Finance Committee on Sept. 25th, 2006

[Greg deGroot-Maggetti]

That's a very good question.

I think, as you pointed out, part of the justification for splitting the two is for accountability purposes: to know how much money is going for post-secondary, how much is going through the Canada social transfer.

One of the advantages of the dollar-for-dollar or the matching funding, which addressed the issue of paying in proportion to need, was that it gave a clear accounting for how much money is spent on social welfare issues. The other benefit of going that approach is that it actually helped to encourage the development of Canada's social system.

Can I say definitively what's the best? No, I can't. But I think these are the kinds of questions that we need to be talking about when we talk about splitting up the Canada social transfer: how do we make sure it works to actually deliver to the needs across Canada to improve well-being and assure there are adequate social services?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Have you assessed what part of the current transfer would go to post-secondary education and to social programs?

[Greg deGroot-Maggetti]

That one I'll have to get back to you on. We had done a little bit of research on that a few years ago, and I don't have the numbers right on the tip of my head. I'd have to update that a little bit.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

If I have any time remaining, Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what is meant by “Include strong principles [...]”. Do you mean the federal government would impose standards? Once again, I would remind you that we have a Canada Health Act and that it did not prevent the federal government, back in the 1990s, from deciding unilaterally to no longer fund health care; at this time, the federal contribution is not even 25 per cent, which is what was proposed by Romanow. So, if you're talking about strong principles, we would need to ensure that the federal government will be providing funding, and that there will be no disengagement on its part once we have decided on a program.

I would just cite the example of the daycare program. Two years later, the federal government withdrew entirely from the program. Imagine if it had done that five, six or seven years after the program had been put in place: daycares would already have been built, staff would already have been hired and children would have been using these facilities when the government decided to wash its hands of the whole affair.

So, I think you really need to ensure that those strong principles include responsibilities on the part of the federal government.

[Greg deGroot-Maggetti]

That's a very good point, and a real dilemma.

One of the benefits of the conditions that existed for the Canada social transfer in the past was, again, to help build that system, but it does involve mutual accountability across both levels of government.

When we look at something like a poverty reduction strategy, which I really believe needs to be an important part of answering these questions about the Canada social transfer, we take the example of Quebec, with the law to eliminate poverty. To get something like that in place, to get all-party support, helps to keep the pressure on. This needs to be a social commitment as well as a government commitment.

Part of government's responsibility is to make sure that those who are most vulnerable to poverty are protected and are helped to move out of poverty. Those principles, whether they're conditions or whether they're strong principles of solidarity across multiple levels of government, need to be worked out.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

My question now is for the Heritage Canada Foundation. You did not attach any numbers to your demands. You talk about creating tax incentives, which is certainly understandable, and then you talk about implementing a program of direct funding to assist non-profit organizations, public agencies and private individuals in the stewardship of heritage buildings.

How big a program are we talking about? Have you an idea of the order of magnitude that would be involved?

[Nathalie Bull]

As regards direct funding, we are proposing an amount of between $5 and $10 million annually. Those amounts are based on the results of the program established for commercial properties.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

So, it would be between $5 and $10 million. Thank you.

[Nathalie Bull]

Every year.

[Le vice-président, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you, Mr. Paquette.

Mr. Dykstra, I'll take the five minutes that were allocated to.... I have a couple of quick questions.

Ms. Bull, since you've just been addressed, it's sort of along the same lines. I understand that you don't have any numbers in your presentation. But even if we give an additional incentive for people to donate to heritage foundations or for heritage buildings, which is exactly what you're asking for in your brief, as far as the types of people who will donate to heritage buildings are concerned, how will that change? Isn't the foundation already a charitable organization? Doesn't it already offer some type of incentive? Won't you be giving an additional incentive to the same people who are now giving?

[Nathalie Bull]

We're not asking for donations to be made to the foundation; we're asking for a tax incentive to provide an incentive for investment in projects. The owner of a building investing in a rehabilitation would receive a tax credit directly from the government, and that would be administered through the Parks Canada Agency, for example.

The second part of our request is--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Can I ask who owns the majority of the heritage buildings, private owners or public institutions?

[Nathalie Bull]

There are buildings owned by many different types of owners: privately owned buildings, commercially owned buildings.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

So you wouldn't discriminate between private or public?

[Nathalie Bull]

The tax incentive obviously would be applied only to buildings that are revenue producing.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

I just want to understand who the primary owners of the buildings are.

[Nathalie Bull]

For the tax incentive, the ownership type would typically be Canadian corporations, revenue-producing corporations.

The second part of our recommendation is making available direct funding for owners of properties that are not revenue producing, for example, places of worship owned by non-profit corporations, museums--buildings that are operated for not-for-profit purposes.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

How would you implement this type of program?

Tax incentives can mean a lot of things for the private sector and the public sector...whether it's a religious institution that owns a heritage building. How do you put the programs in place so that you can say it's going to depend on the value of the property, or is it going to be dependent on how much this typical organization has in its coffers?

How are you going to determine how the program is going to be structured? That's the complexity of establishing a program.

[Nathalie Bull]

Right. It would be administered as two separate programs because of two very different administration types. The tax incentive would be administered on the basis of the dollar value of construction, and the direct funding would more likely be a contribution program.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

Thank you.

Mr. Gordon, for your Canadian Centre for Emergency Preparedness, in your recommendation you say, “financially invest in mitigation activities and programs”. Who do we invest with? How are the programs going to be structured? Who do we invite, who are the stakeholders? Are we talking about emergency workers, firemen, policemen, social workers?

[Adrian Gordon]

The stakeholders are really all levels of government, as well as particularly the communities, the municipalities across Canada, because depending on which province and territory we're dealing with, the onus is on the community to maintain and develop an effective emergency plan, and that is where the mitigation has the most impact.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

But don't most municipalities already have some type of emergency preparedness plan?

[Adrian Gordon]

I think that varies greatly across the country. In Ontario, for example, there is legislation that requires each municipality to maintain a plan. I am not so familiar with the wording in each particular province. Having a plan is quite different from actually maintaining a plan.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Massimo Pacetti]

So you would be looking at a national type of plan, but administered or run locally.

[Adrian Gordon]

I think what we're asking for is for the federal government to support mitigation programs, particularly done at the municipal level. I forget the full name for it, but there is the JEPP program, which enables municipalities to apply, through the provinces, to the federal government for funding. That is one way that the federal government currently supports such programs.