Finance Committee on Oct. 18th, 2010

[Dawn Conway]

Absolutely.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

For how long prior to that did you receive funding, and how much was it?

[Dawn Conway]

We received $60 million in 2000, when the foundation was established, and $50 million in 2003-04, so it was a total of $110 million, which, as I mentioned, would stretch to $127 million through interest. We've in fact invested $117 million to date in research.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

So despite the fact that climate change is becoming an even more pressing problem for Canada and indeed the globe, your funding was essentially severed in 2004.

[Dawn Conway]

Yes, but I have to say that in the funding of foundations, this was the normal way of doing it. The funding came in chunks, and the foundations were able to invest and use that. Our chunk stopped. The Canada Foundation for Innovation continued, and Sustainable Development Technology Canada and Genome Canada were every few years. We have had nothing for a while.

Sustainable Development Technology Canada, for example, is at over $1 billion—

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

But you've received nothing.

[Dawn Conway]

—and we're just over $100 million.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Donnelly, in terms of child poverty--and my colleague, Paul Szabo, wrote an excellent book on child poverty solutions, which I'd recommend anybody to take a look at--we know that for every dollar invested in early learning headstart programs, a $7 benefit accrues to society.

Do you think the federal government certainly has a role to play in working with the provinces to operationalize early learning headstart programs because they have significant benefit in outcomes for children--educational outcomes, reduction in youth crime, and other social benefits?

[Mary-Lou Donnelly]

Yes, the Canadian Teachers' Federation would certainly support a national strategy on early childhood education and a child care strategy. Yes, I certainly agree with everything you've said.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you.

Ms. McDonald and Mr. Whiting, can you share with us whether the Canadian building code has to change in order to incentivize the utilization of solar panels in particular as a way to divert us off using fossil-based fuels?

[Dr. Phil Whiting]

The Canadian building code doesn't really have to change per se, but there are things that could be done with the regulations around building to make it easier to do. There are a lot of regulatory barriers to putting things on people's roofs. Most of those are not federal regulations, though; they generally tend to be more municipal or provincial.

But there is an opportunity for governments to use regulations as a way to drive the growth of the business. A good example is that in the State of Hawaii, starting this year, you can no longer get a building permit unless you include solar thermal with the new building. It's a way for them to drive the adoption of renewable energy without having to dip into government coffers to do it.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

If you could share any of those incentives with the committee, I'm sure we'd be very interested to find out what they are.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

We'll go to Mr. Wallace, please, briefly.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

My question is actually for Ms. Patterson, waiting there patiently.

There are two things. One, we heard in the previous panel--I'm not sure if you were in the room--that those in the research business were interested in our choosing where we spend our money, where we get the biggest bang for the buck in terms of conversion to commercialization.

This past week I had a public meeting in my riding. An individual there from McMaster University was saying that we're way off base and should be spending more money on basic research, because without basic research you can't do research for innovation and commercialization.

From your perspective, what should we be doing? Should we be picking and choosing? Should we be in the pharmaceutical or the health care area more than in social science? How does a government choose? How would you propose that we choose?

[Bonnie Patterson]

I'd answer it in two ways. The first is that if you cut off the fundamental research, you're going to have an empty pipeline as you move down that pipeline. What the government has done is invest in fundamental research on one end of the continuum, and our recommendation was that through an Ontario innovation fund, for example, in our particular province--not unlike what exists in the Atlantic provinces--we try to incent and grow the partnership and alliance development for commercialization with the private sector.

Universities have some capability to commercialize, but we need the private sector to work with us and collaborate with us in order to get there, so we'd be saying that you should help us draw in the matching funds from the private sector to be able to leverage public sector funds on the commercialization end. The Ontario innovation fund would be a way of doing it in that province.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Is that a tax credit system? Cash?

[Bonnie Patterson]

No, it's a fund you can draw on when you bring other partners to the table and show others are willing to invest.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay. Thank you. That was my question.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Wallace.

I want to thank all our witnesses for being here today, for your presentations, your responses, your discussion. As colleagues pointed out, if there's anything further you wish to send to the committee, please send it to the clerk and we'll ensure all members get it.

Thank you.