Finance Committee on Oct. 31st, 2011

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hoang Mai]

Ms. Glover, please.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.

I would like to start with Mr. Elwood. You said you liked some of the programs the government has put forward. I'd like you to name them and tell us the benefits.

[Michael Elwood]

The most recent one is the eco-energy program that's been implemented by Natural Resources Canada. It has identified electrification as one of the opportunities. So we have made submissions there. It has broadened the landscape.

Prior to that, as far as electrification went, we had to go through a number of different programs, but in kind of an obscure, abstract way. One in particular was Technology Partnerships Canada. It was an outstanding program and really helped in the initial stages of bringing on a number of companies--and not just in electrification, but it allowed for advanced transportation. There are a couple of really good programs there. We'd like to see more of them, and more dedicated to the commercialization and development of vehicles.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Very good. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I'd also like to make a suggestion, because I'm going to want to dispute some of the facts put forward by Mr. Julian. I'd like him to submit to the committee proof that we are last in R and D, because they're going to need that, obviously, to write this report. Based on the OECD main science and technology indicators, we actually rank first among the G-7 countries in terms of expenditures in research and development, especially in the higher education sector, as a share of the economy. We have to be careful not to compare apples to oranges. We have a population of 33 million, and not a billion, as some other countries have.

I want to turn my attention to Mr. Conway for just a moment. I liked what you said in response to Mr. Marston about incentivizing people to actually save. I want your opinion on the PRPP, the pooled registered pension plan, because I think it is an incentive for people to save for the future. I think it addresses some of the things Mr. Marston was addressing. How do you feel about the PRPP?

[Michael Conway]

The big advantage of the PRPP is you get economy of scale. It gives individuals with really small pension plans the opportunity to group lots of pension plans together, and they get the scale advantages that very broad pension plans have. So we're in favour of that.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

When you compare it to doubling of the CPP, what do you think?

[Michael Conway]

The difficulty is that there is always a trade-off in things, and one of the trade-offs on the CPP side is that the employer portion is effectively a tax, and corporations have only so many dollars to put around. If they put millions on this side, they won't have millions to invest on the other side. So that's a little bit of a trade-off that we're torn by. Consequently, if we are encouraging Canadians to look at the variety of ways to save, some of them are incentives by the government, and for some of them, it's really the responsibility of the individual to make appropriate arrangements.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

All right.

I'm going to turn my attention briefly to Mrs. Kenny. You talked a little bit about harmonization of regulations. I want you to tell me how you think that's going to promote trade with our biggest customer.

[Brenda Kenny]

We need to get more deliberate in Canada in making timely decisions on major investments. The Mackenzie Valley pipeline would be a good example of a second round of a major hearing that took six years and ended up with a decision that trailed the economic window.

We are dealing with a very competitive global environment in trade, and we can't be complacent about taking our time and fussing about trying to line up large trade deals. Timeliness is important. That in no way means rushing through and being second best in environmental protection, but it means being smart about how we plan for projects, assess them, get to go or no-go decisions. And intentionally, after you've hit a go or no-go, if you say yes, this is in the public interest, then make sure it happens. Don't let a permit slide for two years on something that is worth $100 billion in total trade value.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hoang Mai]

Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you, witnesses.

We'll suspend for a few minutes.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hoang Mai]

Welcome, ladies and gentlemen.

We will now hear from the representatives of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Festivals and Major Events, Deloitte & Touche, the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the Investment Funds Institute of Canada, the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Home Care Association.

Every witness will have five minutes. Then we will move on to questions by committee members.

We will begin with the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences.

[John Mills, Member, Board of Trustees, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to speak to the committee.

I'm a member of the board of trustees of the foundation, and I'll be speaking to the brief we provided to you earlier. I'll just highlight a couple of items in that.

First of all, I want to identify that we had an error that slipped into that piece, which talked about the value of weather-dependent industries and businesses in Canada. I think it identified in excess of $1 billion, and that should have been in excess of $100 billion annually for the Canadian economy.

Weather and climate are very much economic issues that affect the basic needs for food, water, safety, and security. I think all Canadians know that the weather patterns have changed in the past, and they will continue to do so. So far Canada has been somewhat fortunate, in that it hasn't seen some of the more devastating impacts of weather change, like the flood that's currently going on in Thailand. But it hasn't escaped all of that. In 2010 major weather events caused over $2 billion in disaster management and clean-up costs, not to mention the impacts on lives and livelihoods. In 2010 Hurricane Igor, on the east coast, cost $185 million. The forest fires in B.C. and Alberta cost something in the order of $230 million. And in July, a 30-minute thunderstorm in Calgary cost $400 million.

