2010 will be different and that investments that can be made in sport and physical fitness between now and then will produce a different result. It is our time to shine and there are a lot of areas within which we can shine, not only in the Olympic Games, but from the youngest girl learning soccer skills to the oldest of Canadians active in aquafit and everything in between--Canada Games, Commonwealth Games, FISU Games. There's a platform on which Canadians from all different walks of life and all different ages can find a place for themselves and in so doing improve their own physical and mental wellbeing.

    The commitment of the Government of Canada to support the Whistler-Vancouver bid and subsequent multi-million-dollar investment and capital infrastructure we believe needs to be paralleled by a similar commitment to invest in human capital, such that we may get the results that will help stimulate the next generation of practitioners in fitness and amateur sport. We believe there are some wonderful role models within the sport community that are helping to bring young girl Canadians who have yet to choose their career paths to follow sport as a way of growing up, the discipline, a commitment and dedication to self, to team, to community.

    Our appearance before you today is to remind you of those statements we made last year. You've received a copy of our submission to you. There are a number of recommendations within it.

    I would invite Victor Lachance to take the baton from me at this point, if I might, Madam Chair, and quickly summarize the key elements of that submission and the recommendations that are appended to it.

    Thank you.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Mr. Lachance.

    Mr. Victor Lachance (Director, Senior Leader, Sport Matters Group): Bonjour à tous.

    You'll note that our submission does present sport in its absolute broadest context and its contributions to our financial economy, for sure, but also our social economy and the way in which it contributes to social objectives, particularly related to healthy living, increased physical activity, the amount of volunteerism that occurs in sport, both through the functioning sport and the contribution in citizen participation in communities, and in fact how it contributes to building stronger communities, safer communities, and, at the end of the line, I suppose, even national pride.

    That's why we believe our overarching message is that sport can, in fact, help achieve a number of social objectives and address concerns that Canadians have. I would therefore categorize our recommendations in three main categories. Of course, there are a number of them, but I think they summarize in three categories. We suggest that this is a good time for investing in sports so as to maximize the growth in sport, resulting in positive results for 2010; that is, getting the best out of the 2010 opportunity, but perhaps as importantly, if not more importantly, leaving a legacy of increased sport participation in physical activity in ways that contribute to achieving the federal, provincial, and territorial governments' agreed-upon objective of increasing physical activity by 10% in each province and territory by 2010.

    The other category is a number of propositions concerning tax reform, which we think will help build capacity within the sector and diversify the sources of investment in sport.

    I think it's pretty safe to say that sport does presently have the policy instruments in place to do its job. The recommendations are found in the Mills committee report. Many of them are very consistent with that report of 1998 to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage and are consistent with the objectives that have been agreed to among the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, which are reflected, for example, through the recent passage of the Physical Activity and Sport Act.

    We think now is the time to invest resources to properly implement these policy instruments. In fact, we note we have a new Secretary of State in Canada for physical activity. Unfortunately, we also note that it was not associated with any resources for the Secretary of State to actually implement his new roles and responsibilities in that capacity.

    In summary, we think the brief will give you an overview of sport, its contribution, and ways in which we believe it can contribute to addressing a number of important issues to Canadians.

    Thanks.

º  (1655)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much. We did receive your brief and it has been circulated to all the members, those here today and those not present today. So everyone has it.

    I will go in the order of the agenda, to the Canadian Association of Research Libraries. Go ahead.

    Mr. Paul Wiens (University Librarian, Queen's University, Canadian Association of Research Libraries): Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. I'm Paul Wiens. I'm the university librarian at Queen's University and am here representing the Canadian Association of Research Libraries. Joining me is Tim Mark, who is our executive director.

    The Canadian Association of Research Libraries is pleased to be back before this committee. We'd like to begin by expressing our satisfaction with a number of measures taken in last February's budget and to acknowledge with thanks the role this committee played in the adoption of those measures. We would point in particular to the allocation of $225 million per year for the next three years to help fund the indirect costs associated with federally sponsored research. This allocation recognizes the role of Canada's research libraries in building the knowledge infrastructure that is critical to teaching, research, and innovation.

