Finance Committee on Oct. 18th, 2010

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

My first question is for Ms. Conway. I was shocked by how calm you were during your presentation. You said you did not receive any research funding this year for the programs you usually support. To my mind, that is very serious in terms of national policy planning. There are three vehicle representatives here today who are directly dependent on the climate, for example, with respect to snowstorms, excessive rain and flooding. Despite all their good intentions, funding for their industry will be seriously affected. The country is getting rid of all climate-oriented research. It is reverting to old ways where you would look at the weather and think that it might rain tomorrow because the leaves are turning or that there will not be a lot of snow this year for such and such a reason. I find this situation totally appalling.

Could you tell me the amount of your previous budget, which at least allowed you to run the programs you had put in place?

[Dawn Conway]

Thank you, Mr. Carrier.

We received our funding from the government in increments. In 2000, we received $60 million. In 2003, we received another $50 million. We invested that money in accordance with the rules stipulating that the investments be very safe. We did not lose any money during the recent budget crisis, and we spent the capital as well as the interest. That is how most of the foundations operated, including the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and Genome Canada. The system recently changed for the others, but we have not received any funding since 2003. So we are surviving on the capital and interest. We used that money to fund 24 major research networks and several dozen major research projects up to $15 million annually. We can keep that up for another few months. I will ask my colleague how much it will be this year, $2 million perhaps. Next year, it will be nothing.

It is a field where those in need of this kind of information also responded. So the Quebec government decided to provide some money so we could continue to fund a regional modelling network. The Canadian Space Agency and a few other departments will continue to give us money for a few more years, just to keep those networks operating for a few more months. But, as of next year, there will be nothing.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I am proud to hear you say that Quebec is stepping up and acting more like a responsible country. I hope that Canada will follow that example if it wants to continue to survive.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have one minute left.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Conway.

I have a comment for Ms. Donnelly. A bit earlier, my colleague talked about the needs you said you have. I fully agree with you, and I want to stand up for your needs in the House of Commons. Many of the things you are asking for, however, are the domain of the provincial government, which is closer to the public. That is what my colleague was trying to say. Quebec's child care system has existed for a number of years because the government considered it important for families so they could enjoy a certain level of independence and quality of life.

Minimum wage is also the province's responsibility, but it is good that you have an entire list—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ask your question, Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Do you have any hope that the government will do anything about the Guaranteed Income Supplement, despite the fact that it has refused to do so thus far?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Please answer that if you could.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Ms. Donnelly, please make a very brief response.

[Mary-Lou Donnelly]

We hope the government will take action on the national strategy to eliminate poverty in Canada. We have provided some recommendations. We're not saying that these are all the recommendations. Obviously we would be willing to sit down, and we hope the government will be sitting down, to discuss how Canada can best move forward as a nation for the elimination of poverty.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Merci.

I'm going to take the next government round.

I want to follow up on that very briefly, Ms. Donnelly. I thought you said in your presentation that poverty is at the same level today as it was in 1989. I'll just point to certain policy measures. To be fair, the former Liberal government did the Canada child tax benefit, the national child benefit. The current government did the working income tax benefit, and we adjusted the basic personal exemption, which obviously helps people at the lowest end of the income scale.

Are you stating that these four policy measures, and any others that may have been introduced, have done nothing to alleviate the poverty level in Canada?

[Mary-Lou Donnelly]

I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying that our figures are clear, in that we are still at 1989 levels. I would interpret that to mean not enough has been done. Over the last 20 years, strategies have been put in place by governments, and we appreciate those strategies, as I'm sure Canadians do. But I think the message here is that more has to be done. We have to look at it as a national shame that we, in a country as rich as ours, still have the percentage of children and families living in poverty that we do. That is shameful.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you for your response.

I have a series of questions, so I'll try to go as quickly as I can.

Mr. Devenish, from the RV dealers, this is a file I know fairly well. The challenge, as you know, is that when we propose something specific for RV dealers, one of the answers we get back is that because of the nature of the business and because of the amount of inventory dealers carry, it is a very risky business for the private sector, and thus for government, to get involved in, even in a secondary nature, in terms of guaranteeing those floor plans. Can I just get a brief response on the inventory issue?

[Shane Devenish]

Again, I think the best-case scenario is a limited amount of exposure. The EDC is currently guaranteeing 90% of Canadian RV manufacturer receivables in the States. It's just a little bit of an extension of the current BCAP program that is in place, which could add other suitable lenders for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

My third question is for the solar association. A former colleague of mine, Bob Mills--you may have known him--was a former chair of the environment committee. He turned his entire home into a solar home. He threatened to sue the Alberta government to allow him to put power on the grid in Alberta, and I certainly commend him for that.

I asked him what his challenges were in terms of adopting a completely solar home, both in terms of power and in terms of water. He said they were the upfront capital costs, the grid accepting the power and compensating him for it, which was addressed, thanks to his efforts, and frankly, builders who actually knew how to install it in a cost-effective way.

He and other solar organizations would say that it's not necessarily a national program. It's actually whether the province chooses, at least in the short term, to make it more cost-effective or to reduce the cost between solar and other forms of, say, electrical production, such as coal in Alberta. He would argue that it was almost more of a provincial response that was needed in terms of, say, the short-term subsidization of producing solar power.

So why are you recommending a national program rather than having the province adopt, say, what they have in Ontario?

[Elizabeth McDonald]

Well, first of all, the Ontario program, through the Green Energy and Green Economy Act and its feed-in tariff, is a photovoltaic program for the generation of electricity. We have focused today on solar thermal. We're not recommending a national feed-in tariff program for solar electricity because each of the provinces governs that. There's provincial governing there.

In solar thermal, the tradition has been a national program with some provinces coming in. The Province of B.C., the Province of Ontario, and the Province of Nova Scotia have been active, and where you've seen that, it's worked, but it's not for the generation of electricity.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I appreciate that, but why is it more efficient, in your view, to do that as a national program rather than as a provincial program?

[Dr. Phil Whiting]

I think in solar hot water we have technology that can build a large export business for Canada, and I think it's going to require Canadian government support for that to happen, in my opinion, because it transcends provincial borders. In PV, photovoltaics, that won't happen, but in solar thermal there will be a large Canadian export business, if we stimulate it, and I think that's good for all of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. I appreciate that. Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Martin, please, for a five-minute round.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much to all of you for being here today.

Ms. Conway, I'd like to ask you a question. Your presence here is actually timely, given the fact that we have COP 10 taking place right now in Nagoya. We know that the rate of biodiversity loss is the greatest we've seen in the history of our planet. We're losing between 1,500 and 15,000 species every single year, with catastrophic consequences for all of us.

My question, though, relates to your last statement, when you referred to the cost of inaction being simply too high. We know the impact of climate change on biodiversity loss. Can you tell the committee what cuts, specifically, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences has endured over the last two years?

[Dawn Conway]

I'm not sure what you mean by cuts?

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

Well, I mean your funding, from a federal perspective. Have you seen a decline in your funding, and if so, how much?

[Dawn Conway]

I'm not sure how to answer that, because we haven't had any funding for the last seven years. We have lived on our investments, and they are now used up. We have enough to take us to the end of our mandate.

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

To be clear, are you saying that you have received no funding for the last seven years, but prior to that you did receive funding?