Finance Committee on Oct. 16th, 2006

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Just as a small example, the small company I had bought air time from CTV, Global, TVO, and other networks, produced episodic programming that we were able to finance internally, and provided it to the broadcasters. CBC prevented us from buying air time.

I'm just wondering if you might have any position on that. We have the CBC coming here cap in hand over and over again, looking for more dollars, and yet they refuse to sell their air time to content providers. Do you have any comment on that?

[Barry Blake]

I have no idea what would motivate CBC not to buy. That would be some internal matter, I presume.

What I'm primarily talking about with the CTF is dramatic production. In a country where the airwaves are saturated by imported product, it's very difficult to get up above that level, to get on air.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

I have to join a couple of my colleagues in questioning you about the $25,000 exemption for the first amount of income earned by people in the cultural industry. Is that a maximum earnings per year, or does that become a de facto personal exemption for people in the cultural industries? In other words, would Celine Dion have the first $25,000 of her income exempt?

[Barry Blake]

I'm not sure what amount of her income is taxed in Canada and paid in Canada. I would suggest probably not a lot right now.

[Garth Turner, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Would it--

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, sir.

Time for questioning has elapsed, unfortunately. I appreciate the fact that you've taken the time to be with us today, and I appreciate your presentations and your answers to our questions.

I'd ask that a second panel replace these gentlemen now.

We will suspend for a brief time, but before we do, members of the committee, including Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, might be interested in involving themselves in a brief housekeeping motion we have to deal with. Please feel free to join us if you wish.

In any case, we have the responsibility to deal with private members' bills. We have one on the table. If we do not report back to the House, it will be deemed reported. We have a motion to give us additional time to deal with that, as we don't really have the time to deal with it at this point.

Mr. Savage, I believe, would be able to make that motion just so we are able to deal with that private member's bill at a later time.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Should I read the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Please do.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Should I dispense?

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Dispense.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you. That's adopted.

Do we need another motion? Shall the chair present the report to the House?

Mr. Savage makes that motion. Thank you.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you, then. That's adopted.

We'll suspend for just a couple of minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

We will recommence.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being here. We appreciate your participation in the pre-budget consultative process and the time you've taken to prepare your remarks and briefs, which you previously submitted. I remind you that we are going to hold you to five minutes for your presentations.

We'll commence with the representative from the Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance of Canada, Jean Harvey. Welcome.

[Jean Harvey, Interim Executive Director, Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance of Canada]

Thank you very much.

Good morning, committee members. CDPAC is a network of about 60 voluntary public and private sector organizations. We have a provincial-territorial alliance, and we have a thousand active members within CDPAC. We're really looking at a country-wide movement toward the prevention of chronic disease and an integrated population health approach to that.

When we talk about chronic disease there are reasons to be optimistic and certainly reasons to be pessimistic about this area. We're optimistic that there is increasing recognition of the burden of chronic diseases on our society today. We commend the government for putting forward, in 2005, $300 million over five years toward an integrated strategy for healthy living and chronic disease. We're also very happy to see the number of organizations and sectors that are working together in this area.

We know more today than we've ever known about chronic diseases and the prevention of them. We know that 80% of premature heart disease, strokes, and type two diabetes can be prevented, and we know that 40% of cancers can be prevented. That's through healthy diet, physical activity, and the avoidance of tobacco. However, there is a problem, because we know that chronic disease currently costs Canada $80 billion annually. With the aging population it's only going to get worse. We know that our risk factors aren't great: 60% of Canadians are overweight or obese; 80% of Canadians over 20 are not physically active enough; and even though we've had gains in tobacco, about 20% are still smokers.

CDPAC has put forward a number of recommendations, which you'll see in your package. I'll dive right into them.

The first two recommendations are around keeping our citizens healthy. We're asking that the government fulfil its commitment to allocate 1% of federal health spending to physical activity and sport. We know that Canadians are not physically active enough. This contributes to obesity and chronic diseases. We know that physical activity is an important component. We also know that you need a comprehensive and coordinated strategy around physical activity.

