Evidence of meeting #42 for Finance in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was industry.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:50 p.m.
Bloc
Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC
But we can agree that in many situations in our life in Canada, or Quebec, we cannot necessarily compare ourselves to the United States in all areas.
5:50 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
I totally agree with you. That is why I believe this is an opportunity for Canada to ensure that it is not just further taxing companies that create jobs.
You talk about the rural regions and we are quite aware of this issue. Obviously wireless eliminates distance barriers, which allows businesses in rural regions to be competitive. It allows them to be more productive. This also helps ensure public safety in regions where that is more challenging. More than half the 911 calls in Canada are made on wireless networks. It is crucial to ensure that this same possibility exists in rural regions.
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC
You are trying to convince us that accessibility everywhere, through valleys and mountains—sometimes the signal does not go through two mountains—is an essential need that should be covered by the state.
Furthermore, I want to know how the 3.5¢, the $130 million paid to the Government of Canada, could be a statistical error. I understand that in New Brunswick it is something else and in Quebec too. How can $130 million, 3.5¢ on a bill of a given amount, be excessive? I think that is a bit of an exaggeration.
5:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
Let us compare the situation to that of other companies that pay licence fees in Canada. The wireless industry owns 2% of the licences and pays 50% of the fees. Clearly, there are other sectors that have the right to use public waves who are not paying the same fees.
5:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
Yes, perhaps, but if we also consider the auctions that were held for granting certain zones two years ago, the wireless industry has paid $4.3 billion simply to have the right to access these waves.
Maybe $130 million is not a lot to you, but I can assure you that it is to taxpayers.
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I am not saying that $130 million is not a lot. We are not talking about taxpayers. We are talking about $130 million to Telus, Bell, Rogers, and Vidéotron. They are the ones you are defending. You said so in your first answer.
5:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
At the end of the day, it is the taxpayers who pay.
5:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
Our message is clear. We are not asking the government to lower the licence fees. We are simply asking it not to increase them.
5:55 p.m.
Bloc
Daniel Paillé Bloc Hochelaga, QC
I will address the people from the Canadian Public Works Association about the March 31 deadline. You are proposing that the federal government invest more money, but the commitments have been made. We know that Canada's deficit will be a bit higher, since the government is bound to a tax harmonization process over the next five years. Therefore, it has nothing to do with cash.
Would it not be better if the government, instead of doing this on a case by case basis, simply announced that it will agree to finance the work until July 31, or something like that?
November 1st, 2010 / 5:55 p.m.
President, Canadian Public Works Association
No. I think in the spirit it was entered into and the efficiency that's been gained by the program parameters that have been established, it could work quite contrary to the efficient completion of a lot of the works that have been done as communities, consultants, and governments have to move on to other projects. Those that have legitimate problems, though, definitely should be revisited and extensions considered on a case-by-case basis.
Thank you.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If you could give me notice when I have two minutes left, I'd appreciate it. I'd like to share some time with Mr. Hiebert.
Very quickly, just for clarification, Mr. Lord--I almost called you Premier--the spectrum was an auction, was it not? Was there a minimum bid or was it the marketplace that determined the price at that auction?
5:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
For the spectrum on which the licences applied--not the spectrum that was auctioned in 2008, but prior to 2008 there were licences that were given dating back to 1985 when the industry was very nascent.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Right, but I think in your presentation you talked a little bit about the auction that just happened, did you not?
5:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
Yes.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
So just to answer my question, was that the marketplace determining that, or was there a minimum bid required by the Government of Canada?
5:55 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association
It was the marketplace, but the way the auctions are structured, as you know, can have an impact on the final price of an auction.
5:55 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I appreciate that, but I wanted to point that out because I need it for future reference.
I have a quick question for our folks from the labour group. First of all, I'm 100% behind mobility of labour. I'm going to look at your recommendation. I'm not sure it should be applied only to the construction trades; maybe it should be expanded.
I've been adamantly opposed to a Bloc private member's bill that pays people to go back to places they're from even if there aren't any jobs. I think it's the absolute opposite of what we should be doing.
I haven't had a chance to look at it yet, but have you actually costed out what it would cost the taxpayer? What is that number?
6 p.m.
Director, Canadian Affairs, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Canadian Office
Yes.
Go ahead, Chris.
6 p.m.
Christopher Smillie Senior Advisor, Government Relations and Public Affairs, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, Canadian Office
We've outlined a number of scenarios. For a pilot project, the first-year implementation cost is approximately $4 million, with a payback of about $16 million once you take back EI, etc.
6 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
I'm assuming your organization isn't opposed to its being expanded to other occupations, but you want it--
