Finance Committee on Sept. 15th, 2009

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Obviously food safety is the primary concern, but do you see a potential competitive advantage internationally if we were able to bring something like this into our food supply, whether it's a first line of products, such as the beef, and/or dairy products even?

[Rick Culbert]

Yes, I do. Very much so.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

Okay, and how about down through the system? We've seen where it's not just been in the direct line of the cattle, but it's been into spinach and other things.

Of course, there have been many, many more problems outside this country, in California in particular, so do you see a strong potential for export of this as well?

[Rick Culbert]

Oh yes, I think so. I think in terms of job creation in Canada, increasing the volume of vaccine we produce for sale to other countries is a distinct possibility, as people learn how to use this out-of-the-box, innovative technology.

[Daryl Kramp, Conservative, Prince Edward—Hastings, ON]

I'm so sorry that I don't have enough time allotted to get to some of our other members. Thank you for your presentations; there were a number of excellent presentations here today. I, and my colleagues who don't have a chance, will certainly be perusing all of them and we'll factor them in, so thank you for your presentations.

If I have just a second, I'll pass on to Mr. Wallace.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have three seconds.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'll wait, and hopefully there will be a third round for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you.

We'll go to Monsieur Mulcair, s'il vous plaît.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I too am pleased to welcome our witnesses here today.

I would first like to say to Mr. Dinsdale how much I appreciated his presentation, all the more so since I had the immense pleasure of meeting with the association of native friendship centres in British Columbia, barely a few months ago. This was an enriching experience for me, but I also learned a great deal about the reality of first nations, in particular in urban areas in Canada. This reality is well known in certain milieux. My Bloc Québécois colleague, Mr. Laforest, just mentioned the example of La Tuque, in his riding. However, in large urban centres in Quebec, this reality is not well known. I spent a fair bit of time with the group in British Columbia, and the testimonials I heard were very moving. I also want to say that I consulted my colleague Jean Crowder, who is the New Democratic Party aboriginal affairs spokesperson. You have our complete support.

I'll just repeat that for you in English. You have our complete support for the budget request you're formulating. The work that the friendship centres are accomplishing is of course first and foremost in the interest of the first nations and the specific needs you've outlined and answered in response to a lot of my colleagues. But more importantly, it seems to me, it's work that we all have to do as a society; it's part of our obligation.

I had the great pleasure of working with and knowing René Dussault, who co-chaired the Erasmus-Dussault commission, because he and I both occupied the same function at one point in Quebec as chairman of the Office des professions du Québec. I remember talking to him in detail after the report was tabled and he said, “Tom, you have to realize this has to start being addressed now.” If not, it's a question of sustainable development, which we often put in the context of our obligation to future generations in terms of the environment. But sustainable development includes taking care of our problems now, and not shovelling them onto the shoulders of future generations. So whether within the first nations communities or within the larger community, the obligation is not to leave our children with some clear issues that can be dealt with properly.

For you to have been left with the same level of funding since 1996 is clearly unacceptable; the needs have grown, not diminished. You gave examples, and I appreciated them. The example of a director general of one of those large centres earning $40,000 or $45,000 with the caseload they have shows you have dedicated people, but it also shows we're unrealistic given the demands being put on the friendship centres. So you have the NDP's full support for your budget request.

I would ask, though, if you could explain to us in a little bit more detail what process you have followed in the past 13 years as the budget has been refused year after year through successive Liberal and Conservative governments. What has your démarche been to try to get more money out of the government? And what's the answer been? What's the rationalization been for holding you at that funding level?

[Peter Dinsdale]

Thank you very much for the question. We certainly appreciate the support we've had thus far from the party and your active involvement in helping us.

I've been in this position for five and a half years, so I've been through five budget processes. It's been interesting with minority governments in that there's not really been a successive kind of planning budgetary process. There have always been quick stops and starts, and then rushes, and then in some years not even the consultations.

I think the last times we had major renewal were in 2001 and then in 2005. In going through those processes, we went around to brief as many MPs with friendship centres in their ridings as we could, to articulate their support and to talk to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. When we brief the Minister of Canadian Heritage, we usually get supportive responses. It's an important issue, but there are always other budgetary challenges. Year after year, it's been the same kind of response.

This year again, we tried a little bit of a different process in starting a business case process with, originally, Minister Oda, to say, “Let's look at the long-term sustainability of friendship centres and how we can work together”. We came up with numbers together and agreed upon an approach. Then the election happened and there was a new minister. We believe that at that time the Department of Canadian Heritage was more interested politically in the Quebec anniversary and less in this program that's in the department. With Minister Moore, they're very supportive in terms of meeting early on, but we're still stuck in this process of government priorities and not having a broader view of, we believe, maintenance and management of a program.

