Finance committee  I don't believe it's a tax issue. I think it's a clarity issue. We don't communicate what the benefits are. Look at the T1 form—it only shows the federal, not the provincial. But frankly, it's the Manitoba solution. Social cohesion, community development—these are grassroots thi

Finance committee  You've been very articulate throughout the hearing process on this point. For the most part, capital property gets held as long as it can be held and it doesn't come into the tax system. Often a donation will trigger a tax expenditure when the alternative was that it would be co

Finance committee  In public securities, yes....

Finance committee  I think it's a huge point of regional equity. With public securities, we've focused on big cities with head offices. Wealth is created in smaller centres through private companies and through real estate.

Finance committee  Indeed. The charitable position is that we want to see more money in the sector, not just the benefit to the taxpayer. So $100 million to $200 million extra expenditure that does not guarantee anything more out there at this time just does not make sense.

Finance committee  It wouldn't be a house, a principal residence. It would only be taxable real estate. If it were a rental property and a secondary property, it could apply.

Finance committee  It's interesting. I have more faith in the intentions of the donor. The donors I have worked with who give ecologically sensitive land truly want the land preserved. What I'm hearing from the alliance is that it's about tax and not about the desire to preserve land.

Finance committee  It's true. It takes considerable time to develop those relationships and the trust to secure the land. But for the most part, taxable real estate isn't going to be raw land. It's going to be urban. It's going to be developed, industrial. That's the focus.

Finance committee  Absolutely I can respond. I think it's a core Canadian value. I'm also worried about, for example, eliminating the first tier. That's potentially $100 million for existing behaviour. There's nothing new coming into the system for charities, and it's a $100-million expense. You

Finance committee  The stretch addresses that. It's only for new behaviour as opposed to inflating the system with existing behaviour.

Finance committee  Right. This could conceivably happen.

Finance committee  It could conceivably happen. I see it as sort of the 1% situation. The 99% benefit is much broader across the sector, and it's going to be different types of non-conflicting properties.

Finance committee  I listened to the hearing on Tuesday and I heard the comments. I do not believe that the elimination of capital gains on taxable real estate will affect it. The way the conversation went on Tuesday was it seemed like we were talking about the same land, but let me give you exampl

Finance committee  Part of it I think lies with the federal government, and the report that Mr. Brison referenced I believe makes seven recommendations, which are all, in and of themselves, excellent. One of the big questions, though, is if we are going to have true enterprise, do we have the entre

Finance committee  There are a number of elements. First, the safeguards in the Canadian system.... There are a lot of restrictions on what private foundations can own, self-dealing rules. Sometimes there's a view in the charitable sector that they actually go too far, that they're limiting philant