Finance Committee on Oct. 19th, 2010

[Hilary Pearson]

I do hope so.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

On page 5, you raised a number of very significant points with regard to the U.K., where they are looking to establish a Big Society Bank. You are quite correct in noting that this is an achievement of the coalition government. That might inspire others.

As Mr. Wallace took some of my time, allow me, Mr. Chair, to ask this lady another question.

I wanted to refer to the U.K., but I am out of time. You said that the Obama government launched a fund in the U.S. Do you have any indication of the amount of money contained in that fund to help community organizations?

[Hilary Pearson]

Yes. It is a $50 million fund. That is not much, but it is leveraged because the amounts that are now allocated to charities are matched by the government. As a result, $100 million will go to the Social Innovation Fund. Some 50 million will be provided by the government.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Pearson.

I'll clarify for members that when there is a point of order the clerk stops the time. So points of orders do not take any time from members' questioning.

We will go now to Ms. Block, please.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone. I've really appreciated hearing your presentations today.

My first question goes to the Ontario-Quebec Grain Farmers' Coalition. The federal government already has an agricultural flexibility fund called AgriFlexibility. It is a $500-million, five-year fund ending in 2014. Are you proposing a new envelope of money, or are you suggesting a re-profiling of the moneys that are already designated through that existing fund?

[Leo Guilbeault]

We're suggesting a re-profiling. That $500-million fund is geared toward new technology and innovative ideas. It doesn't include any business risk management type of programming. Our proposal the year before the last election included a business risk management component in that fund. When the flexibility fund was announced, it lacked that component. I guess we're looking to include a business risk management component in the Growing Forward initiative.

We hear from our friends in the agriculture sector, the agri-retailers, that costs are going up all the time, and they are for the farms also. We're losing the next generation of farmers today because there's no stability in agriculture any more. We seem to rely more and more on inputs, and less and less on our own domestic products. Today one farmer feeds 150 families; 10 years ago one farmer fed fewer than 100 families. So we are getting more efficient, but at what cost? That cost is the next generation. We're losing our sons and daughters to other industries because of the unstable environment the farm community offers.

There are increasing costs due to global competition. Fertilizer is being exported all over the world instead of being kept in Canada. Saskatchewan potash is heading overseas, and we're paying more here in Canada for our own potash. We're trying to bring phosphate from the Carolinas, but it's going overseas instead of staying in North America because of global demand. So we're being asked to feed more and more people with the same number of acres, at cost to the farmer.

We're not looking for bailout money; we're just looking for the current dollars the government is spending to be spent on a more proactive program that would benefit the growers in a positive way, because right now ad hoc programming.... We know the Growing Forward suite of programs is due for a review in 2013, but we can't wait until 2013 to review it.

At the federal-provincial meeting this summer, the agriculture minister admitted that the Growing Forward programs probably are not working as well as they should. So if they're not, let's fix them now. Let's not wait until 2013. That's what we're asking for. Let's sit down and fix them now so we can bring some stability and spend the government's dollars more wisely.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Thank you. I appreciate your response.

My next question will be for the RCMP Heritage Centre. Back in 2007, or earlier, when the plan was created to build this heritage centre, I'm wondering if there was a business plan that contemplated ongoing operations. If yes, what has gone wrong in terms of meeting that plan? And if no, why not?

[Robin Etherington]

Thank you for the question.

There was a business plan that indicated 200,000 visitors would come to the heritage centre annually. All of Regina is only 200,000. It didn't take into consideration a number of factors, such as the decrease in tourism, and it also didn't take into consideration that, comparatively, most museums across Canada do receive 65% to 67% of their operating budget from three levels of government.

To answer your question, yes, there was a business plan. It was not detailed. We are building a business plan. We've also developed a fund development plan because we're aware that we need to enhance our own internal revenue streams, to the point where we've recently launched a new fundraising campaign naming rights of the facility rooms, etc. But as you know, fundraising does take about a year for those programs to mature.

I want you to know that there are a couple of other things happening. This meeting alone has allowed me to leverage a meeting with the province and a meeting with the municipality because of some joint responsibility for this magnificent facility and cultural flagship for Canada. The other thing is I'm going to put this into a return on investment, or economics, because it always comes down to money. Cultural tourism is the fastest-growing segment of tourism globally. That means that people really do...yes, they still want to see the lakes and the trees and our wonderful—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, perhaps you could wrap up very briefly.

[Robin Etherington]

Thank you very much.

Cultural tourism--people want to come to museums, art galleries, theatres, etc., have a good bottle of wine, have a very comprehensive experience, and the heritage centre can contribute to that, not only for Saskatchewan but for Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Pacetti, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing.

As an easterner, Ms. Etherington, I was at the museum and it's a beautiful museum. I went with the family. The kids really appreciated it. And when I was there, you could tell you have a problem with the critical mass in terms of getting enough people out there. It's a shame you don't have enough people coming out there.

A quick question, and I think I know what the answer is. I guess you wouldn't be able to sell some of those...not sell, but rent out some of those exhibitions that you have to try to take in some money. Would that be an option?

[Robin Etherington]

The exhibitions.... This is a very interesting museum model. The collections themselves are owned by the RCMP. They're housed in the heritage centre. You can't sell the artifacts and you can't rotate the exhibits. Again, it would take money for travelling exhibitions. We would love to do it. In actual fact, I'm also here partnering up with the Bank of Canada and working on some travelling exhibitions with them.

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

But that wouldn't generate money, it would just be an offset of expenses.

[Robin Etherington]

Yes, that is correct. So the money we're asking for operating-wise is to enhance our internal resources and allow for that marketing to increase so that we can then plug into the China market, which is a huge tourism market that's on the verge of taking off.

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

Quickly, because our time's limited, is the heritage centre the responsibility of federal or provincial...? It's really independent, is that right? It doesn't really matter where you get the money from, is that correct?

[Robin Etherington]

We would like it to be a joint responsibility with all three levels of government.

But to answer your question, sir, no, we are not owned or operated by any level of government but are a stand-alone not-for-profit, and the governance is by a board of directors.

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

Okay, great.

I have a quick question also for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Canada.

Mr. McKee, in your first recommendation you propose that the Government of Canada continue to support partnerships between private and public sectors that promote cutting-edge research. Do you have any reason that the government would not support this type of partnership? Why would this not be important?

[Andrew McKee]

No, we're here and we've had the benefit of presenting to this committee before and have received tremendous support from it. We see the moves the government is making right now as very favourable towards enhancing jobs and supporting research going forward. We're just one shining example of how that's been given effect, and we'd like to see more of that going forward.

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

So how would you see this continuing? Would that be additional moneys, or just...?

[Andrew McKee]

It would be additional moneys invested in the research sector, yes.

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

And in the research sector, would that be through a foundation, or through the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation?

[Andrew McKee]

From the JDRF's standpoint, we'd like to see it targeted at diabetes research, obviously. That's our prime interest. But in designing this program or platform, right from the start we said this platform would be available to anyone out there who's prepared to put up matching funds to work in partnership with the government, and we made a very significant matching funds commitment to this partnership.

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

Who would be matching funds? Who would be your partners?

[Andrew McKee]

Well, in our case, JDRF Canada is the matching partner in this, so we've provided $13.9 million and the government's provided $20 million.