Evidence of meeting #86 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was reits.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Lorne Calvert  Premier of Saskatchewan
Erin Weir  Economist, Canadian Labour Congress
Monica Lysack  Executive Director, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada
Nancy Peckford  Member, Council of Advocates, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada
Chris Conway  Manager, Government Relations, Real Property Association of Canada
George Kesteven  President, Canadian Association of Income Funds
Robert Michaleski  President and Chief Executive Officer, Pembina Pipeline Income Fund, Canadian Energy Infrastructure Group

4:40 p.m.

Robert Michaleski President and Chief Executive Officer, Pembina Pipeline Income Fund, Canadian Energy Infrastructure Group

Thanks very much.

Thanks for this opportunity to speak with you this afternoon.

l am here on behalf of the Canadian Energy Infrastructure Group, or CEIG. The CEIG represents ten infrastructure companies that manage energy pipelines, storage facilities, and processing plants. We process, transport, and store a very significant portion of Canada's oil, oil sands, and natural gas production, and petrochemical feedstocks. Our assets represent long-term investments that provide steady, fee-for-service income, not unlike real estate investments. We are all income trusts or similar flow-through entities, proudly headquartered and managed in Canada. The proposed tax on income trusts has the potential to very profoundly impact this important sector.

Combined, the CEIG represents a market capitalization exceeding $12.5 billion, and represents about 6% of all Canadian income trusts. Our member firms deliver over a million barrels of oil per day to the market. That's half of Canada's oil production. We also deliver over 300,000 barrels per day of Canada's natural gas liquids production and transport 2.7 billion cubic feet per day of Canada's natural gas production. We play a central role in processing and storing gas and natural gas liquids. Our companies are critical to Canada's energy supply.

The income trust structure is ideal for Canadian energy infrastructure assets and has been a catalyst for the investment and growth in long-life physical assets that are critical to the development of new energy supplies in Canada and to establishing Canada as a world energy superpower. This business model is based on long-life physical assets with steady and reliable cashflows. Similar to the REITs, which have been exempted from this proposed new tax, energy infrastructure trusts represent stable, long-life, hard assets.

Energy infrastructure trusts also make substantial investments in asset development. Consider this: collectively, the CEIG membership has spent $1.1 billion on expansions over the past five past five years, has planned expenditures of $4 billion over the next three years, and has acquired $3.9 billion of assets, and $1.8 billion of those assets were repatriated from foreign owners. The trust model keeps critical energy infrastructure under Canadian ownership.

Further, the long-term nature of our investments requires a stable, long-term, competitive fiscal regime. At the time of the government's surprise October 31 announcement, our members had made long-term decisions and commitments on the basis of the existing taxation regime. Multi-year shipping and processing contracts, some of which extend 25 years and beyond, are in place, and long-term investment and financing decisions have been made in good faith based on a promise made by this government.

Like members of Parliament, the CEIG member companies are accountable to their own constituents. We made business decisions in good faith, believing that this government would keep its word. We are responsible to our unit holders, who are our primary constituents. These investors also made business decisions impacting their retirement savings and financial futures based on the promise that this Conservative government made to them prior to taking office and on the campaign trail, a promise that, with the introduction of the proposed policy change, has been broken.

Now, there is clear precedent for treating energy infrastructure uniquely. In fact, when the United States made the decision to tax income trusts, they specifically exempted energy infrastructure, recognizing how critical these assets are to energy supply and energy security, encouraging the development of master limited partnerships as flow-through entities.

Today, just as we are shutting down this valuable business structure in Canada, in the United States it is flourishing, with the market capitalization of the energy infrastructure sector currently exceeding $80 billion U.S. and growing.

These infrastructure assets connect Canadian energy producers to markets, so impacts on this sector reverberate through the energy industry, the industry often described as the engine of the Canadian economy. These changes will increase the cost of capital, curtail growth and the development of long-life assets, and, perhaps more importantly, create a competitive disadvantage with respect to foreign and tax-exempt parties. Already, in the energy infrastructure sector, U.S. flow-through entities trade at a significant premium to Canadian counterparts. Today the U.S. entities trade at a yield of 5.2%, compared to Canadian entities at 8%.

