Finance Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order.

This is the 81st meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. Our orders of the day, pursuant to Standing Order 83.1, require continuing our 2012 pre-budget consultations.

Colleagues, we have two panels here today. We have six organizations in the first panel: the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists; the Canadian Association of Retired Persons; the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants; the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada; Engineers Canada; and the Kamloops Homelessness Action Plan.

We want to thank you all for being with us today.

We'll start with Mr. Blake. Please begin, Mr. Blake.

[Barry Blake, National Councillor, Actor, Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Barry Blake. I'm a professional Canadian actor, and I'm also a national councillor with ACTRA, the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists.

I'm speaking today on behalf of our 22,000 members across the country, professional performers whose work entertains, educates, and informs audiences in Canada and around the world.

Canada's cultural industries represent over $85 billion, which translates to 7.4% of our GDP. They generate over 1.1 million jobs. In 2010-2011, screen production alone created 128,000 jobs and generated $2.6 billion in exports. That's significant.

Make no mistake: Canadian content creation is a very serious business. Content is at the heart of the digital economy. Canadian content creation is also synonymous with Canadian job creation. Building a mature, digital infrastructure requires smart investments that reinforce our cultural economic drivers.

To do that, we are proposing a three-point plan in terms of a sustainable digital economy strategy.

First, public investments are needed in content creation. I want to congratulate the government on maintaining the budgetary commitment to the Canada Media Fund in budget 2011.

I must say, it's a great start. It means we share our own Canadian stories at the same time as we create jobs. It's win-win.

With our changing industry, we need to make sure the proper tools are in place to seize all new opportunities. In addition to your support for the CMF, we urge you to commit to renewed and stable long-term funding for Telefilm Canada, the CBC, and the National Film Board.

Telefilm Canada's feature film fund is crucial to making sure that Canadian films get made. Each dollar invested in a Telefilm production triggers two dollars in additional financing for digital media projects, and three dollars for feature film projects. With the last budget's cuts to Telefilm's parliamentary appropriation, its mandate to foster the development of Canada's audiovisual industry and track its export value around the world is in jeopardy.

We recommend restoring Telefilm's full parliamentary appropriation and giving Canadian creators the support they need to excel on a competitive international stage.

Insofar as the CBC/Radio-Canada is concerned, a recent study by Deloitte determined that for every dollar the federal government invests in CBC/Radio-Canada, the corporation puts back more than three dollars into the Canadian economy. These are investments, not really costs.

We ask you not only to restore the previous parliamentary allocation but also to increase that allocation by seven dollars per capita, from $33 to $40 for every Canadian. That would bring it in line with the funding of public broadcasters in other industrialized nations.

The National Film Board is recognized around the world as one of our great cultural workshops. For over 70 years, it's created groundbreaking documentaries, animation, and digital media productions. It has pioneered many technical innovations. Unfortunately, the 2012 budget saw $6.68 million cut from the NFB's parliamentary allocation over three years. We urge you to reverse the cuts and put the brakes on future budget reductions.

Our second point would be increasing private investment. Our cultural industries don't want to rely on government funding alone. We need to build on incentives to increase private investment in content creation. We urge you to look at tax credits, expanding the Canadian film and video production tax credit, and allowing production services tax credits to count against the entire budget, not just labour costs. We're also looking at labour-based tax credits for digital and interactive media at the federal level.

Our final point is on income averaging for artists. Simply put, performers and artists are small businesses with very spikey or lumpy income, as we call it. The model we face is an employee-centred model, not really one that meets the needs of independent businesses.

We urge you to support the current bill before the house, Bill C-427, reflecting the realities of Canadian artists. This is one way to redress the inequity that performers face, and it would be lovely if it was supported by all parties.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll now hear from the Canadian Association of Retired Persons.

[Susan Eng, Vice-President, Advocacy, Canadian Association of Retired Persons]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity of presenting our pre-budget recommendations.

CARP is a national non-profit, non-partisan organization with over 300,000 members across the country with whom we are in constant communication.

Retirement security continues to be a major concern for our members, especially for their children and grandchildren, and now increasingly for themselves. This concern is justified by some troubling statistics and trends, especially if we translate those statistics into the people behind the numbers.

Poverty rates among seniors have stopped improving. Poverty now stands at just under 7%, at 6.7%, leaving nearly a third of a million seniors in poverty today. If the rate of poverty stays the same, then in 2023 there would be nearly half a million seniors living in poverty.

