Finance Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2009

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

What is your definition of “qualified heritage property”? That's my question.

[Paul Oberman]

The current definition under the act is a property that has a heritage easement either at the municipal, provincial, or federal level. I think that's a good definition.

The problem is that you only need the easement. You don't actually have to restore the property or maintain it to any particular standard. The work that's typically done is lowered to the amount of rebate or subsidy that's available. So under a program of this nature, significant amounts of additional funds would be available.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I appreciate that.

I appreciate your comment on HST. I happen to be one of those defending the combination. It's very difficult with consumers, let me just put it that way, and constituents. As an organization, if you could do anything to help promote that it's a good thing for the economy in the long run, it would be helpful.

Mr. Galloway, it's nice to see you again. You didn't get to your final point, I don't think, in your presentation. Would you like to comment on what you would like to say?

[Bill Galloway]

Thank you.

We've been working well with government over the last six years on cap and trade legislation. We're well-positioned as a company and as a segment to work with government in reducing greenhouse gases.

We've seen significant reductions in NOx and SOx, as part of the Ontario regulation. We are looking forward to regulations that are not a patchwork, where there are different rules in the provinces, different rules federally, and different rules in the United States.

It's important that we're all on an integrated platform. I think it's important that we put a price on carbon, and that we use the process of cap and trade to lower emissions. I think that's a valuable thing.

We as a sector and as a company are ready to engage and we're ready to engage now.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I have a final question for the board of trade. I have also been a big proponent of a national transit strategy. I don't necessarily agree that it should all be gas tax, but that's a different issue.

I am in favour of a capital fund for capital use, not for use in operating. Does your board of trade have a position on whether some federal money should used for operating in the transit system, or is it strictly for capital acquisition?

[Carol Wilding]

The recommendation we're looking at here is mostly directed toward capital.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

Mr. Pacetti.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

The board of trade cited a study from RBC. You said that most native-born Canadians would earn more money than immigrants, correct?

[Carol Wilding]

Pardon?

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Your experience has been that immigrants earn less money.

[Carol Wilding]

Correct.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Is that situation the result of a lack of skills, communication skills, schooling? What is your experience? Is there a reason we're not paying them as much as Canadian-born workers?

[Carol Wilding]

We attribute this to a lack of effective integration. We're not integrating them. It's taking a generation or two to integrate them fully.

There are also the challenges associated with the recognition of professional credentials. Members of a particular profession or trade may not be able to move directly into practice. So you see them having to take lower-paying jobs.

There's also a split in the patterns between males and females.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I'm asking because we've been getting a lot of comments. Companies are willing to do part of the job, but they're asking government to invest more in skills. I'm not sure how you view it. If it is a company's role, I would imagine it's your membership that would have to invest more in skills. Or is it up to the government to do that?

I'm not looking for a black-and-white answer. From your perspective, is it better for companies to train employees, or do they need the government to do that for them?

[Carol Wilding]

I don't think it's an either/or. If we're not even integrating, then the whole matter of skills development is a moot point. The first problem is to get them into the workforce, get them into the roles. Only then can we decide the proper public-private proportion of responsibility for training or retraining. Right now, we're just not getting them into the workforce with a strong skill set.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

But how much should the government do to get them into the workforce?

[Brian Zeiler-Kligman]

What we're actually talking about is not government training. This is about ensuring that people who have come, and who are trained as lawyers, engineers, and doctors, are able to practise in their field. Both the private sector and the public sector are facing the difficulty of not being able to assess whether those credentials are equivalent to Canadian credentials. This assessment is fundamentally a governmental responsibility.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

One of the suggestions I heard was that we evaluate their credentials before they even get here. Would that solve some of the problem?

[Carol Wilding]

Yes.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll go to Mr. Dechert, please.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to ask a question of Mr. Galloway.

You mentioned extending the accelerated capital cost allowance. We've heard similar requests from other groups, and in one case, it was suggested that perhaps the classes of equipment the accelerated capital cost allowance currently applies to should be expanded. Do you have any comment on that? Is it too narrow?

Maybe the Tax Executives group has a comment on that as well.

[Bill Galloway]

Yes, I would prefer to delegate that one to the tax group. We're specifically interested in machinery and things that are--

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

So you're satisfied that the things you need are covered currently. You just want a longer run.

Ms. Pollock, maybe I can ask you, should we restrict it to certain classes of property, or should we make it any legitimate capital expenditure?