James Scarlett is a partner at Torys LLP.
There’s
a lot of talk these days about the need for Canadians to save more for
retirement, but with a sputtering economy, weak job-creation numbers and
interest rates seemingly stuck at near-record lows, that’s easier said
than done.
Fortunately, Canada has a
new federal government that has committed itself to applying open-minded
and fresh thinking to tackling difficult issues. So, here’s a
suggestion for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his government looking
for ways to boost the economy and create a steady stream of investment
income for Canadians who need it: It’s time to give income trusts
another look.
On Oct. 31, 2006, the Conservative
government killed income trusts and, in so doing, dealt a serious blow
to capital formation and retail-investor choice in Canada. It appeared
at the time that the government was concerned about a loss of corporate
tax revenue (despite the fact that
numerous studies did not support that
fear) and the unbridled growth of income funds generally.
Unfortunately,
the government’s actions that day ended any discussion about how income
trusts could have been adapted to address those concerns without losing
the benefits they brought to the Canadian economy and investors.
A
lot has changed since late 2006. Back then, the economy was doing well.
Capital markets were robust. Commodity prices were strong. There wasn’t
the faintest inkling of the impending paralysis of credit markets in
2007 and crash of stock markets in 2008.
Since
then, Canada’s economy has not done well. Stagnant growth. Low or
negative after-tax returns on investment. Moribund capital formation. We
are clearly in need of ideas to stimulate economic activity and returns
for investors.
How would bringing back income trusts help achieve these goals?
First
and foremost, income trusts would give Canadian retail investors a
wider choice of higher-yield, income-producing investment alternatives
at a time when traditional retail-debt investments are producing rates
of return that are low, or even negative after tax and inflation.
Income-trust investments would give people more money to save for
retirement or to spend and further stimulate the economy.
Institutional
investors, such as private equity funds and pension funds, can
currently make investments that are functionally equivalent to income
trusts. Why not provide the same opportunities to retail investors?
Allowing income trusts to return would put retail investors on a level
playing field with institutional investors. Think about the hundreds of
billions of dollars that are needed for infrastructure projects in the
coming decade. Institutional investors will be big players in that space
and the stable, long-term income-generating investments it will
produce. Why not give retail investors a shot at those investments
through the involvement of publicly traded income trusts?
More
generally, revising income trusts would help to revive a moribund
market for initial public offerings, generating capital-market activity
and putting more money to work, which could have positive effects on the
broader Canadian economy. Income trusts would also provide small- and
medium-sized companies with access to the subdebt market, giving them a
source of funds at lower cost than other financing options currently
available.
But can we bring back income
trusts in a way that captures their benefits while avoiding the worst
of their excesses, real or imagined?
In
their first incarnation, income trusts owned debt and shares of
corporations in which the business was carried on. The corporation owned
by the income trust relied on traditional sources of tax shelter, such
as interest expense and capital cost allowance, to free up cash that
could be paid to the income fund and on to holders of trust units.
The
amount of tax shelter was largely fixed at the inception of the trust,
so any growth in the underlying business was subject to usual rates of
corporate tax. But the moderating effect of this structure was lost
when, with the concurrence of Canadian tax authorities in the form of
favourable advance tax rulings, income trusts were organized without the
use of corporations but rather through the use of partnerships, which
are flow-through entities and do not pay corporate-level tax. This
change allowed – and even encouraged – virtually unlimited distribution
of operating income without payment of any corporate tax.
So
what if we went back to the early structure of income trusts, where the
underlying business of the trust is held in a corporation that issues
shares and debt to the trust, and where distributions on those
securities would fund the income trust’s distributions to its investors?
The moderating effect of this structure, with the underlying business
held in a corporation and with the available tax attributes being
essentially fixed at the outset, should avoid the excesses of the past,
while allowing substantial benefits to flow to capital markets and
investors. It might be necessary to put limits on the amount of debt
that could be issued to prevent abuse, and that should be part of any
discussion about the merits of reinstating income trusts for retail
investors.
The issues presented by
income trusts are challenging and complex, but if fairness and
neutrality between retail and institutional investors are good policy
objectives – and they are – it’s time to begin the discussion.
By
revisiting the issue in a spirit of flexibility and creativity, it
should be possible to come up with a solution that’s positive for
investors and businesses, for capital markets and for the economy as a
whole.
The views expressed are those of the writer alone and may not reflect the views of his law firm.
Any decision concerning this portion of the Gardiner needs to me made, not in isolation, but in the broader context of what's to be done with the entirety of the Gardiner. $1 billion is no trifling sum of money that Toronto taxpayers will be spending. This decision also needs to be made in the context of the broader Toronto interests, rather than the more narrow interests who are calling for a preservation of the status quo (at a cost of $1 billion).
I think everyone agrees that the Gardiner is an idea that did not realize on its original 1950's promise, and is not something any urban planner would recommend today. That said, how can it possibly be considered a good idea to simply perpetuate a bad idea, by preserving the Gardiner at a cost of $1 billion, as people like John Tory are proposing?
Tory's hybrid idea sounds more like a campaign to mask all the obvious ills of the Gardiner with some token gestures of making what's bad feel less bad, much like the exercise of putting lipstick on a pig.
Fixing what's wrong with the Gardiner won't be cheap, but rather than throwing $1 billion to perpetuate the bad idea known as the Gardiner, how about spending some real money and come up with a real solution, such as the tunnel that is being proposed? Toronto and Torontonians deserve real solutions and not band aid solution, as the incremental cost, as between the two, will prove itself money well spent over the short, immediate and long term and won't be a decision that future generations will be second guessing, as we are now doing with the Gardiner.
Maybe we could call it the Tory Tunnel as that might appeal to the Mayor's ego and might get him to think straight on this major decision that he's presently headed down the wrong direction on.