Finance Committee on Sept. 28th, 2009

[Farah Mohamed]

The age group based on the research for this particular model is 6 to 12.

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

Extrapolating that across the country, you are saying it will cost $5 million over three years or $833,000 per year over the three years. What would it take to do a pan-Canadian approach on this for aboriginals?

[Farah Mohamed]

For the federal government portion alone?

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

Yes.

[Farah Mohamed]

For the federal government portion alone, over five years it would be an investment of $15 million, I believe. That would be for 250,000 children nationally.

[Dr. Nigel Lockyer]

I'm relatively familiar.

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

I'm just wondering about it. When I hear you talk, I'm quite pleased actually, but in dealing with everything from the AECL to the isotope issue, what you are suggesting almost sounds too good to be true, that we could so simply deal with our problem by taking the theory that we have now and apply it. We were told the same thing would happen with the MAPLE site, and obviously that became quite a boondoggle, with unbelievable costs and no results. So what kind of assurance could you provide to government that an investment in the accelerator process could demonstrate clear and definable results for us?

[Dr. Nigel Lockyer]

In terms of assurance, we're the leading rare isotope facility in the world. I mentioned our international peer review. To summarize it, I say that we got an A-plus. I think our technical standing in the world for what we do is well recognized and documented independently. I believe we have the know-how. We've been working in this area for 30 years with MDS Nordion and progressing with time. As for our technology, the Government of Canada has invested in this technology. It's allowed us to be at what I would call the vanguard of accelerator design. That's our business.

Unfortunately, the NRU is 50 years old, as is the case with the reactor in Europe, so that's old technology. I'll remind you that it also has the problem of the highly enriched uranium. I think that whatever solution you come out with now it must not use that, because of proliferation issues, and that is the general view of the world now. I feel that our proposal has that advantage. We know we can make moly-99. In fact, for a scientist it gets in the way. Because you make so much of it, we view it as a background. So we're just turning what we do on its head and saying that if we want to make a lot of this, we can.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have 30 seconds.

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

Okay.

Just to contradict Mr. McCallum's statement, there actually has been an increase in investment in science and technology spending through this government. I just wanted to make that very, very clear.

What I would like to ask you is from a competitive aspect about other countries, other nations. How competitive are you with other jurisdictions in the science you're doing right now?

[Dr. Nigel Lockyer]

Well, this is what I would call a made in Canada solution. This is something that came out of TRIUMF. It came out of TRIUMF because of its strength in accelerators. In our view, we are one of the leading accelerator centres in the world, and there is our close collaboration with MDS Nordion. There is no other isotope company in the world that can claim to have the impact that MDS Nordion has had with TRIUMF.

This is really just one step forward. You know they've reorganized recently. We see that to our advantage in this particular case. I think we're in a very strong position internationally to compete in that area.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Davies, please.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thanks to all of you for your thoughtful presentations.

I want to start with Mr. Otway. We New Democrats were so delighted with your presentation. The salmon fishery, of course, is so critical to our province's economy, our communities, and indeed our culture.

Of course, I noticed that the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Morton, which happened recently, has returned jurisdiction over our coastal fish farms to the federal government. I wondered if you could give us your view on how well the federal government is positioned to manage that issue, and in fact what your position is on fish farms in terms of the diminution of fish stocks in light of the devastating reduction of salmon returns that we're seeing here in many species.

[William Otway]

First, I'd start off by saying I don't believe that fish farms played any significant role in the loss of the fish returning this year. There is a bit of evidence around to say that they never even made it out of the Fraser River. The problem, as I mention in my brief, is that the stock assessment operating budget has been cut by 50%. Without the ability to do any stock assessment, we're dealing in voodoo boards. That's a problem.

The fish farms are here to stay. In my view, and in the view of a lot of people, they have not been managed well. There is very little oversight. I expect even less with the federal government taking over, because the recent report on habitat operations, which is the second in four years by the Auditor General, shows that they have no intention of dealing with the problems facing these issues and no ability to do so.

The problem is about far more than fish farms. As I stated, we need to develop a salmon plan. Everybody's talking about climate change today, about carbon, and saying that we have to do this. Nobody's saying that this is going to happen no matter what we do, so what are our options now? What does this mean for our salmon fish production in 30 years? What should we do to mitigate this? Or can we? Can we save the jobs? Should we save the jobs? Can we increase the jobs? I think we can, but it takes planning and it takes investment, and we're getting none of either.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like to now move to Mr. Wilson at the Surrey Board of Trade.

