Finance Committee on May 22nd, 2013

[Alex Levasseur, President, Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada, Confédération des syndicats nationaux]

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for inviting us to have this discussion with you today.

Of course, we will be speaking about division 17, which amends the Financial Administration Act.

The Syndicat des communications de Radio-Canada represents about 1,700 CBC/Société Radio-Canada employees in Quebec and Moncton, in the on-air and production staff categories in all cities. According to our submissions and to our analysis, the application of Bill C-60 contravenes the Broadcasting Act, simply by the fact that the government would be giving itself the power to intervene in production and finance, basically in the routine proceedings of CBC/Radio-Canada. The spirit of the law provides that the CBC must be able to act without interference from the government in order to protect its non-partisanship and freedom of expression, and that it is therefore in the public interest to preserve these basic principles.

CBC/Radio-Canada's Journalistic Standards and Practices state that:

We are independent of all lobbies and of all political and economic influence. We uphold freedom of expression and freedom of the press, the touchstones of a free and democratic society.

Did you know that all CBC/Radio-Canada employees are subject to a code of conduct? Policy 2.2.21 states the following:

This Code is subject to the Broadcasting Act, which protects the CBC/Radio-Canada's ‘journalistic, creative and programming independence in the pursuit of its objects and the exercise of its powers.’ This Code respects CBC/Radio-Canada's arm's length relationship to the government and the independence enjoyed by its employees in the exercise of their duties [...]

We are often told—and I heard it again this afternoon—that the government has the right to monitor how public funds are spent, because it provides funding to the CBC. This is both true and false. The CBC falls under the authority of the Canadian Parliament and not its executive branch. This crown corporation is accountable to Parliament through its five-year action plan and its annual report. This is what is stipulated in the Broadcasting Act. Parliament may also have the president of the board of directors and the chief executive officer report to members of the House. We believe that it is not in the public interest to have the government interfere in the everyday management of CBC/Radio-Canada.

We could look at what has been done at the British Broadcasting Corporation. A royal charter implemented a kind of trust with the following purpose:

As Trustees it is our responsibility to make sure that every pound of the licence fee works as hard as possible. One of the ways we do this is through a programme of in-depth value for money reviews carried out by the National Audit Office and other independent experts. We always publish these reports and explain how we plan to respond to the recommendations made.

The same independence—the concept of being at arm's length—also applies to France Télévisions. Professor Florian Sauvageau of Laval University and his colleague Pierre Trudel from the University of Montreal stated the following:

At first glance, the objective might seem legitimate, but submitting the CBC to the authority of the Treasury Board is a clear sign that it is, at worst, a reprehensible attempt to interfere and, at best, lamentable ignorance of the rules governing public broadcasting, whose founding principle is independence. Without administrative autonomy, it would no longer be an independent public broadcaster, but a state broadcaster, if not a “government” broadcaster.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Meulien, you have the floor.

[Dr. Pierre Meulien, President and Chief Executive Officer, Genome Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

I will be making my presentation in English, but I would be delighted to answer questions in both official languages.

Genomics refers to both the science and the technology that helps us decode life based on the genetic information of all living things. This relatively young science is extremely powerful. It is already helping to save lives and combat disease, improve food safety and production to feed the world's growing population, and protect our natural resources from the effects of climate change, invasive species, and other threats. Moreover, the OECD predicts that the growing genomics-enabled bio-economy will represent over $1 trillion by the year 2030.

Genome Canada is an independent, not-for-profit organization. We invest in large-scale genomics research projects and promote their applications to create economic wealth and social benefit for Canadians. Since 2000 the Government of Canada has committed $1 billion to our mandate, and we have succeeded in leveraging this investment to secure another $1 billion and more co-funding over the same period to support our programs. We work in close partnership with six regional genome centres and with the federal and provincial governments, academia, not-for-profits, and industry.

Part of our mandate is to provide leading-edge technologies to all Canadian researchers. Our investments have generated more than 10,000 highly skilled full-time jobs in Canada. We've created or enhanced 24 biotechnology companies, patented more than 250 inventions, and licensed many of these to the private sector.

The projects we support cover the entire spectrum of research, from discovery to applied, and our programs promote the translation of new knowledge into commercial opportunities, new technologies, applications, and solutions in key sectors of the economy, including health, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, environment, energy, and mining.

