Finance committee  I would have no idea as to the number, but if you flip randomly through the act—

Finance committee  Okay. There's the act, and if you flip randomly through it—although here's a page without it—generally there are grey pages. They are probably at least 50% of the pages in the act are grey, maybe.

Finance committee  The grey pages will be composed of two things. One is draft legislation that has been released that is not enacted yet. As well, grey pages will be comfort letters where the Department of Finance has indicated to taxpayers that they intend to recommend to the Minister of Finance a particular change.

Finance committee  With respect to compliance with the Income Tax Act, as I think most of the committee members are aware, we encourage taxpayers to rely on draft legislation. We encourage the CRA to administer based on draft legislation, but taxpayers do have a choice—so there is that question—as to whether they comply with the proposed legislation or the legislation in the act, which may create issues down the road.

Finance committee  The short answer is the grey pages will disappear. As to whether this book will actually get thinner, the book won't get any thinner because the way the publishers do it is they show the history of the act. Part of this thickness is just indexing and shows what the act was with respect to prior periods.

Finance committee  In terms of what is in the Income Tax Act, what commercial publishers put out, there won't be any additional paper. Obviously in terms of what the actual law is, to the extent that we add a section or something like that, the act itself will grow. But in terms of whether we're adding 1,000 pages to the act, you have to replicate an entire provision to make perhaps the smallest changes within it.

Finance committee  If you're talking about the grey pages, in terms of what's not been previously announced, there are very minimal changes in terms of income tax.

Finance committee  Certainly. With respect to the bill, probably the best way to provide an overview is to just briefly go through the parts. Part 1 of the bill relates to non-resident trusts and foreign investment entities, or offshore investment funds. This is, in some sense, a carry-over of measures that were first introduced in the House back in 2006 and 2007, as part of prior Bill C-10.

Finance committee  I think the simple answer is the amendments—and there's a whole suite of amendments throughout part 1 of the bill—implement the taxation rules that ensure that a PRPP is operated in the way intended, for Income Tax Act purposes.

Finance committee  This clause relates to the implementation of pooled registered pension plans. It provides two things. Subclause 8(1), the amendment to paragraph 20(1)(q), would allow employer deductions for contributions to pooled registered pension plans. Subclause 8(2), relating to paragraph 20(2.2)(a), is an exception from the definition of life insurance policy.

Finance committee  If we deleted this one specific clause, it would throw into question the ability of employers to make deductions for contributions to PRPPs on behalf of their employees.

Finance committee  Certainly. I believe that there has been no specific fiscal figure booked for the PRPP changes included in part 1.

Finance committee  As I think Mr. Brison pointed out, he talked about some of the tax advantages that EPSPs have, and certainly to deal with them is one of the reasons why the EPSP measure has gone forward with respect to CPP, EI, and the ability to avoid those types of premiums.

Finance committee  As I indicated, certainly from our own analysis and that of the CRA, the way the credit works and the way it's been used in the last several years has been creating problems in terms of its going beyond the intended scope, even if it does have a policy purpose. In terms of the competitiveness of Canadian business, the reduction in rates, certainly since the credit was originally introduced in 1979, has more than made up for the incentive that the credit originally provided.

Finance committee  I think it's more a case of Canadian taxpayers seeing that the legislation has been drafted in a particular way and trying to see what works and finding judicial support over time. Once one or two cases show that a provision has been interpreted by the courts in a particular way, then other taxpayers will look at the same decisions and extrapolate from them.