    If we're to continue to provide our researchers in all disciplines with this comprehensive and up-to-date information resource, and if we are to ensure that these resources are as widely distributed and as effectively used as possible, there are a number of additional steps that must be taken. I'd like to touch on five of these today: the continued development of the indirect costs of research program; the funding of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council; the merger of the Library and Archives of Canada; the expansion of the Canadian national site licensing project; and finally, the rejuvenation of the depository services program.

    First, with regard to indirect costs we would suggest that two further provisions are now required. We recognize that the program in its present form runs for three years. We would encourage the committee, however, to recommend extending the allocation of funds so that it becomes permanent. And secondly, to be effective the program needs to be funded beyond the current level of approximately 20%. It's estimated that for every research-grant dollar received an additional 40 cents is necessary to cover the indirect costs of research. This represents approximately $400 million a year that universities must divert from teaching, student services, and other areas of their operations to support federally funded research. The full reimbursement of indirect costs is essential if Canadian universities are to improve their overall quality and capacity.

    The second matter we would like to bring to your attention is funding for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. All three federal granting councils received an increase in funding in last February's budget. SSHRC's level of funding, however, still represents just 12.5% of the total allotment of funds; yet SSHRC must support more than 50% of the researchers in this country and almost 60% of the grad students. CARL recommends, therefore, an asymmetrical increase for SSHRC to help redress the current funding imbalance among the councils.

    The third point today involves an exciting project of which the Canadian academic research library community is very proud. In 2000, the Canada Foundation for Innovation awarded the Canadian national site licensing project $20 million, which was combined with provincial and local matching funds of $30 million for a project total of $50 million. This project has enabled over 60 university libraries across the country to come together to negotiate licensing agreements with publishers of electronic scholarly journals in support of the work of scholars and researchers. As a result, Canada's research libraries can now offer instant online access at the desktop to thousands of research articles from more than 2,200 scholarly publications. This was initially primarily in science, engineering, health, and environmental disciplines, but we are now evolving the project into the area of humanities and social sciences.

    Over 650,000 university researchers, post-doctoral fellows, graduates, and undergraduate students now have access to this resource. The project accomplishes a number of goals: it provides access to the most up-to-date global research repositories; it provides equitable access for researchers at smaller institutions; and it fosters collaboration across disciplines and regions.

»  (1700)  

    Thanks to this collaborative approach a $50-million investment has leveraged access to research information content that would otherwise have cost the academic community an estimated $300 million. The return on investment is five dollars to six dollars for every dollar invested. This is a great return by any investment standard.

    We would like to see this committee support the continuation and expansion of the project through increased federal investments to granting agencies like the Canada Foundation for Innovation, whose programs recognize the critical importance of information resources to the research enterprise. It's through these important investments that library initiatives like the CNSLP are made possible. In our minds, this is an inspiring example of national cooperation that demonstrates enormous potential for the support of future university research in Canada.

    Another program that we believe merits encouragement is the federal government's depository services program. Established in 1927, the DSP makes available Government of Canada publications through a network of public and academic libraries across Canada, as well as to institutions around the world. We believe this partnership has the potential to further develop into a successful and effective instrument for the dissemination of government information, particularly now when its potential can be leveraged even further through the government online initiative.

    For this program to maximize its full potential in the digital age, CARL recommends that it be housed in the new Library and Archives of Canada. This option is currently being explored with Communications Canada, which presently administers that program. CARL urges that the committee support the development of the DSP through sufficient funding that it can fulfil its mandate as part of the new Library and Archives of Canada. A rejuvenated depository services program is but one of the many ways in which the new Library and Archives of Canada will provide improved access to Canada's documentary heritage.

