Finance Committee on Sept. 28th, 2009

[Gavin Dirom]

The example I raised earlier is Mount Milligan, which is being, hopefully, put forward by Terrane Metals. At the back end, there is support shown on the regulatory reform side with respect to that project. That is a good example of where the Major Projects Management Office is not just about the environmental assessment or front end but also about the middle to the back end of a project moving through with respect to harmonizing permits and regulations between the federal government and the provincial government.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Okay. Thanks.

I know that in universities across the country, one of the things we implemented in the economic action plan was $2 billion for a knowledge infrastructure program. From Surrey's perspective, SFU was the recipient of more than $24 million this year. I'm not sure if you're aware of that or not.

Last week the City of Surrey received $30 million for the new library--congratulations on that--and I'm not sure if you heard about that. There is money for some of your infrastructure programs, and there definitely are dollars flowing to your community.

The other aspect is the knowledge infrastructure program. A big component of that investment, for both colleges and universities, is that while it's important to invest in people, you also have to have the facilities that they're working under. When we have the federal contribution, it helps the foundations not have to raise tuitions. From the board's perspective, they can put the money into students.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

A question, please.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

That's just one of the observations from our post-secondary caucus.

The last question, then, is for the Rick Hansen Foundation.

One of my mentors...and it's incredible; we've come a long way in almost 25 years. Thank you to Mr. Hansen and your foundation for all the work you've done.

In your submission, you talked about $100 million in terms of a lead partner. Could that be a multi-year commitment, and how would that be spent?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Ewart.

[Colin Ewart]

Yes, it could be a multi-year commitment. We're working on a detailed proposal that will outline how it can be spent and what it will be allocated to. It'll be a combination of research and community service solutions, which are already part of the business plan and the work we're already embarked on with Health Canada. It obviously has a very stringent accountability framework, with performance measurements, etc.

There's a lot of detail that we're still working on, but yes, it can be committed the way you suggest.

[Ron Cannan, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Cannan.

I want to thank all the witnesses very much for being with us today, for your presentations, and for your responses to our questions.

We will suspend for a minute or two. Then we will bring the next panel forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

This is now the fourth panel here on meeting number 43 of the Standing Committee on Finance with respect to our pre-budget consultations.

We have with us, for the final panel, seven organizations. I will list them in order of presentation.

First of all, we have the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of British Columbia; second, the Pacific Community Resources Society; third, the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada; fourth, the Recreation Vehicle Dealers Association of Canada; fifth, the Union of Environmental Workers; sixth, the Coalition for Canadian Astronomy; seventh, the Heritage Vancouver Society. We actually have eight; there's also the Association of Canadian Publishers.

We have a lot of groups today, and we have up to five minutes maximum for opening statements; then we'll go immediately to questions from members.

Could we start with the coalition, please?

[Sharon Gregson, Spokesperson, Coalition of Child Care Advocates of British Columbia]

Thank you very much.

It's a great pleasure to be in front of this committee once again, and like one of my colleagues, Susan Harney, in the last round, I too am a multi-year presenter. Susan mentioned to me as she left that it's great that we don't have to convince you any more that child care is important; now we just need you to do something about it.

My colleague, Crystal Janes, and I are presenting from the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of British Columbia. We are a not-for-profit organization made up, obviously, of many parents across the province and also caregivers, early childhood educators, grandparents, labour unions, businesses, and many others. We do speak to the need for a comprehensive policy that funds and has standards for a child care system that meets the needs of working families for children zero to 12, that is in the not-for-profit sector, and that is adequately publicly funded to maintain quality that parents can afford--all the kinds of things that a progressive, rich country like Canada can and should be providing.

We will be brief. There are two things we'll do for you today. I'm just going to highlight some of the findings from a pivotal report that was just released from the Child Care Human Resources Sector Council on Friday that speaks to workforce shortages and also to the socio-economic benefits of investment in child care. Then Crystal will have a more detailed presentation.

