This weekend I gave a talk at a conference meant for "professionals" of a particular ethnic group of which I am a member.

The word "professional" has always baffled me. Technically, I think, a professional is someone who gets paid to do what they do. Historically, the word has been used to describe people who work in certain high status fields, like Medicine, Accounting, Engineering and Law. There's some rationale in claiming that a professional is someone employed in a field that is overseen by a licensing body that guarantees high standards of conduct and of technical ability. By this definition, doctors, accountants, engineers and lawyers certainly qualify, but so do electricians, plumbers, machinists and a host of other highly skilled workers who typically don't frequent --and who aren't invited to-- the cocktail party circuit.

In colloquial usage, a professional is someone who takes his or her job seriously, and by virtue of that seriousness produces work of a quality beyond that expected of a non-professional. A "professional" hit man, for instance, is presumably better at killing people than the violent kid next door, and will do so more efficiently and with less drama. Hit men are rarely invited to conferences and "networking" events, however. This is probably a good thing.

The word "professional" is sometimes used as a proxy for "wealthy". Many ads on dating sites, for example, explicitly state a preference among suitors for "professionals", since a professional is typically among the top earners of our society; hence the association of the word with cocktail parties and "networking" events. Yet garbage collectors and bus drivers --professionals that are well paid, indeed-- are usually excluded from such events. Ironically, students and unemployed cubicle jockeys feel right at home brushing elbows at these suit-wearing, wine-sipping exchanges, while their wealthier and better trained smock-wearing brethren do not.

I'm not really sure what point I'm trying to make here, except that we so often hide behind euphemisms to obfuscate the crass classism of our activities. In modern parlance, "professional" really means "white collar", and carries with it an implication of advanced social status. This is a tad ironic, since "white collar" no longer means wealthy, ethical or sophisticated, which are presumably the traits one is expecting at "networking" events. Maybe the plumbers, bus drivers, tool makers and short order cooks of the world are already holding champagne parties and "networking" events to which we of the snooty, degreed class are not invited. I wouldn't blame them.

Investing in Tomorrow:

Each year, the feds spend billions of dollars on research and development in Canada’s universities and research centres but what about investments to help fund new and early stage companies?

Did you know that venture capital investments in Canada are down 10 percent from last year according to Canada’s Venture Capital and Private Equity Association. (CVCA)

Of more concern is the relatively small size of investment for each transaction. In Q3, 2005, the average Canadian investment was $1.6 million compared to a U.S. average of $10 million over that time, according to the CVCA.

How are we going to fund tomorrow’s companies and economy with such minor support?

One proposed concept is the Innovation and Productivity Tax Credit which is modelled after British Columbia’s extremely successful tax credit program.

In a nutshell, the proposed program would have federal and provincial governments provide qualified and eligible investors (individual and corporate) with a combined 30% Innovation and Productivity Tax Credit.

This would help encourage informal investment in early-stage companies.

There are many examples of early stage, government supported investment programs that demonstrate the payback from targeted tax incentive programs.

One example is in the Alberta Oil Sands industry. Alberta’s early-stage drilling program encourages investors to put their money into the riskiest stage of exploration in the oil business.

Several organizations support the proposed Innovation and Productivity Tax Credit including the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Conference Board of Canada, National Angel Organization, and Canadian Advanced Technology Alliance.

Ask your local candidates if they care about tomorrow’s economy and if so, how are they going to help.

The Final Vote:

I do recommend you spend the time and talk to your local candidates. Don’t get too frustrated when they dance around specifics, because like trained dogs, they only get taught so much.

You provide the specifics and you lead them and hopefully that’ll start a dialogue towards implementing better policies and programs.

Please go out and vote though.

All the best till next time, Shannon.

Jack and Gilles went up the Hill, along with Stephen Harper. Paul fell down, as did his crown, and the House came tumbling after.

And with that, we have a winter election underway with all the politicians promising to stuff our stockings with all sorts of goodies. They say this election will really count. For SMBs, the question is, “How so?”

Now, I’m not an advocate for more or less government, just better government. And I know what you’re thinking, “Better government? Is that like driving a ‘practical sport car’ or dating an ‘obese supermodel’?

Well, better government doesn’t have to be a myth, and no, I’m not campaigning for a federal seat but I am campaigning for better policies or programs to help us, the SMB.

Here are some examples of things to consider so you can ask the right questions, when your candidates come knocking on your door.

Making the Right Investments for SMBs:

SMBs represent 97% of all business in Canada and generate close to 85% of Canadian GDP. We are the driving engine of the economy, so when politicians talk about helping the economy, how will they be helping us?

Believe it or not, here’s something that George W. did right. His 2003 Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act quadrupled the direct expensing of capital purchases allowed from $25,000 to $100,000 for 2003, and to $102,000 in 2004.

Instead of having to depreciate capital items over many years, now you could directly expense these items to update your capital equipment sooner to stay competitive and help grow.

For SMBs that finance capital items over multiple years for better cash flow, no problem, you could still take advantage of the direct expensing.

Has it worked? Well let’s say Q3 growth for 2003 in the U.S. reached an astonishing 8.2% and a very good 4% for Q4 2003, largely due to increased spending on capital goods by SMBs.

In Canada, we’re still stuck on Captial Cost Allowance Classes for different items. They range anywhere from 20% to 45% deductions with software being the item that can be written off 100%.

Spending on capital equipment will help you stay innovative and competitive, which are drivers for growth. Ask your local candidates if this makes sense and then ask them how they can help.