主题：加拿大信托基金：黎明前的曙光 -- 倥偬飞人

The Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors has raised a number of questions, the answers to which could make Flaherty’s the “Tax Fairness? Plan”:

What are the policy reasons behind this year's subtle and yet profound change that will permit Canada's largest pension plans to own the economic equivalent of Income Trusts in their private equity portfolios and not be subject to the same double taxation that would be paid by average Canadians in their individual [Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP), the equivalent of the US IRA] under your tax proposal?

How is something that is being denied the average Canadian saving for retirement, on the basis of its presumed negative effect on Ottawa's tax base, be allowed to persist for the exclusive benefit of those in the public civil service and others so advantaged?

Do you agree with the 2005 Consultation Paper which revealed that businesses under the corporate model paid, on average, taxes at the rate of 6.3 percent in 2004?

Is it fair to say that if these same earnings were paid out from an income trust to Canadian individual investors, then taxes would be paid to Ottawa at the higher rate of personal taxation, which the study indicates is 38 percent on average?

On this intuitive level, how can income trusts cause tax leakage?

Has the Department of Finance come to a determination yet as to the cause behind the unexplained surge in personal taxes reported on October 27, 2006 (immediately prior to your Halloween announcement) in an article by Steve Chase of the Globe and Mail entitled “Tax cash floods in, leaving experts at a loss.” Which starts by saying: "There's a mystery bedeviling the Finance Department: Canadians are sending far more personal income taxes to Ottawa than expected--and nobody knows exactly why. Personal income taxes collected--the single biggest source of Ottawa's revenue--are up nearly 11 per cent in the first five months of this fiscal year compared with last year.”

“The puzzle also appears to play a role in the massive CD6.7 billion budget surplus Ottawa posted for the five months of this fiscal year--CD2 billion ahead of where finances stood at the same time last year.”

Given that the five assertions of the Ways and Means Motion, which is the enabling legislation, are based on readily quantifiable concepts, when do you intend to provide Parliament, and in turn Canadians, with any of the supporting studies and analyses that provide the justification for these far reaching measures? The methodologies and assumptions behind this body of work are as important, if not more important, than the numbers themselves. To date no such information has been provided.

What is the specific section of the Access to Information Act you are relying upon and the underlying reasons the government is invoking to justify the denial of access to information by Gordon Tait who was seeking full disclosure of your tax leakage analysis, to the extent such studies even exist?

Is the NDP [New Democratic Party], which to date has supported you in this policy to double tax income trusts in RRSPs, been provided with any more information on your assertion of tax leakage than you have made available to the public at large? Have they at any time requested any such additional information?

We understand that NDP MPs have, during the past few days, written to their concerned constituents, in what appears to be form-type correspondence, stating: “I am confident that government estimates of future tax leakage are solid.”

What is the basis for their confidence, since it could only have come from your office? Have other elected representatives either within your own party or from other parties sought or received such publicly undisclosed information?

Do you believe the comments of the Governor of the Bank of Canada on income trusts that were made in October 2006 that were prefaced by the words, "limited evidence suggests" are more or less authoritative than the work of a major accounting firm whose study of December 7, 2006, is based on an exhaustive study of all 250 income trusts and evaluates their contribution to the Canadian economy?

We note that the CEO of Manulife Financial has been called as a witness. Is this witness representing the interests of a multibillion Canadian "corporation" proper or as the marketer of products which it sells as principle and which have to compete directly with Income Trusts for market "shelf space"? Products such as life annuities and the heavily promoted and advertised proprietary product known as "Income Plus," again sold by Manulife Financial as principle rather than as agent. Income trusts are issued by issuing Canadian businesses to fund their business activities and are purchased by Canadians through agents without promotional advertisement.

These are just some of the unanswered questions that Canadians who are affected by your policy have at this point in time on the "debate" on income trusts. We thank the committee members in advance for asking them on behalf of these negatively affected Canadians.