In all of our work we make it a priority to consider the economic, ethical, environmental, legal, social, and other challenges and opportunities related to genomics. We do this to help policy-makers, the public, and others understand the broader impacts of the science to accelerate its acceptance and the uptake of innovations into society.

The power and promise of genomics is accelerating. The cost of DNA sequencing of a whole human genome is one millionth of what it was 10 years ago, and the time to do this has gone from years to just a few days. Genomics is making knowledge of the biological basis of life so accessible that many sectors are embracing it, and the results are transforming our industries and society at large.

For instance, in the agrifood sector, genomics is making food safer and more secure, and improving agricultural productivity with heartier, more nutritional crops and improved livestock herds. In forestry, genomics is helping to protect against pest infestation, improving wood quality and growth rates, and helping to expand the sector from traditional pulp, paper, and lumber to include higher value-added forest products.

Genomics is driving a more evidence-based, cost-effective health care system. We are expecting major breakthroughs over the next few years related to epilepsy, autism, schizophrenia, cardiovascular disease and stroke, cancer, rare genetic disease, and many inflammatory conditions.

Canada is beautifully positioned to reap the benefits of this new technology, notably because of the world-class research capacity and technology that has been created here over the past decade through sustained and focused federal investments. We were very pleased, therefore, to see the government's ongoing commitment to Genome Canada with the allocation of a further $165 million announced in the 2013 budget to support our multi-year strategic plan.

With this new funding we will enhance our partnership activities and connect ideas and people across the public and private sectors to find new users and applications for genomics. We will attract greater investment in genomics research from a broad range of stakeholders, in particular, the private sector. We plan to leverage the $165 million to enable more than $440 million to be invested in Genome Canada programs over the next few years. We will continue to invest in large-scale science and technology to fuel innovation, and we will translate discoveries into applications to maximize impact across all sectors.

Canada's future in genomics is bright.

Genome Canada would like to thank the committee members for your time and consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for your presentation.

Now we'll hear from Mr. Lounds, please.

[John Lounds, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nature Conservancy of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

On behalf of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, thank you to the members of the committee for inviting us to present today.

I'm very grateful to have the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the $20 million allocated in this year's budget, funding that will assist the Nature Conservancy of Canada to continue delivery of the natural areas conservation program. We thank the government for its continued support of the program. This investment demonstrates the government's confidence in our ability to deliver results efficiently and effectively.

In the brief time I have before you this afternoon, I'd like to tell you about, first, the impact of the natural areas conservation program; second, the conservation results we'll deliver with the new allocation of $20 million; and finally, our vision for a sustained future for the natural areas conservation program.

The natural areas conservation program is a Canadian success story. Launched in 2007 with an initial investment by the Government of Canada of $225 million, it is the largest commitment by any Canadian government to the conservation of natural spaces through the protection of private lands.

The Nature Conservancy of Canada has been proud to lead the program, working closely with partners across the country. Through the power of partnership, we have leveraged federal funding. Working with our partners at Ducks Unlimited Canada and 17 local land trusts, we have more than matched every dollar of federal money with funding from other sources.

Our donors and partners enjoy knowing that their contributions provide a multiplier effect toward our common mission of land conservation.

The program set ambitious goals at the time: to conserve 500,000 acres of ecologically sensitive land across the country. To date, it has more than surpassed those goals, having conserved more than 835,000 acres and supported habitat for over 140 species at risk. And we're not done yet.

The program is delivering measurable results and maximum value for the taxpayer dollar. The Nature Conservancy of Canada achieves those results through market-based approaches. We're in the business of building positive relationships with the public and private sectors. We work only with willing landowners to achieve results that are mutually beneficial, and we are constantly looking to provide opportunities for private sector partners who are keen on sustainable development.

The Nature Conservancy of Canada's work is mainly focused on southern Canada, where private ownership dominates the landscape. This is where 90% of Canadians live, work, and play, and where you also find more than 80% of terrestrial and freshwater species at risk. These are some of the most economically and ecologically important lands in the nation.

Despite the challenges of working to conserve a natural environment faced with competing demands for human settlement, economic growth, and outdoor recreation, we've been successful because we recognize that Canada needs both environmental conservation and development.

The natural areas conservation program is a model that is well regarded because it focuses on win-win solutions for the environment and the economy.

