Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 2761 - 2766 of 2766
View Marty Morantz Profile
CPC (MB)
By the way, thank you for your presentation.
In the last session of Parliament, a number of different tax changes took place that were fairly fundamental in terms of how our tax system operates vis-à-vis small business. I'm referring to the restrictions on what was called “dividend sprinkling”, or splitting income through the use of dividends, and the new rules on passive income. I want to get what your experience is on the ground there with your firm's clientele in terms of how they're coping with that burden.
Ken Goodridge
View Ken Goodridge Profile
Ken Goodridge
2020-02-04 16:43
We're still trying to cope with it. We have a number of clients who are affected by this. As you're probably aware, a great many taxpayers set up family trusts for the purpose of dividend sprinkling, which was considered legitimate at the time. It's often part of an estate freeze. What's happened is that we've simply wound up a lot of those trusts, because they're not required anymore.
The tax on split income, which is really what this is all about, has created a lot of extra work, mostly just trying to get a handle on all of it and trying to figure out everything that it affects, because it was such a comprehensive change.
We have trusts that are being wound down. We're working on making sure that we can still take advantage of the capital gains exemption, and things like that. It's hard to really describe all of it because it has had a major effect on a number of clients. Our clientele is primarily small business owners, Canadian-controlled private corporations, professionals. Many of our clients have been affected by this.
As I said, we're still struggling to cope with all of it. It affects almost all of our clients in one form or another.
Mac Van Wielingen
View Mac Van Wielingen Profile
Mac Van Wielingen
2020-02-04 18:28
Thank you very much.
I'll just speak very openly. First and foremost, what we need is a relaxation of the very intense and often quite hostile rhetoric across this country on the part of certain provinces towards the western producing region in Canada and, indeed, from the leaders of the national parties. That in itself has created a real problem.
Our investors are saying to us that they believe Canada's energy sector faces a unique structural risk, which is that it's under-represented in national policy and related decision-making. They can invest elsewhere. They can invest into companies within the oil and gas sector that are in the same business and don't have that kind of risk. That's a point we've heard over and over, unfortunately. Eighty per cent of our investors are in fact international and are some of the largest and highest-quality investors in the world, and they are incredibly discouraged.
One other point I'm going to make, which few people are really aware of, is that the entrepreneurial and independent sector in Canada has been crushed. In 2014, there were 139 listed public Canadian independent oil and gas and energy companies, and about one half of them are going through some form of insolvency event. Another 20% are getting close to that. There has been a $100-billion loss of value just in those companies alone. These are companies that are run by Canadians, and many of the investors in fact are Canadians. There really has been a wipeout.
Your question is a fantastic one. Quite frankly, I wish I had my five very specific recommendations to really turn around the oil and gas sector in Canada. There are a number of things, but we have to let go of the hostility. We need to find a unifying vision. We need to understand that the energy transition we're in is long-term, over multiple decades. We need to see the importance of Canada's energy sector to all of Canada, and we need to preserve it in a competitive position, which means, as some of the other witnesses have been saying, that our regulatory decision-making needs to be fair and efficient.
Braden Fletcher
View Braden Fletcher Profile
Braden Fletcher
2020-02-04 12:30
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is just to expand on Mr. Ball's comment on scientific research and experimental development credits. There are two pieces that I thought would merit a little extra attention here.
One is that these credits, as they are structured today, do advantage those companies that have the resources to hire consultants and go through the process of filing for SR and ED credits, and that also have a full year's worth of funding in order to be able to wait patiently for these SR and ED credits to be returned to them. That's a lengthy period of time for any start-up company that's typically living month to month.
The other piece there is that if you think about the flow-through tax credit program we were just discussing, it's a very efficient way to be able to allow companies to access private sector funding almost immediately, under the same premise of SR and ED credits, which is that you're taking those tax advantages and are able to bring them to the present day.
The second piece was in our fairness for growth discussion when we talked about the two-thirds of Canadian public companies that have less than $50 million in revenue and under 500 employees qualifying as SMEs under a Stats Canada definition. The refundable nature of SR and ED credits is lost when you go public, which is just another example of how our current structures are disadvantaging companies that elect to leverage public venture capital to continue funding their growth.
Ben Brunnen
View Ben Brunnen Profile
Ben Brunnen
2020-02-03 17:36
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.
Thank you for hosting me here today. I represent the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, which represents the upstream oil and gas industry in Canada.
