Evidence of meeting #8 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rate.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I want to move to availability of financing.
I've been an MP now for nearly 13 years, and I get far fewer complaints from financial institutions now about accessing financing, than, let's say, 10 years ago.
Is this anecdotal? I mean, is my experience commensurate with what your organization has seen? Are you getting fewer complaints in terms of accessing financing?
4:50 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Canadian Federation of Independent Business
It's certainly a lower priority when compared with some of the others.
We are finding that credit unions, for example, are increasing their availability to small businesses. They take over, in a sense. Where they may get turned down by a bank, many business owners will go to a credit union.
In some cases, they're using their credit cards, which is not advisable. But occasionally they're turning to that if they have been turned down elsewhere, or if they have been turned down even from the BDC, for example.
We have a report on the banking industry. We survey our membership every few years on their opinions of how the banking sector is treating them and whether they're able to access financing.
Again, that's a big report. I can ensure that we get it to you.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I appreciate that.
I only have a couple of minutes left, and I want to finish up with CPP.
I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here. On your slide 5, I take all of your points. All of your points are true. In fact, I don't think the changes would be as good as those who proposed it are saying, but I don't think it would be as bad as those who are opposing it either. That's where I sit on the issue.
However, even though those are all true, there is the challenge of Canadians not saving enough. We have that challenge. I would like to believe, and I think your organization believes, that if we were to reduce the tax burden, to allow for vehicles...that Canadians on their own would save and invest. I would like to believe that. That's my inclination. As a Conservative, that's what I want to believe. There's an awful lot of evidence that flies in the face of this.
I take your point in terms of it perhaps not being the best approach. How, then, do we deal with that public policy challenge? That's the bigger issue for me. There are very few organizations that I respect as much as yours. But how do we deal with that public policy challenge?
We have very generous incentives in terms of people saving for their retirement in Canada, but people are not putting enough income away presently for the life they're going to live. I don't have an answer for that. I don't know if you do. I know it's a big challenge.
4:50 p.m.
Senior Policy Analyst, Canadian Federation of Independent Business
It is a big challenge. We are in the process of surveying our membership on what they are doing in their own businesses and for their employees as to what resources they have available for their retirements right now.
We're trying to broaden the scope. We're looking at the sale of their business, the sale of their house, inheritance, for example. These are tools that are not discussed frequently.
Another option, while it may not be the panacea that you mention, is PRPPs. They are something we would really encourage all provincial governments to implement. The federal government has shown leadership on that issue. It's an option for the smallest of businesses that have difficulty with small margins and offering retirement savings to their employees right now. That's one option.
The more options we provide, especially if they're low-fee and simple to access.... Mr. Moist spoke of the high banking fees that we're paying. PRPPs, if properly implemented, would remain low-fee. We think that would be a particular incentive to small business owners to help their employees save.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I appreciate that, and I take your point in terms of it being bigger. There are many more things to address. It's something that this committee may want to look at in the future.
I appreciate your comments.
I'm sorry, but I am out of time. I've cut everyone else off, so I have to cut myself.
I'm going to go to Mr. Keddy for the final round.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have only one question. Again, it's back to the discussion on tax loopholes and how as a government, and as a society quite frankly, we eliminate tax loopholes. Mr. Howlett, that was part of your presentation. I think we're in agreement and have some common ground on that particular issue.
In the economic action plan 2013, we closed 75 tax loopholes. That's a tremendous number. I have to agree that there are, unfortunately, more out there to close. We're expecting that will raise somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2.5 billion in 2013-214 and then another similar amount, $2.5 billion or $2.6 billion in 2015-216. That's not exactly chump change.
In the search for some common ground I would hope that you're supportive of closing those loopholes and that the government's action in relation to that is the correct action. I'm not disagreeing that we can't do more.
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadians for Tax Fairness
In my opening my remarks I mentioned how surprised I was when I was in the lock-up and found that as a key theme in the last federal budget.
The steps taken were welcome, but they were initial steps. We're suggesting in our brief another $10 billion of loopholes that we feel are not fair and are not effective. I'm not saying every loophole should be eliminated, but every one should be examined. Those that are not fair or not effective should be eliminated, and doing that would make the tax system fair and would raise a lot of revenue as well.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
I would have to ask, because of your statement, whether that would include not-for-profit organizations that have hundreds of millions of dollars of assets.
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadians for Tax Fairness
There are some tax credits in the not-for-profit sector that are a problem as well. The finance committee did a study of this, and we did present at that time as well, and we identified some of them we thought were problematic, again because they unfairly benefit upper-income Canadians as opposed to having a benefit that's generally available to everybody.
We're not saying eliminate everything, but there are some even in the support for charitable receipts that are problematic and that should be examined carefully.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Gerald Keddy Conservative South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS
But there is a difference between charitable and not-for-profit.
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadians for Tax Fairness
Yes, there are both. I was talking about the charitable.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Colleagues, just as a short note, tomorrow we are meeting at Queen Street from 11 o'clock until 2 o'clock. I want to point out that there is no bus that goes directly to Queen Street so we'll have to walk there from Promenade. It's room 7-52, 131 Queen Street.
I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here this afternoon. Thank you so much for your input into our pre-budget consultation process. It's much appreciated.
The meeting is adjourned.