Evidence of meeting #82 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was program.
A video is available from Parliament.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I have a quick question for Mr. Sinclair.
In Bill C-45, which is part 2 of the Budget Implementation Act, we're calling for a one-year extension of the small business hiring tax credit. The NDP has already said they're opposed to it. You represent small business, medium-sized business. Can you talk about the advantages of that, why it has been so successful and why it needs to continue for another year?
6 p.m.
Vice-President, Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce
Yes, we're quite supportive. In fact, I recall when it was introduced, we did a media release from our chamber that night, pointing to that as one of the key things that we support in the budget.
I think the key issue here—I think there's a general recognition that the real job generators in Canada are small businesses. It's the same in our community. I think it's the situation across Canada. The real engines of growth are the small businesses. In our community, we're quite fortunate to have thousands of start-up companies in the IT field. These are students coming out of the University of Waterloo. They came up with an idea in school and now they're putting it into operation. In some cases, companies staffed by individuals from the engineering school at the University of Waterloo, who started a company right out of school four years ago, now have 14 or 15 employees. Has that credit been of benefit to them? Yes. It provides some money to them, and I think that's the driver of the economy, the small business sector. So certainly we're supportive of it, very much so.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Good. Thank you.
I want to ask a few of you one question, and I'll get back to you, Mr. Sinclair, in a second.
Mr. Thurlow, the NDP has called for a $21 billion carbon tax, which we say will raise the cost of everything—the price of food, the price of fuel, the price of everything, and workers and everyone else will have to pay that increase. It's on page 4 of the NDP party platform of 2011.
The Socialist International, of which the NDP is a member, calls for a carbon tax. In Hansard on December 5, 2011, the NDP revenue critic, Mr. Mai, even called for a carbon tax.
Could you please comment on that? Would that be beneficial to the industry or not?
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
To Mr. Adler, I never called for a carbon tax. As you can recall, we called for a cap and trade, which, if you understand the difference, is not the same thing.
6:05 p.m.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I think it's the same thing the Conservatives talked about in 2008.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Renewable Fuels Association
Our association is strongly opposed to any program that would add cost to businesses, consumers, or, most importantly, make farming more expensive. We're in favour of what the current government is doing on the reduction of anthropogenic gases, and that's a sector-by-sector approach that is reasonable and logical for those individual sectors.
Earlier in my testimony, I referred to the transportation sector approach, and an important part of that is the government's renewable fuel strategy. I think the government gets a little bit of a raw deal when people say it’s not doing anything on climate change, because this is a demonstrated program that is working, that will help the government meet its Copenhagen Accord obligations by 2020.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
President, Canadian Renewable Fuels Association
We have 23 member organizations.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Mark Adler Conservative York Centre, ON
Nice, and they're all of the same mind. Thank you.
Mr. Sinclair, could you please comment on that?
6:05 p.m.
Vice-President, Greater Kitchener Waterloo Chamber of Commerce
We don't like taxes in general.
We have 1,800 members. Actually, we have an environment committee at the chamber composed of environmental consultants, engineers, and planners. We have discussed this at quite some length, and there doesn't seem to be a lot of support for it, or there's no support for it. I think we can achieve our objectives in environmental protection through other avenues rather than through taxes of this measure.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
6:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada
I would just say that it's maybe not well understood across Canada, but Alberta was a leader in introducing a tax on large emitters. I think that program has been a success. Whether it would work in other jurisdictions, I don't know. But I think Alberta was the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce that. The fund goes into technology and research.
6:05 p.m.
Director, Policy and Government Affairs and Chief Economist, Calgary Chamber of Commerce
From our perspective, absolutely, we see carbon management as part of a broader Canadian energy strategy. We do support the sectoral style of approach. We do support a life-cycle approach to managing carbon emissions. It's important to recognize existing investments and the rate of capital stock turnover in those types of regards, and to ensure that there's not an inadvertent redistribution of wealth or competing sectors against each other in the process.
Those are the broad parameters we like to look at in terms of approaching carbon mitigation. Generally speaking, that sectoral approach currently under way is one that's probably the most effective.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
Thanks very much.
Thanks to the presenters for coming in today. Taking time out of your undoubtedly busy schedules to present your ideas to this committee is very important.
I want to begin with Mr. Phelps.
You raised the issue of income inequality. It's not only income inequality between people; it's also income inequality between provinces and between regions in this country. It's a serious problem.
In particular, you raised the issue of the fact that one in five Canadians are impacted by mental health, and it's been estimated by the commission that this represents a cost to the Canadian economy of $51 billion annually. I'd like you to comment, please, if you think there is something the government can do to begin to address this.
6:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Social Workers
I think the government has taken some positive steps to address it with the delivery of the first national mental health strategy. But with that delivery there needs to be a commitment to implement that and to provide a leadership role to bring the provinces and territories to the table to deliver the mental health strategy.
On top of that, regarding the Canadian social transfer, which has transferred billions each year to the provinces and territories to deliver social services, there is really no accountability measure put in place; there is no Canada Health Act. There was the Canadian CAP back a few years ago, the Canada Assistance Plan back in 1995, which was virtually eliminated. Really, the only requirement in the transfer of the social services is that there is no minimum requirement for individuals to access income assistance in the provinces and territories. Consequently, you are correct, from province to province the funds are transferred basically into general revenue, and there is no equity across Canada or accountability of the delivery of social services.
6:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Association of Social Workers
It's a growing income inequality gap. There is a role that the federal government can play to bring the provinces together to develop accountability mechanisms.
6:10 p.m.
NDP
Robert Chisholm NDP Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS
I appreciate your coming and making those points.
I want to go to Mr. Brunnen now.
You raised some concerns about the confusion created by the lack of clarity on the whole net benefit test. That's a question that members of my caucus have been raising in the House of Commons now for several weeks—well, actually longer than that, a few years now, but it's certainly come to a head of late.
The minister tells us to go to the website and that it's very clear there what the net benefit test is. But I think what we're beginning to recognize, and maybe what the government is beginning to recognize, is that people who are representing businesses that are affected by this are concerned about the lack of clarity and are asking for a comprehensive review.
I'd like you to give me some indication that you feel the government is going to start paying attention, recognizing the danger of not having more clarity with such an important issue as the net benefit test.
6:10 p.m.
Director, Policy and Government Affairs and Chief Economist, Calgary Chamber of Commerce
Without a doubt, we see this as a critical lynchpin, if you will, for future investment in Canada, particularly in Alberta. We recognize that there's an increased appetite for investment, particularly from emerging economies in Asia, to basically secure energy resources and technology, if you will.
This piece of legislation hasn't been updated substantially in some time. There was a time when there wasn't necessarily a lot of interest in investing in Canada, actually before we had proven reserves of the size we have. Moving forward, it's both timely and critical that we update this piece of legislation, because it's also going to set the standard for our prosperity in the way that foreign investors, particularly new trade partners who we are trying to court, will view Canada from an investment-friendly perspective.
We are very much concerned about the lack of clarity around the net benefit piece as well as the thresholds for triggering the net benefit—
