Finance Committee on Oct. 15th, 2012

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

I call the meeting to order. Good afternoon, everyone.

Pursuant to Standing Order 83.1, pre-budget consultations begin today for 2012.

I will introduce our first panel of witnesses this afternoon. We have Martin Unrau, president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association; Kim McCaig, vice-president and COO of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association; Corinne Pohlmann, vice-president, national affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business; Denis St-Pierre, chair of the tax and fiscal policy advisory group for the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada; and Bonnie Dawe, chair of the Canadian income tax committee for the Tax Executives Institute.

Welcome to all the witnesses. Each of you has a five-minute presentation. Then we'll do our questions and answers.

Mr. Unrau, we'll begin with you for your five minutes.

[Martin Unrau, President, Canadian Cattlemen's Association]

Thank you, and thank you for the opportunity to present to you today.

My name is Martin Unrau and I am the president of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, which represents over 80,000 beef producers in Canada. Also with me is Andrea Brocklebank, who is a research manager for the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. I have asked her to come in if there are some questions we will need to address.

Canada's beef cattle industry has been through several years of financial turmoil, but until recently was in a strong recovery with tremendous opportunity, owing to strong global demand for beef and positive prices. In 2012 farm cash receipts from cattle and calves, combined with the multiplier effect from downstream economic activity, contributed $26 billion to Canada's GDP.

However, global food demand is expected to double by 2050, which would require a 1.75% increase in productivity per year. Currently productivity is increasing by only about 1.4% per year. This, in combination with increased competition for land and water resources, has resulted in rising and volatile commodity prices. This challenges our industry's ability to maintain positive margins, and more importantly, to fulfill increased demand for food in a sustainable manner.

Increased investments in research and innovation are critical for our industry. This will ensure the long-term sustainability and growth of the Canadian beef industry and allow us to use limited resources more efficiently.

Research investments made over the past 30 years have transformed North American beef production. The beef industry has seen a 14% reduction in water use, a 34% reduction in land use, a 20% reduction in manure production, and an 18% reduction in our carbon footprint per pound of beef produced in the last 30 years.

In tandem, research has assisted in providing consumers with high-quality, nutritious, and safe beef products. Research also provides the science necessary to demonstrate the integrity of animal health and food safety systems, which is increasingly important in trade negotiations and integral to reducing food safety incidents and to growing consumer demand. Continued improvements in production efficiencies through research are also required to ensure industry can compete with other protein sources globally.

Although the need for continued advances in research is clear, we are very concerned that a considerable loss of Canadian research infrastructure, project funding, and scientific expertise may hamper further progress. Despite an increased focus on innovation over the last several years owing to budget cuts, federal research funding for beef over the past two decades has seen a net decline on an inflation-adjusted basis of 35% to 40%, by our estimates. Ongoing cuts have seriously and negatively impacted research programs and scientific expertise. The viability of some critical research programs in areas such as animal health, food safety, and plant breeding are currently in question. Not only does this place future progress at risk, but it is a significant deterrent in attracting new expertise.

One of the most significant recent industry and government investments is the development of a beef cattle industry science cluster. This initiative brings together Canada's largest industry and public beef research funders, which are the Beef Cattle Research Council and Agriculture Canada, respectively, to deliver priority research. I am convinced that the beef science cluster approach will result in a very coordinated, efficient research model; however, cluster funding needs to be increased to ensure meaningful results. This should not come at a cost to the maintenance of basic long-term federal research programs outside of the clusters in core areas.

To summarize, we have three recommendations relating to research. First, investment in beef research needs to be increased to more appropriately reflect its important contribution to the industry and broader public good.

Second, federal research funding must be delivered on a minimum five-year basis. Program delivery has typically resulted in a three-year funding cycle, with gaps in funding. Longer-term, more predictable funding commitments are necessary to maintain strong research programs, attract new scientific expertise, and deliver meaningful research results.

Third, federal government research programs outside of the science clusters must be maintained in core areas, including animal health and welfare, environment, plant breeding, and food safety. This is critical not only for our industry's competitiveness but also to ensure scientific expertise is available to respond promptly and effectively to issues and opportunities that arise.

I would also like to briefly mention increasing investments in market development. This is a critical competitive piece for Canada, which exports 45% of its beef production.