A strong oil and gas sector can help government achieve its priorities of growing the middle class, reducing our carbon footprint and expanding our collective prosperity. Canada ranks at the top of major oil-producing countries in terms of control of corruption, rule of law, government effectiveness, environmental protection and social progress. With global energy demand expected to increase, along with an increased focus on GHG emissions reduction, Canada is uniquely positioned as the global hydrocarbon supplier of choice. Through our technology investments, oil sands emissions intensity has decreased by 20% and is now on par with the global average crude blend. On the conventional side, we are committed to reducing methane emissions by 45%. Our regulations are more stringent than those of most other jurisdictions, including in the U.S.
Continued technology investments have the potential to achieve substantial additional reductions. However, in order to achieve this vision, government and industry need to work collaboratively. Despite a positive uptick in investment for 2020 for our industry, we continue to struggle to attract capital. Total equity raised in 2018 was about $650 million, down 94% over the past five years, which was the lowest level on record in 27 years. This has led to lower investment and fewer jobs. In fact, Alberta has 50,000 fewer jobs than it should have, had job creation kept pace with demographics, since the recession. Our total capital investment is about a third of what it was in 2014. Conversely, U.S. oil producers raised $19.4 billion from debt and equity markets in 2018. This severe reduction in our access to capital comes as the industry continues to be a leader in cost reduction and ESG performance.
We see an opportunity for the government to work collaboratively with the oil and gas sector and position Canada to be the global barrel of choice. This concept was echoed by the federal expert panel on sustainable finance, who recognized, and I quote:
Canada's oil and...gas companies are competing against major sovereign producers...that face little pressure for transparency or risk of divestment.... Divestment from these public companies essentially transfers market share from the minority producers most obliged to act responsibly and transparently, to monopoly producers without similar obligations.
The panel further indicated that “[a]chieving Canada's sustainable growth potential will require a sea change in the interaction between innovation, policy and regulation...and investment patterns.”
However, in order to achieve this vision, we need the right fiscal and innovation framework driven by close collaboration between the federal government and industry. Therefore, CAPP recommends that the federal government launch an innovation and industrial strategy table involving industry and the ministries of finance, NRCan, ECCC and innovation and economic development. The table would develop the strategy and coordinate investment in technology that would help achieve substantial emissions reductions and investment growth in our sector.
From a fiscal perspective, we recommend that the Department of Finance affirm that existing oil and gas tax measures are not subsidies, as stated by the Department of Finance in the 2017 Auditor General's report.
Finally, there are several fiscal measures that the government can implement that will increase our competitiveness, including reforms to large corporation tax administration, interest expense deductibility, and access to capital for small and medium enterprises. I would be happy to discuss these further during the Q and A session.
In closing, CAPP believes that Canada's oil and natural gas sector presents a significant opportunity for inclusive growth that provides broad benefits to all.
Thank you for this opportunity to present to you today. I look forward to your questions.
Ben Brunnen
View Ben Brunnen Profile
Ben Brunnen
2020-02-03 18:21
Thank you.
With regard to the interest expense item, we've heard some interest in exploring that from a government perspective. We want to make sure that government is aware that this is a priority for us. We definitely recognize the importance of the eligibility for interest expense, and we would encourage the government to explore the competitiveness implications of any changes, and to also consider any offsets in the event it does want to advance these changes, such as immediate deductibility.
The second point I raised was in relation to changes to large corporation tax administration. This is really a piece that the federal government has had in place for some time. What it does is tie up disputed tax revenues with the federal government, pending the resolution of certain tax disputes. This keeps, effectively, capital on the sidelines, to the tune of billions. We're asking for government to update its administration procedure so it's consistent with other jurisdictions, just remove requirements to effectively have our capital tied up, pre-fund amounts that are in dispute, and expedite the timelines for resolving the disputes.
Finally, our request—the third point that I raised—was in relation to access to capital for small and medium-sized companies. As I mentioned in my comments today, access to capital has been very substantive for our industry from an impact perspective, particularly for the small and medium-sized producers. Tools to temporarily or more permanently find ways to encourage these companies to raise capital would be exceptionally welcome at this point in time. Things such as flow-through shares and funding to help assist with reclamation and remediation are a couple of tools in that regard.
Results: 2761 - 2766 of 2766 | Page: 185 of 185

|<
<
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data