    We would encourage the committee to support the forthcoming merger of the two institutions by recommending adequate and stable funding for the new Library and Archives of Canada. The merger will require additional funding to fulfil long-term preservation requirements, to develop core library services, and to develop outreach programs, including the provision of the depository services program.

    In conclusion, CARL would like to thank the committee again for its support of post-secondary education, in particular for the reimbursement of the indirect costs of research. We hope the government, with your encouragement, will build on this promising foundation through continued investments in federal funding agencies, in particular SSHRC and the Canada Foundation for Innovation. We would also appreciate the support of the committee for the new Library and Archives of Canada, and in particular for the depository services program. Both are vitally important to the knowledge infrastructure of this country and need government support as they step forward in their new mandates.

    Thank you for your attention. We would be pleased to respond to questions.

    The Chair: Thank you. I can tell you the members of this committee are very happy also when the government listens to our recommendations.

    We'll move on to the Canadian Library Association. Go ahead, Madam President.

    Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre (President, Canadian Library Association): Good afternoon, Madam Chairman, committee members. My name is Madeleine Lefebvre. I'm the volunteer president of the Canadian Library Association, and I'm also university librarian at Saint Mary's University in Halifax.

    The Canadian Library Association is pleased to be back before this committee and to make a few recommendations that we believe a new government should keep in mind as it charts Canada's social and economic future.

    The theme of our presentation today is how best to ensure that Canadians have public access to the information resources they need to pursue lifelong learning and to take part in the knowledge-based economy. The government has already done much in this regard, but one further step it should take is to recognize explicitly the strategic role public school and academic libraries are playing and the even greater role they can play in integrating important parts of the population into the knowledge-based economy.

    Today public libraries number more than 3,400 individual service points to communities across this country. They provide access to information resources to approximately 95% of all Canadians, more than 60% of whom are active cardholders of a public library in their community. Public libraries and health care centres are the only two civil institutions that provide cradle-to-grave service. Moreover, today's libraries reach far beyond the bricks-and-mortar environment. They are linked electronically and share resources through a sophisticated interlibrary loan system.

    But if public access is to keep pace with information and communication technology, then two things have to happen: first, there has to be adequate infrastructure to ensure that rural, aboriginal, and remote communities are connected by broadband, which we define as a high-capacity, two-way link between end-users and network suppliers capable of supporting full-motion, interactive video applications. By this measure, 75% of Canada's communities, representing 25% of the population, do not have full access. Second, there has to be adequate support to public libraries, school libraries, and health care units. Within any community, those are the institutions providing public access points that can benefit the most from high-speed, interactive applications. Such applications can greatly reduce or even eliminate distance and time as cost factors in the provision of public services.

    Let us look more closely at what the federal government is doing and can do on each of these fronts.

    On broadband, in order to ensure that all Canadians have broadband access by 2005, the government has established a pilot program targeted at rural and northern communities. The first phase of the program, which provided funding to help these communities develop their business plans, has just been completed. The second phase, which will provide funding for the implementation, will begin this fall.

    Unfortunately, there will not be nearly enough money to carry out these plans. The national broadband task force report estimated that it would cost approximately $4 billion to provide high-capacity connectivity to all Canadians. So far, the federal government, for its share, has only come up with $105 million. As the broadband pilot program enters its implementation phase, much more money is going to have to be committed if the government is to achieve its goal by 2005.

    Last February's budget announced that $3 billion would be spent on infrastructure over the next 10 years. This will not be enough. Even counting on provincial and private sector participation, the broadband component alone should merit about $1 billion. Ensuring the success of the broadband pilot program is a must if the government is to implement its government online initiatives.

    On support for access points, providing the physical infrastructure is not enough. What is also required is that the institutions providing the public access, bringing users and content together, must be sufficiently equipped to make the two-way links fruitful. This is true of access points in large urban centres as well as in remote communities. Of all the institutions apt to deliver the benefits of broadband, it is the public library that is most inclusive and that is geared to the patterns and needs of all community members at all stages of their lives.

    CLA would like to mention three of Human Resources Development Canada's programs that assist public libraries in their mission of disseminating information resources.

