It's good to be here with the finance committee and the members of the committee. This is a hard-working committee, of course, particularly with respect to budget preparation, and I thank all of you for that.
I'm always short, but I'll also try to be brief in my opening remarks.
Your work pre-budget and the report you wrote were an important part of the presentation of the budget this year, as it is most years. Your recommendations do inform the budget, and I include from the committee's report—because I looked to see—some of the things that ended up in the economic action plan of 2013, including establishing a long-term plan for infrastructure, reviewing the temporary foreign worker program, extending the mineral exploration tax credit, reviewing current tariffs on consumer goods, ensuring fairness and neutrality in the tax system by closing tax loopholes, and further strengthening Canada's manufacturing sector.
[Translation]
Secondly, I'd like to congratulate the committee on its recent study and its in-depth report on options intended to increase charitable donations in Canada by using tax incentives and other targeted initiatives. The recommendations in this report also greatly influenced the preparation of the 2013 budget.
[English]
I will continue, but I will not say all the things I was going to say because I'm sure some of it will come up in questions, and I know votes may interfere.
Canada has done relatively well. Let me speak about this context. I use the word “relatively”. The world has been through a difficult time, particularly the western industrialized economies, since what the economists are now calling the great recession of 2008-09.
We had been paying down public debt in 2006-07 and into 2008—about $38 billion of public debt in Canada—in preparation for what was at that time the concern, quite frankly, which was more the American deficit and the accumulating public debt than it was Europe, although today perhaps the emphasis is more on the continuing recession in most of Europe.
In January 2009 we brought in the economic action plan, which was the budget of 2009, the earliest budget in Canadian history. It was a dramatic move toward stimulating the economy because of the fear that we had of very large unemployment and a deep, dark, prolonged recession.
The economic action plan worked. Canada came out of recession before any of the other industrialized economies. We were in recession for three quarters only. Our unemployment rate, thank goodness, never went into double digits.
Times remain challenging. I just came back from a G-7 finance ministers and central bank governors meeting 10 days ago in the United Kingdom. As I said, Europe has been in a prolonged recession. We're not out of the woods yet. There's a tension between some of the industrialized countries in the west—and I shouldn't just say the west because Japan is part of this—about spending more, stimulating more, more debt, more deficits, more perceived economic growth, and more printing of money, which is euphemistically called “quantitative easing”.
And then there are those of us who feel that the correct balance is what we tried to do in the budget this year in economic action plan 2013; that is, moving continually toward a balanced budget, which we will have by 2015, which was the plan from January 2009, while at the same time stimulating the economy in a few very important areas, which this committee has also highlighted from time to time—manufacturing through the accelerated capital cost allowance extension; infrastructure, which is vitally important to our communities and our municipalities in Canada; and skills training through the Canada job grant.
We feel we've hit the right balance, and we encourage our colleagues in the G-7 to follow that pattern.
The IMF recently remarked—and I'm quoting—“Canada is in an enviable position...[and] the policies that are being deployed are, in our minds, broadly appropriate”.
[Translation]
However, as our government has said over and over, we cannot let our guard down. As we are reminded too often, the world economy remains fragile. The United States and Europe, who are among our biggest partners, continue to face serious economic challenges. As it was noted earlier this month, the euro zone is now in the longest recession it has ever experienced, that is to say negative economic growth for six consecutive quarters.
In the middle of this economic and global turmoil, Canada must also face the reality of a more and more competitive world market, with the increased participation of emerging economies such as Brazil, India and China.
[English]
To build a stronger economy and produce increased job growth, the many positive initiatives contained in Bill include the major measures I've already mentioned with respect to manufacturers. There is also the indexing of the gas tax fund, which was a major pre-budget request of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities during our meetings with them, and I know the committee had the same experience. We are extending the mineral exploration tax credit. We know that sector of the Canadian economy has a lot of growth and is very important to Canadian economic growth overall. We are providing $165 million in multi-year support for genomics research, $18 million to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation to help young entrepreneurs grow their firms and their futures, and $5 million to Indspire for post-secondary scholarships and bursaries for first nations and Inuit students.