We have a pan-Canadian physical activity strategy that has been put together by the NGO community through the Coalition for Active Living. So we're suggesting that the federal government work with the NGO partners, such as Coalition for Active Living, look at those funding priorities and the various elements in there, and commit the funds to this very important area.

The second recommendation is around mental health. We know that mental health is an important factor in chronic disease prevention, and one in five people will be affected by mental illness. So we're suggesting that the federal government fund a Canadian mental health commission. You can find more details in your brief.

The next three recommendations are really around infrastructure pieces that you had in your proposals.

One is that the federal government allocate funding for physical infrastructure to reduce obesity. We know that there is a link between obesity levels and how our communities are designed. So when we talk about the design of communities, we're talking about the interconnected street networks, bicycle paths, sidewalks, walking trails, and public transportation. Unfortunately, our communities are not designed properly for that, so we're suggesting that 7% of transportation-related infrastructure funding be allocated to active transportation projects that facilitate active living. This is the same proposal that went forward from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and is also supported by the Canadian Cancer Society.

The next recommendation is on the surveillance system. It's very important to monitor chronic diseases in Canada through surveillance. We feel that the surveillance system is inadequate, has significant data gaps, and lacks integration and coordination. So the existing systems need to continue to develop and grow. We also need to build on the links of those that already exist through cancer, diabetes, physical activity, etc.

The last one we want to discuss is the new Canadian lifelong health initiative. It's a groundbreaking set of large cohort studies that would track the health of thousands of Canadians over many years, generate new knowledge, and really give us some good data on how to get a handle on these diseases and the health of our population. This would position Canada as a world leader and would attract and retain the best scientists.

So with that very quick summary, I'd like to thank you very much for having CDPAC appear here and for our being able to put forward our priorities. As a non-government organization out there in the world, we're certainly very keen to work with the federal government to help move some of these initiatives forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, Ms. Harvey.

We'll continue with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. I'm pleased to have Bob Friesen here.

Welcome, Bob. You have five minutes.

[Bob Friesen, President, Canadian Federation of Agriculture]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much for the invitation.

I would also like to applaud this year's theme, which is Canada's place in a competitive world, because that fits really well with where the Canadian Federation of Agriculture is trying to move the entire agriculture and agrifood industry.

As most of you know, CFA is a national federation of organizations, with general farm organizations from every province as members, as well as numerous commodity organizations.

The importance of agriculture and agrifood in Canada is undisputed. We generate somewhere around $130 billion of revenue a year. That's about 8.5% of our GDP. One in seven jobs goes to agriculture, which is almost two million jobs a year, $26 billion in exports, and in fact it contributes $6 billion to our trade balance.

This may surprise you: I am not here today to ask you for money. How much more money we need in agriculture is currently outstanding; however, what is not outstanding is the need for us to be much more strategic in the way we spend the money that is already being invested in agriculture. If you look at the almost $5 billion a year that both levels of government have invested in agriculture in the last few years, it's a significant amount of money, but we need to ask ourselves whether we are flowing that money as strategically as we possibly can.

When you look at the amber spending as a value of farm gate production, ours has been increasing for the last several years and in fact is getting closer and closer to what the U.S. is spending in amber. Of course, if you include their green spending, they spend almost 40% of the value of agricultural production in their industry. That compares to about 13% in Canada. But if you look at the way they spend the money, and you look at the last few years in realized net income, you will realize that Canadian farmers are coming out of the absolute worst three years in net income in history, and they continue to compete against U.S. farmers, who are coming out of the best three years in farm income in history.

So we need to be much more strategic in the way we invest money. If you look at the way the U.S. is priming the pump at the bottom of agriculture, they are spending most of their money in the grains and oilseeds sector, which then accrues benefits and cross-subsidizes into valued-added industries such as hog feeding, cattle feeding, and the biofuel industry. So they've really primed the pump, which is accruing benefits throughout the entire agricultural sector.