»  (1705)  

    HRDC's National Literacy Secretariat assists libraries in reaching out to the 8 million Canadians between the ages of 16 and 65 who do not have the literacy skills to participate fully in our increasingly knowledge-based economy.

    HRDC's social development directorate assists libraries in ensuring that the more than 3 million Canadians with visual, physical, or perceptual disabilities have equitable access to all media. Thanks to adaptive technology workstations and alternative formats, no Canadian needs to be deprived of the opportunity to complete his or her education or to become engaged in life-long learning.

    HRDC's office of learning technologies assists libraries in building on their reputation as neutral, free, non-coercive information resource centres supporting independent learners looking to upgrade their skills.

    All of these HRDC programs deserve to be championed by the finance committee. They all contribute to making public libraries the institution of choice of the many Canadians seeking to be part of the learning culture outside of the formal classroom structure.

    Industry Canada has also played an important role in bringing about public access to the Internet. In last February's budget, the government announced that an additional $30 million would be allocated to help extend Industry Canada's SchoolNet and the Community Access Program in 2003-04. The government then went on to announce that it would review all of it's programs connecting Canadians to information and knowledge, to determine how best to collaborate with Canadian industry, the provinces, communities, and others.

    This review, which is taking place now, is of concern to the library community. Closely tied to the SchoolNet program is the LibraryNet program. These programs have assisted communities in getting public access to the Internet and have also provided the necessary training to take advantage of the power of the new technologies. What is to become of these programs? Will they be reconfigured? Will they find a new home in the merged library and archives of Canada?

    Last year the U.S. Congress, in recognition of the key role played by school libraries, approved $250 million in dedicated funding for library books and technology in order to provide up-to-date information resources. The Canadian government should be exercising similar leadership.

    As Industry Canada carries out its review of programs connecting Canadians to information and knowledge, no greater return on investment can be had than dedicating resources to library books, licensed databases and other media, and to the training of the staff necessary for their dissemination through school libraries. It's simply the best deal in developing a knowledge-based economy.

    In conclusion, CLA has two specific recommendations to make to the committee. One, as the broadband for rural and northern development pilot program enters into its implementation phase, the federal government must realize that it will have to invest much more in infrastructure than $3 billion over the next 10 years. The broadband component alone should merit about $1 billion. Public libraries, as the existing learning system with the widest distribution, are strategically positioned to make the broadband development program a success.

    Two, Industry Canada's access to information and knowledge programs should be relaunched, with adequate ongoing funding at the $30 million level and with public libraries and school libraries featuring prominently in this relaunch.

    We thank you for your attention and look forward to discussing with you how to ensure that all Canadians have public access to today's information resources.

»  (1710)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much for all of your presentations.

    I'm going to start with Mr. Paquette today, for seven minutes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Pierre Paquette: Finally, the official opposition!

    I'll begin with the last group, the Canadian Library Association. You note in your first recommendation that with respect to broadband networks and rural and northern development, the federal government needs to invest $3 billion over 10 years. You state in your submission that to date, the federal government has invested only $105 million in this area. Yours is a tall order, considering that the federal government barely invests $1 billion over ten years in municipalities with 250,000 or fewer residents.

    My question is whether you feel you have enough political support to get the federal government to come around to your way of thinking. As I said, we're not accustomed to the federal government doing this kind of thing. While I agree with your recommendation, I have to wonder if its politically feasible to increase investment from $100 million or so to $3 billion over ten years. That's my first question.

»  (1715)  

[English]

    Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre: Thank you.

    As my colleague from CARL was stating about the return on investment, given the investment that has already taken place, one would hope it would not be wasted, and that to make the program a success the extra funding would be provided. Otherwise, what has gone before can't realize its potential.

    The Chair: Mr. Wiens would like to add to that answer.