In addition, I think the costs of inaction are substantial. A recent report by the national round table indicated that the cost to Canada from climate change could escalate to $5 billion in 2020, and between $21 billion and $43 billion by the year 2050.

Climate change is presently a growing and long-term economic burden to Canada. Weather and climate will continue to change and will escalate. In that regard, we must not only understand that, but we must adapt to those changes to ensure that businesses and government have the tools they need for informed policy and operational and strategic decisions.

In that regard, we need knowledge. We need knowledge on the speed and severity of the changes of the conditions and their impacts on the Canadian economy. This requires targeted research by teams of experts from a multi-disciplinary approach, in universities, government labs, industry, and institutes—work that the foundation has been supporting up to now.

We also need to share that information, that data and knowledge, for the development of sound policies and practices.

In our brief the foundation has put forward its summation of what we need. We need targeted research to provide business and government and individuals with the tools they need to adapt to changing conditions, foster increased reliance, and the development of new business opportunities. It will save money by warning of new trends, reducing uncertainty, and justifying new policies, including updating building codes. It encourages technological advances, training, and marketing of Canadian development, all of which makes us more competitive internationally.

The foundation is recommending a proposal for a sustaining federal investment fund of some $50 million per year, over 10 years. In addition, it recommends the establishment of a policy forum to allow for the knowledge transfer, the collection of that research, and the translation of that into information that policy-makers and decision-makers can use in their day-to-day businesses to make those policy and business decisions.

The last point I would make is that we certainly have information and research right now, which is absolutely necessary, but it is not sufficient to meet future needs.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hoang Mai]

Thank you, Mr. Mills

We’ll hear from Festivals and Major Events.

[Janice Price, Chief Executive Officer, Luminato, Toronto Festivals of Arts and Creativity, Festivals and Major Events]

Thank you. Good morning.

I would like to thank you for inviting us here this morning.

On behalf of Festivals and Major Events Canada, I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to add our voice to your national consultation on budgetary priorities.

FAME is a member-funded advocacy organization bringing together the knowledge and experience of Canada’s major world-class festivals and events to speak with one voice and to advance the economic and societal importance of our sector. Formed in 2010 as the Canadian Festivals Coalition, we recently changed our name to be inclusive of the importance of our major international events.

Our submission contains three recommendations, including a request to review Canada's aviation cost structure and the funding model for the Canadian Tourism Commission. These items were presented to you in detail last week by the National Roundtable on Travel and Tourism, and I will focus my remarks today on recommendation one, related to investment in Canada's festivals and events.

Canada's major festivals and events are internationally recognized for world-class programming and the excitement that we generate, but we are so much more. Many associate our events with good memories, community engagement, and iconic Canadian moments, whether it's great theatre at the Stratford Festival, movie stars at the Toronto International Film Festival, or Bonhomme at Carnaval de Québec.

Today we're asking you to look deeper and associate us with economic growth, job creation, international competition, and export revenue. It is our hope that this presentation will help you to recognize our sector as a key driver of Canada's knowledge-based economy.

We have provided committee members with a copy of our 2010 economic impact study, which estimates that 15 of Canada's largest festivals attract 12,600,000 attendees annually, contribute $650 million in GDP to their local economies, and support the equivalent of 15,600 full-year jobs nationwide.

I know you are presented with a lot of numbers at these events, but I will highlight that our presentation uses a methodology directed by Industry Canada and reviewed by the Auditor General.

This substantial economic impact is derived from both operational and tourism spending estimated at $1.1 billion per year. The analysis also estimated that tourism and operational spending related to these events generates approximately $260 million in tax revenue for all three levels of government. I'll remind you that these statistics reflect only 15 of Canada's larger festivals, and they are greatly amplified when taken within the broader festival ecology of regional events.

FAME recommends that the federal government create a new, permanent $50-million annual investment fund for the economic development opportunities in Canada’s major festivals and events sector. The new program would be developed in consultation with the industry and administered through Industry Canada.