Additionally, Bill brings forward many positive initiatives to support families and communities. Some of these are much less expensive than the major initiatives, of course: promoting adoption by enhancing the adoption expense tax credit; introducing a new first-time donor's super credit to encourage Canadians to donate to charity—that came in significant part out of the work done by this committee on charitable issues. We are expanding tax relief for our home care services, providing $30 million to support the construction of housing in Nunavut, investing $20 million in the Nature Conservancy of Canada to continue to conserve ecologically sensitive land, providing $3 million to support training in palliative care for front-line health care providers, committing $3 million to the Canadian National Institute for the Blind to expand library services for the blind and partially sighted, and supporting veterans and their families by no longer deducting veterans' disability benefits when calculating other select benefits. There are also many other initiatives.
I know you have had an opportunity to look at Bill carefully. I know some parts of the bill have been referred to other committees of the House of Commons. I emphasize to you the need for balance in the approach we take as a government. I can tell you that in international discussions I have had with my colleagues in finance and central banking around the world, Canada is well respected for the way we have grappled with economic issues also facing other countries over the course of the past several years.
I am prepared to receive questions, Mr. Chair.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, Mr. Minister, to the committee.
Of course, we're examining Bill , which is another omnibus budget bill that affects about 50 different pieces of legislation. We've seen sections of this bill carved out and sent to other committees, although it will all come back here and we'll be voting on it—without having had the opportunity to hear witnesses' testimony or ask questions.
I want to ask you questions about two specific areas. First of all, part 3, division 17, gives the Treasury Board sweeping powers to unilaterally set the terms and conditions of employment for non-union workers and to impose a bargaining mandate on employees with a union. I'd like you to explain how allowing politicians to directly set wages and hours and perhaps even terminate employees is consistent with the independence of these crown corporations.
I just want to give you a couple of examples. Suppose a Bank of Canada economist publishes a research paper critical of the government's fiscal policy and the Treasury Board decides they want to cut that person's salary. Or suppose a CBC journalist publishes a story on the Senate scandal and the Treasury Board orders a reduction of that person's hours. These are scenarios that seem to be consistent with part 3, division 17.
I'm wondering if you can comment on the appropriateness of politicians making these decisions for independent crown corporations.
:
Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your opening statement.
I also need to reflect that I remember it was about this time last year when the finance committee was travelling, and in every meeting we went to, people were incredibly complimentary—Washington, New York—in terms of how Canada had seen itself through a very difficult time. I think perhaps we sometimes forget how fortunate we are in Canada in terms of the relative good health of both our employment numbers and our net debt to GDP.
Certainly, an important feature of that is, of course, our manufacturing industry. We know that about 1.8 million Canadians are employed in the manufacturing sector. Ontario, of course, took a significant hit during the global recession.
In this fragile economy, could you talk a little bit more about the beneficial measures in this bill in terms of our Canadian manufacturers and processors?
I've been advocating a common securities regulator for a long time, with limited success.
The Supreme Court of Canada said two primary things, on my reading of their judgment, among other things. That is, all of us should cooperate, the provinces, territories, and the federal government; that we all have constitutional responsibilities in the area of securities; that the federal government has a systemic responsibility for systemic risk across the whole country, in terms of the securities market; and that the provinces, if I may use imprecise language, have day-to-day regulatory responsibilities.
We have tried greatly and repeatedly to get the majority of the provinces with large populations—and smaller populations for that matter—to join with us in a joint regulator. This is not a federal regulator. This would be a joint Canadian regulator, similar to the Canada Pension Plan, where the provinces and the federal government would delegate power or jurisdictions. This, among other things, would get over any legal jurisdictional arguments, because we would voluntarily delegate.
We've been unable to reach that kind of consensus. Now what do we do? We're faced with the reality that the Supreme Court of Canada has told the federal Parliament that we are responsible systemically for the system. What will happen when the next crisis happens will be that, again, the provinces will come to Ottawa to ask to be bailed out, like they did with the non-bank backed asset-backed commercial paper several years ago.
We feel we have to act; otherwise we will not be following the directions of the court. We will, if we have to, create a federal securities regulator to deal with those areas of jurisdiction the Supreme Court of Canada told the federal Parliament that it has.
I want to thank you, Minister, for being here today. I know your time is very limited, so thank you for appearing before our finance committee today.