    Mr. Paul Wiens: Also, there is a certain amount of convergence that is already beginning to occur both within the academic research library community and between that community and other library sectors. The broadband infrastructure doesn't only serve the needs of the public library, school library, and university library community, but it also serves the needs of the entire learning community of Canada, if you like.

    One of the examples of this is The Alberta Library, which provides content and infrastructure covering all of those sectors. Indeed, in Ontario we are looking at creating what we are calling an Ontario digital library, which will leverage the converging resources we already have beyond those sectors to the province as a whole—and indeed, to the country as a whole, as we evolve the infrastructure and the content.

[Translation]

    Mr. Pierre Paquette: My comment is directed to Sport Matters group. Your recommendation 7 ties in with what I was just talking about. You're calling for a portion of the funding allocated under the Canada Infrastructure Program for communities with fewer than 250,000 residents to be used for sport facilities. In a number of municipalities, sport facilities are often a priority.

    That being said, we're talking about $1 billion over ten years, or $100 million per year. That's $25 million for Quebec. What about recommending an overall increase in the funding of the Infrastructure Program? As I mentioned, the $250 million allocated under the program to Quebec is woefully inadequate, I can assure you, in terms of ensuring sport facilities and addressing the problem of road, sewers and waterworks in urgent need of upgrades. Therefore, I was wondering if in recommendation 7, you might also be implicitly requesting more funding for municipalities of 250,000 or fewer residents.

    Mr. Victor Lachance: First of all, we were recommending more that a portion of the funds already earmarked for municipalities of 250,000 residents go to support sports.

    Also, any funding increase for infrastructures would certainly be welcomed if sport infrastructure benefited.

    The recommendations tie in with what sport can contribute and with various government objectives. This one in particular which identifies a source of funding falls within your area of expertise. We're not trying to pin down the exact source of the funding. Rather, we're trying to put forward a series of recommendations about matters that the government could consider and that your committee could recommend to bring sports more in line with state government policies and aims. We're not exactly experts in this particular field.

»  (1720)  

[English]

    Mr. Timothy Page: If I might, Madam Chair, it is clear that the existing infrastructure through which Canadians are practising physical activity or their chosen sport is not helping us allow a whole bunch of new-generation Canadians or middle-aged Canadians to effectively get out there, work out, and enjoy a physical activity. You hear lots of stories through the media of folks who are playing hockey at midnight, but for an eight-year-old or nine-year-old kid, that's not the best time if they're getting up the following morning.

    We're clear that there's an integration required in public policy thinking with respect to physical activity, and that sport infrastructure is a key component of that overall exercise.

[Translation]

    Mr. Pierre Paquette: With the time I have remaining, I'd like to focus on recommendation 10 which I find interesting because it ties in with the concerns expressed to us by representatives of the cultural sector, namely acknowledging the efforts of volunteers in the cultural, sporting and other such fields.

    From an administrative standpoint, your recommendation appears somewhat complex:

...provide a non-refundable tax credit for annual fees paid by volunteers for coaching, officiating...

    Could you give me some additional details? By annual fees, do you mean club membership fees, or travel costs? Tax-wise, how would your recommendation work? Would a person be required to keep all of his or her receipts? Let's just say that it seems rather complicated to me.

    Yesterday, the Canadian Museums Association recommended a $1,000 tax credit for recognized non-profit organizations. Already, that would be easier to administer.

    At the same time, I was wondering why library groups hadn't voiced a similar concern, since many libraries depend on volunteers for their very survival. Or isn't this a problem for them? My daughter's school is always looking for volunteers to work in the library. Unfortunately, I'm in Ottawa, so I have a valid reason for not helping out, but I have to wonder why, contrary to what museums officials noted in their submission yesterday, you haven't identified this as a concern in your brief.

[English]

    Mr. Timothy Page: Initially, the notion of a tax credit seemed reasonable to the Sport Matters Group. Given that there are two million Canadians in this country who are volunteering in the sport sector, and 260,000 people employed in the sport sector, it's a major contributor to the social and economic fabric of the country. We were trying to find a way of enabling Canadians to support physical activity in sport.