I noticed your presentation speaks on behalf of the small business tax situation and is silent on the HST. Given that the date of your submission is August 14, I wonder if perhaps it was something that was not really on your radar at that point. Many small businesses in my community are phoning me and e-mailing me, telling me about the harmful effects of the HST on their business, particularly restaurants, all sorts of service sectors, businesses of all types.

I also want to indicate for the record that despite the Liberals' attempt to run from this issue as best they can, it was a 1996 federal Liberal government that brought in the HST agreements with the maritime provinces. Indeed, they voted for the budget in January that contained the HST provisional moneys.

What I would like to know is whether your members in Surrey, and particularly small businesses, have communicated to you their position on the HST and how that might be affecting their business.

[Eric Wilson]

Reaction has been very mixed. Restaurateurs have probably been unanimous in decrying its impact on cost, etc. There are some businesses that applaud it. What was once perhaps a dead cost, being the provincial sales tax component, now becomes a tax credit and perhaps lowers their cost of doing business, increasing profitability. There is a philosophical expression about passing the savings on to the consumers themselves.

It was a surprise when it was announced. It wasn't on the radar when we made our submission. The Surrey Board of Trade is cautiously supportive of the HST for the potential cost savings benefits in non-restaurant-oriented activities, speaking strictly on behalf of businesses. For consumers, perhaps it's going to be a different animal.

There have been, as I'm sure you've read, a number of requests for further consideration of certain aspects of the HST and its implementation, everything from software changes to the label required to convert the pricing, and so on. At this point, the reaction has been, for the most part, very high level, a very quick response. I suspect that goes for the business reaction when Ontario introduced the HST and when the Maritimes brought it in.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

My last question will be to Mr. Silvester.

Of course, the ports are so central to the economy of the lower mainland in British Columbia, and in fact our country. I want to focus a bit on labour, because I think labour is a critical component of the success of the ports. We saw a debilitating withdrawal of services of independent truck drivers a few years ago. I also understand that there may be some upcoming issues with the labour force at the ports with the ILWU. I wonder if you could share your view on the state of relations with the critical labour component and how you view their participation in terms of the success of delivering on your critical role.

[Robin Silvester]

Thank you.

Certainly, as you rightly say, labour is a critical stakeholder in, and a component of, success in the gateway. One of the critical points—and I should emphasize it—is that at the port we're not directly involved in negotiations with labour. That takes place between the labour union and the employers' association.

We provide the perspective of our customers on those negotiations, and our customers do have a high degree of concern again, as you highlight in your question, about unreliability as a result of labour or management action. Our perspective would simply be that we feel that it is extremely important that the framework exists that preserves reliability within the gateway, prevents the risk of the gateway suffering disruption through any cause. That is exactly what our customers tell us repeatedly they want to see.

If I could take a very brief opportunity to clarify my earlier answer, the cost of the New Westminster rail bridge is actually $300 million. The discussions to date with Transport Canada have indicated the potential to leverage the funding of the federal government in the same way as the other trade areas, thus a $150 million contribution being leveraged by a further $150 million. But the total cost of the bridge is $300 million.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Pacetti, please.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses. It's always a task for us to ask the right questions with the limited time we have, so I'm not going to get to everybody.

I have a quick question for Farah. That was an excellent job. I'm kind of jealous because I don't see any of these computers coming into my riding, and we can use a few.

In terms of cost, are you expecting the whole project to cost $5 million over three years?

[Farah Mohamed]

The pilot program would cost $5 million over three years. That would cover 5,000 kids. If you do the math at $250, it obviously doesn't work out to that, but it would allow us to do all of the customization around the content. So while the computer itself costs about $190, the extra dollars are all for content customization, including the literacy stuff and the financial literacy stuff. Right now internationally you have this laptop with some very general programs. We're trying to make sure it's relevant to the aboriginal population, and that's where the extra cost comes from.

Post pilot you go back to the original cost. So all that work is done.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Just for the pilot project, what would be the breakdown for your partners? Would you be looking at the private, non-profit, and government sectors?

[Farah Mohamed]

Absolutely.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

So how much would it be for government?