I just want to let you know that in the riding of York Centre I conduct numerous round tables—with individuals, with business leaders, and with associations and organizations—and I have heard nothing but praise for this budget, particularly in the area of creating a fair and neutral tax system. The closing of a lot of the tax loopholes has been met with a lot of praise, as has the extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance, because people recognize the stimulative effect of the ACCA. It's very beneficial to business. Also, certainly, on the super credit for first-time charitable donors, a lot of people see that as encouraging, trying to create a culture of younger people donating and getting into charitable giving.
I want to talk to you specifically about the price gap between Canada and the United States. You indicated in previous answers about the Senate and their study that they seemed to reach the conclusion that it was largely a result of tariffs. In the budget, you have taken the initiative of lowering tariffs on a number of important items, including baby clothing and sports equipment. As the father of twins, I thank you, because I have to buy everything twice, so the baby clothing and the sports equipment initiative is much appreciated.
But let me just ask you this. This is a test case, which you have indicated. How will those prices be monitored going forward—
Thank you, Minister, for your appearance today.
Recently the CBC indicated that youth unemployment could cost our economy $23 billion in the next 18 years. Workopolis has indicated that 31% of all employers polled suggest that the people coming forward from universities are unprepared or very unprepared to enter the workforce.
I know we've done a lot, Minister, in preparing youth. I recently met with some EU parliamentarians who were suggesting that depending on the country, anywhere from 20% up to 60% of the youth in Europe were unemployed. I know our rate is 13% or 14% and holding fairly steady at that. It's one of the lowest in the world, certainly within the G-20.
But since 2006 we've helped 2.1 million youth get employed. We have an economic action plan of 2013 that has several measures, including the $70 million to support 5,000 more paid internships, $18 million to enable the Canadian Youth Business Foundation, and of course the recent announcement of 36,000 jobs for the Canada summer jobs program.
First of all, is this enough, Minister? What more can be done? How would you see the Canadian Youth Business Foundation helping youth enter the job market more effectively?
:
Colleagues, could I have you take your seats, please?
I apologize for the vote interruption. We have another vote tonight as well.
We're pleased to continue our study this afternoon of Bill .
We have five witnesses before us.
[Translation]
We now welcome Mario Albert, president and chief executive officer of the Autorité des marchés financiers.
Welcome.
[English]
We have the CEO of the Canadian Youth Business Foundation, Julia Deans. Welcome.
[Translation]
We also have with us here Alex Levasseur, president of the Confédération des syndicats nationaux.
Welcome.
[English]
From Genome Canada, we have the president and CEO, Mr. Pierre Meulien. Bienvenue.
And from the Nature Conservancy of Canada, we have the president and CEO, Mr. John Lounds. Welcome back to the committee.
You will each have up to five minutes for an opening statement, and then we will have questions from members.
[Translation]
We will start with Mr. Albert.
You have five minutes to give your presentation.
I would first like to thank the Standing Committee on Finance for inviting the Autorité des marchés financiers to participate in your study of Bill .
This afternoon, I would like to present our position specifically on section 133 of this bill. This section would indefinitely extend the mandate of the Canadian Securities Transition Office.
This office's mission is to promote establishing a national securities regulator in Canada. The office's activities are to come to an end in July. The Autorité des marchés financiers takes a clear stand on extending the Canadian Securities Transition Office mandate, we believe this extension is inappropriate.
In its December 22, 2011 ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that regulating securities is a matter of provincial jurisdiction according to the Constitution. Consequently, there are simply no grounds for extending the Canadian Securities Transition Office's mandate in order to create a national securities regulator that would involve the federal's government participation.
Beyond the constitutional issues, it is also important to note that currently the provinces are adequately regulating securities. In fact, we are convinced that creating a national securities regulator would be a step backwards from the current system. Creating a national regulator would inevitably standardize regulations, possibly on the basis of the interests of the sizeable market in Ontario.
However, securities markets in Canada are markedly different from one region to another. In order to be efficient and effective, the regulatory framework must acknowledge the differences. The current system does a very good job of this. It allows for a high level of harmonization while taking into account, when necessary, the specific needs of each region.
On the administrative front, over the last few years the provincial regulators have implemented a securities passport system. The system allows securities issuers looking for financing in a number of provinces to do so by communicating solely with the provincial regulatory authority where their headquarters are located. This system is efficient, effective and fast. It is not a costly collage as the promoters of a national regulator would say.