We believe that this new program of matching public and private funds will have a catalytic effect on sectoral growth and generate a significant financial return to Canadians. An ideal funding program would invest $30 million annually in Canada’s major international festivals and events, to be allocated by merit-based economic criteria and not subjected to regional quotas or limitations. It would also allocate $20 million annually to emerging and regional festivals and events that play an important role in their communities across the country. And it would provide for multi-year project funding to maximize opportunities for product development and return on investment.

Thank you.

The most recent federal initiative was funded through Industry Canada's marquee tourism events program, a two-year stimulus program ending in 2010. These recent stimulus investments enabled our sector to leverage additional partnerships, broaden marketing reach, and augment programming that attracted larger crowds and extended visits. The results were higher attendance, increased local business levels, and additional tax revenues for all levels of government, even during this recent time of global recession.

We are a growth sector with world-class product, operating in a highly competitive international market. We're not looking for government funds to subsidize our existing budgets. We're seeking a form of public sector venture capital to leverage earned revenue and increase private sector partnerships. This will facilitate incremental growth by augmenting spectacular programming and enhancing promotional events for visitors.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hoang Mai]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Deloitte & Touche.

[Andrew Dunn, Managing Partner, Tax, Deloitte & Touche]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and representatives.

My name is Andrew Dunn and I'm the managing partner for tax at Deloitte in Toronto.

Canadians are blessed with a high standard of living relative to the residents of most countries. Forbes recently ranked Canada number one for doing business, and a key part of that ranking was the competitive and stable corporate tax regime. However, a key element of prosperity is productivity and Canada lags behind other major trading partners on that measure. In particular, the most recent ranking by the OECD put Canada at only 86% of the U.S. output per worker.

At Deloitte, our view is that we must close this productivity gap in order to stimulate prosperity in the future. For that reason we produced the study “The Future of Productivity: An eight-step game plan for Canada”. I won't go through all eight of our recommendations, but the three elements of that study in which tax policy plays the major role are innovation, incubation, and population.

I'll just go very quickly through each of those key elements. On innovation, the government has demonstrated a commitment to reinvigorating the R and D regime as a key core element of innovation in Canada. We applaud the recent decision to appoint the Jenkins panel. It made a number of recommendations. One recommendation was to increase the availability of funds for start-up and later-stage companies. I'm going to come back to that when I talk about incubation, but in general, the limiting factor, the ground rules for the Jenkins report, was a cost-neutral approach.

We point out that 11 of the top 24 economies enhanced their R and D incentives over the last three years. Australia, China, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Singapore increased their credit percentages. France, Ireland, and Japan increased their carry back and carry forward mechanisms. France, Australia, and Ireland introduced refundable credits. Some countries introduced patent boxes, and in fact there are two additional countries that are contemplating introducing a credit regime—they are Germany and Sweden. They are jurisdictions that are frequently mentioned as being grant-based in their support of innovation.

We believe in a mosaic, but we also believe that there is a value and a need for Canada to remain competitive in stimulating innovation.

One element in particular that we would suggest is the expansion of refundability for R and D tax credits. Just as a very quick example of why that is an important thing, first of all, it provides cash flow to early-stage organizations and organizations struggling to innovate. But I would also point out that a U.S. multinational by virtue of its tax regime is in a position only to get tax deferral, not tax savings, as a result of lack of refundability. If a U.S. multinational repatriates earnings on which there has been a tax credit, in effect the way the U.S. tax regime works is that the multinational pays the difference of the tax credit back in U.S. taxes upon repatriation, and that situation changes qualitatively when the credits are refundable. When they are refundable, it simply reduces the expenditure, and in effect, the U.S. multinational that repatriates a refundable credit gets to keep substantially all of the credit, and that stimulates the U.S. multinational to conduct R and D activities in Canada. We think that's an important difference.

We also think that, regardless of when a U.S. multinational repatriates, the accounting treatment reflects whether it is a permanent difference or a timing difference and so it has an immediate effect on earnings. We can make Canada a more attractive jurisdiction for innovation simply by making tax credits refundable on a broader scale.

One of the things I wanted to talk about briefly is the importance of early-stage financing for innovation. Currently Canada has less than half of the funding proportionately of the U.S. We like the angel tax credit approach that the British Columbia government introduced a few years ago with a 30% credit for up to $200,000 annually.

