Evidence of meeting #35 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was program.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
10:20 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Canada
JDRF is a global organization, so all research funding decisions we make are made on a global basis. We don't ever want to be funding the same research in Israel, for example, as we are here in Canada. We like to fund complementary elements of research.
You do run into circumstances outside the JDRF realm where organizations defined by territorial boundaries may have duplicate efforts going on, but one of the things central to what we do is to make sure we're funding the best global research anywhere in the world. It so happens that Canada has a long history of excellence in diabetes research, from the discovery of insulin to the Edmonton protocol to all sorts of other good things. JDRF actually funds more research here in Canada than we raise funds for.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
Thank you.
Mr. MacKay, is this basically the same request your association has made for three years now, or has it been just two years?
10:20 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers
You can make that four and a half, actually.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
It's been four and a half. I'm sorry. Is it virtually the same?
10:20 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers
It's absolutely identical.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
Ted Menzies Conservative Macleod, AB
That's what I was afraid of. I guess I share your concern, but if the finance committee puts this forward as a recommendation, we're going to be asked why we should be funding a commercial enterprise to do the right thing. I'm not trying to be critical. I'm just telling you what we would be asked.
10:20 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers
You're not. You're actually helping us all together do the right thing in a project that would benefit everybody, including farmers, because if they have difficulty and issues now, can you imagine the outcry they're going to have when they have to pay for all of the security requirements on top of the input costs they currently have? If the entire United States of America can deem this project to be appropriate to undertake--and they have the same security threats we have, and maybe we actually harbour more terrorist cells than they do--then I think we are obliged as Canadians to actually act to make sure we prevent the potential for an incident.
We don't want to incur these costs either. Just like the security costs for the G-20, they're unfortunately a reality you have to deal with. That's the point, though. We won't deal with these security costs, because they have nothing to do with crop production and agriculture. They're currently a voluntary expense. So we're not coming here asking you to pay for our operating expenses. We're saying we have an opportunity here to have the public and private sectors come together for the greater good of public safety and to put a proactive program in place that will protect Canadians and ensure that our industry stays competitive and that the farmers can stay internationally competitive. If we don't do that, we risk far greater consequences.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you.
Continuing on that, Mr. MacKay, as a city slicker, I'm just trying to understand the process in terms of where the security risk would be, and making sure that my food costs do not go up. Wouldn't it also be a problem with the producers? Would it just be the retailers who hold the products?
10:20 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers
The producers would not typically carry the amounts of inputs that our agri-retailers would carry. They tend to take what's necessary to apply to the soil. Some, however, will warehouse or store larger quantities. That's been known to happen, but it's more sporadic. We are the keepers and the stewards of large quantities of crop inputs because some products--
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Because you store them and warehouse them? Is that it?
10:20 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers
They'd be in bins. They could be inside warehouse-type buildings. They can be in bulk or in bags and are often in bins.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I think in your option number one you're recommending that the agri-business security contribution program be jointly administered by Transport Canada and the Department of Public Safety. Wouldn't that cause more problems and headaches because you're now going to have to deal with two departments?
10:20 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers
I'd frankly love to deal with one department, but I can't seem to get the government to agree to which department that should be. I have two letters in front of me dated within a week of each other. One is from the Minister of Agriculture and one from the Minister of Public Safety, who both tell me to go and see the other guy. They were within a week of each other. I'd love to enter them into the record.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
So now you're even trying to get Transport Canada on the hook?
10:25 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers
Transport Canada is about to implement a number of security regulations under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
10:25 a.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers
We didn't want to have five jurisdictions covering us. Trust me; it would be a lot easier if we could just have one jurisdiction to talk to. Due to our products coming under the Department of Natural Resources if they're an explosive, under the Department of Agriculture because that's what we do, or under the Department of Public Safety because of the consequences of misappropriation of these products, it makes it a real nightmare for us to even sit down and talk to an appropriate government entity.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you.
My final comment is again with this interprovincial barrier. Mr. Mwanzia, what I'm trying to understand is, as a Quebecker, I have friends who buy wine at the LCBO—I'm not going to say I do it—and now there are people from Ontario coming to Quebec, buying wines. You're telling me that's illegal.
10:25 a.m.
Policy Coordinator, St. Catharines - Thorold Chamber of Commerce
Yes, that would be.
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Nobody's ever been arrested, so that's not the issue, correct?
10:25 a.m.
Policy Coordinator, St. Catharines - Thorold Chamber of Commerce
Technically, yes, but that's not the issue.
It becomes difficult for SMEs or firms of any size--typically wineries are considered within the SME category--to develop a business model that could effectively leverage the opportunity for direct delivery wine sales. The Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act was introduced in 1928, before we had the ability to have that ordering--It was not yet a reality--
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Where's the problem with the interprovincial barriers? Is it trying to get the actual producers to sell the wine into other provinces, as Scott just mentioned?