    We may not have hit on the ideal solution, but it's the principle or concept, if you like, of assisting ordinary Canadians, through their everyday lives, to make personal commitments to their own health and welfare, and be able to afford to do so.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Go ahead.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Madam Chair, and again thanks to everyone for their presentations today.

    Some of us apologize for going in and out of the room, trying to get ready for the next vote and juggle a bunch of things. I apologize if I replicate any of the areas already covered.

    I want to ask a general question, but before that I have a specific question to either Mr. Mark or Mr. Wiens about the SSHRC. It seems to me you've identified a glaring issue that should be resolved rather quickly. I'm wondering how the other two councils would react if we pushed for an asymmetrical adjustment or increase, in terms of the SSHRC.

    Mr. Paul Wiens: I think that's a question you'll probably have to direct to the other councils.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Do they understand the inequities and appreciate the number of researchers you're covering? Would they appreciate the fact that adjustment needs to happen, or are we going to have to look at an increase for everyone that maintains the inequity?

»  (1725)  

    Mr. Timothy Mark (Executive Director, Canadian Association of Research Libraries): The only comment I would make is that this is not a new idea; it's not unique to our association. It is an idea that your committee has heard for several years. It has been repeated by a number of other interest groups, as well as ourselves.

    You'd have to ask the other granting councils directly, but I feel confident they would like to see equitable funding for the SSHRC as well--that the present position is that this council is and has been chronically underfunded for a long time.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay, so there's that recognition.

    Mr. Timothy Mark: It is a matter on the floor for public debate. It's not a new item.

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Time is of the essence.

    I want to ask everyone one question about libraries, generally, and sports activities, generally. It ties into our discussion yesterday. We heard from the organization representing arts communities, and we heard from the Canadian Museums Association. We focused on what it meant to make a community, and all the various components. Recognition of the artists in the communities and support for museums is exactly what you're saying today--that in order to have healthy communities people want to stay in, you need a library in that community, or some sort of library service, and you need sports and recreation.

    So I'd love to have your comments on that generally, in terms of attracting people and keeping people in communities across Canada. But then it ties into the question of what we should recommend to government, in terms of financial support for those endeavours in all of those communities.

    One option, as you suggested or hinted at, is targeting money so it gets to your specific areas. But another option that I see coming--and it's already been touted considerably--is that we work hard to dramatically increase the money that would go to a community or a municipal infrastructure fund, and then where that money goes would be determined by each individual municipality.

    So my question to you is would that work? Do you see that coming, and what are your opinions on the whole support for infrastructure at the community level for all your endeavours?

    Ms. Madeleine Lefebvre: I think libraries stand for equity of access, so we'd want the most direct approach to provide that equity right across the country, whether it's a municipality or a remote area in northern Canada. To spread it that way would have the most success in having equity of access. I see the public library as a focus for the community; it's not just one aspect. It covers pretty much all of our representation here today. That focal aspect is already there, so we feel it is important to provide that access universally, rather than target it in certain areas.

    I've certainly recently heard representations from Nunavut that astonished me, even though I've lived in Canada for many years. I didn't realize the kinds of barriers they are facing to receive the same kind of information we take for granted in larger areas. So I think that is our primary focus.

    Mr. Victor Lachance: While there's no doubt that sport contributes to activities in the community, what may not be appreciated is the extent to which sport contributes to citizen participation, the extent to which volunteers contribute and create the kind of social capital on which we can do a number of things, besides just deliver sport services. It's in that regard that sport breaks down barriers--ethnic and religious. It's a wonderful integrator.

    School-based activities are one of the few non-discriminatory, essentially barrier-free things, because kids have to be there anyway to do things. There's physical activity, for sure, but they learn how to work together in ways that contribute to stronger communities. In fact, one of the things we know about volunteerism and lifetime contributions is that most people's experience starts in sports, and they learn how to do that throughout their lives.

