There is a loophole in the act which gives rise to tax evasion, even money laundering, I presume, in no small amounts, far from it. The extended family could set up a company, and an individual's RRSPs belonged to the whole family. That was a problem.
With the proposed solution here, RRSPs rates will go from 25% down to 10%, but you still have 10%. I really wonder whether it is appropriate that an RRSP could be used in such a manner. Why don't you get rid of it completely?
In the present bill, the proposed sanctions are out of proportion — it says here 100% — for people who, for many years, had the legal right, pursuant to the wording of the act, to do this kind of investment. One witness submitted a last minute amendment which, apparently, was examined by an official in the office of the Minister of Finance. I cannot, with a 12 hour notice, determine whether it is admissible. This should be examined by a tax expert, and it will take him a long time. I see there are many drafting problems, and this is another one. This is directly related to the complexity of the bill.
With such a short notice, nobody could tell me, Mr. Chair, whether this amendment is an adequate solution to the problem.
Mrs. Glover has something to say. She may have some relevant information to share with us, concerning the examination made by the office of the Finance Minister.