I do want to give a quick example of a Quebec-based company that we spoke to, a life sciences company that is in second-stage financing. In order to get to third stage financing it needs to raise more capital. In order to raise more capital it can only find investors in the U.S. not in Canada—angel-stage investors are not around. Yet if it does raise money in the U.S. that will jeopardize its Canadian-controlled private company status and its refundable R and D credits.

Last, just very quickly, is the importance of population. A key element of improving Canada's gross domestic product is in fact to have more workers, and not just more workers but more highly educated, more highly skilled entrepreneurial workers.

A key part of that is immigration policy. But part of it is also tax policy, having a competitive jurisdiction, and having as competitive a situation on the personal tax scale as we have created on the business tax front. And we believe this could be done by simply indicating a point on the horizon, a 10-year to 15-year window in which we articulate a reduction in personal tax savings. And that can be done with little or no cost in the current term.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hoang Mai]

Thank you, Mr. Dunn.

Now we'll go to the Canadian Trucking Alliance.

[Stephen Laskowski, Senior Vice-President, Canadian Trucking Alliance]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

By way of background, we represent about 4,500 carriers from across Canada. Our membership, those who pay our dues, are the ownership and CEOs of the companies. Our industry remains the largest employer of Canadian males, so we continue to be an incredibly important industry in this country.

We still haul the bulk of the freight, whether it's east-west or north-south. As the trucking industry goes, the economy goes. If you want to know how the economy is going you don't need to read The Globe and Mail, just count the trucks on the 400 Highway or wherever you are. When the count is high, you'll know we're doing all right, and when the count starts dropping, we have some problems.

Understanding that we're in challenging times as an economy and that dollars are tight, I want to present an opportunity for the committee to put forward a recommendation that we believe will bring benefits on a number of fronts--the environmental front, the technological front, and the labour front. I'm talking about an opportunity to develop Canadian technology and to grow Canadian manufacturing jobs by working with the trucking industry on the environment.

Trucking remains the only freight mode in Canada that's regulated from both an air quality perspective and a GHG perspective. The GHG regulation will be introduced next.

Starting in 2004, 2007, and 2010, trucks underwent a huge technology investment from the industry to virtually eliminate NOx and particulate matter. Those emissions result in smog as well as lung and respiratory issues.

Beginning in 2010, we eliminated that. How did we get there? With a heck of a lot of money. The other issue was that to get there we lost fuel efficiency. We don't have a lot of time to go into this, but to reduce emissions on the NOx and PM side, we actually had to create more GHG emissions.

So what are we going to do? Well, we're going to introduce another rule to address that. That rule will come into effect in Environment Canada in 2012. It will come into force in 2014-18 and be basically harmonized with the U.S. regulations.

What would the Trucking Alliance like to do? There is a big difference between the rule I explained to you and 2004 and 2010. There was no choice. You as a trucker went out and had to buy a certain engine. You could buy different kinds of engines, but the emission output would be the same.

The GHG regulation will not work like that. There will be loaded consumer choice. There will be a regulation but a lot of choice, so the consumer is going to make decisions and those decisions will be based on a whole bunch of issues, including cost, return on investment, and the belief that the technology that is put on the truck will actually work. In a GHG environment, if you reduce GHGs and improve your fuel efficiency, you get a return on your investment. The carrier, as a business person, will decide if that up-front additional cost is worth his return on investment.

So what is the alliance saying? We're saying you should work with us to introduce aggressive CCA rates--just as is done in manufacturing--to attract the trucking industry to tractors that are more GHG-compliant.

The other issue is the retrofitting. The GHG will work, in a nutshell, through aerodynamic devices. Aerodynamic devices will be added to the tractor. There will also be opportunities on the engine side, such as liquefied natural gas and hybrids. These are extremely expensive. There is a method to do this, just as there is in manufacturing—with incentives.

As for aerodynamics, we would like to point out that this is a growing sector. There are a number of leading small firms throughout Canada that make these devices. By providing incentives to our industry, you will grow an industry in Canada.

The last part I'd like to add for the committee is that there will be an additional regulation on the GHG side beginning in 2018. It will deal with the trailers. These aerodynamic devices are growing in Canada, and if we can get ahead with some small investments on the tax side, we can grow an industry while reducing emissions.

My final point is an example. Back in the early 2000s, there was a program to reduce emissions from trucking. On the tax side, the federal government spent $6 million. It leveraged an additional $31 million from our industry.