The 680,000 seniors eligible for the much-welcomed GIS top-up in last year's budget are predicted to grow to one million by 2023. Today 1.6 million Canadians receive the GIS, people who by definition are in need of income support, and that number is projected to grow to 2.6 million by 2023.

Women and single seniors have higher rates of poverty. There are twice as many low-income women as men. Single seniors as a group experience twice as much poverty as those in couples. Single women living in poverty outnumber single men by about 30%

The incidence of living alone is increasing with age, and twice as many women over 70 live alone. Women seniors are more likely to face poverty because of lower career earnings. They're less likely to have a workplace pension as they withdrew from the workforce to care for children and now for a spouse or a parent. These numbers are sufficiently appalling that many CARP members have called it a national disgrace.

People are also not saving enough for their own retirement, and that problem is growing: 8.4 million workers do not have a workplace pension. Canadians are using just 5% of their available RRSP room, leaving an estimated $630 billion worth of tax room unused. While the number of eligible taxpayers has increased, fewer actually contributed to RRSPs in 2010 compared to 2009. The proposed pooled registered pension plans are not attractive enough to change this dynamic, but we believe that they can be improved.

Consequently, CARP recommends three major items. First, replace the OAS and GIS that will be lost by the most financially vulnerable seniors as a result of the changes to OAS as the first step to restoring OAS eligibility to age 65; second, support single seniors, with particular regard to older women, with an equivalent to spousal allowance for single seniors in financial need; and third, make the welcomed caregiver tax credit refundable.

We should help people to save for their own retirement. We recommend that we improve the PRPP, notably with a mandatory employer contribution, and recommit to working with the provinces to advance on the promise to enhance the CPP.

CARP is on the record as opposing the changes to the eligibility age for OAS. More than two-thirds of CARP members strongly oppose the change and want us to continue to work to reverse the changes, notwithstanding that most of them will not actually be affected by the change themselves. They see it as an earned benefit they paid for in their taxes and they want it to help the worst off. They also want to protect this important part of the social safety net for their children and grandchildren.

The government has acknowledged the need to protect those who cannot wait the two extra years for their OAS and GIS—and the GIS is dependent on being eligible for OAS—and among other things has committed to reimbursing the provinces, which are called upon to make up the difference. It is this category of seniors that the government sought to assist with last year's very welcomed GIS top-up and the same people who will be most at risk of having to wait the extra two years.

Now there are discussions with a few of the provinces, and it appears that they have no plans to bridge this gap, either with a special program or by just letting needy seniors apply for welfare. In fact, some of them would have to change their program to let seniors apply, which still carries enough stigma that many who need it will not apply.

Given that the government has already acknowledged the need to look after this category of people and has already committed to reimbursing any provincial programs that come to pass, we are recommending that the government now commit to funding this gap to relieve the anxiety of the most vulnerable.

For single seniors, an equivalent to spouse allowance is something that we have recommended.

Finally, the PRPPs, as presently constructed, are inadequate to fill the gap for retirement security.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for your presentation.

We'll now hear from the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, please.

[Gabe Hayos, Vice-President, Taxation, Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants]

Good afternoon.

My name is Gabe Hayos, vice-president of taxation for the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. On behalf of Canada's 82,000 chartered accountants, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee. I would also like to acknowledge the committee's 2011 report, which included a number of the recommendations made by the CICA.

At the outset, I want to underscore the crucial role that strong management of government finances plays in achieving a sustained economic recovery and enhancing economic growth and applaud the government for balancing the budget over time through expenditure controls.

Easing the personal income tax burden will enhance economic growth by helping to attract and retain talent. However, rather than personal income tax credits that add complexity, we believe broad-based tax reductions represent a more meaningful approach and should be examined.

There is also a need to consider the appropriate mix of personal income and consumption taxes. Compared to other OECD countries, Canada obtains a significantly higher proportion of revenues from personal income tax than from consumption tax. We recommend that the government consider changing the revenue mix to bring it closer to OECD averages.

In order to stay competitive and create employment opportunities, the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program should be improved. Although many of the modifications to the program are focused on encouraging small business, large business also contributes to SR and ED. The program should be focused on encouraging those companies, whether small or large, that increase their investment in SR and ED.

An amendment to reduce the general tax credit rate and exclude capital expenditures should be repealed or deferred, and the investment tax credit should be made partially refundable for all business in order to encourage foreign investment. An angel tax credit for innovative start-up companies would be an important addition to this program.

