Finance Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2012

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Okay. Thank you for sharing that.

Mr. Watkins, it's good to see you. Can you talk to us about the importance of the manufacturing sector and about the importance of being able to plan in your sector, in the steel industry, for investments? I noticed in your brief that you're talking about wanting a five-year commitment to the accelerated depreciation allowance and about the importance of having a broader multi-year strategy rather than just quick hits and budget-to-budget.

[Ron Watkins]

First of all, it's at least five years, just to be clear on that.

We start with the very fundamental premise that manufacturing remains important to the 21st century economy. There are still over two million Canadians employed in high-valued jobs across the country in a multitude of sectors, so what we look for are policies that are going to support and strengthen the manufacturing base across the country in different sectors. We're not looking for measures specific to our industry; we're saying that if we can get a manufacturing direction in the economy, that's certainly beneficial to us, but it's beneficial to all Canadians.

To begin with, we look for a framework that starts with tax measures of the kind we've spoken about, a competitive tax system. We applaud the changes to the tax system that have been made to date, but beyond the basic fiscal or tax environment within which we operate, we look in areas such as innovation and skills, international trade, sound environmental policies, transportation policies, and so on. We think it's a package of things that has to come together.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you very much. I'm sorry we have so little time.

Mr. Sanger, I heard you reference the IMF and the OECD. These are not just some people with opinions, but credible international organizations. In the case of the OECD, the largest developed economies belong to it. Would you agree with Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, for example, and the OECD that austerity and overzealous cuts are a drag on economic performance? That's certainly what the Parliamentary Budget Officer told this finance committee earlier this year.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Please give just a brief response.

[Toby Sanger]

Absolutely, and I also agree with the IMF, which also said that. They said we need to focus more on growth, rather than cuts, in order to keep the GDP—

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

That's so people have jobs too, I assume, and can earn a decent income.

[Toby Sanger]

Yes, exactly, it's growth and jobs, and the IMF has actually called for progressive tax measures, as well, to reduce deficits.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Ms. Nash.

I have two more members who would like to ask questions, I and Mr. Hoback. Can I indulge the witnesses to stay for an extra few minutes? If you have to go, we understand that.

Perhaps I'll pick up where Ms. Nash left off.

Mr. Sanger, you talked about the need to avoid deep cuts. Can you tell me what a deep cut is? Just what per cent would it be?

[Toby Sanger]

Well, right now, I think it's inappropriate to have any overall cuts in public spending, as were instituted in the last budget, because that's slowing down the economy. Business is not picking that up, nor will it—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

So is any cut a deep cut, in your view?

[Toby Sanger]

Right now it's inappropriate for the government, from an economic point of view, to cut spending.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'm limited in my time. I'm just trying to ask very basic questions.

A 6% increase for health, a 3% increase for education, social assistance, increases in funding for research and development, and the infrastructure stimulus program that happened would not be cuts, would they? They would actually be stimulative investments in this country.

[Toby Sanger]

We supported those. The thing with the infrastructure program is that the money is all committed. Infrastructure spending is actually going down, as the Conference Board mentioned today.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

I'm a former member of CUPE; this may surprise a lot of people. The problem I have, though, with unions like this is there is absolutely no balance. I understand you say you're critical in all sorts of areas, but why wouldn't you come and say that during tough economic times, increasing health spending 6%, increasing education spending 3%, increasing social assistance 3%, making increases in research and development funding, which the AUCC praised in the last budget.... Why not at least balance it and say that on those issues, the government is doing well?

Maybe that's a rhetorical question. Anyway, we can have this debate.

[Toby Sanger]

I've certainly commended this government on other things, for sure.

We've only got a few minutes, though.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I look forward to those statements.

Okay, I want to move to the Alberta Chambers of Commerce. I thank you, Mr. Severin and Mr. Collyer, for being here today.

You see some of the challenges. When I go back to Alberta, every single business, small, medium, or large, says to me, “James, don't you”—meaning I and others in Ottawa—“get the labour challenges we're facing in Alberta? Don't you get it?”

I get it, but you see some of the challenges we have. There are an awful lot of people, for instance, who continue to believe the temporary foreign workers program allows businesses to take advantage of people coming from other countries.

Mr. Severin, I want you to deal with this head-on, because I know it's not true and you know it's not true, but there are a lot of people in this country who believe that's why businesses want to expand this program. Why are you calling for an expansion in this program in your brief here today?

[Brad Severin]

Very simply put, it's an Alberta reality. We cannot find the people we need in order to fill the jobs required for us to continue to be the economic engine in Canada, which is, again, another economic reality at the moment. We have not seen the interprovincial movement of labour we have seen in the past that may have filled some of those jobs we now look to fill with temporary foreign workers.

We do commend the government for the work they have done, particularly in the EI areas, to promote interprovincial labour movement, but we think those programs are going to take some time to gain traction and before we can start to feel the positive effects of those programs.

The raw reality is we need people. Come to Alberta, the land of opportunity.

[A voice]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The other thing we're working out, frankly, is trying to get a lot of the work that's being done in Alberta moved out to other provinces. I took a tour of southwestern Ontario in June to try to move some of the work that's being done in Alberta out to southwestern Ontario. That's obviously one of the other issues.

I only have a minute left. I have a lot of other questions. On your severance transfers to RRSPs—we don't have time for it today—can you perhaps provide our committee with more information?

My last question is this: can you briefly address the issues with respect to RRSP policies? Are you recommending that we move the age of conversion to RRIF again upwards, as we did in moving it from 69 to 71? Is this what you're recommending in your brief here?

[Brad Severin]

Some of the recommendations we have around that reflect more of a staging, a ratioed approach, as opposed to a whole single-step movement to a higher age of transfer.

For example, for those who are continuing to be engaged in the workforce, as opposed to disincentivizing them and locking them into a transfer or a required transfer, it's potentially looking at a staged transfer over the years that they continue to be engaged in the workforce.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

If there's anything further on that, we'd appreciate it.

Mr. Watkins, we've met on the issue of trade, and you have given me, as an MP, some information, but if there is something further you want to share with the committee, I'd ask you to do so as well. I'm out of time right now, but if there's something further, you could send it to the committee.

We'll go to our final round. We'll go to Mr. Hoback, please.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I have just a few questions, and then we'll be done, folks.

Mr. Severin, I'm in Saskatchewan. I have the exact same problems. I'm happy you've expressed it the way you have for Alberta, but I can just copy it word for word and say it's the same scenario in Saskatchewan right now. That's why the frustrations that James feels, I feel, and I know Mr. Jean feels also: it's because what's limiting growth in Saskatchewan isn't opportunity or money, it's people, and that's a huge one.

Ms. Goldstein, we talked with the University of Saskatchewan about attracting foreign researchers, the type of people you really want in your research departments and education departments. Is intellectual property a barrier? At this point, is that a hindrance in bringing this research into Canada?

[Dr. Rose Goldstein]

Is it a question of whether intellectual property is a barrier to bringing the people in?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

I don't mean as a barrier. Are people saying that our intellectual property rights aren't strong enough, so they're doing the research in countries other than Canada? Do you have any comment on that?

[Dr. Rose Goldstein]

I haven't heard that directly from researchers at McGill in Quebec, but we do hear it from businesses. We hear from other international partners that they would like to see a stronger IP framework. Within the pharmaceutical industry, I'm sure you know, that's something they talk about.

It is something that needs to be worked on in Canada. We need to be more progressive in our IP and also in our policies and our approach to IP, and I think we're doing that.