While Canadian farmers are some of the most competitive farmers in the world, we also need competitive policy to be able to compete against the agricultural industries in other countries. We need a vision for agriculture that consists of a vibrant, dynamic industry within an environment that allows all sectors in the chain to be profitable. So the CFA members decided a few years ago that we need to look at a Canadian farm bill. What can we do ensure that we can turn our industry towards profitability?

If you look at the last agricultural policy framework, it was merely a collage of funding programs—very important funding programs, funding programs that farmers needed to mitigate some of the impacts of added input costs when it comes to on-farm food safety programs, environmental sustainable programs, etc., but it was a collage of funding programs. Not nearly enough time was spent on strategy--what kinds of strategies can we implement and adopt to ensure that we move agriculture towards profitability?

What we did is develop three pillars. One is a public goods and services pillar. We need to make sure that when farmers implement on-farm food safety programs, environmentally sustainable programs, we don't victimize those programs against the net income experienced by farm families. So we need public help in paying for some of those costs.

When we look at business risk management, we need to be more strategic in how we flow that money. We need to separate disaster from stabilization. We're suggesting, and have talked to the minister, about looking at the merits of implementing a top tier in CAIS and having a NISA-like program in that top tier that would add predictability and bankability to that program. We need to bring back the ability for provinces to have companion programs to make sure they can address regional or province-specific needs in those areas. We also need to look at declining margins. We have a severe declining margin problem in the grains and oilseeds sector. We need to look at that.

My last point is that we also added a strategic growth pillar. That talks about top-down investment and value-added, bottom-up investment at the primary production sector, making sure farmers have all the tools they need to empower them in the marketplace and making sure we invest adequate money in research and innovation as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, Mr. Friesen.

We continue with the Retail Council of Canada. Peter Woolford is here.

Welcome, sir. Please proceed.

[Peter Woolford, Vice-President, Policy Development and Research, Retail Council of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my thanks to the committee for inviting us here again today.

Let me start by introducing the Retail Council of Canada. We are the voice of retail in Canada. Our members operate 40,000 stores in every village, town, and city in our country. In 2005, retailers directly sold $370 billion worth of merchandise. Over 2 million Canadians work directly in retail. Retailers invest almost $8 billion a year. From 2000 to 2004 our members created 165,000 new jobs.

This rapid job growth, in fact, has created some problems for the trade, which is experiencing some challenges in recruiting and retention, especially in western Canada.

I will now turn to our economic outlook. Retailers have posted good results in 2006. According to Statistics Canada, between January and July retail sales increased by 5.4% over the preceding year.

Our report on retail, which was published in September, shows that sales and profit margins are doing well. Consumer behaviour is positive. Our members are optimistic about the fall and holiday season, though they expect a slowdown in growth next year, particularly because of the situation in the U.S.

We achieve these results even though real personal disposable income increased by less than 0.5%t in 2005. That explains why we are focussing on the growth of individual and family disposable income. When Canadians find their personal finances are improving, retail sales and employees in the retail sector benefit.

Mr. Chair, with that to set the stage, I'd now like to turn to our policy advice.

As we have for many years, the Retail Council of Canada is again making the case for tax cuts for individuals. We're probably an unusual business organization, in that we are more focused on our customers than on our own internal bottom lines. We are delighted with the one-point reduction in the GST; that one step increased real personal disposable income by more than the average growth that the average family enjoyed in 2005.

Our submission tracks the effects of federal tax and transfer policies on the real personal disposable income of Canadian households. It shows that over the past 15 years, federal budgets have in fact marginally reduced real disposable incomes, including those of the poorest households in Canada: those earning less than $9,500 a year. In contrast, federal revenues have grown 20 times faster than average PDI. We strongly recommend that the government reduce the growth of federal revenues and return more money to individual Canadians, especially those with low or modest incomes.

Our submission focuses on cuts in personal income tax and on the GST. The RCC recommends that the federal government implement personal income tax cuts and changes in tax credit programs that will provide a boost to the real personal disposable incomes of families earning low and middle incomes. We believe that the greater scope to design a reduction in PIT to assist low- and middle-income Canadians makes this a preferable way to reduce the tax burden.

