Finance Committee on Oct. 25th, 2010

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Have you read or heard that the city of Montreal would be put at a disadvantage as a result of this project?

[Yves-Thomas Dorval]

If there were a single securities regulator, there would have to be a single decision-making centre. I would agree if that decision-making centre were to be in Montreal, but I will applaud that when I see it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I think we're going to put it in Edmonton, actually.

Mr. Mulcair, you have the floor.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The representative of the CPQ is demonstrating why he bears his middle name. Like me, he doubts that the government has any intention in that sense, and I cannot blame him for that. However, I will pick up on that and allow him to conclude his remarks on that issue, because we are of the same mind.

Each time it could, the NDP has voted against a centralized securities regulator, and the reasons for that are very simple. First, that does not respect the 1867 Constitution on which our Confederation is based. Second, that would gut one of Montreal's key sectors, because it is obvious that the Conservatives have no intention of locating that centre elsewhere than in Toronto. Third, as has just been indicated, our system functions effectively. So we do not need to fix what is not broken. I want to congratulate and thank you for that.

I do hope that the Liberals have been listening, because they have consistently voted for greater federal centralization. We know that the Liberal Party is the grand old centralizing party. Furthermore, Liberals are now hiding behind the referral of the case to the Supreme Court. All the same, their vote on this key file has been recorded.

Mr. Dorval, I would like to come back to your point no. 6. When you say that you would like to see governments implement fiscal measures, for example, tax credits, and procurement policies to encourage marketing innovation and existing clean technologies in order to accelerate their implementation in Canada and their exportation around the world, I imagine that by “clean technologies”, you mean “green technologies”, or next-generation jobs.

Could you elaborate further on the issue and contrast it with what the Conservatives have been doing since coming to power, as you know, and implementing across the board tax cuts, regardless of the sector? In our view, that supports the most profitable corporations, while excluding Quebec and Ontario manufacturers, for example, and forestry companies in British Columbia.

[Yves-Thomas Dorval]

Thank you for your question, it is quite broad.

First, the Quebec Employers' Council is non-partisan. We do not support one party more than any other.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

No, of course not.

[Yves-Thomas Dorval]

We applaud decisions, recommendations or suggestions made when they contribute to ensuring Quebec's prosperity, because we represent Quebec employers first and foremost. That is what interests us in all this. We are not partisan and have no other motives.

That said, with regard to innovation and clean or green technologies, it's quite simple. We believe that, particularly in Quebec, and certainly in other parts of Canada, there is an extraordinary potential for innovation and an interest in issues relating to green or clean technologies. We have a potential pool of development in such types of innovation.

However, to ensure that projects are viable, they need to be marketed. In order to market them, we need showcases first of all. So we need to be able to demonstrate the potential of such technologies, the results they provide and the possibility of marketing them to prospective clients. I believe that, in Canada, and particularly in Quebec, we are very well positioned to further develop this market, and it should be encouraged.

Furthermore, to present a showcase, we no doubt need to consider the possibilities of providing assistance, both through tax credits and the presentation of such technologies. Be it in the area of transport—we have colleagues from public transit here—an area in which we can borrow from Quebec's extraordinary solutions, or be it in the area of aviation, community development, rail, buses or even cars. These are very important elements, and in Quebec, I believe that we have the ability to achieve a very strong consensus in this area.

With regard to tax or other programs, it is important, however, to mention that we believe that the government is providing enough funds. We don't want to create new funds or additional credits. Instead, we would like some funds or programs to be rescoped in order to ensure the latter are funded without increasing the bill.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

You are alluding to Mr. Roschlau and his organization. In fact, public transit is part of the solution.

Now I would like to talk to the representatives of Imagine Canada. Quite recently, I had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Lauzière. I would like him to provide us with more details on something that we feel is extremely important. We are working on it and no doubt you will soon hear an official announcement from us about this which will be quite favourable to your proposal which we support.

I would like you to take the time, within the limited time at your disposal, to clearly set out the context for this extension, what you are calling the extended tax credit. In your brief, you are sending two messages and I would like to give you the opportunity to clarify what you mean in this regard.

First, you say that incentives “would help place charities on a firmer financial footing.” So, you are talking about charities as such, which is a possible goal. Next, you say that the proposed changes “would have a sustained impact as charities of all sizes and rural, urban and remote communities would benefit from this joint government-citizen investment in quality of life.”