We're now trying to get a friendship centre caucus of all MPs with friendship centres in their ridings. As you know, Jean Crowder has offered to be one of the first co-chairs, along with Chris Warkentin, to work together to try to get multi-party support. We don't believe this is a political issue. This is really, as you say, about the future of the country and how we work together. We see people from Newfoundland and Mexico flying over us to get to the tar sands to work when we have people in those communities they're flying over who are struggling and wanting those kinds of supports in order to be engaged in the Canadian economy. That's the reason for the inclusion of AHRDS and the core funding for friendship centres: to try to reach some of those challenges.

Every year we come to the pre-budget finance committee, we make our submissions, and we brief the minister. Our challenge is having it become a priority in any of the governments in terms of having them pushing it as we move forward.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

We're going to do everything we can to help you push that.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have a little over a minute, Mr. Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Culbert, yours was a fascinating presentation. Congratulations for your extraordinarily original work.

I have a question for you that has to do with the part of your presentation where you explained that you can actually help the food chain more generally. Has it been your experience that E. coli, for example, in certain farming areas, has even been seeping into what had been the market gardens? In other words, you could wind up with vegetables that have had E. coli in them. We had some cases of that in Quebec.

[Rick Culbert]

Yes, that's absolutely correct. Fifty-five per cent of the food-borne illness that's due to E. coli 0157 comes through beef, while 45% comes through other foods. The spinach was probably the most infamous case, with that huge recall. It's been in lettuce, and, as I said, last year's outbreak was traced back to onions.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Now, in those cases--the spinach one you spoke about was mostly a U.S. issue--was that animal-borne E. coli? There was some explanation given that it might have been from some of the workers, so I wanted to know if you have ever been able to trace it.

[Rick Culbert]

Yes, it has been traced.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

And it was animal?

[Rick Culbert]

Yes.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Okay. So this is a product that if it went worldwide could actually go a long way to making the food supply a lot safer for things like market gardens and vegetables.

[Rick Culbert]

Yes.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you for the presentation. Sometimes in these hearings presentations are on issues that the wider public hears about on a general basis, but this is something very specific, and help can be brought about. I think that creating that sort of leadership in terms of research and development is also something that spins off in terms of jobs and helps the economy, so you did well to come here today. Thank you for enriching our thoughts with that experience.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Mulcair.

We'll go now to Mr. McKay, please.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

I want to direct my first question to Dr. Watters. With respect to the disparity between the United States and Canada in terms of post-doctoral or doctoral education in particular, this is a question that's kind of dear to my heart. Actually, it's dearer to my wallet, because I have a son in a doctoral program in the United States, I have a daughter in a master's program in Canada, and I have another daughter who's about to go into a master's program and hasn't made up her mind about where she's going to go.

When my son did his analysis of the program he wanted to do, Canadian universities weren't even in the league, frankly, as far as the support that was available for him was concerned. This morning we had a presentation from the polytechnics, part of which showed that the universities eat all the research money and leave nothing available for the polytechnics for application of that research. My question to you is, in effect, twofold. How could you as universities be receiving enormous amounts of money, initiated primarily under the Martin-Chrétien years but hopefully not entirely cut off by this government, and yet still not be competitive with American universities in particular?

[Carolyn Watters]

I'll respond.

I can't speak for the Quebec universities in particular, but certainly if I take Dalhousie as an example of one of the G-13 research-intensive universities, of the $17 million that goes to our graduate students, about $13 million comes from the federal government, one way or the other, through direct scholarships or grant funding to professors, 80% of which goes directly to the students.

The big difference is the endowments. Dalhousie is one of the Killam institutions, so we're extremely fortunate to have a large endowment. It produces only about $2 million a year directly for graduate students. Without the large endowment, the alumnae contributions that we find in American universities, we just don't have the resources to do that. It's a very different culture. The A-minus and better students are funded, by and large, but not at the same rate as they are in American universities.

The competition in Canada has heated up tremendously in the last two or three years, with Alberta, Ontario, and British Columbia doubling the number of graduate students they want in the universities but not providing enough support for them. Your daughter and your son may be accepted into these programs and then get just enough to cover tuition.

Of course your kids are going to go to the States if they're going to get a big scholarship. We need to be competitive.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

It's interesting that you should hit on the cultural aspect of American universities. Certainly at a doctoral level it is an entirely different culture.

Thank you for that answer.

My next question is for Mr. Bradley.

With respect to the federal excise tax on diesel fuel, you said there was an opportunity here to harmonize with the GST, or now HST—or sometimes HST and sometimes GST. I didn't understand the thrust of that comment.