Finance Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2006

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you very much.

Could I ask Patricia about this whole issue of Canada Border Services? Last night I was watching the news and I saw Stephen Harper's a press conference, and a reporter asked about this issue. He said you were losing large international flights. I had no idea that was happening, because the agency doesn't operate at certain hours. Can you tell us how much you're losing, and what happens to those flights? Who is benefiting? And wouldn't the benefits outweigh the costs in an area like this?

[Patricia Devine]

Rob Robichaud is the president and CEO of the Greater Moncton International Airport, so he is better placed to answer that question.

[Rob Robichaud]

I'm certainly glad you asked the question. Thank you very much.

It's the number one issue for Atlantic Canada airports and, in particular, for small airports.

As an example, in Moncton we received a call last year that Air Canada Vacations—we had a sun destination airline—called and said they probably wouldn't be back in 2006. They were true to their word and didn't come back because of the fees that were being charged.

For example, we have a flight from Germany, from Hanover to Moncton, and it's being charged $3,500 a landing. We're in danger of losing that.

Perhaps the most explicit example is Fredericton paying $200,000 a year to the Canadian Border Services Agency for after-hour services on a Delta flight, which is a daily flight to Boston, seven days a week. As a community and as an airport, they were successful in attracting that particular service. With the kind of money they're now paying, they are actually not making any money because of the fees they're expending in support of the Canadian Border Services Agency.

The other thing that's not known is that this isn't a fee that you pay for coverage, for example, from five o'clock until midnight, and it covers the entire spectrum. This is a fee that is charged every time you bring a service in. If they bring in another service, they will pay another $200,000. It's very expensive.

At a time when airports, small airports in particular, are struggling to attract these types of fights, and you have to tell them they have to pay $3,500 or $200,000 a year to come into your community, they certainly look around to see if there are other airports that don't charge these services for after-hour fights.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, Mr. Robichaud.

We'll now go to the second round of questioning, beginning with Mr. McCallum.

Go ahead, sir.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Good morning, and thank you very much.

First of all, I would like to say that having frequently been in St. John's in an earlier life, I think it's great to be back again, even though most our exposure to St. John's today will be looking around this room.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

It's a nice room.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

It is a nice room.

The first point is this. I was briefly an NRCan minister for a few months. I remember the geological mapping project as being very good and making a lot of economic sense. We failed to get it into the budget, and I think it failed again last year, but it strikes me as a good project.

Can you tell me about it again? I forget the acronym or the official name for it. How much would it cost?

[Gerry O'Connell]

It's the Canadian cooperative geological mapping strategy, the Canadian CGMS. The proposed cost for the federal government is $25 million a year over 10 years. It would be matched by the respective territorial or provincial governments, for a total of $0.5 billion over 10 years.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

[Gerry O'Connell]

We have a big country.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I know. It certainly convinced me that it made a lot of sense.

My next question is for Nancy Griffiths. Your presentation was admirably succinct, and I really liked the ideas that you were conveying. But can you explain what it is exactly you're asking for?

[Nancy Griffiths]

On the Newfoundland and Labrador Science Centre, I talked about a partnership with the City of Mount Pearl, which you may know is the municipality next door. For the whole infrastructure project, the estimate right now is $38 million, of which the science centre's portion will be $5.1 million. The City of Mount Pearl is interested in organizing this project as a federal, provincial, and municipal infrastructure project.

The other thing I discussed was the interest by the Canadian Association of Science Centres in a national program for science centres. That request will be $200 million for five years: $150 million for the development of exhibits and capital infrastructure; and $50 million towards programs, in-house and outreach programs.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you very much.

Finally, this is something I did in Vancouver. Our responsibility was to produce a report recommending the overall thrust of the budget, including its components. As matters now stand, the second point of the GST cut, costing $6 billion per year, risks crowding out virtually everything else.

If you don't mind, I would like to do a very quick poll, and I'd ask each of you to give an answer of yes, or no, or no comment.

The question is this. In your view, do you think going the route of the second point of the GST cut is a good idea or not, with “not” being if you think there are better things to spend the money on?

Maybe we could start with Mr. Hayes. Could you answer yes or no, or would you rather not say?

[Thomas Hayes]

I think there are better things we can do with our tax dollars to make it easier for people. Cutting consumption taxes is not the way to go.

[Ted Howell]

On a personal level, no, it's not a good idea.

[Nancy Griffiths]

No.

[Danielle Irvine]

No.

[Gerry O'Connell]

On a personal note only--I can't speak for the others--no.

[Patricia Devine]

Likewise.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

What a wonderful panel. I do appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Ms. Irvine, we talked about libraries, which involve reading and writing. There was also a cut to the literacy program, and I think your premier spoke about that. Do you have any comment on that?

[Danielle Irvine]

That there shouldn't be a cut to the literacy program is my main comment on that.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

What would be the effect in Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Danielle Irvine]

In Newfoundland and Labrador we are at a time when our investments in education are growing, but our literacy rate is really low. Cutting these programs has the greatest effect on people of my generation and a bit older. The young people coming up are not as affected. They have a strong program in school, and they're more apt to attend school. But we need people of the older generations to be reading, to be literate, and to be fully engaged, and they've been taking advantage of those programs.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

I'm just curious, and I want to do my own poll. In the last month or so we've had over 350 presentations, and fewer than half have asked us to spend less. So I have to ask this question: how many of you, if it was necessary to raise the GST to fund your programs, would want the GST raised?

So everybody is happy with it exactly as it is? You don't want us to raise taxes, raise the GST? Does anybody want us to raise taxes if it is necessary to fund a program? Last call.