Environment committee  It's very difficult to argue with the premise generally, but those people who have these kinds of properties and are interested in doing something generally find out about these kinds of mechanisms, to the extent that there are tax credits in the system or grants available. I mea

Environment committee  The only thing I would say to that—somebody said it earlier—is that one does not exclude the other. This is a bill that starts a process, and you have to start somewhere. You can't always accommodate everything, but you can use other mechanisms to stimulate exactly what you're t

Environment committee  In general terms I would agree with that, but that's both a plus and a minus. What I've seen with grant programs over the years in various applications is that just at the point in time when an application for something very relevant comes up, the appropriation has been totally u

Environment committee  What's particularly valuable about a tax credit program is that it doesn't discriminate between urban or rural. It's a uniform program. Whoever wants or needs to access it, providing they can meet the rehabilitation expense criteria and it's certified, no matter where in the coun

Environment committee  The examples you point out are the kinds of tax credit mechanisms that governments over the years, on either side of the House, have put in place in order to benefit certain kinds of activities. There were tax credits for fitness, bus passes, mechanics' tools. It's as long as you

Environment committee  There's nothing in Bill C-323 that would affect home ownership, because these are tax measures, and tax credits in particular, as well as accelerated capital cost allowance, which is only relevant for people who are earning income from property or using that property in their bus

Environment committee  The best way to encourage that is through a grant system. The same kinds of criteria that denote heritage quality in this bill would be used to deliver a grant. I say that because a tax credit is not relevant for them, since there's no income from the property to be offset by a

Environment committee  Not necessarily larger, but it would help any heritage property that would incur the kind of rehabilitation expenses that you delineate here that is used for commercial purposes. Rental would be considered commercial as well. You can think of things in the restaurant business or

Environment committee  I think Bill C-323 certainly addresses any issues in the commercial context. For any buildings that are used for commercial purposes, rental purposes, or anything that generates a stream of income that is taxable, and against which one can claim investment tax credits or refundab

Environment committee  I beg your pardon?

Environment committee  It would be grants for those kinds of investments or for those kinds of entities that are not taxable.

Environment committee  Yes.

Environment committee  It doesn't increase the absolute number of properties that would be on the national register or the provincial register, but it may very well encourage more people who own properties and who are not in an economic position to do the kinds of things we want them to do, through thi

Environment committee  Well, it would be a larger hit by virtue of more taxpayers taking advantage of it. It would not be a larger hit in tax expenditure terms if we assume equal numbers access the program. Whether it's over time or immediate, the value of it would be the same. It would just be more en

Environment committee  Yes, I do support that, because at the end of the day, whatever assistance is available, whether through a tax credit mechanism or a refundable mechanism or through other provincial or federal government grants, it reduces the cost base of that particular asset, both for deprecia