Simplifying Canada's complex tax system will increase productivity and improve competitiveness. We recommend a two-staged approach.

First, the government should establish an independent office that would provide advice on reducing both legislative and administrative complexity of our current tax system. The U.K. Office of Tax Simplification could serve as a model for a similar office in Canada. This independent office would investigate and provide recommendations on matters such as general federal and provincial tax harmonization and a formal loss transfer system for taxation of corporate groups, and continue to adopt policies recommended by the advisory panel on Canada’s system of international taxation.

We also believe that an expert panel should be established to examine major structural changes to simplify and improve the long-term efficiency and effectiveness of the tax system, looking at a wide range of areas such as the language, the costs and benefits of various provisions, and the use of anti-avoidance rules, with a view to permanently simplifying the system.

We recommend that standard business reporting, and specifically XBRL, be adopted for use by business for all government filings to reduce compliance costs and enhance the government's data collection.

We recommend that the capital cost allowance rates on all classes of equipment be continuously adjusted to correspond to the true economic life of the asset in order to encourage investment in productivity-enhancing equipment.

In promoting job creation, we support the government's focus on enhancing trade by reaching a trade agreement between Canada and the European Union and its entry into the trans-Pacific partnership negotiations. Both hold opportunities for expanding trade in the professional service sector.

Maintaining low corporate tax rates in Canada plays an important role in attracting new investment and creating jobs. We applaud the government for having fulfilled this commitment to lowering corporate tax rates to 15%.

Ensuring the adequacy of retirement savings is fundamental to addressing the challenges associated with an aging population. Individuals must have the skills and knowledge to save for their retirement. We are an active participant in improving financial literacy, offering home- and workplace-based educational tools and community workshops by volunteer CAs and conducting awareness campaigns. We urge the government to continue its commitment to financial literacy in the 2013 budget.

We also believe the government should provide further incentives to save for retirement by reducing or eliminating the income tax on personal savings. Increasing limits on TFSA contributions and reviewing the limits for RRSP contributions would further this objective.

We welcome the government's efforts to help internationally trained professionals, as they are vital to Canada's future. We are pleased to have the federal government support initiatives to create online assessment tools that validate foreign education and workplace experience and customized bridging programs to help internationally trained accountants become CAs in Canada. We recommend that such funding be continued.

Mr. Chairman, thanks for the opportunity to appear before the committee. I would be pleased to respond to any questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for your presentation.

We'll now hear from the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada.

[Richard Paton, President and Chief Executive Officer, Chemistry Industry Association of Canada]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to speak to your committee.

I'll start with a very brief introduction to the chemical or chemistry industry, and then I'll talk about my three main messages.

First of all, our membership includes about 40 large, medium-sized, and small chemistry companies across the country. We're the fourth-largest manufacturing sector in the country, and a very important link between manufacturing and natural resource development.

Chemical companies basically apply knowledge and chemistry to take resources such as natural gas, oil, biomass, electricity, and minerals and convert them into high-value products, thus producing jobs for Canadians and for communities. These products are also critical inputs to a range of industries across the country, including auto, plastics, textiles, etc.

I have three main messages today to share with you. All are focused on growth and investment in our industry and the industries that depend on our products. I have basically only one request, and that is the extension of the accelerated capital cost allowance, the ACCA.

The first message is a very positive message. We're finding in our industry that the policy environment is extremely positive for investment in our country. I'd like to note that over the last five to 10 years, the Government of Canada has embraced a number of changes that really are helping that environment. The fiscal direction, the economic direction, tax policies: they're all clearly making a difference to the investment environment for our industry and for other manufacturing industries.

Within North America—you may notice this as you're reading in the press—there are some clear trends to revitalization of manufacturing and investments in our sector and across manufacturing. We can benefit enormously from those trends and the revitalization of manufacturing, but we probably have to do it now, in the next couple of years.

My second point is that the combination of a positive policy environment and the resource development that is occurring all across our country is resulting already in new investments in our sector, which will build a stronger, more diversified, and regionally balanced economy. Over most of the last decade when I've come to speak to you, I've been complaining about the fact that we're losing plants, we're losing industry, and the manufacturing floor is moving to China. Well, some of those trends are actually changing, and I'll give you a couple of examples.