So we're not looking with our hands out. We're ready to come to the table with money. We're just looking for a little up-front cash to help make this happen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hoang Mai]

Thank you, Mr. Laskowski.

We'll go now to the Investment Funds Institute of Canada, please.

[Debbie Pearl-Weinberg, General Tax Counsel, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Investment Funds Institute of Canada]

Thank you very much.

My name is Debbie Pearl-Weinberg. I'm general tax counsel at CIBC. I'm also chair of the taxation working group at the Investment Funds Institute of Canada, commonly known as IFIC. I'm here today representing IFIC. My comments today don't necessarily reflect the views of my employer, CIBC.

To give you a little bit about IFIC, it is the national association of the investment funds industry. Canadians own approximately $749 billion in mutual funds, with almost 80% of those held in registered plans. Almost 50% of tax-deferred wealth is held in mutual funds.

Now, because of this, ensuring adequate retirement savings for Canadians is a very important issue to IFIC members. My remarks today will be centred around two distinct themes. First is fairness in taxation around investment options, and the second is fairness in retirement funding options.

With regard to fairness in GST or HST among investment options, an inequity exists in the application of GST or HST to mutual funds when you contrast that with the application of GST and HST to other investment options. The structure of a mutual fund is such that it is a separate legal entity distinct from the manager. It is either a trust or a corporation.

The mutual fund has no employees. It pays its manager or third parties for all services provided to it, including asset management services. GST or HST applies to those services because it is levied on the management fee charged to the mutual fund.

Now, if you look at other financial investment options, most services are provided by employees of the issuer. The GST or HST does not apply to salaries paid to employees. It only applies in limited circumstances where an external service provider is used by the issuer of the product. When the financial product is offered to the public, most fees charged are exempt from GST or HST.

Because of this difference in structure and because of the resulting difference of the application of GST and HST, mutual funds are subject to GST or HST in a disproportionate manner. The labour input to the offering of mutual funds is subject to GST or HST, and the labour input to other financial products is not subject to GST or HST.

This, in the end, will reduce the return to mutual fund investors, including the high number of RRSP and RRIF investors. This inequity always existed once the GST was implemented, but where HST now applies, the issue becomes much worse.

In order to alleviate this inequity and achieve more fairness in the taxation of investment options, IFIC recommends that there is a review; that the unfair and non-neutral application of GST and HST is changed; and that an equitable rate of sales tax is applied to management, advisory, and administrative services provided to funds. This would be consistent with the treatment of other investment products.

The second area I'd like to address is fairness in retirement funding options. There I want to talk a little bit about pooled retirement pension plans and RRIF income.

First, on pooled retirement pension plans, or PRPPs, IFIC wants to say that we very much support the initiative of creating PRPPs and the goal of providing accessible and straightforward retirement options to assist more Canadians to save for retirement. IFIC recommends that the investment of PRPPs should not be restricted to passive investment strategies, but much broader.

IFIC recommends that group RRSPs remain a true alternative to PRPPs. For instance, IFIC agrees that payroll taxes should not apply to any contributions to a PRPP. Consistent with this, IFIC recommends that payroll taxes no longer apply to contributions to group RRSPs to keep them on equal footing with PRPPs.

Finally, I'd like to address RRIF income. Canadians receiving income from RRIFs are not eligible for the pension credit, nor can they split RRIF income with a spouse until they reach age 65. This includes those individuals where their RRIF income comes from funds that were originally transferred from a registered pension plan. This can reduce the after-tax retirement income to those aged 55 through 64.

In contrast, those Canadians receiving income from pension plans are eligible for the pension credit, and pension income can be split with a spouse at age 55. This inequity is frequently brought up to our members by investors and investment advisors. In order to alleviate this inequity, IFIC recommends that the pension credit also be available commencing at age 55 with respect to RRIF income, and that income splitting also be available at age 55 for RRIF income.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hoang Mai]

Thank you very much.

Now the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce, please.

[Lynne Wallace, Chair, Policy Committee, Vaughan Chamber of Commerce]

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to present, Mr. Chair.

My name is Lynne Wallace and I am a volunteer chair of the policy committee of the Vaughan Chamber of Commerce. This morning I'm accompanied by the chair of the Vaughan chamber, who's in the back row.