The $20 million allocated in the budget will help us to extend the natural areas conservation program for another year. We will continue to leverage the program with the target of raising an additional $2 for every $1 of federal funds allocated. Our conservation planning is already under way, and with this renewed funding we will conserve at least another 50,000 acres of federally and provincially significant lands, including native grasslands, wetlands, forests, and coastlines. We will expand our network of protected habitats for species at risk and engage more Canadians in communities across the country in the mission of conserving our natural heritage.

An independent evaluation completed in June 2012 concluded that the natural areas conservation program was delivered effectively and efficiently. It also concluded that there is a demonstrable need to promote private land conservation in southern Canada.

The $20 million extension provided in this budget is an important step toward continuing to meet that need, but there is much more to be done. Working together, the public and private sectors can achieve great results in protecting our natural heritage through the framework of the natural areas conservation program, and we believe that the impact of the program will continue to be of great value to all Canadians.

To that end, we encourage the government to consider the longer-term recapitalization of the natural areas conservation program. We also request that the committee approve this budget provision. The investment you make in the natural areas conservation program today will pay dividends for years to come.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for your presentation.

Colleagues, as you've noticed, we have bells again. They are 30-minute bells. I'm going to ask for the unanimous consent of the committee to continue, and I'm going to recommend we try to get in at least four rounds of questions.

If you want to split your time, let me know.

We'll start with Mr. Rankin, for your round.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to thank the witnesses for their presentations.

I will start by asking Mr. Levasseur a question.

You spoke in your presentation about the collective agreements at Radio-Canada and the CBC, and you said they're not just about wages and benefits, but clauses are included that would help ensure journalistic integrity at our largest journalistic organization. You also talked about the code in your presentation.

I understand there are conflict of interest rules and rules to ensure that journalists are protected from political and other interference, so they don't fear retribution in doing their job and reporting the news.

What are your suggestions on how we can amend Bill C-60 to ensure that Radio-Canada and the CBC can have control over these types of clauses in the collective agreements?

[Alex Levasseur]

Thank you for your question.

In fact, our request is relatively simple: you should have the aspects that concern division 17, which amends the Financial Administration Act, withdrawn from Bill C-60, which you are currently studying. We believe that at the very least the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should not be affected by this change. I don't think it's appropriate, in the name of journalistic independence, a principle that you know, to allow this type of specific and very detailed intrusion by the executive, in other words by any government, in the running of the CBC. We feel that enough controls have been in place for a long time. Every year, Parliament receives the CBC's updated five-year plan and their annual report. Parliament can question the president and CEO and the chair of the board of directors. Furthermore, it is also Parliament, and especially the government, that appoints the president and CEO of the CBC and the chair of its board of directors.

The CBC is also subject to conditions set out by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, which issues licences. Moreover, we just had a very long conversation with the CRTC about the renewal of the CBC's licences last November. Its decision should be made very soon.

I therefore think there is a whole monitoring environment that allows Parliament to know in enough detail what is happening in terms of the CBC's major objectives. It is not necessary to go into detail, which is what we have the impression the government currently wants to do.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

If I understand it correctly, under Bill C-60 Treasury Board can change the bargaining mandate of the CBC and it can force the CBC to violate the existing labour law.

If they did so, what recourse would employees have? Under the law, the remedies that used to exist under the labour law will no longer be available. Is it as simple as that?

[Alex Levasseur]

It makes things much more complicated, of course. I am currently negotiating the renewal of our collective agreement. I am at the bargaining table, and the CBC has undertaken discussions with us. You can imagine the difficulty of having someone who makes decisions above the CBC and imposes them on it. That can compromise the ability to bargain in good faith on both sides. Bargaining, as you know, involves an exchange between the two parties. If we cannot obtain that, bargaining will go in circles and will lead us pretty quickly to problems, and maybe even to conflicts that will be just about unsolvable. That's how things can be perceived.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have 30 seconds, Mr. Rankin. Please be very brief.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I'll ask a question in the very short time available to Mr. Albert about what steps, if any, has the Autorité des marchés financiers taken to dissuade the federal government from moving into this transition office. Have you had a meeting?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Can you provide a very brief answer, please?

[Mario Albert]

I am sorry, I didn't understand your question. Could you repeat it, please?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

I just wanted to ask if the Autorité had a meeting with the federal government to discuss the concerns you've raised with us. If so, what was their reaction?

[Mario Albert]

There was no meeting between Quebec and the federal government. The Quebec government obviously has the responsibility to negotiate with the federal government. Our organization is a regulator, and this afternoon, I presented the Autorité des marchés financiers' point of view.

