An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions)

This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in October 2007.

Sponsor

Dan McTeague  Liberal

Introduced as a private member’s bill. (These don’t often become law.)

Status

Report stage (House), as of March 21, 2007
(This bill did not become law.)

Similar bills

C-500 (40th Parliament, 3rd session) An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions)
C-253 (39th Parliament, 2nd session) An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions)

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-253s:

C-253 (2022) Bank of Canada Accountability Act
C-253 (2020) An Act to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (pension plans and group insurance plans)
C-253 (2016) Recognition of Charlottetown as the Birthplace of Confederation Act
C-253 (2013) An Act to amend the Access to Information Act (response time)
C-253 (2011) An Act to amend the Access to Information Act (response time)
C-253 (2010) An Act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act (mail free of postage to members of the Canadian Forces)

Votes

Nov. 8, 2006 Passed That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

November 1st, 2006 / 7:10 p.m.

Liberal

Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-253, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act sponsored by my colleague, the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East. I am also pleased by the Speaker's announcement today that the bill can proceed in its present form in spite of previous concerns that it might have exceeded the jurisdiction of private members' business. The purpose of the bill is to allow contributions to registered education savings plans, RESPs, to be tax deductible similar to the way Canadians already deduct contributions to registered retirement savings plans, RRSPs.

I need to digress a little. Today has been a rather difficult day for Canadian investors. Contrary to what Conservatives told Canadians prior to the last election, the finance minister announced that he has decided to flip-flop on the income trust issue and slap a tax on the distribution. Within two hours of trading today Canadian investors lost $25 billion in retirement savings affecting virtually all sectors of the economy and unfortunately creating a sudden and bleak future for hundreds of thousands of pensioners.

That being said, I wish to return to the proposal brought forth in Bill C-253. I believe this proposed legislation warrants further consideration. I believe it is important to support this bill at second reading so that it can be referred to committee for an in-depth analysis. The reason is simple. We acknowledge that the cost of post-secondary education is becoming extremely expensive for average Canadian families, especially those with more than one child to educate.

Students are graduating with an excessive amount of debt and many say they simply cannot afford an education. This is a troubling situation especially since our future productivity is dependent on the next generation of students. Currently Canada has the highest participation rate in post-secondary education among the OECD countries, but that ranking is in severe jeopardy if the federal government does nothing to change the situation.

Bill C-253 would encourage more parents to participate in the registered education savings plan because they would see the fruits of this program at the end of every tax year. As we heard from my hon. colleague, only 27% of parents participate, so the bill would encourage more participation. This would be beneficial to Canada because we would have a more educated population and hence a more productive population.

In addition, the savings that are incurred from this tax deduction could be reinvested into an RESP in order to assist families with the goal of maximizing their annual RESP contribution. At present the maximum annual contribution is $4,000 a year with a lifetime limit of $42,000 per beneficiary. These investments grow tax free until a child needs money for tuition. While it is true that Bill C-253 would shift the tax burden from the parents to the child beneficiary, the annual income of a full time student is quite low and any tax liability would be offset by other tax credits while students are still in school.

Currently students emerge from universities with a huge debt. This bill would ensure that students emerged from their education with a much lower student debt. Consider that by 2010 a four year degree program could cost in excess of $100,000. It becomes quite clear that long term planning is required on the part of the students and parents, but also the federal government. This would ensure that post-secondary education does not become a luxury only those families with money can afford.

It is also quite clear that an RESP worth $42,000 would offset a significant portion of the cost of a proper education.

I note with interest that the author, the MP for Pickering—Scarborough East, has considered measures to prevent RESPs from abuse. Bill C-253 proposes severe tax penalties for those who would attempt to take advantage of an RESP's simple tax shelter without any serious regard for the potential beneficiary. In the event that a beneficiary has no intention of going to school, the accumulated income would be subject to a 20% tax on top of the regular tax normally payable on such investments. That I call accountability.

Roughly 50% of college and university graduates graduate with a debt. The average debt amounts to $20,000, making it very difficult for young people to get a headstart in life.

I ask for the support of all members in this House so that serious thought can be given to helping all Canadians access post-secondary education regardless of their economic circumstances.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

November 1st, 2006 / 7:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

The last speaker will be the mover of the motion, a five minute rebuttal.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

November 1st, 2006 / 7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Dan McTeague Liberal Pickering—Scarborough East, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all colleagues for participating in this debate. I know there are many issues that cannot be resolved in the few minutes that are given to me, but let me provide a very brief outline.