You may already have heard about this report delivered by the Centre for Spatial Economics, a very respected economic business in this country. It talks about the workforce shortages in early childhood education and care. The research shows that the benefits of early childhood education and care to children come mainly from increased future earnings due to the greater likelihood of attaining higher education. For mothers, the benefits come in the form of higher current and future earnings due to increased labour force activity. Access to early childhood education and care allows mothers to increase their labour force activity, translating into more working hours, increasing mothers' current earnings and increasing future earnings. A lower smoking rate and lower special education and grade failures are also some of the benefits that accrue to children.

It is important, and it has been referenced—Member of Parliament Don Davies mentioned it earlier: the multiplier effect of investment in child care is something we would like to highlight for you. Most literature concerning the impact on mothers of children in early childhood education and care, ECEC, programs indicates that higher program fees decrease a mother's hours of work, so we don't want to have high fees, and $100 a month from what we call the family allowance benefit that comes now from the federal government does not, obviously, help build child care spaces, does not improve quality of child care spaces, and does not actually help anybody afford child care spaces, given the current cost.

Most of the Canadian research is similar to what is found elsewhere in the world regarding the socio-economic implications of early childhood education and care. Within Canada, developments around this area in Quebec are particularly noteworthy, given the speed of magnitude of the change in the sector after the government introduced $5-a-day child care.

Research lands on both sides of the debate about the impact of ECEC on children's socio-economic development. However, on mothers' labour force supply, there is no argument with increased mothers' labour force participation of 12% in Quebec. In the 2008 study the estimated effect of the policy was to increase labour force participation rates by 6.5% for more educated mothers and by 7.3% for less educated mothers. Total annual hours worked rose by 133 and 114....

I will pass it over to Crystal now.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have one minute.

[Crystal Janes, Representative, Coalition of Child Care Advocates of British Columbia]

Regrettably, Canada's current policies do not meet the needs of Canadian families. Canada has lagged behind other developed countries in its investment in early learning and care for decades, and it now has the lowest rate of access to early learning and child care programs for preschool children of 20 comparable countries.

Notably, the federal government's approach to supporting families with children introduced in 2006--the universal child care benefit--has not met its stated objective of providing families with choice. Cancelling dedicated child care transfers to provinces and introducing a taxable family allowance has not addressed family child care needs.

The situation is getting worse in B.C. Child care funding has been cut as a result of changes in the federal commitment, forcing child care fees to go up.

Our recommendation to the standing committee this year is consistent with our advice over the last number of years. It's time to invest in children. We recommend, based on the principles and accountability framework outlined in Bill C-303, that the next federal budget include the first installment of a four-year commitment to create a licensed child care space for every three- to five-year-old in the country, as the first phase in building a comprehensive system for zero to 12 years old.

The gross projected cost of meeting this first benchmark is $5 billion. Based on experience elsewhere, Canada can expect an immediate return of 40% through income taxes from increased labour force participation. In addition, Canada can expect a longer-term return of 2:1 on reduced social, educational, and health care costs as children get a good early start through their life cycles.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much.

We have to move on to the next group, unfortunately.

Next is the Pacific Community Resources Society, please.

[Ian Mass, Executive Director, Pacific Community Resources Society]

Thanks for this opportunity.

I'm speaking as executive director, but in fact I'm speaking on behalf of the 175 youth employment centres serving organizations in British Columbia, another 120 community social services in British Columbia, the Ontario Association of Youth Employment Centres, and an additional 35 youth-serving organizations across Canada.

Our recommendation is that the federal government renew the terms and conditions for the Skills Link program in 2010 and increase the level of funding allocated to Skills Link programming to twice the present level, given the crisis of youth unemployment in the economic downturn.

What will that achieve? It will help reduce the drag on GDP caused by unemployed, at-risk youth who are drawing on criminal justice, alcohol and drug counselling, alternate education, and income assistance services. At-risk youth who successfully attach to the labour market will positively contribute to the national GDP. They'll provide employers the opportunity to tap an untapped pool of young Canadian workers in an increasingly challenging labour market. It will provide employees an opportunity to give back to the community, creating a triple bottom line for participating businesses. We are in full partnership with the private sector on this matter. Finally, it will provide the appropriate interventions to assist at-risk youth in developing the essential skills needed for a long-term attachment to the labour force.

