Finance Committee on Dec. 7th, 2007

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Don't try to turn around once you've entered the United States. It's like a one-way street. Once you've crossed the border, you can't come back. There are even cameras monitoring that.

[André Bergeron]

In fact, it's the same thing in airports. When you return from an international trip, you have to go through customs. You mustn't try to avoid it. There's no favouritism. These purchases are made as you arrive in the country, but before the customs inspection is completed.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Why should we grant you this competitive advantage? Because your activities are carried on in airports? You are the fourth group we've met today, and those groups, on average, comprise six or seven entities. Thus far, however, no one has proposed an increase in taxes or a reduction in spending. Everyone has suggested increases. Several tens of billions of dollars must have been committed since this morning.

You must understand that our role is to engage in public administration. Everyone has paid sales and income taxes. You must ensure that fiscal justice is explicable and logical, and that the entire population is able to appreciate it.

[André Bergeron]

In fact, if you look at the question from a tax standpoint, I would say that the increased revenues of duty free operators, the payroll increase, will enable the federal government to make a net gain through the taxation of corporate and personal earnings.

Furthermore, we're not talking about additional earnings. The idea is really to recover sales that have already been made in foreign countries. Currently, that money is subject to no tax. Consequently, this is revenue to which the government does not have access. By repatriating those sales, we would be increasing turnover. Then we would make our business more competitive. Our competitors are not the domestic markets: they are the duty free stores of foreign airports.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much. The time has gone.

We'll now move over to Monsieur Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

First, I want to invite Mr. Morrissette to do some research in order to support his position that governments must absolutely be involved. That would be beneficial for him. I am somewhat familiar with the program that was implemented in Quebec to decontaminate the land. Many promoters benefited from it extensively for their lands. It seems to me the community could have the same right. I invite you to look at the amounts that were paid. I'm talking about public information here.

Mr. Djigo, I simply want to tell you, as regards KAIROS, that, if you visit the NDP site, you will be very pleased to see that our tax policies include virtually all your proposals. It's a pleasure to have you with us today.

I would like to ask Mr. Hindle whether he has had an opportunity to see the proposal of my colleague Brian Masse, who is the NDP member for the riding of Windsor West. In the current session, Mr. Masse introduced a private bill designed to have charitable donations receive the same tax treatment as contributions to political parties.

I'll explain. If you give $400 to a political party, you recover $300 after tax. It must be admitted that the degree of monitoring is much higher in the case of political parties. Studies tend to show that the rules imposed in the case of charitable donations are unfair compared to those applied in the case of contributions to political parties. Perhaps we should agree that, on the other hand, people with access to that should be subject to more extensive monitoring.

What would you think of that idea, if it were refined somewhat? Do you believe that it might help foundations such as yours?

[Bob Hindle]

Without a doubt. I must admit I am aware that bill was introduced. Personally, I am not very familiar with the content, but the principle will not only give our donors an additional tax benefit, it will also be an enormous help by recognizing charitable donations.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Excellent.

Mr. Bergeron, may I ask you a brief question? You discussed the problem of liquids and all that. When I think of security, I think there's going to be a lot of maple syrup and things like that in the blue tubs that the public will have bought before going through security. Now you can't carry these things in your bag any more. So I find it hard to understand the meaning of your presentation because it seems to be that, in general, at the outset, people will be more inclined than ever to make a stop at the duty free store. I can't understand your complaint about liquids and gels.

The owner of a non-duty free store in the general part of the airport has a very big problem. At least I can understand him. But I find it hard to understand the problem of the members of your association, since they are duty free operators.

[André Bergeron]

The members of our association have duty free stores, but, when someone arrives at an airport from Canada or a foreign country and must transit, that person has to go through a public area before returning to the secure area in a “domestic” section. That's when containers of more than 100 ml of liquid are confiscated.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I'm trying to understand. Let's say I leave Paris for a secondary location in the United States, but that I have to stop in Montreal and that I bought products at the duty free store in Paris.

Do you mean that I won't be able to leave for the United States with my products because they will be confiscated?

[André Bergeron]

Exactly.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

Madame Thi Lac, the floor is yours.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you all for your presentations today. My questions will be brief. I'll share my speaking time with Mr. Saint-Cyr.

I have three questions, and they are all for Ms. Asselin.

To help women with accessibility, the Bloc Québécois tabled a bill designed to relax the eligibility rules of the Employment Insurance Act and to create an employment insurance fund. We are now awaiting Royal Assent for that bill. It is workers and employers who pay these amounts.

