Industry Committee on Sept. 28th, 2006

[Richard Dicerni]

With regard to the CTC and the moneys that were, I believe, related to the transfer, there was $25 million for the transfer of the operations to Vancouver and it ended up costing less. It was the view of ministers that the moneys not spent on the move should be repatriated within the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

I believe the other reference you made to $3 million may have been a decision taken in prior years.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

This budget year is when that was cut.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Masse.

We're going into the second round, with five-minute questions and comments.

I just want to point out for the witnesses that if there's any further information you can add to questions that are being asked--I know Mr. Lapierre raised some issues that you may want to address later on, that you may not have the specific figures for--if you'd like to provide that to the committee, we'd certainly welcome it.

We'll now go to Ms. Kadis for five minutes.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, everyone. I'm sorry I was a few minutes late.

There's a very bold statement within this document: “A common-sense approach to responsible spending going forward”, which I certainly would agree with, and I'm sure we'd all agree with it.

Is it not responsible to support our businesses, to partner with our businesses? My concern with some of these cuts is that they seem to suggest a change of direction in terms of taking away funding from some very important businesses that have produced results for Canadians.

That's one question.

The other item is a statement about non-core programs--programs or activities that do not meet the priorities of the federal government or Canadians. I think this is a very general, very open-ended statement, and along those lines, I'm interested to know if you can define “social economy programs” under the non-core programs. I know these are primarily granting councils that have been cut and they don't provide direct social economy programs.

I'm also interested to know if this government is moving in the direction of eliminating these non-committed funds to signal an end to these types of programs.

[Richard Dicerni]

On some of the qualitative assessments of the measures that were announced on Monday, Minister Baird and/or Minister Flaherty are the ones who could perhaps best articulate the rationale behind the description of the changes.

Specifically on the social economy, I'm given to understand that those are a series of measures that were launched a couple of budgets ago, and the government has decided to conclude them. They affect a number of departments, not just industry.

On the granting councils per se—NSERC, Social Sciences and Humanities, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research—their core mandates were not reduced. There was some impact on the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council as it relates to the social economy envelope, but the core programs of the three granting councils, the Canada research chairs program, and their grants to support teaching assistance and research, were not affected.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Can you define “social economy program” and give an example of one?

[Richard Dicerni]

I will ask one of my colleagues who was in the department when this initiative was launched to answer, since it predates me.

[Carole Swan]

I will give you an example. The social economy part of this was a pilot project. For instance, it was going to sponsor the creation of patient capital funds. This was only in relation to the part administered by this department. The sense was that there were other mechanisms, for instance, the Community Futures Development Corporations, that provided a similar kind of function.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll go to Mr. Shipley for five minutes.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for coming out today to be part of the committee and talk to us about the program and the efficiencies and savings we can look at as a government for our taxpayers.

On the Canadian Intellectual Property Office file, can you help me understand what it involves? It says it's responsible for the administration and processing of intellectual property in Canada. Can you expand on that and give me a bit of detail, please?

[Richard Dicerni]

If you have a terrifically bright new idea--a brand new widget--and would like to ensure that the intellectual property associated with that widget is protected and you will subsequently derive all of the appropriate financial benefits from it, you would file a patent application with CIPO. They would analyze it to ensure that no similar widget with similar DNA has been patented in Canada, or potentially elsewhere, and then grant the exclusive rights.

So if you are an inventor, a unique creator, and want to protect your intellectual property, you go to our offices across the country, headquartered in Gatineau, and get a patent. It operates on a fee-for-service basis.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

My understanding is that through that process over the years—I don't know how long--a significant amount of money has accumulated, somewhere around $50 million. How was that accumulated? Does it just sit in a slush fund?

[Richard Dicerni]

We refer to it as a revolving fund.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Maybe you could explain that to me and how it compares to a slush fund.

[Richard Dicerni]

It is a fund that you put money into, and you can draw money out upon demonstrated need. A slush fund has a bit of a pejorative connotation to it. Given that this is a very well-run and well-managed operation, we wouldn't want to equate the two.

The way these special operating agencies are established, the Treasury Board has the right at different times to look into them. The passport office operates on the same principle, where users of a given program pay a fee and the money is put in a revolving fund to address the needs of those users.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I just want to follow Mr. Masse on the tourism issue, because we respect and acknowledge the significance of tourism in this country and what it does. We know that a number of factors affect tourism.

You've relayed some of those factors as being the value of the dollar, energy costs, and whatever. I think we have found that tourism within our own country has gone up. But my understanding is that the savings of $5.7 million came not from the operations but from over-budgeting for the move of the head office from Ottawa to Vancouver. So there was an over-budget of somewhat less than 25%.

We've taken that money back as a savings, and there is the opportunity for it to be reallocated into areas of service needed within the government. Is that going to affect anything that has been shown in terms of the operation and the promotion of Canada, from what we had prior to these cuts, these savings?

[Richard Dicerni]

The $25 million was a one-time request that the commission put to Treasury Board to pay for the move. The move had been estimated to cost about $25 million, and it came in at about $19 million. That $25 million was not part of the operating base of the Canadian Tourism Commission, and since it had not been used up through the relocation costs, the government decided that the money should return to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I can see that's the case.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Shipley. We're out of time.

Mr. Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to know whether only the CANtex program was affected by the $24.89 million reduction indicated in the section on the Canadian clothing industry.

[Richard Dicerni]

That's correct. However, it was the textile industry, not the clothing industry, that was affected.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

So textiles and clothing are two different issues, two different programs? The case of CANtex. we're dealing only with textiles, new machinery and other such things. Is that correct?

[Tom Wright]

Yes.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

The committee heard that Canadian employers cannot find enough qualified workers. You also made cuts to employment programs for young people.

How can we be competitive and create well-paying jobs if these programs are being cut?