Growth in exports of U.S. beef to Canada and the rest of the world over the past few years has been phenomenal. Some of this is due to currency exchange levels, but some is also due to the USDA's investment in export promotion. A report from the Office of Management and Budget puts returns on market promotion spending at $35 per dollar—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

Excuse me, Mr. Unrau. Sorry, your five minutes are up. I couldn't catch your eye earlier. The rest of your presentation can come out in the questions and answers.

Thanks very much.

[Martin Unrau]

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

We'll now go to Kim McCaig, from the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.

Mr. McCaig, you have five minutes.

[Kim McCaig, Vice-President, Chief Operating Officer, Canadian Energy Pipeline Association]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and good afternoon.

It is a pleasure to appear before you to share some of the views of the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association. I look forward to answering any questions you might have.

CEPA represents companies that transport 97% of the oil and natural gas produced and used in Canada. Our members currently operate more than 110,000 kilometres of pipeline in Canada, transporting over 3.2 million barrels of oil and 14.6 billion cubic feet of gas every day. They employ over 8,000 full-time employees.

Pipelines are the only feasible means, and the safest, of transporting large volumes of crude oil and natural gas over land.

In delivering budget 2012, Minister Flaherty acknowledged that the natural resource and energy sector is driving economic growth across the country. It is creating good jobs not only directly but also indirectly in manufacturing, clerical work, skilled trades, and financial services. Canada's resource industries offer huge potential to create even more jobs and growth, now and over the next generation.

The responsible resource development provisions of budget 2012 put in place the enabling conditions to realize these opportunities. CEPA has been a strong supporter of the objective behind regulatory reform, which is to improve the efficiency of, and the environmental outcomes from, environmental assessments. The proposed process reduces duplication, ensures timelines, and maintains or improves environmental standards by focusing assessments on major environmental concerns and on avoiding significant adverse effects.

Our recommendations for the 2013 budget speak to the next steps in this process. They fall into two intrinsically related categories: ensuring regulatory effectiveness, and pipeline safety performance.

CEPA's recommendation with respect to regulatory effectiveness is that the federal government commit sufficient resources to implement the changes set in motion and to monitor their success.

Bill C-38 changed the legislative framework for the review of major projects in Canada, but the policy and regulatory work still needs to be completed to support those changes. Continuing the regulatory reform process will ensure that through timely, efficient, and predictable processes, investments can be made with confidence. Strategic scrutiny and clear outcomes will ensure environmental protection.

Pipelines currently transport approximately $125 billion in oil and gas, at a cost of $5 billion a year. Pipeline transportation provides a value-added of approximately $120 billion to the Canadian economy. Given current plans for expansion, the industry is in a position to add even more value, provided it can get the planned infrastructure built.

Integrally related to regulatory efficiency is pipeline safety, as it is the safety performance of our industry that is a key component of maintaining our social licence to operate. Safety is the top priority for pipeline companies in all aspects of pipeline development and operation. The industry is taking a leadership role in these efforts. In 2011, CEPA members spent more than $600 million on monitoring and maintenance activities to ensure the safety of pipelines.

Extensive regulatory tools exist to support and address pipeline integrity, including construction standards, maintenance, audits, and regulatory powers to shut down and investigate. However, Canada does not currently have the means to require and enforce the physical protection of pipelines from the activities of others. Damage to pipelines from third parties is where we face the biggest risk. Experience in other countries shows that lives are saved where laws and enforcement are in place. These measures include requirements for mandatory one call in all jurisdictions and administrative penalties for the enforcement of those rules.

CEPA appreciates the efforts to date to both introduce administrative monetary penalties and to increase the number of pipeline inspections, which we believe, along with transparent enforcement tools, including escalating fines and mandatory one call, is a key part of the solution.

Canada has been fortunate in weathering the economic troubles that have challenged the rest of the world. This is due, in large part, to the role the resource and energy industry has played. The process set in motion by the government to reform the regulatory system is important to ensure that Canada can retain and attract the investment necessary to develop pipeline infrastructure. This infrastructure will support growth in the natural resource sector and the diversification of Canada's markets. Commitments made by the federal government to ensure that the regulatory reform process is effectively and fully implemented to deliver better environmental outcomes and that the regulators have the necessary tools to keep pipelines safe are important steps in making this happen.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

Thank you very much.