The most visible one is the Nova plant in Sarnia right now, which is the first plant in North America that's actually planning to take shale gas from, of all places, Pennsylvania, and is planning to upgrade its facilities and produce petrochemicals.

Second, we have a major investment going on in southern Ontario by Cytec, and one of our newest members is a biomass producer called BioAmber, which is building a chemical plant in Sarnia, which should lead to the development of what we call the biohybrid cluster. Just those investments, which are happening right now, total $455 million. We're already a $46-billion industry, but we're seeing with these trends the possibility of an increase in investment of $5 billion to $10 billion, which would produce great advantages for our resource-based economy linked to manufacturing.

Third, what do we need to really make sure we get these investments? The accelerated capital cost allowance does make a difference in attracting these investments. In fact, without it we would have great difficulty attracting the incremental investment to Canada as opposed to the U.S. Since it was first introduced in 2007 as the number one recommendation of this committee—and I remember, James, your chairing that industry committee—this measure has been very helpful for a number of our companies, including the three I just mentioned, that are making investments. In fact, our companies, when we survey them, claim that $3 billion in benefits have resulted from that in terms of investments. This has resulted in the revitalization of Sarnia and has spurred growth in many other sectors.

I think you know, and I know Mr. Brison knows, this is not a tax cut. This is tax deferral. What the accelerated capital cost allowance does is allow you to make a $100 million, $200 million, $500 million investment and write it off when the equipment is delivered over three years as opposed to eight, nine, and even up to 14 years.

That puts cash in the hands of the people making investments, particularly before they're able to get any revenue from those investments.

We think the ACCA would make a significant difference to attract these large investments to Canada, and we hope that you would support it again.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Paton. I think you and I are starting to date ourselves here with these 2007 reports.

We'll now hear from Engineers Canada, please.

[Kim Allen, Chief Executive Officer, Engineers Canada]

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

My name is Kim Allen, and I'm the chief executive officer of Engineers Canada.

Engineers Canada is the national body that represents the 12 provincial and territorial regulators of the engineering profession. Our constituent association represents over 250,000 professional engineers in Canada, protecting and serving the public interest. It also includes a new generation of over 60,000 undergraduate students attending the 43 accredited engineering schools. Engineers Canada accredits these engineering programs to ensure that graduates meet the academic requirement for licensure with those 12 provincial and territorial regulators.

Engineers are committed to public safety. Today we are offering long-term solutions to government on issues to which the engineering profession can lend its expertise, education, and experience to help create a safer, more sustainable, and prosperous future for Canada.

I will offer recommendations on three topics: infrastructure, foreign credential recognition, and skills. The federal government should include these as part of a viable, long-term economic solution for Canada.

Concerning infrastructure, provincial and territorial statutes obligate professional engineers to work in the public interest. Engineers have a responsibility to manage the risks associated with their work and the impacts on the public and on the environment. Strict adherence to standards, codes, legislation, and regulations ensures that Canadians enjoy a high standard of safety and reliability in their infrastructure. There are needs for additional, constant investments across the country to maintain this standard.

Engineers Canada believes that continued economic recovery and enhanced economic growth are possible through a sustainable, strategic, long-term infrastructure plan. This will help ensure Canada's economic competitiveness and maintain our quality of life. The plan must include requirements to properly manage assets of core public infrastructure. This plan must also consider the vulnerability of key assets to extreme climate events, support increased investment, and attract talent. It should be put in place for the 2014 fiscal year.

Core public infrastructure such as roads, bridges, buildings, water, waste water, drainage, and flood control systems are the backbone of the Canadian economy. When Canadians can safely and efficiently get to work, move goods that they produce, and provide the services their clients need without being impeded by congestion or the results of infrastructure neglect, productivity increases.

The availability of predictable funding for proper operation and maintenance of these assets is essential to protecting the quality of life and the safety of Canadian communities. These investments extend the useful life of infrastructure. Pay now or pay more later.

We believe that it's the responsibility of the federal government to take the lead to work with provincial, territorial, and municipal governments to ensure that predictable funding is available for building and maintaining core public infrastructure over the life cycle of these assets.

Engineers Canada also believes that governments must work to prioritize projects receiving funding to ensure that deficiencies in core infrastructures are addressed first. While public infrastructure extends beyond the roads, bridges, buildings, and water systems we all rely on, those core assets keep Canadians safe and healthy and must be considered first.