[John Coward, Manager, Employment Programs, Pacific Community Resources Society]

It's interesting to note that when we prepared this brief back in June, the unemployment rate for youth was 15.9%. As of mid summer it went up to 16.3%. Their rate is twice the national average of the overall population. Canada will be facing a structural unemployment situation among youth if there isn't immediate action taken.

In the budget, $53 million was added to the youth employment strategy, but not one penny was targeted toward at-risk youth; it was all targeted at students. If these young people aren't given the work experience opportunities and skills now, when the economy moves into recovery they will not be prepared to enter the workforce.

There are hundreds of not-for-profit organizations across the country that have Skills Link programs on the shelf and ready to go, but there's no funding. There is an apparatus in place that you can move on this social infrastructure intervention immediately. Service Canada has the structure all in place.

Where is the money? There is no money. We were capped at the same amounts we've had in the previous three years.

This is a crisis that we're facing among young people right now. There is an opportunity. There is an infrastructure in place. There are companies that are willing to give them a chance, small, medium, and ma and pa operations willing to give them an opportunity, but the federal government is not stepping up to the plate. It is not providing this group of young people an opportunity to give back to Canadian society, and they will continue to cause a drain on our GDP if we don't move now. This is the time to act.

The government is slipping money into infrastructure projects every day, and we know it because it's in every newspaper every day. Here is an opportunity where we can move tomorrow on this. You can move on this tomorrow and the result would be that this money would flow through the economy within weeks, because there are organizations like ours right across the province in major cities and mid-sized cities and small communities. So it would have an actual impact across the entire country, but the time to act on it is now.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for the presentation.

We'll now go to the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada.

[Bob Harvey, Chair, Tax and Fiscal Advisory Group, Certified General Accountants Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and honourable members, thank you for the opportunity to take part once again in the finance committee's consultations on the next federal budget.

I'm Bob Harvey, FCGA and chair of CGA Canada's tax and fiscal policy advisory group.

I'm a semi-retired public practitioner from B.C.'s Okanagan Valley who has been assisting small and medium-sized businesses and individuals with their accounting and tax issues for more than 35 years.

Members will be very acquainted with CGA Canada. You've seen us on Parliament Hill many times in a variety of roles. You have received copies today of our brief and my remarks, which are available in both official languages.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance is asking two specific questions. One, have the stimulus measures been effective, and if not, how can they be changed to achieve the desired results? Two, what measures are needed to ensure a prosperous and sustainable future for Canadians?

With these questions in mind, CGA Canada is putting forward the following three-point plan: one, simplify Canada's tax system; two, stay the course; and three, manage the debt.

My comments will focus mainly on tax simplification.

First of all, CGA Canada appreciates that this government has taken a number of measures on the tax front. Various provisions in the 2007 economic statement and the 2009 budget are notable examples. However, CGA Canada believes that much more work can and should be done.

Sound tax policy is an essential lever of any economy, whether we are talking about recovery, productivity, growth, or stability. Canada's tax system has grown to the point where it is unnecessarily complex, cumbersome, labour-intensive, costly to administer, full of red tape, and difficult to understand. Fundamental changes to Canada's tax system are imperative.

Our first recommendation, one that we have advanced many times, is that the federal government should take steps to simplify Canada's tax legislation and the tax system. Tax simplification will result in increased compliance rates and lower compliance costs for taxpayers, less paperwork and red tape for businesses, lower administrative costs for government, and a stronger system with a more secure tax base and predictable revenue.

Simplifying Canada's tax regime should be viewed as a viable form of stimulus; it is good for the economy. Therefore, we reiterate a recommendation first made by CGA Canada in its September 2007 pre-budget submission, that the federal government ought to appoint a panel of experts to undertake a fundamental review of the tax system and to bring forward third-party recommendations to the government for action.