Next, from the CFIB, we have Ms. Pohlmann. You have the floor.

[Corinne Pohlmann, Vice-President, National Affairs, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Thank you for the opportunity for us to be here today.

CFIB is a not-for-profit, non-partisan organization representing more than 109,000 small and medium-sized businesses across Canada that collectively employ more than 1.25 million Canadians and account for $75 billion in GDP. Our members represent all sectors of the economy and are found in every region of the country.

You should have a slide deck in front of you that I'd like to walk you through as we go through this presentation over the next few minutes.

CFIB's most recent business barometer, which is on slide 2 of the presentation, shows that small business owners were a little more upbeat in September as the index rose for the first time since March, stopping a five-month slide through the spring and summer months. Despite the increase, the index still suggests Canada's economy is growing at below-average rates.

To help get us through this sluggish economy, governments need to address the issues of greatest concern to small businesses. As you can see on slide 3, the top issue is total tax burden, and I'll get to that in a moment.

Second, though, is government regulation and paper burden. We were pleased to see the government's recent red tape announcement and, in particular, the plans to measure the overall burden, set service standards, and implement a system of ongoing oversight and accountability, as these are key factors that can make a difference to small business owners. Now the hard work begins, though, in implementing those changes, so we plan to closely monitor how they are done.

The third high-priority issue is government debt and deficits. Small business owners understand the importance of paying down debt, so we've seen this issue grow in importance as the debt grew over the last few years.

We recently asked small business owners about the current timeframe to eliminate the federal deficit within the next three years. As you can see on slide 4, almost half believe it is an appropriate timeframe, while just over one-third would like to see it eliminated sooner, so we recommend that the government stay focused on eliminating the deficit by 2015 or earlier.

One way to do that is to bring federal public sector wages and benefits more in line with those in the private sector. Last year, CFIB launched a pension campaign calling for greater transparency of public sector pension liabilities and fairness for taxpayers. Over the last year, CFIB has collected over 55,000 alerts from those concerned about the state of Canada's public sector pension system, and many of you have likely received them in your office.

To be clear, we're not asking for changes to public sector pension benefits that have already been accumulated. We were pleased to see the government move to address some of these issues in budget 2012, and we urge all MPs to quickly implement those changes.

We would also like you to consider a few additional measures. For example, as listed on slide 5, increase the normal retirement age to 65 for all in the federal civil service, in a similar way to how the OAS changes were done; convert all MP pensions and all new hires in the public sector to defined contribution plans, which is something the EDC has recently done; and eliminate the bridge benefit that provides retiring public servants with top-ups equivalent to full CPP benefits until age 65. This is something that the Bank of Canada has eliminated already.

Not only is there concern with public sector pensions, but saving for their own retirement is a very real concern for entrepreneurs. Slide 6 is from an upcoming report on succession that shows that almost half plan to exit their businesses in the next five years and more than three-quarters want to exit their businesses in the next 10 years.

One of the most important measures to assist in this transition is the $750,000 lifetime capital gains exemption. Not only is this a key component of a business owner's retirement planning, but it also has been effectively used as a source of financing for the next generation of entrepreneurs.

In 2007 the government increased the exemption from $500,000 to $750,000, the first and only increase in more than 20 years. To avoid waiting another 20 years for an increase, CFIB called on the government to index the exemption to inflation, and this was promised by the Conservatives in the run-up to the 2008 election. However, it has never been implemented. We believe the time has come to not only index the lifetime capital gains exemption to inflation, but to find ways to simplify it and perhaps even expand it to include some assets.

You may recall that the top issue of concern to small business owners was total tax burden. With so many taxes, it was important to understand which ones have the biggest impact on the growth of their businesses.

As you can see on slide 7, payroll taxes had by far the greatest impact on growth. Why? Because it is a tax on jobs. It must be paid regardless of any profit. This is why EI remains a key issue for us, and it is why we continue to push for the extension and expansion of the EI hiring credit for as long as EI rates continue to go up, as they will again in 2013. It's also why we continue to advocate strongly against any increases in CPP premiums.