Although we see greater benefit to Canadians in personal income tax cuts, RCC supports the federal government's commitment to implement the second proposed cut in the GST rate.

Finally, Mr. Chair, I would be remiss if I didn't reiterate our longstanding support for GST harmonization. This committee has heard us talk about this point for almost 20 years now. We will make the case to provincial governments in our pre-budget submissions in those jurisdictions in which it is still relevant. Our support for harmonization comes with one essential caveat: retailers must be permitted to display prices exclusive of tax to accommodate the differing levels of tax across the country.

Those are my opening remarks, Mr. Chair. I'd be glad to answer any questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you, Mr. Woolford.

From the Certified Management Accountants of Canada, we have Mr. Tinkler.

Go ahead, please; you have five minutes.

[Michael Tinkler, Vice-Chair, Certified Management Accountants of Canada]

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, distinguished committee members, and fellow presenters. I am pleased to be with you this morning.

CMA Canada is pleased the committee has made Canada's place in a competitive world the core theme of its pre-budget consultations. We firmly believe that Canada's competitiveness in the world and the standard of living enjoyed by Canadians are linked directly to our ability to improve our labour productivity performance. In leading the way with budget surpluses, debt reduction, low inflation, strong employment growth and relatively solid GDP growth, Canada's economic fundamentals are enviable.

There is, however, some troubling news in an otherwise impressive story of economic performance: Canada's recent record on labour productivity growth and its impact on Canadian competitiveness.

If we want to continue having one of the best standards of living in the world, and if we want to maintain the resources we need to invest in programs that improve our standard of living, we must improve our productivity. This is why we focus on productivity-related issues, particularly on the role played by people, physical capital and innovation.

Numerous initiatives could be undertaken to improve labour productivity performance. We are mindful, however, of the government's determination to maintain balanced budgets, reduce debt, and lower the rate of growth in government program spending. Accordingly, we recommend selected investments in people, human capital, and innovation that should build a more productive and competitive Canada.

We therefore propose the six following initiatives:

One, increase the small business tax threshold to $500,000. We were pleased Budget 2006 raised the threshold for the small-business tax rate from $300,000 to $400,000, effective January 1, 2007. This initiative recognized that small businesses are key drivers of employment and economic growth, yet are constantly struggling with resource scarcity. We recommend that Budget 2007 continue to encourage small business by boosting the threshold to $500,000. This threshold increase would encourage small-business owners to invest even more in their businesses, including greater investment in information and communications technology, a key driver of labour productivity.

Two, establish a special capital cost allowance rate on information and communications technology equipment. The tax system has a considerable impact on business investment, and the tax treatment of capital property is particularly important. Capital cost allowance rates can influence the timing and level of investments made in machinery and equipment, including information and communications technology.

With the recent budget, the capital cost allowance system has been enhanced in Canada. However, the useful life of assets can change over time. It is therefore essential that CCA rates be assessed on a continuing basis. Given the amount of investment in upgrading ICP skills to improve productivity, we urge the government to make targeted improvements to the CCA system.

Three, provide a refundable investment tax credit for upgrading employees' ICT skills. An essential corollary to encouraging greater business investment in information and communications technology is ensuring that employees receive the training necessary to use that technology to its greatest benefit. This increased knowledge base can yield significant dividends through innovation and increased productivity. We therefore encourage the government to introduce a refundable tax credit to assist with the cost of training.

Four, raise the lifetime capital gains exemption to $1 million. Small-business owners, as you know, are eligible for a lifetime capital gains exemption of $500,000. Although it has undergone fluctuations, the $500,000 exemption level was first set for individuals in 1985 and was extended to corporations in 1987. It is not unreasonable, therefore, to increase the level of exemption after 20 years. We believe it should be doubled to $1 million. Such an increase would enable small-business owners to reinvest the tax savings into the economy in the form of “angel” money for existing family business enterprises or venture capital to help start new businesses.

Five, introduce a fellowships program to support businesses in all sectors.

Very few types of investments can generate the economic benefits of education. According to OECD estimates, adding one year to the education level can increase per-capita GDP by at least 5%. Education and training are one of the fundamental requirements of a productive, innovative economy. Competitive businesses have skilled employees.