Engineers Canada also believes that the federal government must work with its provincial and territorial partners to attract and retain the talent that is necessary to grow our economy. Improvements in the immigration system and measures to address specific skills shortages across the country will help put the right people in the right jobs at the right time. That's good for the engineer and that's good for the country.

Recent plans put forward by the federal government to change how credentials are assessed for the purpose of immigration may help. In consultation with stakeholders, including regulated professions like engineering, the federal government must align applications and assessment practices efficiently to integrate immigrants into our economy and society in a timely manner.

More than 20% of professional engineers in Canada were internationally trained. Our constituent associations process over 5,500 applications annually for internationally trained engineering graduates. This is the highest among the regulated professions.

Engineers Canada supports the licence-ready concept for immigrants in regulated professions. In practice, this means that the federal government must work with the regulated professions to make sure that the assessment of credentials for immigration is recognized by—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you; just wrap it up very briefly, please.

[Kim Allen]

—by provincial and territorial regulators.

I have one last comment on dealing with skills. By 2020, over 95,000 engineers will retire, and there's a predicted demand of 16,000 new jobs. We urge the federal government to work on programs to attract women and indigenous people into the engineering profession.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you for your presentation.

We'll now hear from Kamloops Homelessness Action Plan, please.

[Tangie Genshorek, Coordinator, Kamloops Homelessness Action Plan]

Hello. Thank for having me here today.

My name's Tangie Genshorek. I'm the coordinator of the Kamloops Homelessness Action Plan.

Like a lot of homelessness action plans across the country, our goal is to end homelessness. In order to do that, we need a lot of different answers to the range of housing questions. We need a lot of different housing all along the continuum, but I'm here to focus on one area, and that's rental housing.

We have been talking to a lot of stakeholders. We, like other homelessness action plans, get cross-sectoral representation at our community table so that we can get the business perspective on homelessness. We want to motivate the private sector to be part of the solution. We've been looking at this for several years, and we think we've found a way to involve the private sector.

Professor Marion Steele, from the University of Guelph, has to be credited with all of the work that I'm going to talk about here today. I'm not a tax expert—my background's in architecture—but for a long time Marion Steele has done a lot of work on the issue of tax incentives to create housing. She had her master’s degree before I was born. I wish she could be here today, but unfortunately she's in Europe.

The idea of a tax incentive is, I think, a realistic and feasible measure that we could readily implement. It's been in place in the U.S. for over 25 years. It was implemented under the Reagan administration, and it's been highly effective in creating rental housing, affordable rental housing specifically. We know there's a long list of housing needs and that a variety of people require affordable housing, but we see a glaring gap in the housing continuum in regard to rental housing. There really is no way for the private market to make those numbers work. There's no way for them to get involved in creating rental housing. A tax incentive at the federal level could help make that happen, and is doing so in the U.S., so we have a model there in the U.S. to build on.

We have some well-researched ways to integrate that model for Canada. We have good research into what it would cost. It would be as little as $50 million in the first year and up to $500 million in the tenth year, a quarter of what the federal government is spending on the CMHC affordable housing initiative right now.

That's not to say that the affordable housing initiative should be gone, but we do know it's under the microscope right now for re-evaluation, and a piece of that funding could be used to create a tax incentive to fill that rental housing gap.

We also need to look at HPS and what's happening there. We don't want that to go away in lieu of a housing tax credit. This is just another tool to add to the roster of things we need to do to create affordable housing.

A syndicator creates housing tax credits that are sold to the private market, and those housing tax credits then become the funding for affordable housing, whether it's by a private developer or a non-profit developer.

A lot of people talk about MURBS. That was axed about 20 years ago. This would be different from MURBS in that it would be applicable to the non-profit sector, so a portion of the housing would be truly affordable. A portion of it would be lower-end market rental, which we need as well to stem the flow of people into homelessness. That's a key piece of the issue. We're not just picking people up at the shelter end of the continuum; we need to stop the flow of people there, and there's just no reason for anyone to build rental housing right now.

That's what I wanted to focus on here today. It's really well researched, as I say, by Marion Steele, a University of Guelph emeritus professor. She's well published. You can find her work at the C.D. Howe Institute as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

We'll begin members' questions with Ms. Nash, for a five-minute round, please.

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

Thank you to all of the witnesses for your presentations. Five minutes goes by so quickly.

Mr. Allen, let me start with a question to you. I notice in your presentation you talk about Engineers Canada believing there needs to be a sustainable, strategic, long-term infrastructure plan in place by 2014 to maintain our economic competitiveness and to maintain our quality of life.

