Evidence of meeting #55 for Finance in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:30 a.m.
Director, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
We didn't know that this amendment would be proposed, so we haven't done any calculations.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
10:30 a.m.
Director, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
But I guess, as I had indicated before, the government estimates that the costs would be $40 million in 2006-2007, $160 million in 2007-2008. If you assume an increase in the category of children who qualify from age 16 to age 18, that's two more years than the 16 so far. You can do the math, the same as the rest of us.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I would have liked to extend this to say 18 years or anybody who's still dependent, using the same criteria we use for the education or dependency rules under the Income Tax Act. I think I was quite generous in just proposing up to 18 years.
It's consistent with every other basic law we have in this country, where kids are known to be minors until the age of 18. I think it only makes sense to keep the age at 18 years old.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
First of all, I have a question on that issue.
Was this discussed at all in the report by the three consultants?
10:30 a.m.
Director, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
There was some discussion about extending the credit to older children and to disabled children. That part of the discussion was beyond, of course, what the mandate of the committee specifically was, which was to provide information on programs and prescribe physical activity. The government is taking those representations under consideration, but those representations would have to be under consideration in a different process than through this bill.
10:30 a.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
What was the logic originally of the cutoff at 16? I think my colleague makes a good point. Usually 18 is the end of high school; you're in the full period of your youth and leisure activities. It just seems that it's hard to argue against extending to 18, other than from the sheer question of cost.
10:30 a.m.
Director, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
You mention leisure activities, and I think that begs some clarification. This credit is not designed to encourage people to take part in leisure activities. It's more, in part, to get Canada's youth into the habit of carrying on physical activities. Once you get into the habit, you don't need an incentive after that point to continue. That's part of the reason why age 16 was proposed in this measure.
10:35 a.m.
Director, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Quite clearly, I could have learned to engage in some of that physical activity at a younger age myself.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
The use of the word “leisure” is simply as a general descriptive for.... I have no problem with the word “fitness”. For many young people, a fitness program is their leisure program. It's their break away from school, and it gives them a lot of satisfaction to be involved in a gym program or some exercise regime.
I'm inclined to support the amendment, because it seems to me it's very hard to justify the cutoff at 16. I'm not so sure, and I'd love to see a study on this that shows the—
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
But I presume there's some review done before one makes legislative changes, especially in terms of income tax.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
I'd like to see whether in fact it's true that habits are entrenched by the age of 16 and therefore that it's just extra to go beyond the age of 16. From what I can tell with young people, I think they're just at a formative stage at that age and that anything you can do to keep ingraining into them certain habits and regimes and regimented activity, the better.
Unless hearing otherwise, I'd be inclined to support the extension to 18.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Brian Pallister
Is there any further discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Pacetti, again.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
I think I understand the logic of the government. I know the intent was for the Prime Minister's son to get a deduction while he played hockey.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Massimo Pacetti Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
It's probably because most players play hockey until the age of 16, the midget level, and then when they go on and play junior hockey, they wouldn't qualify because they think they're getting paid. But again, I think the most sensitive years of youth are between 16 and 18. And I think it's important we just don't think about kids in an activity such as hockey, but that there are other activities.
