Okay.
Evidence of meeting #79 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was grant.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #79 for Environment and Sustainable Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was grant.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:25 a.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
—in my time.
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Then can you tell me, Mr. Fréchette, what you see as the main differences between what can be accomplished through a tax credit and what can be accomplished through a grant? I know this question has been batted around a bunch, but I'm really trying to get to what can be accomplished in the two scenarios.
I have about a minute before I have to turn it back to Mr. Amos.
9:25 a.m.
Director of Policy and General Counsel, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
The eligibility for a tax credit may be lower than the eligibility for a grant or a cost-sharing program because the tax credit is administered by CRA. Everyone automatically applies, and they check a box. In a grant program, there may be a higher cost or a higher burden on the individual applying to that program to add the proper paperwork.
9:25 a.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
But a grant is attractive.
9:25 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you so much.
Once again, this has been very beneficial, because I didn't realize just how disadvantaged rural areas were until I started looking at the different tables and the amounts.
Your table around food supply shows that none of them are eligible. Grain elevators in Saskatchewan and Manitoba are not eligible. It's the same for fisheries sites, horticultural facilities, hunting and resource harvesting sites.
It's the same under “Religion, Ritual and Funeral”, aboriginal ritual sites, aboriginal sacred sites, missions, and religious facilities and institutions. Then you look under water transport at landing points or lighthouses, and then even buried sites, exposed sites, and underwater sites. These are all rural areas, for the most part, that are not eligible under this program at all.
Not only are we going to be disadvantaged because we're not as well-heeled.... Just look at the lighthouses. A number of years ago when we started shutting down lighthouses and communities were scrambling to try to find money to keep these lighthouses open, most of them ended up not being allowed to be open.
My real concerns, once again, are that, one, we need to change this so that more of these rural sites become eligible; and two, because of the inability of rural communities to raise the kind of money that it takes to rehabilitate these sites, we need some form of targeted or focused method to be able to say, “Okay, this portion is going to go specifically to rural” so that we have that ability.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
The question is this. Once again, looking at your report here, would you not agree that based on the data that's here, rural is really disadvantaged in this program?
9:30 a.m.
Parliamentary Budget Officer, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
Just to be clear, they are excluded from the list that you mentioned. You're right. However, most of them.... You mentioned the elevators and so on. They are generating revenues, and that's why they are excluded. It's not because they are in rural areas.
You are probably right that some rural buildings and projects are excluded even though they are not listed under projects generating revenue, but on the list you mentioned are projects that are generating revenues, and they are excluded from this bill.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
Director of Policy and General Counsel, Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer
I have a quick response.
One of the assumptions we made in our analysis was that the taxpayer would actually have taxable income. If they are a not-for-profit entity, a crown, a government, or a municipality, they would not be included in our analysis, because they are not paying taxes.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
Thank you very much.
This is very helpful testimony. I just find it regrettable that we don't have the other side of the equation, which is the national economic benefits and the additional tax revenues that would be driven by this tax credit.
When I look at the analysis that was done for the American program by Rutgers University and the National Park Service, it's very clear. They list the number of jobs per person-years, the income, the output, the GDP, and the taxes generated at all levels of government. That was a comprehensive analysis. It's pretty obvious that there is a very significant boost to the economy and to tax revenues as a result of their program.
Mr. Bossio talked about this perhaps being a wealth-sharing program. That's the term he used, “sharing of the wealth”. I just want to remind—
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC
If you meant cost sharing, that's quite different. This is not a wealth-sharing program.
This is one tool in a larger tool kit. The bill does not propose in any way to eliminate the cost-sharing program that is already in existence. What this is doing is just providing another tool to incent the private sector to invest in historic sites and preserve them, with a little help from the government, whether they are layering the ACCA on top of the tax credit, on top of perhaps some cost sharing—
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Deb Schulte
Can I suggest that this is probably a really good discussion that we are going to get into when we get down to the report level?
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
While the floor is his, he can do what he wants.