I can tell you I live near the Gardiner Expressway in downtown Toronto. A report has just come out that says our fears and anecdotal evidence are very indicative of the fact that this structure is crumbling and could fall on our heads and injure us, or worse, when we go under it. Not a week goes by when we don't have a broken water main and numerous problems because of a lack of basic infrastructure investment. We have many witnesses come here and talk about this.

Can you elaborate on why you believe this will improve Canada's competitiveness, our productivity, and our quality of life, and why this is not just an expenditure but an investment in our country that has to be made?

[Kim Allen]

Sure. Thank you very much.

I think the Gardiner Expressway is a very good example, a very visible example of infrastructure that is crumbling. Lots of our infrastructure is subsurface, and you don't see those things. The same types of problems are going on with various systems.

Those who are just recently moving back from Toronto to Ottawa recognize all of the traffic congestion we have to deal with, and the constant activity going on really impedes traffic. Reliable supplies of water and electricity are very key to some of the manufacturing sectors. We've heard from manufacturing sectors today that without those types of things to be able to get their goods to market—and we deal with a global market now—we're just not going to be able to compete in the world. Canada is a big country. That's one of the challenges we have. How do we connect people, how do we connect goods, how do we connect services? We have to deal with those questions.

One of the other main pieces in there is tied into extensive work we have done--and the federal government has supported it--on how to deal with the critical infrastructure and climate change. Pipelines ran across permafrost, and there isn't permafrost now. There are many, many different things that affect those ones.

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

Other countries are making these investments, and if we don't, we're going to fall further behind.

I appreciated your comments about the engineers of tomorrow and bringing in first nations and women. I would argue there are many young people of diverse backgrounds across the country who would love to get into a career like engineering.

I do want to be able to ask more questions. I want to ask you, Mr. Blake, about your presentation. Full disclosure: I was one of the seconders of Bill C-427 on tax averaging. I strongly support it, but I would like to hear more from you about artists as job creators and as incubators of not just creativity but also of good businesses. I was very glad to see Sarah Polley's new film, and it says, “National Film Board presents”. To me, a commercial film that will get this kind of distribution is a good investment of our dollars. Can you talk a bit about job creation and the arts?

[Barry Blake]

Obviously actors are at the wrong end of the totem pole, if that's an expression to use. We do create, and there are more and more opportunities with new technologies for individual artists--individual actors in this case--to create products that we couldn't do.

I have been in this business for over 30 years. When I started, there was no individual creation of that time, but it has always been a factor in theatrical and musical areas and others. Certainly painters and writers work on their own to create, so that's part of the job and wealth creation. That's one of the reasons those artists and writers....

If you talk about spikey income and how you try to level it out, a writer could spend, as a friend of mine just did, four years writing a book, which has now been published, and he's now on his second book. However, during that time, there was a lot of money going out and not a lot coming in. For him to be successful, and then taxed on top of that, and have some of that not averaged across the time he was spending on it is, I think, unfair.

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

Artists end up subsidizing the products they create, for sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. Nash.

We'll go to Mrs. McLeod, please.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First I have to welcome a fellow Kamloopian here to Ottawa. Of course, it's been snowing the last two days there, so I'm really pleased that you're joining us here.

I would like to start my questions by exploring your concept a little further. It sounded as though you had a more extensive documentation or plan in the Canadian context.

Do you have that? Would it be possible to table it at some point, or to provide it to the clerk?

[Tangie Genshorek]

Absolutely. I apologize for not having that ready and translated in time. It has definitely been worked up. The best and most recent representation would be through the C.D. Howe Institute, and I'd be happy to provide that document. It's a step-by-step process based on the U.S. system, including some recommendations for incorporating it into the Canadian system, whether under CMHC or under the CRA. In the U.S. it's under the IRS, and there are good reasons that it would function well in Canada under the CRA as well. There's a really clear, realistic methodology for creating rental housing in as little as a year after this is implemented.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Your recommendation is to look at existing support. You were saying it's only a small percentage of CMHC's current budget. You talked about it going from $50 million to $500 million. How would that change over time?

[Tangie Genshorek]

The first-year expenditure of $50 million would be relatively low as we try to get investors interested and involved. As the program grows and people understand its validity and profitability more, people would sign on, so there would be more tax breaks given out, basically, over time.