I wanted to hear your comments about the Guaranteed Income Supplement because it's often women who receive the GIS. You have to have modest incomes to have access to it.

Lastly, the cases handled under the Court Challenges Program were often individual cases that became collective cases.

I wanted to hear your comments briefly on those three points.

[Michèle Asselin]

Employment insurance is an important program. It's very important to review it in order to improve its accessibility and also to protect its fund. In fact, we contribute to it, and that program should support all workers who contribute to it.

I went to the Magdalen Islands a few weeks ago. The women who live there showed me another adverse consequence. For example, there are a lot of seasonal workers there. If a woman can't plan her pregnancy in accordance with seasonal employment, she is not hired because her pregnancy is too advanced when the seasonal employment begins. She is out of the employment market for at least a year and a half and thus no longer has access to parental insurance benefits. There's really a big problem.

You have to sit down, review this program and protect this fund, which should belong to workers. The Guaranteed Income Supplement is one of the measures that enable us to sleep soundly at night, in Canada and in Quebec. That way, we ensure that no seniors die of hunger. I think we agree with KAIROS on this subject.

The fight against poverty should be a priority. It is unacceptable for these programs to be so complex that people, mostly women, can't access them. If I owe money because I made a mistake on my income tax return, that money is claimed from me. It should be the same when the government has not granted access to information to people who are often disadvantaged. We should make every effort to ensure that every elderly woman and man who is entitled to this supplement receives it. That should be a priority.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Are you in favour of full retroactivity?

[Michèle Asselin]

Absolutely, obviously.

The Court Challenges Program enabled the Centre d'aide et de lutte contre les agressions à caractère sexuel to ensure that the files of women, complainants, were not made public, which means protecting their testimony and also favouring it. That's one of the examples of the necessary... In a democratic society, groups that advocate women's rights do not have access to a legal system because you have to have major funding to be able to address that system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Pacetti.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Bonnett, this question is from an urban chap, as they say. The farmers' groups come before committees quite often. We had a crisis four or five years ago with mad cow disease, and then there was a bit of a problem with the corn and the wheat.

I know your presentation was based on the pork industry, but aren't your corn and your wheat farmers doing well? Hasn't that part of the agricultural sector done well in terms of return and prices going up?

[Ron Bonnett]

Yes, there has been a recovery in the grains and oilseeds sector. But one of the unfortunate things with the agricultural industry is that sometimes when one sector does well, the other sector does badly.

You have to recognize that the livestock sector depends on the feed from the grain and the oilseeds producers. So all of a sudden, now that their revenues are getting up to a level that's somewhat more respectable--and you should caution that because prices have fallen off a little bit--it does put pressure on the other industries.

But I think one of the key factors that is affecting us now--and it's affecting a lot of other sectors--is the change in the Canadian dollar. And with that change coming so rapidly, it's taken time to adjust.

On the other part of the presentation, too, I wouldn't want you to think it's just coming in looking for support. We've put a lot of thought into things like the “Grown in Canada” program and the cooperative investment plan to take a look at how we can reposition the industry and grow the industry so that it's at a profitable level. Frankly, from the farm perspective, the last thing we want is to be relying on safety nets and supports. We want to transform the industry so there is a reasonable expectation of profit.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you, but when you say “transform the industry”, is it all industries--it doesn't matter what you cultivate or what you grow?

[Ron Bonnett]

It's a combination. If you take the grains industry, even if they have short-term profitability, if that profitability causes another sector to collapse, then they've lost the market.

So you have to take a look at it in a broader view; you have to grow the end-use markets and high-end-use markets for those products. By doing that, then you build the capacity so that you have a sustainable agriculture, rather than the one that keeps going through these humps and hollows.

I think there are other countries that have been very strategic in their agricultural investment. The one that comes to mind is Denmark, where they've put a lot of investment into the development of co-ops and looking at high-value markets, and that's had a tendency to stabilize that market.

That is why we're suggesting a more strategic approach, taking a look at tax policy and marketing initiatives to really target some of those higher-value markets that we have close to home, and build the industry from that.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you.

I just want to get in two other quick questions.

Mr. Hindle, I think you answered it later, but I had this question that was from the beginning. You're asking for research money over a five-year period, and then another five-year period, so that means you don't expect any cure before 10 years. Why not just wait for somebody else to do it? That's a very simplistic question, and I think you answered it later. Could give me a quick answer?

[Bob Hindle]

I believe the part you're referring to about what I said later was that this isn't simply research money, first of all. It is to create a clinical trial network--

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

That's right, yes.