It is interesting to note that the United States is doing this very thing. President Obama has appointed former Federal Reserve chair Paul Volcker to lead a task force and report back by December this year with recommendations on tax simplification and streamlining the law.

CGA Canada will be watching this U.S. experience very closely. In the meantime, however, measures can be taken to improve our tax structure. First, the federal government should continue working with the three remaining provinces to help facilitate the transition towards a harmonized sales tax.

Second, personal and corporate taxes must be kept on a downward track to internationally competitive rates. This means lowering rates, increasing thresholds, and keeping bases broad and neutral. Prudent, modest, and broadly based tax relief is always preferable to targeted tax cuts.

Third, intensify efforts to manage the paper and administrative burden by tackling the obvious, that is, by eliminating duplicate regulations, getting rid of overlapping obligations, and reducing how often documents need to be filed.

The bottom line is that a simpler, transparent, and fair system with low, internationally competitive tax rates is integral to economic recovery and growth in Canada.

Our second recommendation is to stay the course. Our advice to the government as far as the economic action plan is concerned is to allow the plan to run its full course. It would not be wise to consider additional stimulus until the impact of current measures has been assessed and evaluated in a meaningful way and the results have been made public.

Our final recommendation is to manage the debt. The federal government must pay attention to debt management, keep a watchful eye over its expenditures, and regularly report to Canadians on progress towards that goal.

When Canada entered the global recession, it did so from a position of relative strength on account of years of prudent fiscal management. Like the rest of the world, while we face some degree of uncertainty in the future, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels and undo the incredible progress we've made as a nation.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time. We welcome any questions the committee may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll now go to the Recreation Vehicle Dealers Association.

[Shane Devenish, Representative, Recreation Vehicle Dealers Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Shane Devenish, and I'm representing the Recreation Vehicle Dealers Association, or RVDA, of Canada.

With me today is Gord Bragg, vice-president of RVDA of B.C. and an owner of an RV dealership located on Vancouver Island.

We appreciate the invitation to be here today in the context of your 2009 pre-budget consultations. We will take this opportunity to highlight for the committee the impact that the ongoing credit crisis has had on the RV industry.

The RVDA of Canada is a national volunteer federation of provincial and regional RVDA associations and their members who have united to form a professional trade association for businesses involved in the recreational vehicle industry.

The RV industry has enjoyed strong sales over the past several years as Canadian consumers have moved to the affordable and flexible travel offered by RV ownership. Currently, more than 14% of all Canadian households own an RV. The demographics of our buyers demonstrate future growth in the coming years. However, as prices, affordability, and demand are driving retail sales, RV dealers today are facing an unprecedented wholesale finance crisis.

A recent poll from the RVDA of Canada's 420 dealer members reports the lack of floor-plan financing as their biggest concern currently facing their businesses. The contraction of available business credit has been caused by the following: the departure of Textron Financial early in 2009, leaving GE as the only non-bank floor-plan source; the business model of the big five banks are not conducive to large-scale floor-plan financing; GE's current mandate towards neutral growth; and the absence of an entrance of a new financial institution to our market.

At times the industry has had as many as six lenders that would floor-plan finance RV inventory. However, despite strong demand for the product, the association is left with having only one non-bank lender and a few banks, but on an individual basis and for only financially strong dealers.

The RVDA of Canada estimates that in 2008, aggregate new loan activity to Canadian RV dealerships was between $1.15 billion and $1.3 billion, with a total receivable base of between $650 million and $750 million. At the time of their exit, Textron Financial had an estimated 30% market share of the above, which for the most part remains a void.

While the RVDA of Canada is aware of and supportive of the $12 billion Canadian secured credit facility, the program's ability to deliver floor-plan financing to the RV dealership level has not been identified up to this point. As such, the challenge remains, that being the government providing the means to entice new lenders to the RV sector through the CSCF or by other means.

On July 1, 2009, the U.S. Small Business Administration launched a new pilot program for dealer floor-plan financing. Through this new program, RV and marine dealerships can apply for SBA guaranteed floor-plan financing through an authorized financial institution. This program has enticed additional lenders to the industry and made it easier for small businesses to gain necessary capital to borrow against their inventory.