    Would a municipal-specific focus enhance that kind of current contribution? Only if it were really placed within the context of how sport has already done much of its homework in ensuring that we foster that kind of support. That's reflected in a Canadian sport policy that is currently supported by the federal, provincial, and territorial governments. It's been adopted by all 14 governments, something which in itself is rather rare, but not for something like the recognition of what sport contributes in this way.

    So we certainly should not exclude municipalities, but I would really like to start with the Canadian sport policy and the Physical Activity and Sport Act. Both instruments have tried to look at ways of empowering existing programs, provincially and municipally, to be able to do that. The role of municipalities has been identified as important in those instruments, and sport would certainly support municipal-based activities if they were consistent with that framework.

»  (1730)  

    Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you.

    The Chair: I want to give other people a chance.

    Mr. Solberg, you want to say something before I go to Mr. Murphy.

    Mr. Monte Solberg: Yes, if I could, just a quick word.

    I just want to apologize for being in and out many times, not hearing any of the presentations really. I will take the documents and study them. I have to go now again. Anyway, thank you for your presentations. I am vaguely familiar with some of these issues. The national archives issue we just got a briefing on from our critic today, so I understand that a little bit, but I'll make sure we have a look at this. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you. This is the disruption that happens when your evening votes come up.

    Ms. Minna, did you want to have some questions too?

    Ms. Maria Minna: I have one comment, but it's not necessary. I can talk to them afterwards.

    The Chair: Okay,

    Mr. Murphy, go ahead, sir.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Thank you, Madam Chair.

    I don't think I'll be using my full seven minutes either. I just have a question to either Mr. Page or Mr. Lachance.

    I read your brief, and I appreciate it very much. It's interesting where we're going as a society, and there have been some good developments with the Canadian sport strategy and the seeming agreement that's out there between the provinces and the federal government.

    I remain to be convinced that money is the answer to this issue. We have a chronic problem in Canada with inactivity. I know the goal is to increase it by 10% over the next six or seven years, and you're recommending $500,000. If you could guarantee that level of increase, I would say, don't wait until the budget, cut the cheque this afternoon, because the savings in health and other social costs would be just tremendous compared to a half a million dollars.

    You want the increase, but what has been the experience over the last five years? Are we going down or are we going up?

    Mr. Victor Lachance: Overall, there has been progress in reducing physical inactivity, but then you have problem populations. Right now we have to get young people off the obesity track. The obesity epidemic is quite apparent. Part of the problem is that people will become active for part of their lives, but not throughout their lives or at different stages of their lives. However, regardless of the progress that has been made, the level of inactivity is so high that the need for attention to it is great, which is why, I think, as you've noted, there has been the kind of agreement between federal government and provinces to address it.

    Is money the answer? It's never the entire answer. Is this a sector that has been ignored for the last little while? Absolutely. Base funding within Health Canada virtually disappeared in 1996. ParticipAction is no longer programmed. We have very innovative and demonstrably effective programs like KidSport that could use a whole lot more attention. Certainly, resources are part of the solution, and I think they can be used to interest private partnerships, which to date have not been much explored in this sector, largely because there hasn't been a public player much in this sector either on the physical activity side.

    The Chair: Mr. Page.

    Mr. Timothy Page: You're right, it's not all about money. In part, it's about lifestyle, and it's not only about young Canadians. We live in an aging population, and we need to make sure we are providing a social environment within which folks, from birth to the other end, are able to live in dignity and health, and consequently be active contributors to society and to the economy.

    No, it's not only about money, but there's a certain critical mass, there's a certain investment that needs to be made in order to advance the cause for which we're speaking this afternoon. We're not economists, so we don't know what the magic number is; we only know we have an environment now, we have a structure, as Victor said, the sport act and the FPT agreement, through which funds can go to assist the objectives to which we're're speaking.

»  (1735)  

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: We can increase the level of activity and active participation across Canada, but you also talked about the money going to the development of high-performance athletes. I think, as a member of Parliament, to try to compete with Australia and others really may not be the best use of resources.