Let me decipher the position of the House leader over the past couple of months. First, thank you for your ruling earlier today, Mr. Speaker, in which you made it abundantly clear that this bill in no way violates or requires a ways and means motion in order to give rise to the vote which will take place, I presume, at some point next week. What is most important is that the roadblock of the ways and means position seems to be the legitimate reason the government opposed this bill. Mr. Speaker, since that roadblock has been clearly taken away by you in your infinite wisdom, I would offer to the government that it incorporate this bill as its own and begin the process to meet the challenge of students who so clearly need the help of this Parliament and to come up with innovative ways to ensure that young people have access to higher education.

It is very clear to all Canadians, any Canadian who pays taxes, any Canadian who is concerned about the future, that the prosperity of this nation very much depends on a skilled and adaptable workforce.

Right now, as opposed to reaching out and giving everybody who wants an education an opportunity to get that education, we hear naysaying from some corners. We heard the member for Winnipeg North who chastised the bill because it is an attempt to try to cover more people who desperately need an opportunity to get that access to higher education. Whether it be a skill in the workforce, whether it be a craft, whether it be taking up a trade, or whether it be to move on to post-secondary education, we know that this cycle of education will continue in years to come. For people to have the opportunity to access education and thereby maintain the health, wealth and prosperity of this nation depends on our ability to provide instruments that are at our hand without denying the government the cash it needs to continue working on the nation's priorities.

To look at the issue of post-secondary education in the abstract, there are a number of programs out there, but we need to do more. When only 27% of students are being provided an education through an RESP, it clearly demonstrates that almost three-quarters of Canadians are not.

I do not think any of us in this House want to take a position here that suggests that today, in the year 2006, education only becomes the purview of the rich.

Students are talking to each one of us as members of Parliament and our provincial colleagues as to the amount of debt they are incurring. Students talk to us about the need to ensure that we rebuild the system, about the need for a piece of legislation that would provide an opportunity for them to continuously access education in a world in which there is increasing competition, not just in terms of trade, but in terms of resources.

It is extremely important. Given all these factors, but above all when we see in my province of Ontario the tuition freeze that has just been lifted, we now have a situation that is unacceptable to all Canadians. We need to look at the rapid rise in the cost of education.

Universities want to compete on an international level. They can only do so with higher tuition fees. The government can move to cap these things, but these are band-aid solutions. We in this chamber have to find the creativity to provide people an opportunity to access education.

In my riding, and I am sure the riding of Winnipeg North and ridings right across this country, every one of us as members of Parliament has an obligation to look deeper so that when someone is paying a tax, they may actually be put in a position where they are able to benefit from it.

This legislation is really calling for Parliament to think bigger. This legislation is asking the finance committee and parliamentarians not to navel gaze about what has happened in the past but to understand what the OECD has said with respect to rising tuition costs for students and to listen to what students are saying. However we decide to make it possible for students to get access to higher education, Parliament has a higher obligation to respond to the need.

This is not by any means the only solution, but it is an important step forward to recognize that the federal government plays an important role in the lives of students in ensuring the viability and the safeguarding of our education system. We must ensure that young people, and all people, have access to education. The instruments are there. The income tax system is probably the easiest way to do this. Most Canadians pay income taxes and they would have a great opportunity to help their children in the future.

As my final words on this, I would encourage the government and all members of Parliament to look beyond the rhetoric and to look to what their constituents need. Clearly, on RESPs, tax deductible is the way to go.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

November 1st, 2006 / 7:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

November 1st, 2006 / 7:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

November 1st, 2006 / 7:20 p.m.

An hon. member

On division.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

November 1st, 2006 / 7:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

The motion is adopted. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

November 1st, 2006 / 7:20 p.m.

Conservative

Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you may have gotten ahead of yourself. We were waiting for you to ask for the yeas and nays. You did not get to that stage. You just declared it carried. We were saying no.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

November 1st, 2006 / 7:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

I appreciate the good advice from the member for Edmonton—Sherwood Park. However, the Speaker did not hear any nos. I did not hear any nos, and then I heard a suggestion, on division.

Let us turn back the clock and read this again.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

November 1st, 2006 / 7:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

No.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

November 1st, 2006 / 7:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

November 1st, 2006 / 7:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

November 1st, 2006 / 7:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

All those opposed will please say nay.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

November 1st, 2006 / 7:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Income Tax ActPrivate Members' Business

November 1st, 2006 / 7:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker Royal Galipeau

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 8, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.