Our brief to the committee also includes several recommendations to enhance the operation of the SR&ED tax credit. I won't go through them now because I'm mindful of the time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and your colleagues for your interest this morning, and I look forward to responding to any questions you may have dans les deux langues officielles during the question and answer session with this morning's panel.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you, Mr. Tinkler.

We have to get going. I have to keep up the tradition of the chair, keeping it to five minutes. So we'll go on to the next presenter, from the Canadian Electricity Association, Mr. Konow.

[Hans Konow, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Electricity Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to thank the distinguished members of this committee.

I will be making my remarks in English, but I would be please to answer questions in either official language.

The Canadian Electricity Association is the national voice of the electricity sector in Canada. Our members represent the full value chain, from production through to delivery to the customer.

The electricity supply and delivery system has historically been reliable, secure, and cost-effective. It has been one of the key competitive advantages underpinning the Canadian economy. Canadians expect this performance to continue into the future, but its doing so will require significant capital investment.

Meeting demand and delivery challenges requires significant investment to construct new and upgrade existing electricity infrastructure and to develop and deploy new fuels, energy services, and technologies. This must be accomplished at a time of substantial regulatory uncertainty, increasing environmental pressures, mobile capital flows, and human resource challenges that are unparalleled in our history.

The theme of this year's consultation is Canada's place in a competitive world. Accordingly, CEA is pleased to propose the following measures, grouped in the four broad categories requested by the committee.

Under health and skills, CEA has two recommendations. First, the federal government should move to reactivate class 24 and class 27, which were phased out in 1998, or provide the equivalent CA in tax credits. Alternatively, all of the end-of-stack generation technologies to control or reduce pollutants such as NOx, SOx, particulate matter, mercury, and carbon dioxode, could be placed in class 43.1.

Given your more stringent environmental regulations, the electricity industry needs fiscal tools to provide incentive to accelerate expensive improvements to its coal-fired plants.

Second, recognizing the significant human resource challenges facing the electricity sector, CEA believes that governments and industry must increase efforts to address issues such as recruiting and retraining workers, facilitating school-to-work transitions, and developing sector and career awareness strategies. Attracting skilled workers to Canada is also key to addressing the electricity sector's human resource needs.

Within the broader competitiveness agenda, CEA offers three specific recommendations.

First, amend subsection 162(2) of the Excise Tax Act to finally declare wind a natural resource and accelerate the development of this potentially significant renewable resource. There is a need to eliminate the administrative burden of GST collections and remittances to place wind energy on an equal footing with other declared natural resources.

Second, lower corporate tax rates to 19% immediately, to continue to provide increased economic stimulus to attracting economic development in Canada. CEA supports lower corporate tax rates over the longer term, as the bulk of new electricity supply will have to come from private, taxable partners.

Third, establish a federal energy grant program that will ensure the federal government remains a strategic funding partner to energy conservation, which remains a critical pillar of Canada's self-sufficiency in both electricity and natural gas.

Under infrastructure, CEA has three recommended measures that would invite mobile capital directly into the electricity industry to recapitalize its aging infrastructure, while signalling that Canada overall is open for investment.

First, the federal government should remove the inequity of distinguishing between old and new equipment, which is a unique holdover of the tax treatment for the electricity industry, as illustrated by the industry's supplied tax studies over the years. This move alone would significantly jump-start the change-out of capital stock by signalling the inherently shorter useful life of an existing asset base.

Second, the federal government should reclassify new technology of smart meters and advanced metering infrastructure to reflect the true nature of their components. A CCA rate of 45% for electronic software and communication technologies, combined with a 12% hardware rate, would be realistic and equitable.

Third, the federal government must continue to elevate CCA rates for new transmission and distribution build-out, to 12%, and for new nuclear power supply to 12%. Both measures would remove a tax inequity with the United States.

Finally, under the innovation platform, CEA has two recommendations. First, amend subsection 127(8) of the Income Tax Act to allow active partners in LLPs to utilize SR&EDs and provide new solutions to electricity technology challenges.