    If you're dealing with limited resources, where would your priorities be?

    Mr. Timothy Page: That's a chicken and egg question in some folks' minds. You can look at the success of somebody like Mike Weir and track how many new people have taken up golf as a consequence, or Tiger Woods in the case of Afro-Americans taking up golf in the U.S., or Hayley Wickenheiser, the great female hockey player, and the impact she's had in helping younger Canadians to find sport as a way of growing up in a disciplined, healthy, safe environment. I don't think there's any one right answer. I think there are complementary answers here. We believe both are necessary.

    Mr. Shawn Murphy: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

    The Chair: Go ahead, Ms. Minna.

    Ms. Maria Minna: I just want to say first of all that I agree with the direction of all three presentations. Obviously, there's not a whole lot to disagree with. These are very basic things in our society, so they're important. I just want to clarify a couple things with the Sport Matters Group.

    In my riding, for instance, I have a voluntary organization, a fellow who organizes a thousand baseball players every summer. I sponsor the baseball team and hockey teams. So the voluntary sector is very important to this whole area. When you talk about the council, would it be implementing things on the ground, or would it be working with schools, with the voluntary sector, or other institutions at provincial levels? Because there are all these other structures. When we establish national structures, we should be cognizant of the fact that we're not repeating and reinventing the wheel, establishing just another structure of bureaucracy that doesn't necessarily filter to the ground.

    And when you're talking about non-refundable tax credits for parents, would you explain to me exactly what you mean there? A tax credit is an expenditure. While it's not a direct expenditure, I consider it all part of the same pot.

    Mr. Victor Lachance: The concept of a Canadian sport council is not so much a set of corporate objectives that would focus just nationally or anything like that. It was meant to bring together all the different components. Sport is so broad and diverse that you do have everything from the playground to the podium. If you start having to choose one over the other, it doesn't work, and the 1990s showed us that. You can shift all of a sudden resources one way, and then run and shift them in a different direction. Can we have a much better thought-out approach to what we want to achieve through sport and physical activity?

    The best example is physical education in schools. It's virtually disappearing. It makes no sense, from a physical activity point of view, sport participation, community participation. Yet no one is really looking at this in a constructive, planned way, setting particular targets or goals tied to various components that can come together. That was the intent of the Canadian sport council, not to focus just nationally on high-performance goals, but to make the links between all the various things that produce sport, involving parents potentially, involving coaches, involving any number of people who could contribute to that kind of integration.

    Ms. Maria Minna: And the tax credit?

    Mr. Timothy Page: With respect to the tax credit, the notion that we're trying to put on the table for you is enabling ordinary Canadians, parents of children, parents themselves, or Canadians in general who wish to engage in physical activity or sport. The tax credit would go against club fees or access fees, if you like, for those individuals practising the sport.

»  (1740)  

    Ms. Maria Minna: I'll tell you why I have a problem with tax credits. They only help those who have money.

    The Chair: Ms. Minna, I'm sorry. We're at less than four minutes now, and we have to be in our seats to be able to vote. Maria, did you want to wrap up in 30 seconds?

    Ms. Maria Minna: I just wanted to suggest that tax credits in other areas we've seen--we were talking about the education one earlier--are a problem for people who don't have money. It doesn't help children and people who don't have money to spend to start with. By tax credits, we're spending money for those who have money. I'm not sure that's the most effective way of dealing with....

    Mr. Timothy Page: The call for greater investment in infrastructure we hope will facilitate the ability of Canadians of all income levels to practise the sport they're looking at. We're also calling for tax deductions for corporations, which would allow them to play a part in assisting Canadians of all income ranges to be actively involved as well.

    The Chair: I think the message from your organization is that you need more support in some manner, and I think you'd probably be happy no matter how it came, right?

    On that note, we're going to have to thank you. I am glad that we got the questions in and your testimony before these votes. Now we do have to do the other part of our jobs around here. Thank you very much for coming.

    We are adjourned.