RVDA met with officials from the policy sector branch in August to propose similar assistance in the form of a loan guarantee in order to attract new lenders into our market. The guarantee would be necessary in the short term only, say two to three years, until such time as the markets resume ordinance. This form of assistance would appear to be the most attractive to a prospective institution looking to enter the floor-plan market. We have not found any company as of today willing to floor-plan our dealers without this form of assurance.

We are eager to work collaboratively towards finding a credit solution that makes sense for the Canadian RV industry, the government, and the Canadian public. The RV market has stability, profitability, and a long history of low-risk loans. We are therefore providing the following recommendation for a federal program spending measure that will ensure prosperity and a sustainable future for Canadians.

The RVDA of Canada recommends that the Canadian secured credit facility hereby be modified to include floor-plan loans that will be helpful to RV dealers through funding that can be directly injected into the RV marketplace. Without adequate floor-plan financing, RV dealers--dealers who have been profitable and a going concern for several years--will not have the ability to maintain a viable business past this year. We desperately need the government's assistance to pass action in order to attract new lenders to the market.

Please consider the following. The retail RV sector is not simply a one-time retail sale. RVing and the RV lifestyle make critical economic contributions to ongoing tourism and recreational spending in every region of Canada.

Thank you again for the opportunity to address the committee today.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for your presentation.

We'll now go to the Union of Environment Workers, please.

[Nicholas Humphreys, Representative, Union of Environment Workers]

I am here as a representative of the members of Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans, and the Canadian Forest Service. It's a volunteer position that I am in.

When I was looking at the criteria for this brief, there were four parameters: economic, environmental, cultural, and sustainability. I don't know of anything that addresses those criteria as well as B.C. wild salmon.

Wild salmon are a cornerstone of the economy of British Columbia, in terms of sports fishing, commercial fishing, and the tourism industry. B.C. wild salmon are the cornerstone of the coastal and river systems in British Columbia. Salmon are the economic stimulus package of the ecosystem.

Wild salmon are the cornerstone of first nations culture and the heritage of the people of British Columbia who came after the first nations people. B.C. wild salmon are synonymous in British Columbia with sustainability and prosperity, and the sustainability of B.C.'s aquatic ecozones. The five different wild salmon species of British Columbia used to be the icons that B.C. was known for across the world.

Given the importance of wild salmon to our economy, environment, heritage, and culture, how is it that we have come to where we are today? How is it that we have taken the most productive sockeye salmon river in the world--the Fraser River--and ruined it and exploited it so that now we don't have a commercial fishery for sockeye on the Fraser River? We don't have sports fishing on the Fraser River. We don't even have enough sockeye salmon going up the Fraser River to feed the animals that live off the spawning salmon. And how is it that we have a Department of Fisheries and Oceans that can be so completely wrong in estimating over 10 million sockeye salmon returning this year and one million show up?

I say it's because, for some strange reason, we haven't been able to get our message to Ottawa. The 600,000 sports anglers in British Columbia, 35,000 commercial fishermen, and tens of thousands of people who work in tourism somehow haven't been able to get the message to Ottawa that salmon are important, that salmon have to be protected, their habitat has to be protected, and their whole environment has to be protected.

I say that because how else can you explain that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has a no net loss of salmon habitat policy? They've had that policy since 1986, and today they can't even tell us how much salmon habitat there is. Not only can they not tell us whether there has been a loss or a gain or anything, they can't even tell us how much there is. Why is that? Because it's not funded. It hasn't been funded properly. In 26 years there hasn't been the proper funding to do this.

You don't have to take my word for it. You can just look at the 2009 spring report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, which was issued through the Office of the Auditor General. Not only does the Auditor General talk about habitat, she mentions that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans lacks information regarding numbers of fish stocks, contaminants in the actual fish, and the overall water quality. How can we manage this resource without the proper science?

