Finance Committee on Oct. 18th, 2011

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

So you withdraw the comment you made earlier?

[Gabe Hayos]

Yes.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Okay. And what do you think of us doing an actual operational review? Do you think it's worthwhile, inefficiencies being found to capitalize on those savings? Do you think that's a prudent thing to do?

[Gabe Hayos]

Yes, in my experience, I think that's a great approach. You don't know how effective it will be in this circumstance; only time will tell, but I think that is an excellent approach, and I've seen many experiences where it's been very productive.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Very good. I would just like to add that the Hotel Association has been very good to Manitobans. In fact, Manitoba has done very well, thanks to many of the initiatives put forward by the Hotel Association.

I want to comment, sir. The opposition talked about EI increases. I want to remind you that this government did freeze them, and then raised them 5¢ and 10¢. What you didn't hear in that initial intervention is that the opposition actually wanted to raise them by $4 billion, not $1.2 billion, which is what we initially did. What would that do to your business?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We'll have to leave that as a comment. You may come back to that in another round.

Mr. Mai, you have five minutes.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the Canadian Construction Association.

The Department of Finance itself has noted that infrastructure investment has more than five times the economic impact of corporate income tax cuts. Instead of reducing corporate taxes—which we found back in 2008 were still very competitive—we've been asking the government instead to invest that money in infrastructure. What is your opinion, especially considering that right now for us would be the right time, but the government has said no, it will continue with the budget it had before? What's your view on that?

We'll start with Mr. Moist.

[Paul Moist]

Through the chair, Budget 2011 made a commitment to Canada's mayors and councillors, all of whom met in Halifax in June. The Minister of Transport spoke for the Government of Canada. The commitment made in Budget 2011 was to sit down and talk about a long-term, stable system of funding to deal with the...what is it, $125 billion municipal infrastructure deficit? I'm not here speaking for the FCM, but one quarter of our 600,000 members work with failing infrastructure each and every day. That stability in long-term funding, from all levels of government, not just the federal government, is essential to create a climate for business and communities we can live in.

[Nadine Miller]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, through to the speaker.

Yes, we totally support the long-term infrastructure investment strategy, working with all three levels of government. As I mentioned earlier, different governments are responsible for different infrastructure. I think Canada would benefit from putting all the stakeholders at the table, including the engineering society and the construction industry.

The reason for my comment is that collectively I believe the stakeholders can help bring better solutions for that long-term plan. We mentioned three Ps. Three Ps are being widely used throughout the world. One of the strengths of three Ps is allowing all participants, from the finance right through sometimes to the operator, to work together to come up with more cost-effective solutions. A long-term sustainable plan, as committed in the 2011 budget, with all levels of government and stakeholders, including industry input, would be very beneficial.

One of the challenges in Canada—

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you.

A quick question for the Canadian Co-operative Association. If we were to focus the economy towards another greener, more sustainable economy, how would that benefit the cooperatives, in terms of giving them tools?

[John Anderson]

First of all, I would say that the cooperative sector has some of the leaders in sustainable economic development. Mountain Equipment Co-op, The Co-operators insurance company, Vancity credit union—they're all leaders, not just in the co-op sector, but leaders in Canadian industry in their respective areas.

We've also seen, in terms of renewable energy, a huge growth in the number of renewable energy co-ops being set up—particularly in Ontario, but in other provinces as well—around wind, solar, and biomass. Right in Ontario, ethanol...the Integrated Grain Processors Co-operative in Aylmer, Ontario, is a community-owned centre. There's a whole wave of new community-owned businesses that are co-ops in the renewable energy sector.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I'd be interested in having a list. Maybe you can submit it to us.

[John Anderson]

We've just done a study on that, and I would be happy to send it to you.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

I have a quick question for Monsieur Lord.

Mr. Lord, you are of the view that the government should interfere less and give industry more room.

If studies show that wireless communications are linked to cancer, is the industry going to compensate users?

[Bernard Lord]

I very much appreciate your question. I would add this to your premise: in my opinion, the government should intervene less so that individuals can make their own choices. On the question of cancer, the standards we use are those of the Canadian government. The industry and Canadian service providers comply fully with the rules that have been set.

But I think that we have to bring up a very important point: out of all the studies that have been done around the world, none has been able to make a link between cancer and the use of cell phones.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Fine. Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Hoback, please.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here this morning.

I want to apologize for my tardiness this morning.

Fortunately, today is a great day for Canadian farmers. Today we had legislation put in the House that will allow farmers in western Canada to have the same freedom as farmers in eastern Canada. I know that all the members here are excited about that, because we all believe in freedom. Without freedom, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about what we're talking about today.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

We'll let Mr. Brison talk about what he wants to talk about, but there are a few things he pointed out that I'd like to maybe highlight, just to get them on the record.

