You can certainly do it there.
Evidence of meeting #126 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cra.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #126 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cra.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
It's your choice. Clause 3 deals with the promoter's fee. So you can do it here or you can do it in clause 9.
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
Maybe I'll do it now, because the question I'm going to ask builds on Mr. Hsu's questions.
Mr. McCauley, Mr. Hsu asked you questions concerning the nature of the maximum fee to be prescribed by regulations. My questions are going to be about those who would be exempted. The regulation contemplates certain promoters being exempted, and I wondered if you'd given any thought to whether that would be done by way of criteria being named in the regulation, or would there be categories of promoters that you're contemplating exempting?
I wasn't sure if you'd given any thought to how that would work.
Assistant Commissioner, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
To be honest, not particularly. Again, both in reality and in perception, we want to be seen to be quite open throughout the consultation process and not have landed, as it were, on what we think may or may not be exempt.
Some people have observed to us that if the fee structure is designed in a certain way, the issue of who's exempt or not really becomes moot, because as you know, unless you're exceeding that cap, there's no requirement to report. It really leaves the marketplace alone. So there is a bit of an interplay between where you land on fees and whether or not at the end of the day anybody might have a legitimate position in terms of their being exempt.
NDP
Murray Rankin NDP Victoria, BC
On the question of maximum fees, I believe there are some regulations in Canada contemplated under the Interpretation Act where you can have different fees for different regions of the country. A maximum in Toronto may be different from a maximum in a rural part of the country, or in the north.
Is that part of your thinking, the possibility of different fees depending on the region?
Assistant Commissioner, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
What we will have to sort through is how do we appropriately value the product. If there are legitimate, as I think you're sort of intimating, cost considerations—labour in Toronto versus labour in another part of the country—I think certainly we would take that under consideration when we provided advice to the minister on the regulation, yes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you, Mr. Rankin.
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to)
(On clause 6—Offences)
Conservative
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Amendment G-3 is to enhance the information disclosure threshold to allow for taxpayer information to be used when such information can reasonably be regarded as necessary rather than when such information is simply necessary for the administration and enforcement of the act.
That was deemed by our Canada Revenue Agency officials to be an important distinction.
I don't know if Mr. McCauley can talk to why this was important to facilitating this bill.
Assistant Commissioner, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
Very briefly, the reason we suggested the amendment was that there was a possibility that, for example, the information provided on the disability certificate—where, if the bill passes, there would be an advisory, for example, to individuals about there being a maximum, so there would be consumer awareness, if you wish—and some of the other information that might be provided might not be available to us to use, to do some analysis, to see whether or not a firm would be exceeding the cap.
So this only makes sure that this couldn't be used as a barrier to really get around the intent of the legislation. It has nothing to do with information sharing beyond the CRA, or to other agencies or departments. It's really just to allow us to administer the bill in the manner that we thought was intended when it was created.
I'd say it's a very subtle technical change.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Thank you.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 7 agreed to)
(On clause 8—Information may be disclosed)
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Thank you, Chair.
I think in terms of the structure of the bill, the legislative assistant was just talking about G-4, which was the one that I had talked to—sorry, I apologize—as G-3. So I think we need to....
I'll look to his advice on that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Well, we can take the discussion previously on G-3 and apply it to G-4.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Okay. Thank you, Chair, for your indulgence.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
I see that the English version of the amendments mentions information or documents whereas the French version just mentions documents.
Did we want the two versions to be equivalent? Or is there a particular reason why the French version is a little different?
Conservative
Conservative
Assistant Commissioner, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
Other than wanting it to be legally consistent, I'm assuming that the English version, which I think was the version the sponsor authored it in, would be the version that people would want to reconcile it to.
I don't know whether it's us, frankly, or the committee who could validate that. There is a process for ensuring that the French and the English versions actually do work legally.
I think the committee is responsible for that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Dan and the clerk can add to this, if they want, but to my understanding, your concern has been addressed, because
in French, it says “documents”.
Okay, it's fine now.
Thank you for raising that.
Should we go to the vote on amendment G-4?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 9—Regulations)
We have amendment G-5.
Is there any discussion?
Ms. McLeod.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I think it's straightforward, with very simple wording.