The lack of funding has been widely known for years. The Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, the Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Sierra Club, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, the Honourable John Fraser, and the Honourable Bryan Williams are all saying the same thing, that lack of funding prohibits the federal government from doing an effective job in areas of enforcement, habitat protection and restoration, salmon enhancement, research, and stock assessment. They're all saying that.

Increased funding to the departments should not be considered an expenditure; it should be considered an investment, an investment in the future of British Columbia and an investment that will return to the citizens of Canada a thousandfold--economically, environmentally, and culturally.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll now go to the Coalition for Canadian Astronomy.

[Guy Nelson, Co-Chair, Industry, Coalition for Canadian Astronomy]

Thank you.

I'm Guy Nelson, the co-chair representing industry for the Coalition for Canadian Astronomy. Paul Hickson is the co-chair representing the Canadian Astronomical Society.

Today the Coalition for Canadian Astronomy will be making an urgent, and perhaps final, appeal to all parties to support Canada's international leadership in astronomy through new funding for our flagship project called the Thirty Meter Telescope or TMT. This project is a perfect example of Canada's potential for international scientific excellence, world-class R and D, and high-tech manufacturing.

Canadian astronomers, universities, and industry have acted boldly to make Canada a world leader in astronomy. Now we need the federal government to be equally bold if we are to maintain our leadership position.

As outlined in an earlier written submission, the coalition is seeking $160 million over the next four fiscal years to fund the detailed design and manufacture of the Thirty Meter Telescope here in Canada. This is a flagship project for Canadian astronomy and will create over 1,000 person years of work for Canadians. Most of that work will be in the area of skilled trades, which have been decimated by the recession.

To put the TMT project into perspective, the telescope itself will be about the same size as Science World here in Vancouver and will be housed in a building as long and as wide as GM Place. The only difference is that it will be 22 storeys high.

It's a major scientific infrastructure project and an ideal fit for Canada's infrastructure-focused stimulus plan. It'll create hundreds of well-paying jobs immediately, while also solidifying Canadian industry as a world leader in the fields of complex design, engineering, and manufacturing.

We recognize that our request is a big one. The coalition has been making submissions to this committee for the past five years in preparing for the upcoming deadline. It's now decision time. Without a commitment to funding in the next budget, Canada will lose its strategic position in the TMT partnership with the Americans, and it will lose the $20 million contribution it's already put towards the design. Other countries are waiting to step in to build the telescope and they will do so using a Canadian design funded by Canadian taxpayers. That would be a devastating blow to Canadian science and industry.

To understand why, let me briefly recap how we got to where we are today. The coalition was formed in 2000 and charted a course for Canadian astronomical excellence. It includes industry, 21 universities in Canada, and the Canadian Astronomical Society. We developed a plan to be world leaders in astronomy and we put it into action. We've been remarkably successful with that plan, and all coalition partners have benefited. Astronomy is now Canada's top science, and Canadian industry has reaped hundreds of millions of dollars in astronomy-related contracts and resulting spinoff work.

The Thirty Meter Telescope will be the world's largest. Canada is currently a 25% partner in the project, second to none, which we achieved by moving early to secure our position. The federal government and the governments of Ontario and B.C. contributed $20 million to fund the design phase, with Vancouver-based Dynamic Structures designing the telescope and the enclosure.

The telescope and enclosure designed by Canadians is ready to be built. It can and should be built here, but that will only happen if we remain a 25% partner. The Japanese, Chinese, Indians, and Brazilians are all eager to take our place. To be blunt, it would be a travesty if Canada walked away at this stage. Rest assured, this telescope will be built.

Given that Canadian industry has built more than half of the telescopes in the world, it would be devastating to see this built by another country using a uniquely Canadian design. Without additional funding, the Canadian designed and funded telescope and enclosure will be built by another country. The 1,050 person years of work will be gone. Equally important, if not more so, this incredible Canadian design will be handed over to another country. In addition, the $20 million already invested by Canada will be lost as another country takes our design and puts its citizens to work instead. If this happens, expect similar controversies to those that erupted over the sale of MDA and Nortel.