Overall, the provinces provide quality regulations of securities in Canada. A number of international studies confirm this. For example, the World Bank recently ranked Canada 5 out of 175 countries when it comes to protecting investors. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, ranked Canada second for its quality of securities regulation. In this context, one may want know why the federal government is seeking to change a system that works well.
That being said, as the Supreme Court of Canada's decision reminds us, the federal government has a role to play in maintaining the stability of the financial system. This role is significant in the current international financial and economic environment. However, rather than try to interfere with securities and taking the risk of provoking more costly and unproductive legal challenges, I humbly suggest that the federal government focus its efforts on strengthening the cooperation between the different financial regulators while respecting their constitutional responsibilities.
The provincial ministers in charge of securities, with the exception of Ontario, recently asked their regulators if they had suggestions on how to improve the governance and operations of the Canadian securities administrators.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.
My name is Julia Deans, and I'm the CEO of the Canadian Youth Business Foundation.
We're a national not-for-profit organization. We were established in 1996 to help young Canadian entrepreneurs launch successful businesses. We have a successful track record of advancing economic growth by supporting young entrepreneurs as they build businesses, and also in developing the entrepreneurial skills that will help them in whatever career path they pick.
In brief, we help Canadians ages 18 to 39 develop a strong business plan; only 10% of them have one when they come to us. We then provide them with loan financing, mentors, business resources, and networks, to help them navigate the initial years of their start-up. We have seven offices coast to coast, and we work with over 200 community partners in more than 1,400 communities across Canada.
As the minister said, to date we've invested in 5,600 Canadian entrepreneurs and engaged 4,000 volunteer mentors to help them. These businesses have created 22,100 jobs and $155 million in tax revenue. The federal government has been a key partner, and this budget will help more young entrepreneurs start more businesses.
I joined CYBF four months ago because I see it as a terrific model for building jobs and futures for young Canadians, with potential for much greater impact. We currently help probably 2% to 3% of the potential youth entrepreneur market, and our goal is to double that in the next five years.
In addition to helping young Canadians realize their entrepreneurial potential and building our economy, supporting youth start-ups responds to other economic challenges. One of these is youth unemployment, which currently sits at around 15%. That is twice the national unemployment average. Youth entrepreneurs create jobs for themselves and they also hire others. Harry Chemko, a young Vancouver-based entrepreneur, started his IT business with a $15,000 loan from CYBF. He now has about 350 staff serving billion-dollar corporate clients worldwide, and he recently handled all of the merchandise for the Winter Olympics.
Another huge challenge is the expected retirement of 66% of our small business owners by 2016, according to the CFIB. This is particularly a problem for rural communities, many of which face the loss of businesses that are key to their vitality. It also drives up costs for everybody else. For example, a Nova Scotia government official told me that the shortage of HVAC businesses outside of Halifax means that every construction project requires Halifax-based technicians to travel and stay in hotels.
Youth entrepreneurs are well poised to succeed retiring business owners, but they need help to get launched. As you can suspect, the single biggest obstacle for new entrepreneurs is accessing sufficient start-up capital. This is really hard for young people in particular. They don't have assets to pledge as security for loans or the networks to tap into for funding.
Unlike banks, CYBF does not require collateral. We look at the young entrepreneur's character and at their business plan. The entrepreneur can receive a loan of up to $15,000 from us. It's repayable over five years at rates slightly less than commercial bank rates, and interest only is payable in the first year. Based on our strong track record and the high repayment rate from our entrepreneurs, the Business Development Bank of Canada will extend a further $30,000 loan, and then mainstream banks will take notice.
You can imagine that most entrepreneurs focus mainly on getting the money, but good planning, management, and advice are what mitigate their failure in the first few years. CYBF entrepreneurs call our full suite of pre-launch coaching, our two-year mentoring program, access to entrepreneurs and residents, networking events, and other supports the quadruple bypass surgery they didn't know they needed. This is what leads them to have higher success rates than the national average for start-ups.
In addition to our core major start-up program, we have several programs that are aimed at helping particular groups of entrepreneurs, including newcomers, transitioning Canadian Forces members, high-potential growth entrepreneurs in the innovation space, and those preparing for export. We also offer a stand-alone six-month mentoring program for young entrepreneurs who don't need financing.