When asked directly about specific measures that would help maintain or strengthen business performance, it should be no surprise that measures related to payroll taxes are the most important, ranking first, third, and fourth in the chart on slide 8 for the reasons I've discussed. However, also important is reducing the small business corporate tax rate. This is not surprising, as there's been a gradual erosion of the value of the small business rate as the general corporate rate has been coming down.

While CFIB supports reducing all corporate taxes in order to stimulate investment and growth, there are good reasons that the small business rate was significantly lower than the general rate. For example, smaller businesses tend to have a higher tax and regulatory burden per capita. Therefore, we suggest that the government commit to some form of targeted federal-provincial combined tax rate for small business, such as 12%, or, alternatively, commit to a tax plan to ensure that the small business rate does not exceed half, or some percentage, of the general rate.

It is never clearer than during Small Business Week that small businesses truly are the backbone of Canada's economy and the heartbeat of our communities. The recommendations presented here, summarized on the last three slides, are just some of the ways that we can get small businesses growing in Canada.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

Thank you.

Now we will hear from Mr. St-Pierre from the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada.

[Denis St-Pierre, Chair of the Tax and Fiscal Policy Advisory Group, Certified General Accountants Association of Canada]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the pre-budget consultations leading up to Budget 2013.

I am Denis St-Pierre, CGA, Chair of CGA-Canada's Tax and Fiscal Policy Advisory Group. I am a private practitioner from New Brunswick and my work focuses on estate planning and tax strategies for small and medium-sized businesses.

When the finance committee invited Canadians to share their priorities for the 2013 federal budget, you posed five questions. We can summarize all of these questions with one answer again this year, which is tax simplification. We submit that many of Canada' s challenges can be addressed through tax reform. Now that tax rates have come down, we must ask ourselves: what kind of system do we want or, better yet, what kind of system does Canada need for the future?

Canada's tax system is unduly complex. Entrepreneurs will tell you that. My clients tell me that. There is a growing consensus that the complexity of Canada's tax system must be addressed if Canada is to remain competitive, able to attract business and investment, and create jobs and economic growth.

For example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce identifies Canada' s complex tax system as one of the top 10 barriers to competitiveness. Tax simplification is the number one public policy priority for CGA-Canada. The federal government must take action to modernize Canada' s tax regime.

Canada needs a simple, fair, and efficient tax system to help build a strong, competitive 21st century economy. Done properly, as a revenue-neutral initiative coordinated by all levels of government—federal, provincial, and municipal—tax simplification could yield substantial benefits. A few of them are increased compliance rates, because when it is simple, it is easy to comply; lower compliance costs for taxpayers; less paperwork for businesses; lower administrative costs for government; and a more secure tax base with predictable revenue.

How? In last year's pre-budget report, this committee endorsed CGA-Canada's recommendation to establish an expert panel to review, modernize, and simplify the tax system, as was done in other countries. We thank committee members for their support, and we also want to reiterate that the creation of an expert panel still remains CGA-Canada's first recommendation. There is an important place for an expert panel to chart the course towards improving Canada's tax system, and there is an important role for the finance committee in framing the issues and defining the scope of study for the expert panel.

However, let's not wait for an expert panel to be appointed. There are still concrete measures that could be taken by this committee to simplify the tax system. There are two things for attention.

First, the government must introduce a technical tax amendments bill. The last time a technical tax bill was passed by Parliament was over 11 years ago. Literally hundreds of unlegislated tax amendments to the Income Tax Act—which I showed this committee last year by bringing the Income Tax Act, if you recall—have been proposed, but not yet enacted, which brings uncertainty and unpredictability to the process.

Second, we strongly feel that implementing a sunset provision would ensure that tax amendments are legislated, which ultimately will eliminate the ever-growing backlog of unlegislated tax measures once and for all. With this provision, if a tax policy change is announced and not incorporated into legislation within a reasonable amount of time, the measure would lapse. This would bring greater clarity and certainty to tax legislation, reduce the compliance and paperwork burden, and, perhaps most importantly, prevent any future legislative backlogs.

Those are a few simple but important steps that would go some distance in improving and strengthening Canada's tax system.

Canada needs a 21st century tax system that is simple, fair, efficient, and transparent with low, internationally competitive tax rates.