Am I to understand from this that Imagine Canada would like to see—it's in another chapter, of course, but in keeping with the conversation we've just had with Mr. Dorval—to see the government adopt a guiding vision and try to better guide charities operating in areas that might lessen the burden on the state, in other words providing direct services to the public?

[Marcel Lauzière]

Absolutely not. We strongly recognize the importance of the state, which is to ensure the provision of services; there is no doubt in that regard. In reality, however, in many cases, charities do pick up the slack.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I'm not sure that I understand correctly. So I'm going to try to be more specific.

What I wanted to know was whether you were telling us about your wish for us to better identify the goals and charities that could benefit from this stretch tax credit.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you—

[Marcel Lauzière]

No, I don't think that this is at all—

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Do you want it to be applied in the same way for everyone?

[Marcel Lauzière]

Absolutely. The stretch tax credit seeks to strengthen the quality of work being done by small and large organizations, and their ability to do their job wherever they may be in Canada, be it in urban or rural regions.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Lauzière—

[Marcel Lauzière]

Over the past few years, we have done a lot to help philanthropists in Canada give more and this has had significant consequences.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much—

[Marcel Lauzière]

The message we are trying to send with the stretch tax credit is that incentives must also be created to ensure that the average Canadian can become a philanthropist and help small and large organizations.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Right. Thank you very much, Mr. Lauzière.

Mr. Brison, you have the floor.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you.

I have a couple of questions, and then I'll turn it over to my friend and colleague, Mr. Pacetti.

The first question I have is to the museums and Mr. McAvity.

You mentioned a Young Canada Works program to encourage more young Canadian students to work in museums for summer jobs, for instance, and I think you could emphasize that more. We're facing a real challenge around youth unemployment right now. Last summer, student unemployment was the highest it's been in a long time, and it's something the committee takes very seriously.

I guess this is a comment rather than a question. But I really think that recommendation should almost receive greater emphasis, because a lot of us would find it compelling to increase and strengthen funding for young Canadians to have access to summer employment during these difficult times.

I have a question to all of those representing the philanthropic sector. How effective has the elimination of the capital gains tax on gifts of publicly listed securities been for you? Should the same approach be taken on donations of land or private company holdings?

[John McAvity]

Why don't I kick off and then allow my colleagues to join in?

I believe the steps that have been taken on public securities have been very beneficial. I cannot quantify them for my sector; however, we hear stories and they've been very good.

My organization, over about the last three or four years, has actually made the recommendation in our presentations here that it be extended so that property and other forms of donations are recognized as tax credits as well. So we very much support that.

There are some additional issues. Imagine Canada has made some very good recommendations on tax policy. There is the issue of donations being made via credit cards, in which case Canada is an anomaly. In other nations, banks retain a fee for charitable donations when made through credit card purchases. That is an area that concerns us.

So I think there are a number of areas in charitable giving that are worthy of being looked at as a whole.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Thank you.

[Natalie Bull]

As Mr. McAvity mentioned, any changes that encourage Canadians to make charitable donations are certainly welcome, and securities have become an increasing area for us in our donations.

You mentioned the possibility of donation of land or property to charities. In the built heritage sector, it's not always ideal to encourage donation of historic buildings to charitable organizations because there is the ongoing requirement to invest in their maintenance.

But we would encourage consideration of a tax credit for the donation of a protective covenant or easement on a historic building. That would require owners to maintain those buildings and protect them in perpetuity, but they would also get some kind of benefit for doing that.

[Marcel Lauzière]

Thanks, Mr. Brison.

The results of the policies around capital gains have been very beneficial, and Imagine Canada supported those policies.

We're coming forward with this stretch now in order to look at it from the other side and see how we can build and strengthen the base of Canadian donors in the 10 or 20 years to come. We've seen a reduction over the last 20 years, from 30% of tax filers to 24% of tax filers actually asking for receipts for donations. That's not a good trend. So we need both, and I think we've made real progress on that front.

We are now proposing to do something that will be very supportive of Canadians from all walks of life in becoming donors and supporting charities across the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You have five seconds, Mr. Pacetti. Maybe I'll add that to your next round.

Mr. Carrier, you have five minutes.