This is a consequence of a group of volunteers getting together with as many expert stakeholders as we could pull together to brainstorm around an issue that mattered a great deal to us in Vaughan: jobs of the future. When we started we didn't know where we would end up, but the remarkable thing that happened from a group of stakeholders that included academics, contractors, and manufacturers was that we ended up with a consensus recommendation, and that's what I'm going to read to you this morning.

The impact of the changing world economic reality has had a profound impact upon industry in Vaughan, as it has across this country. The loss of manufacturing jobs within Vaughan alone has seen a decline from 49,833 in 2006 to 39,415 in 2010. In a city with a population of a little over 300,000, the loss of over 10,000 jobs in only four years has had a profound impact.

Fortunately, the directed economic development efforts of the City of Vaughan have continued to attract new business. One of the emerging success stories from these new businesses is the growth of companies on the leading edge of the green energy industry, with a particular emphasis on solar. Within the region of York, we have gone from about 10 companies to 100 within two years--very rapid, to say the least. A significant number of these new businesses are in the city of Vaughan.

In attracting these businesses, Vaughan has competed against other business clusters, both within and outside of Canada. For the past several years, the combination of economic incentives and business opportunity has made Canada an attractive venue in which to build a global business that serves the enormous potential of the solar industry.

Recent initiatives of government at all levels have given great encouragement to the usage of green energy sources within this country. This potential for growth here can support the development of innovative research and development initiatives and sophisticated manufacturing operations to serve this market, as well as worldwide markets. With continued attention and nurturing of research opportunities, we can lead in innovation. With focused attention on implementation, we can prove and demonstrate our evolving technological accomplishments for the world market.

We have a good foundation for the future, one with a thriving fledgling industry that needs to overcome a number of barriers in order to succeed. That is where our concern lies for the solar industry. We require a body that can pull together diverse players and set the standard for the future so that the rapid growth does not become uncontrolled and uncontrollable.

We see several issues that are creating barriers to the maturing of this industry. They include:

-- The need for more support for coordinated research programs that bring industry and universities together to drive the future of the innovation-driven competitiveness for this industry.

-- The need for standards and certification for the implementation and installation of solar projects. Today, everyone from electricians to general contractors claims to have the capability to install solar projects. The user cannot rely upon a standard of implementation that brings confidence in a substantial investment.

--The need to develop qualified engineers, technologists, service technicians and installers is not being met by our college system with a standardized curriculum.

--The consumer does not have ready access to information that can educate.

-- Feed-in-tariff programs that were intended to motivate small users have not met with great support from many utilities.

We believe that Canada will be well served by the funding and establishment of an industry association that serves the following objectives:

1. Recognize the opportunity for Canada to be a world leader in the solar industry.

2. Promote multiple business opportunities associated with the solar industry.

3. Mobilize and consolidate the resources for a successful solar industry by (a) coordinating academic research and development funding in support of innovation; (b) by stimulating college curricula that will develop knowledge workers for this industry.

4. Develop accreditation standards for production, installation, and maintenance of solar products in order to coordinate industry input to the development of standards with both the Canadian Standards Association and other standards organizations, and ensure the adequate certification of trades.

5. Explore opportunities for public and private sector partnerships to further the solar industry.

6. Provide consumer education throughout the industry.

This industry association could evolve from existing organizations or, more appropriately, be established as a new entity charged with the future of Canada's solar businesses. We believe that successfully overcoming the challenges that exist within this young industry, through the association described above, is good for Vaughan, is good for Canada, and is a worthy investment for the Government of Canada.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Hoang Mai]

Thank you, Ms. Wallace.

I note that the Canadian Home Care Association is not present. It will be sitting at the next panel.

We'll start with the questions.

Mr. Julian, go ahead for five minutes.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to each of the witnesses for coming forward today. You've given us very detailed briefs.

I appreciate, as well, the stress on investments. We, as the official opposition, believe that the next federal budget has to be an investment budget, given that we are starting to move into an economic slowdown, as the Governor of the Bank of Canada has said.

I'd like to start with you, Mr. Mills. I have lots of questions. I'll try to get them all in.

First off, I just wanted to clarify something from your brief. You said:

The 2011 federal Budget included $35 million over 5 years...half the amount previously provided through the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences.

So what was the amount provided prior to the budget, on an annual basis?

[John Mills]

Thank you.

There were actually two investments by the government over a 10-year period, one of $60 million, which was a grant, and the other of $50 million. So it was, in effect, just a little over $10 million per year.