The position of the Quebec government is clear: it is very open to working with the federal government as far as managing systemic risks and financial stability is concerned. I believe that the Quebec government and the Autorité des marchés financiers have a similar perspective: we must work together on this plan. It is extremely important for both Quebec and Canada.

Furthermore, as far as proposals for cooperation on the implementation of a common structure are concerned, unfortunately, I don't think there is a great deal of communication or openness in this regard. I believe this is true both for the federal government and for the Quebec government.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Merci.

Thank you, Mr. Rankin.

Mr. Saxton, it's your round for five minutes.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I thank the witnesses for being here today.

First of all, I have some questions for Mr. Albert, of the Autorité des marchés financiers.

As I spent 20 years in the financial services industry, I know something about the subject of securities regulation. I understand you don't think Canada needs to improve our securities regulation. Just about every international independent organization doesn't agree with you, including the OECD and the IMF.

I want to read to you a quote from the OECD:

Securities markets [in Canada] are highly fragmented, with 13 provincial and territorial regulators responsible for only loosely coordinated supervision.

A single national regulatory and enforcement body would greatly increase the attractiveness of listing in Canada by both foreign and domestic firms.

Mr. Albert, why is it you do not agree with the OECD? Why is the OECD saying these things if they are not correct?

[Mario Albert]

I also agree that we have to improve financial regulation in Canada. I think this is an ongoing exercise and that all of the regulators in Canada are continually trying to improve the regulation. The only problem is that Canada is a federation that has a Constitution, and this Constitution gives provinces the constitutional responsibility of managing securities.

Having said that, as far as next steps go, if we want to improve the system, the challenge for the federal government is not to set up a national commission, which unfortunately is contrary to the Constitution. The challenge is rather to work with the provinces and to promote a collaborative entity that would allow for the achievement of both federal and provincial objectives at the same time.

Moreover, I believe that the OECD representatives felt that the regulations needed improvement. The IMF made similar comments. We are of the same opinion. However, are these organizations proposing to amend the Constitution? If so, I would argue that that, unfortunately, is a dead end, because it is a solution that is not achievable at this time.

We want to improve the regulation. The Autorité des marchés financiers wants to do so, and all of the Canadian regulators with whom we work want to do so as well. However, we must never lose sight of the Supreme Court decision which said that the regulatory framework for securities is a provincial responsibility. This is one aspect that cannot be ignored.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

You yourself have referred to the Supreme Court of Canada's decision of December 2011 that says the federal government has a role in securities regulation regarding matters of genuine national importance and scope, including maintaining the integrity and stability of the financial system, preserving fair, efficient, and competitive national capital markets, and preventing and responding to systemic risks such as those posed by over-the-counter derivatives. You yourself have acknowledged that. How can you then object to the federal government proposing legislation to carry out those very responsibilities that the Supreme Court says are within the federal jurisdiction?

[Mario Albert]

I may surprise you, but I totally support the Supreme Court decision. The federal government does indeed have a role to play in terms of systemic risks, criminal law and competition. There is no problem there. However, the Supreme Court decision does not give the federal government the responsibility for the day-to-day regulation of securities.

Within this context, if the federal government and the provinces want to play their respective roles as defined in the Constitution, the only way to do so is to set up a collaborative structure. It is in fact mentioned in the Supreme Court decision. In Quebec, we are prepared to do so, as long as Quebec's jurisdiction over securities is respected.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

One minute, Mr. Saxton.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

The Minister of Finance was here prior to you arriving. He said this would be a voluntary regulatory board. Why would you not agree to join this regulatory board?

[Mario Albert]

We will have to see how this volunteer board will work. Unfortunately, we will not be able to support it if, in the end, it is a single securities act that allows the federal government to indirectly control legislation. Practically speaking, that would mean the government would indirectly be doing what the Supreme Court ruled it could not do.

I want to repeat that the day-to-day regulation of securities falls under provincial jurisdiction. The federal government obviously has responsibilities that will impact securities regulation. For example, we believe federal responsibilities regarding systemic risks are limited to certain areas, such as clearinghouses. In fact, the federal government is already involved with the Canadian Derivatives Clearing Corporation through the Bank of Canada.

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, North Vancouver, BC]

One question: do you not agree that the purpose is to protect the investor and that this would better protect the investor? That is the sole purpose of the—