We would be remiss if we failed to mention that CGA-Canada will be convening a full-day national summit on tax simplification on Tuesday, December 4 in Ottawa. The summit will bring together stakeholders, public officials and thought leaders to strategize on the issue of tax simplification, and to establish priorities and next steps. We hope that committee members will attend the summit, and we look forward to sharing the summit outcomes with the committee.

Madam Chair, thank you for your time. I would be pleased to respond to any comments or questions from the committee on CGA-Canada's recommendations concerning tax simplification.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

Thank you, Mr. St-Pierre.

Next we have Ms. Dawe, from the Tax Executives Institute.

[Bonnie Dawe, Chair, Canadian Income Tax Committee, Tax Executives Institute, Inc.]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am the tax director for Finning and am here today as chair of the Canadian Income Tax Committee for the Tax Executives Institute. TEI is the pre-eminent association of business tax professionals worldwide. Our 7,000 members work for 3,000 of the largest companies in Canada, the U.S., Europe, and Asia. My comments are endorsed by both TEI's Canadian members and others who have significant operations and investments in Canada.

During the past decade, the government has focused on making Canada's business tax structure more competitive. By reducing the federal corporate income tax rate, the government has confirmed its commitment, enhanced the prospects for sustainable economic growth, and increased the attractiveness of investments in Canada, but Canada must remain vigilant, especially as other countries restructure their tax systems and lower marginal effective tax rates.

Thus, TEI welcomed the opportunity to participate in the government's consultation on the taxation of corporate groups and subsequently submitted comments explaining that implementing such a system will improve competitiveness and better align Canada with the rest of the world. More than two-thirds of OECD countries provide explicit legislative or regulatory regimes for loss transfers, with Canada being the only G-7 country that lacks such a feature.

History shows that economic stagnation may occur following a financial crisis as credit markets tighten. Permitting corporate groups to offset profits and losses and share other tax attributes in an efficient, straightforward fashion will temper these effects by improving corporate liquidity, reducing borrowing costs, and eliminating transaction costs. As important, CRA will no longer have to devote resources to issuing advance income tax rulings.

TEI provided detailed recommendations for a group loss transfer system to the Department of Finance. An annually elective tax loss or attribute transfer system similar to that in the U.K. will be the simplest and most flexible to adopt, requiring the fewest modifications to the Income Tax Act. Attributes that should be part of the system include non-capital losses, capital losses, carry-overs of such amounts, and investment in other tax credits.

Next, in December 2008, the advisory panel on Canada's system of international taxation issued a report with recommendations for enhancing Canada's tax system. Some recommendations have been implemented, but one significant area has not yet been addressed. Specifically, the current process for obtaining waivers of withholding taxes imposed under regulations 105 and 102 should be repealed and replaced with a self-certification system. In respect of regulation 105, the advisory panel found that “service providers commonly gross-up their fees to offset the withholding tax”, which raises costs for Canadian businesses; compliance costs are “significant”; and “the waiver process is cumbersome and so it is not used as often as it should be”.

The advisory panel also determined that regulation 102 places “significant” administrative burdens on non-residents in Canadian corporations. The advisory panel recommended replacing the current advance waiver requirement with a system for non-residents to self-certify eligibility for reduced withholding taxes, especially when the non-resident is exempt under a treaty such as the Canada-U.S. treaty. A certification system based on current information reporting requirements will maintain CRA's enforcement capability but shift compliance costs to the certifying party, minimize tax withholding refunded to exempt parties, reduce tax gross-up costs, and minimize administrative burdens for CRA and taxpayers. TEI urges the adoption of the panel's recommendations.

The 2012 budget included a proposal to curtail foreign affiliate dumping transactions, and draft legislation to implement meant the proposal was released in August. TEI fully supports the government's targeting of abusive tax-motivated foreign affiliate dumping transactions, but regrets that the proposed legislation will diminish Canada's attractiveness in the competition for global capital and investors.

Fundamentally, there is no abuse of the Canadian tax system when cash generated by a Canadian resident business is invested downstream in the common shares of a controlled foreign affiliate, and Canada is entitled to both the growth potential of the downstream investment and future cash repatriations. Ultimately, the economic return from a downstream common share investment will flow back to Canada.