Second, permit SR&EDs to be refundable and extendable to all performers, while allowing the unused portions of the tax credit to offset other levies, such as CPP or EI. This would result in greater industrial innovation.

With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Next, we will be hearing from David Campbell, president of the Canadian Retail Building Supply Council.

Mr. Campbell, you have five minutes.

[David Campbell, President, Lumber and Building Materials Association of Ontario, Canadian Retail Building Supply Council]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is David Campbell, and I chair the government relations committee of the Canadian Retail Building Supply Council. The CRBSC is comprised of the five regional and provincial retail building supply associations across Canada. Their names and addresses are all listed in the letter of transmittal that is bound into our submission.

These five associations collectively represent over 2,000 member companies. Last year, total industry sales were an estimated $36 billion, and total employment was provided to some 50,000 Canadians in communities of all sizes and in all parts of Canada. Companies in our industry are typically family-owned and smaller businesses.

I'm also speaking today on behalf of the Canadian Hardware & Housewares Manufacturers Association, which fully endorses our brief's contents. Taken together, our two sponsoring associations represent almost 2,300 companies employing some 75,000 people engaged in all major aspects of the building materials, hardware, housewares, lawn and garden products industries. The two associations include manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers in their membership.

I can assure you that our submission fully represents the views of CRBSC's members, as obtained in a pre-budget survey carried out during the summer. CRBSC members were asked to assess growth prospects in Canada, for their own province or territory, their industry, and finally their own companies. The consensus was for medium growth both this year and next, although the trend in expectations is definitely downward. The percentage of survey respondents expecting a high growth rate for the balance of this year and in 2007 is declining, while those with low growth expectations are definitely on the rise.

The housing market is important to our members. Our brief, filed with the standing committee in early September, reported August predictions from Canada Mortgage and Housing that total housing starts will likely increase slightly this year before declining in 2007. CMHC believes that both starts and MLS sales will both be down for next year. Canada's economic performance over the past seven years has been enhanced by a buoyant housing market, measured both in terms of starts and MLS activity. If the industry falters next year, as CMHC forecasts, a decidedly negative impact on the economy is predictable.

The standing committee should recognize that a major reason behind the economic slowdown in the United States is the declining housing market in that country. The May 2006 budget stated clearly, ”A slower U.S. economy would have negative implications for the Canadian economy as well.” The standing committee should regard the nations's economic outlook for the next year cautiously. They should also recognize that a buoyant housing market in 2007 would be an important factor in shielding Canadians against steadily growing concern that a U.S. slowdown will almost inevitably pour over into Canada.

Our submission describes cost-effective measures that the standing committee could support to promote a healthy housing market. Again this year, we urge that Canadians be allowed to borrow from their RRSP savings to finance residential retrofits to meet the needs of senior citizens and to undertake residential repairs and renovations. The model for this initiative already exists in the first-time homebuyers program. Its extension to other uses would be low-cost and would provide an important stimulus to the housing market. This is an idea whose time has come, and it deserves the strong support of the standing committee.

The value of both the first-time homebuyers program and the GST-HST new housing rebate have been progressively eroded over time. We recommend that the maximum amount first-time homebuyers can withdraw be increased from $20,000 to $40,000 in the next budget. When I appeared before you last year, I was asked whether we would favour relating the amount of the GST-HST new housing rebate to the new housing price index. I assured you that we would support this approach.

In an uncertain business environment, the importance of economic stimulation increases, thus we urge that the upcoming budget ensure that tax relief take priority over increased spending. We advocate reductions for both the personal and corporate tax rates, as well as a reduction in the small business rate and a higher threshold at which the rates apply.

Finally, while we do not oppose further percentage point reductions in the GST-HST rate, it should not occur at the expense of other tax reduction priorities that we have described.

Thank you for your attention to our presentation. I look forward to discussing any points we have raised during the question and answer period.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Thank you very much, Mr. Campbell.

We continue with the Canadian Dental Association, Andrew Jones. Five minutes to you.