Now, the potential for takeovers of the critical Canadian energy infrastructure owned by CEIG members by foreign acquirers, such as the U.S. MLPs, private equity firms, and others, has risen dramatically as a result of this erosion of our competitive position. Such takeovers will result in a reduction in the total tax collected in Canada, precisely the inverse of the government's purported reason for implementing the changes on November 31 of last year.

Retaining the trust structure for the energy infrastructure is the right thing to do.

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

Thank you very much, sir. I'm sorry to cut you off, but I'm sure there will be questions for you.

Mr. Martin and Mr. Norlock, welcome to our committee.

Just a reminder: in response to the passing of Mr. McKay's motion, we do have representatives here who were on the first panel. I would encourage questions to them as well.

We'll begin the six-minute round now with Mr. McCallum.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've said for some time that this was a finance minister out of his depth. It became abundantly clear that this was true when he himself reversed on interest deductibility. Income trusts are another saga confirming this thesis, and I heard another one today. I can't believe the government would restrict the overseas investments by REITs to 25% of their assets.

I understand that Australia has one REIT that's as big as all of Canada and that grows overseas, and here we have a government that says you can't invest overseas. But by investing overseas, don't you get more revenues for the government?

So is there any rationale for the government to limit the investment overseas in this way? Can anybody think of any reason? Maybe one of the Conservative members will come up a reason during their turn. It just strikes me as entirely irrational.

4:50 p.m.

Manager, Government Relations, Real Property Association of Canada

Chris Conway

We looked at the data ourselves, and we can't find any rationale for it. There are a handful of countries, mostly small tax havens--Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, that sort of thing. We can't find any rationale. It does bring in more tax revenue for Canada.

Really, to our mind, there is no justification for it other than a potentially historic precedent in the Income Tax Act, which has been changed in other areas, I think in terms of RRSPs.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

Mr. Conway, I'm curious about something. REITs can be registered for RRSP purposes, right?

4:50 p.m.

Manager, Government Relations, Real Property Association of Canada

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

So in the past, when there were restrictions on foreign investment, REITs that invested over a certain percentage wouldn't have been eligible for RRSP investment. Is that correct?

4:50 p.m.

Manager, Government Relations, Real Property Association of Canada

Chris Conway

We haven't until now had a number of REITs with a lot of foreign property ownership. However, there's the case that Mr. McCallum raised, Westfield, the Australian REIT that has a market cap the size of the entire Canadian market. We have a number of REITs now that are in a position where they're looking to go abroad. We're speaking specifically about owning property abroad, so I don't know how it would have impacted specifically on the foreign ownership rules in terms of the units of the REITs themselves--

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

Previously, you're saying, most REITs didn't invest much in foreign property, but this rule will limit the potential for them to do so. It's not going to impact on the existing REIT industry, it's just going to restrict the possibility of more investment offshore. Is that in effect what you're saying?

4:50 p.m.

Manager, Government Relations, Real Property Association of Canada

Chris Conway

Well, the way I've had it explained to me is that they can buy us but we can't buy them.

What may in fact happen is that a number of the Canadian REITs could be purchased by foreign REITs as a result of this. It may limit their competitiveness. Some Canadian REITs may not exist if this continues. It is getting more competitive globally. As foreign REITs are running out of properties to buy in their countries, they're going abroad, looking to Canada now. There's a lot of discussion that Canada is a very competitive market for real estate prices.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

Just to be clear, up until now there was no restriction on the amount of offshore investment a REIT could make?

4:50 p.m.

Manager, Government Relations, Real Property Association of Canada

Chris Conway

Not to my knowledge. There was no--

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

Yet Canadian REITs didn't invest offshore, and you're suggesting that somehow this change in the rules is going to have a dramatic and negative impact.

4:50 p.m.

Manager, Government Relations, Real Property Association of Canada

Chris Conway

We're a relatively young market. I mean, 1994 was when Canadian REITs really came online. In the United States, for example, REITs began in 1960. So some countries have had time to get further ahead. They have more sophisticated structures--taxable subsidiary structures, for example, stapled REITs.

We're kind of getting to the tipping point now where we would need to look at these types of rules. Our REITs are now looking at going abroad.

4:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

Thank you.

Mr. McCallum, I'm sorry about the interruption. I just wanted some clarification.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

No problem.

Notwithstanding the chair's intervention, I remain convinced that I have not heard a single justification for what would appear to be an irrational policy. It seems like government is quite happy when foreigners buy our energy trusts or REITs but not when our energy trusts or REITs buy overseas.

This brings me to a question for Mr. Michaleski. I understand that drilling in Alberta is down substantially. How are the energy trusts doing, and what would be the implication of the passage of the budget bill for this activity? How would that affect the Alberta economy?

4:50 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Pembina Pipeline Income Fund, Canadian Energy Infrastructure Group

Robert Michaleski

Well, we do represent mostly infrastructure and pipelines in the province of Alberta and elsewhere, so we are impacted by the decline in drilling that will take place. Energy trusts will also be impacted by the decline in drilling because that also translates into likely lower production levels, or a lesser ability to maintain production from those entities.

As far as the budget itself is concerned, I don't think there's a direct relationship. We're speaking primarily to the impact of the budget on the trust sector in general, and I think the answer to that question is that we'll see a negative impact because there likely will be less drilling as there are less funds available for that sector, which will then translate into less product for us to move in our systems.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

I've heard it said that this tax of 31.5% is so punitive that the income trusts simply won't remain and that the revenues from this high tax will be zero. Would any of the panellists comment on that?

4:55 p.m.

President, Canadian Association of Income Funds

George Kesteven

I'd be happy to comment on that. I think your assertion is absolutely correct, because no corporation in Canada pays 31.5%. That's a statutorily declared number based on this legislation. They're paying anywhere from 5% to 15% as an effective cash tax rate, so why would anybody stay in a vehicle by 2011 where they're going to be paying 31.5% when as a corporation they'd be paying 5% to 15%? So you'll see the obliteration of the sector if the 31.5% goes ahead.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

So would any rational government do this? It's obvious that a 31.5% statutory rate should be compared with a 5% to 10% actual rate paid by corporations. So why would they do this if it were not to deliberately destroy income trusts? My impression is that it's not to level the playing field so much as to destroy income trusts.

4:55 p.m.

President, Canadian Association of Income Funds

George Kesteven

Absolutely, that's what it will do. The impact will be the destruction of the vehicle, yes.

4:55 p.m.

President and Chief Executive Officer, Pembina Pipeline Income Fund, Canadian Energy Infrastructure Group

Robert Michaleski

I think, if I may just add, it's highly unlikely that you're going to see any entity stay on as a trust. The likelihood is more a conversion to corporate, but even more so, I think the likelihood is that they're going to be sold to the highest bidder before 2011.

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON

Right. It seems to me that this is almost a comedy of unintended consequences, were it not for the fact that so many people have suffered so seriously. It seems to me that tax fairness is in fact tax unfairness when ordinary people can no longer invest in these entities and you have to have very deep pockets to buy the underlying assets.

Advantage Canada has disadvantaged Canada when energy trusts, which had previously been net foreign acquirers, are now all being bought up. And perhaps most strikingly, stemming tax leakage has turned into creating tax leakage. Income trusts, largely through personal tax, I guess, were paying lots of tax revenue to the government. Now if BC is sold to a combination of pension plans and private equity concerns, the tax revenue to the government will be next to nothing.

Particularly on that last point, I wonder if perhaps Mr. Kesteven could comment on how one could possibly argue any more that this government action would be stemming tax leakage when in fact it appears to be creating less revenue for the government.

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister

Mr. McCallum has used his preamble, Mr. Kesteven. There's no time for a response. I'd invite you to work a response into your next question, if you would.

We'll continue now with Mr. Crête.

Mr. Crête, you have six minutes.

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I found your presentations interesting. First, let me clarify a point. The Bloc Québécois has no intention of challenging the current year's budget in the short term.

Among other things, you invited the Standing Committee on Finance to set up special legislative measures. If the budget is adopted and the legislation is implemented and if you are invited to propose measures that could be applied later, perhaps during the next budget consultation process, do you think that your propositions will still be timely? What would your preferences be?