Ms. Glover talked about the increases in EI and what we've done there, and I think she has it on the record. But what's not on the record is the 45-day work year that the opposition was proposing and the $4 billion price tag that would have. I can open that up to any of the business members and they'd all probably give the same answer, so I don't think I need to do that--on what that would do to our economy, especially coming from Saskatchewan, where the unemployment rate is 4%. We're looking for plumbers and electricians.

In fact, I just did a riding tour where I talked to all the towns and municipalities, and it's a very interesting scenario. Four years ago in Saskatchewan, when you talked to the mayors they would say, “People are leaving. They're going to Alberta. How are we going to pay to maintain our infrastructure?” That was a quite common theme. Now when I talk to them they say, “We need infrastructure because people are moving back. We need commercial lots. We need more residential spaces.” It's a good problem to have, but it's also a good example of what happens when government gets out of the way and lets business get on with doing business. It's also a good example of having policies on balancing your books and maintaining a strong financial situation, which the Saskatchewan government has done. I give them credit for doing that.

I go back to Mr. Brison's comment about a $4 billion tax hike and exactly what that would be. I know he wouldn't want to see that, so I'm sure he would deny that right now, or would at least say that's not the thing.

Getting back to the agriculture sector.... Chair, I will apologize. I'm a little bubbly this morning because I'm so excited about this. We've been fighting for this for quite a while.

The Friday before the break week we saw a durum plant announced in Saskatchewan. This is what happens when you get out of people's way, let regulations go where they need to go, and get out of where you don't need to be. We had a durum plant announced in Regina--the first durum plant on the prairies. There is one more durum plant. It's in CIGI, in downtown Winnipeg. Otherwise, there are no durum plants in western Canada. We're the largest producers of durum and not one durum plant. Does that maybe tell you there's a regulatory problem there?

Anyway, we're addressing that. But what is so exciting is that this plant is being built with not one federal or provincial dollar. I look at that and say, “That's what we need to target to see our economy boom. What other things can we do to see that type of scenario?” It's not costing the taxpayer a penny. It's employing 50 people. It's buying local farmers' grain. It's marketing a value-added product. If you can't be excited about that, what can you get excited about?

Mr. Lord, I think I'll go to you first. In what other areas can we remove regulations to see this type of excitement in other sectors of the Canadian economy?

[Bernard Lord]

I share your excitement. In a way, you're describing what's happening in the wireless sector. The wireless sector is growing through investments from the private sector without government investment. We're not looking for handouts. We're not looking for bailouts. We simply want regulation that will not prevent us from investing more.

If there's one area I would like to highlight...when you look at the fees that are paid by the wireless sector to the Canadian government compared to fees paid by wireless sectors to other governments of the G-7, we have by far the highest government fees. We feel that is a barrier to growth that could be eliminated gradually by the government. That investment would go back into networks to satisfy the demand of Canadians.

I talked about growth of 26 times. Some of our networks are growing by 5% a week. I want to repeat that because most other sectors would be happy to have 5% in a year.

We're not looking for handouts or government subsidies. We're simply saying, “Please stay out of our way. Let us continue to invest and deliver services that Canadians want.”

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you.

Mr. Hayos, you talked about Jack Mintz's study. I wonder if I could get you to table that study, because it talks about the impact of corporate tax relief. I think Mr. Marston would enjoy that read. He'd probably be happy to see that. So if we could get that study tabled, that would be great.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

It would be nice to obtain that for everyone here.

Thank you, Mr. Hoback.

I wanted to follow up, Mr. Hayos, on your recommendation, especially on modifying the RRSP and the RRIF rules to allow greater tax deferrals on retirement savings. You talked about increasing the age limits for withdrawals and reducing the RRIF minimum withdrawal requirements. This is something I'm approached a lot about by seniors.

Have you costed this? Do you have a cost that you can provide to the committee either today or in the future?

[Gabe Hayos]

No, we don't have it at this point. But it's something that we would look to provide to the committee, because it's something we believe in.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

If you do have anything further on that, I would certainly appreciate it.

Mr. Lord, your organization may want to comment on Ms. Fralick's third recommendation. It's a very interesting recommendation. I know the wireless industry is doing a fair amount of work on electronic health records. So if you would provide some information to me and the committee, I would certainly appreciate it.

And now I want to give Mr. Pollard the opportunity to answer the question by Ms. Glover.

[Tony Pollard]

We appreciate what the government has done with the freezing of the EI premiums. The question that Mr. Brison had asked me was, would I be in favour of having that continue in the future? I said yes. But we recognize fully what the government has done in that area with the freezing, Ms. Glover.