Based on our track record, CYBF and Canada have been recognized as global leaders in advancing youth entrepreneurship. We represent Canada on a number of international alliances, including one that parallels the G-20. We are really proud to have been a trusted partner of the Government of Canada for the past 12 years, and we've successfully leveraged federal investments to attract additional funds from provincial governments and also from the corporate sector.
We truly appreciate the government's belief in us and the decision to invest $18 million over the next two years to help more young entrepreneurs launch and succeed in Canada.
I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about CYBF in person today. Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for inviting us to have this discussion with you today.
[Translation]
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 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:
[English]
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.
[Translation]
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.
:
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.
[English]
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.
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.
First, I would like to thank the witnesses for their presentations.
I will start by asking Mr. Levasseur a question.
[English]
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 to ensure that Radio-Canada and the CBC can have control over these types of clauses in the collective agreements?
:
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 , 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.
:
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.
[Translation]
I would like to welcome all of our witnesses.
I will start with a question for Ms. Deans.
[English]
I was very impressed by your account of all the measures you've taken to create youth entrepreneurs, especially, as you say, with youth unemployment twice the national average, around 15%. As my colleague, Scott Brison, likes to point out, well over a third of people in their twenties are still living at home because they can't find work.
If you could create even more successful youth entrepreneurs, or even older ones, I think that would be terrific for jobs and terrific for the country. You say you have 2% to 3% of the market and you're looking to double that over some number of years. My question is, what if we said grow it 10 times? Would you be able to do that? What's the biggest restraint? Is it that you don't have enough money? If you got twice the money, could you get twice the results, or are there limits to how deep you can tap this pool of talent out there?
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your appearance here today.
I'd like to start with Ms. Deans, if I can, and the Canadian Youth Business Foundation. I think you mentioned in your opening remarks that to date, the CYBF has helped over 5,600 entrepreneurs and has utilized approximately 400 business mentors. You also mentioned you have special programs to assist newcomers.
I represent the city of Mississauga, which is home to a lot of newcomers. I had the opportunity about a year ago to attend a CYBF awards presentation with Prime Minister Harper, and I have to say I was very impressed with the young people I met there. I learned about some of the great businesses they're creating. They expressed to me how important it was, not so much the funding but the advice they were getting from those business mentors. That's something that I think is really invaluable.
I wonder if you could tell us a few of the success stories. Give us a few examples of the kinds of businesses that have been created. Especially, if you can, talk about some of the newcomers you've assisted.
:
Yes, about 400 in Ontario alone. They are amazing people who commit to two years to help an entrepreneur get settled.
On the newcomer story, one favourite example is a woman I met in Saskatoon a few months ago. She had come from Ghana to the U.K. She'd worked in the fashion business for eight years and been very successful. Her husband was hired by the Government of Saskatchewan to run their eHealth. They moved to Saskatoon, and she said, “I want to start a fashion business using Ghanaian fabrics”, and she went to the bank. They said, “That's great. Come back in two years when you've been successful.” She said, “Well, aren't you welcoming newcomers?” They said “Sorry.”
We were the only game in town, but we lent her the $15,000 and we got her one of our former entrepreneurs who has been successful in the fashion business in Saskatoon, and it was a match made in heaven. They mentor each other.
I also really like the stories of people who are doing global businesses in Canada. One of my favourite ones is another person from Saskatchewan, who was an amazing hockey player, from Foam Lake, Saskatchewan. At 15 he was recruited by an Ivy League school, went off to Yale, got his economics degree, went up to the NHL, went to Wall Street, and was working as an analyst. He said, “All I want to do is go back and be able to go to my cabin at Foam Lake and see my family.” He came back. He's 26 years old. He said, “We have no more Wheat Board, so I'm going to figure out an online grain trading platform.” He did it. He launched it in the fall. He started a little morning blurb about something happening in the world that would help you figure out how you could sell your grain. He had 20 people subscribe originally, and he said they were all his family. Within three months he had 700 people reading this little blurb, which he does in Hockey Talk, and the grain trading platform is recognized by the major farm organizations across North America. He's running a global business—out of his SUV, I must say, but based in Saskatchewan.
Those are some of the people we're helping, in addition to people like Harry Chemko, who's running a big global business. They're amazing stories.