TEI's June and September 2012 submissions provide many recommendations for technical changes, expanded grandfathering relief, and additional relieving measures. We will be pleased to work with the Department of Finance and the committee to narrow the legislation.

In conclusion, TEI thanks the committee for the opportunity to participate in the pre-budget consultations. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

Thank you very much, Ms. Dawe.

Thank you to all the witnesses, and now we'll turn to the committee for questions and answers.

You each have five minutes, beginning with you, Mr. Mai.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good to see you there.

Thank you very much, all witnesses, for coming. As you know, we used to be able to travel and to see different organizations in their cities. This time we decided to have people come to Ottawa, and we thank you very much for taking the time to come here and for your presentations.

Unfortunately, we don't have time to ask everyone questions, but we'll try to do the best we can.

The first question is to CGA. In your recommendations, you talk about modernizing Canada's tax system to protect government revenues. As you probably know, the finance committee will be looking at tax evasion and tax havens. In terms of the tax system, are these loopholes related to protecting the government's revenue?

[Denis St-Pierre]

Well, of course, no one in the tax community likes to hear the words “tax loophole” and no one likes to hear about big cases of money flowing outside Canada that is not repatriated on a taxable basis. I believe that's in the review and TEI's presentation. Sometimes the government introduces legislation to try to curtail those types of plans and maybe goes too far; when they do that, it brings complexity to the entire system, so it is important to differentiate between legitimate good tax planning, which should be simple, efficient, and easy to understood, and loopholes and tax evasion, which no accounting body endorses.

We do encourage the government to look into that as a source of revenue. It's easy. The legislation is already passed. Why not go after those tax havens where it is not permitted and allow the normal Canadian to benefit from an easy-to-understand tax system?

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

Have you seen a lot of changes lately in the tax system that would actually tackle that problem?

[Denis St-Pierre]

Not particularly, no. We have heard that there are efforts from the government on disclosure and there are some arrangements between countries. When you have tax arrangements with countries, then you can share information. We understand that the government is working on that, which is good. When you share information between countries, then maybe you can go and get that type of revenue. I have not heard anything specifically from the government to attack that type of planning.

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

We might have to invite you again when we are doing the study on tax evasion.

I have a question for Mr. McCaig. Lately, our leader has come out and said that he would support an east-west pipeline. If you look at what's happening in Quebec, our refineries are shutting down, whereas we have the infrastructure there.

Would having an east-west pipeline be something that you would support?

[Kim McCaig]

I'll leave the policy discussion up to you people around government. From a pipeline perspective, I would say pipelines will be built whenever the market requires it and demands it. What pipelines can do and how they support the infrastructure in Canada is, I think, well known.

The key thing, I would say, from a government perspective, and what I would ask, is to continue the current process of one project, one review and those types of things around regulatory reform, which then really help to make timely decisions around this pipeline infrastructure. I'm pretty confident that if those reforms are carried through, that type of debate around that type of proposal would be carried out very efficiently, and we would make the right decision for Canadians.

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

Thank you very much.

I have a quick question, because I don't have a lot of time, for the CFIB. As you probably know, the NDP have been asking to have a reduction of the small business tax. We just reduced the corporate tax for big businesses. It doesn't necessarily help the small businesses.

Knowing that the small businesses are creating most of the jobs, what is your view? I think it's one of your recommendations. Would you really push for the fact that reducing the small business tax would help the economy?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

Ms. Pohlmann, you have 30 seconds.

[Corinne Pohlmann]

Yes. In fact, in our survey that we just shared with you, it was one of the issues that our members are telling us would help them maintain and grow their businesses. We were certainly asking the government to consider the erosion of the small business rate as the general corporate rate came down, and we'd like to see some consideration now given for a plan for the small business rate to start coming down as well.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Peggy Nash]

Thank you very much, Mr. Mai.

Ms. McLeod, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd also like to thank the witnesses, and again, the time is so short when there are so many fascinating and very diverse presentations.

I have to make a quick comment. I was very surprised to hear Mr. St-Pierre say he was unaware of work done on tax loopholes. I watched the legislation go through. I've noticed, I think, over 50 since 2006, including things like mortgage insurance investment corporations, so I was just a little surprised that you indicated you were unaware of $2.4 billion worth of work done by the government in that area.