Funding the next phase of the Thirty Meter Telescope requires vision and leadership. I can say frankly that further delays and deferrals will end Canada's participation in this project. Without new funding, our partnership expires on March 31. If that happens, it'll be a sad day for Canada and Canadian astronomy. It'll seriously damage the reputation of Canadian astronomy for decades to come. It will also be a devastating blow to Canada's international scientific standing. Canadian astronomers are ranked as the best in the world. To maintain this leadership they need access to the most modern and powerful instruments. The Thirty Meter Telescope will be the best in the world. Without it, our best minds will be lost to other countries.

If government is not prepared to fund Canada's top science—and one that creates large numbers of jobs for Canadian industry—then what are its priorities?

We've spoken about this project with the ministers responsible and with MPs from all parties. All understand the stakes involved and we have had great support for our request on all sides of the House. We hope that support will now translate into funding.

You will see the benefits of that funding immediately. Canada will reaffirm its international leadership in astronomy, and by moving decisively, we will be a driving partner in this project. People will be put to work immediately on the detailed design, engineering, and manufacturing. The Thirty Meter Telescope offers these 1,050 person years of work, international scientific leadership, and the skills and experience Canadian industry needs to compete with the best in the world.

The coalition respectfully suggests that this is the perfect kind of project for an infrastructure-focused stimulus plan, and it's a concrete example of Canada's science and technology strategy at work.

Thank you for your time. I look forward to any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Nelson.

We'll now go to Ms. Leduc from the Heritage Vancouver Society.

[Janet Leduc, Executive Director, Heritage Vancouver Society]

Good afternoon. It's a great pleasure to be here. Unlike many of you, this is our first time making a presentation to this committee.

I'm here today to urge you to introduce a federal income tax credit program for heritage building owners, to assist with the preservation of our heritage stock. Over 25 years ago such a program was introduced by the Reagan government in the U.S., and at that time Heritage Canada took up the call to have the federal government introduce such a program. Nothing has happened to date, and I'm looking at why it would be a good time to do it now.

First of all, we have the example of the U.S. over 25 years. That should be enough proof that this kind of program works. Secondly, the federal government recently introduced a program to assist homeowners with renovations by receiving tax incentives or a reduction in taxes to do so, and we keep hearing how successful this program is.

Why is it even more urgent today than 25 years ago to have such a program? First of all, the stock of heritage buildings is diminishing. It's just incredible how they are being torn down and lost forever. Sustainability has also become a big issue. We didn't hear about that 25 years ago, but it definitely is not sustainable to put a heritage building into landfill, so that's another good reason. Costs have gone up, and it's clear that it's very difficult for many owners to actually restore their heritage buildings without some incentive. It is of benefit to everyone when this happens, not just to the owner.

Looking at the next question on whether incentives actually work, we have the example of the U.S. government, and in our brief we've outlined how successful that has been. We also have a local example of Gastown in Vancouver. It became a historic area in the 1970s. Not much happened in the way of restoring the buildings until about 2002, when the city introduced a whole package of incentives to financially assist people with the restorations. There has been a lot of uptake on this program, and there is a huge multiplier effect for what the city put in and what the private sector put in. Gastown is now well on its way to becoming a very attractive tourist destination.

Then I look at why the federal government should get involved and not just the cities. First, it's too much for cities to take on this kind of massive program. The federal government introduced the historic places initiative in 2002 and showed great leadership in doing this. The intention was for incentives to be part of this initiative. So the federal government can continue and increase their leadership by finishing this program.

What are the payoffs from such a program? First we need to look at preserving our heritage for future generations, and of course that's the main reason why we'd want to do this. There are the economic benefits--the benefits of tourism that I already mentioned. There's the multiplier effect. We know that when governments put money into this type of program the private sector will put double, triple, or ten times more money into programs such as this.

There's the sustainability that I mentioned. We don't want to have landfills with old buildings crumbling away. There's also the economic stimulation for the building sector and all of the trades involved with this.

I'm finished.