Thirty seconds.
Evidence of meeting #110 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-48.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #110 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-48.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
John McCallum Liberal Markham—Unionville, ON
My question is for Mr. Tremblay.
Could you give us an example of a case where under this bill, the principle of solicitor-client privilege will not be respected?
9:30 a.m.
President, Federation of Law Societies of Canada
It is quite difficult to give you a specific example. Indeed, I would have to invent a scenario because this type of provision is new.
However, when a client comes to consult us, generally speaking, we tell him that if he wants to have good service, he must tell us the whole truth. Now, we would have to tell clients that they need to know that we may be forced to report what they tell us and that consequently, they should be careful regarding what they tell their lawyer. That is extremely difficult for a jurist to accept.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
March 19th, 2013 / 9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you for your testimony today.
Mr. Moody, do you accredit most of your vast intelligence to the raising of yourself in Fort McMurray in the seventies?
9:35 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
9:35 a.m.
Moodys LLP Tax Advisors, As an Individual
I was born in Prince Albert, actually.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Seriously, Mr. Moody, yours is very impressive testimony so far.
I'm curious about a couple of things.
First of all, the amendments to the tax statute in particular are pretty much of two types: one is relieving and the other remedial, as far as their purpose is concerned. Both of them, obviously, affect tax revenue somewhat. They fix overtaxation or they close tax loopholes. Would that be fair to say for the majority of these tax amendments?
9:35 a.m.
Moodys LLP Tax Advisors, As an Individual
Do you want me to answer in Fort McMurray-speak?
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
9:35 a.m.
Moodys LLP Tax Advisors, As an Individual
For the benefit of the rest, I grew up in Fort McMurray, so the honourable member knows my stomping ground.
But overly simplified, yes, I would agree.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
So really what we're here today talking about, what we have been hearing testimony about over the past period of time, and what we have been trying to pass through the House, is to fix overtaxation or to close tax loopholes. Would that be fair to say?
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
The source of these are decisions from courts, comfort letters that have been sent out—I understand there's about 30 a year—and some other minor changes that are suggested by either the taxation department or some of your experts who are here today?
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Okay.
How do other countries communicate proposed legislative changes like these?
9:35 a.m.
Moodys LLP Tax Advisors, As an Individual
That's an interesting question. The most obvious is the United States. I'm watching the lead of some of my colleagues. We have eight U.S. tax lawyers in our practice, so we're watching how they analyze U.S. tax legislative changes. It's quite different from Canada. By no means am I expert in that process, but I would suggest that our process is, number one, very different, but probably, fundamentally, not all that different, in terms of the sources of change.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
I just noticed, for instance, that in part 1 of Bill C-48 it's the eighth time the Department of Finance has tried to change NRT and FIU rules—the eighth time.
Does anybody understand why that is? Why is it the eighth time and we're sitting here studying it again, and the opposition, although they say they're in favour, actually make moves that say they're not?
Does anybody understand why that's taking place? Really, we're talking about fixing overtaxation and closing tax loopholes, which are obviously very important to government revenues and also important for certainty and Adam Smith's mandate.
9:35 a.m.
Moodys LLP Tax Advisors, As an Individual
I would suggest, with respect to the non-resident trust rules, given the fact that they were very controversial at the time they were first proposed, and the numerous studies and consultations and presentations that were done by interested parties—and then, of course, with the minority governments we had and the inability to get it passed—hopefully we never see something like this happen again.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
But to all of you gentlemen and lady here today, you must wonder what you're doing here again.
We're spending the same amount of time, and more time, in fact, studying a bill that no one is opposed to.
9:35 a.m.
Moodys LLP Tax Advisors, As an Individual
If what you're suggesting is that we're frustrated that it's taken this long to get through, then I would agree.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Okay.
Is there anybody else?
Mr. Shillinger, would you like to add anything to that?