Finance committee  All we did in preparing for this submission we wrote in August is we went to the government's website, the Canada Revenue Agency's website, and looked at something called the CRA income statistics for the 2005 tax year, and specifically at interim table 2—universe data. We looked

Finance committee  What we're hearing again is that it's something that seems to be delayed and delayed. I think there were two concerns that we heard about when we consulted with the government. One was, of course, the cost. What would it cost? The original wording of the proposal in the pre-budge

Finance committee  We did have an opportunity to have a meeting at one point with Ms. Ablonczy at the time, who I think was somehow involved with the minister. We did meet with her and discuss ways whereby we could achieve this.

Finance committee  We actually don't have those statistics.

Finance committee  I don't have the number in front of me, no.

Finance committee  Again, I don't have the number in front of me.

Finance committee  No.

Finance committee  Correct. The number I quoted earlier, which was the only hard number I have in front of me, was that most Canadians do not have a defined benefit plan. About 60% do not.

Finance committee  As it's currently proposed, pension splitting would not benefit as many as it would, let's say, at age 55. I think if pension splitting were reintroduced to broadly define both RRSPs in addition to the defined benefit plans, a lot more people would benefit starting at an earlier

Finance committee  We didn't put that back in this year, but the previous year we recommended 73. You met us halfway at 71. The reception was very appreciated by the industry, certainly. We would continue, obviously, to request a further delay to 73. The real reason for that is because, as you kn

Finance committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable committee members. I work for AIM Trimark Investments, in the private sector, but I am here as a volunteer on behalf of the Investment Funds Institute of Canada, as chair of their tax working group. We represent approximately $700 billion of Ca

Finance committee  An end to capital gains tax would be an ideal scenario; given it would probably be too costly for the current federal government, maybe a limit could be put on it, as was the case a number of years ago. Maybe it's $100,000 or $200,000. You can do the math on whatever the right nu

Finance committee  Yes, we find that. It's often referred to in behavioural finance as the capital gains lock-in effect. People are reluctant to sell an asset that may no longer be performing because of tax reasons, and from an asset allocation position it makes sense to maybe diversify into bonds

Finance committee  Absolutely.

Finance committee  No income on the way out, that's right.