Finance Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2011

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Je crois que--

[Ted Cook]

Excuse me, sir?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I think it is 70%.

[Ted Cook]

The qualifying activities in the regulations were 50%, but what I would point out to the committee is that there is a provision in the children's arts credit that does say that if amounts are deductible otherwise.... With respect to, for example, the fitness tax credit, if amounts are deductible as a child care expense, there won't be a doubling up of expenses.

So there may be expenses that would be eligible, but they would have to meet all the criteria of the child arts tax credit.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I understand there is a loophole in the act.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Cook, please.

[Ted Cook]

I was just going to point out to the committee that this uses the same function and style as the sports tax credit that has been in place for years now.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

[Ted Cook]

Sorry: I meant the fitness tax credit.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Giguère, you can clearly vote against the clause or you can propose an amendment at this point.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

No, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

No? Okay.

I'm going to call clause 24. Shall clause 24 carry?

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clause 24 agreed to on division)

Then I'm going to call clauses 25 to 33.

Shall they carry?

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clauses 25 to 33 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 34)

Now we'll go to clause 34. I have an amendment by Mr. Brison.

Mr. Brison, you have the floor.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Chair, we heard from organizations and witnesses ranging from the Canadian Association of Retired Persons to the Canadian Home Care Association to the Canadian Caregivers Association--and it was confirmed by financial officials--that the tax credits in Bill C-13 for family caregivers, volunteer firefighters, and children's arts activities are all non-refundable tax credits, and that because of this they exclude low-income Canadians, who most need the help.

In fact, we heard last night from CARP that people who quit their jobs to act as caregivers probably wouldn't qualify for the caregiver tax credit at all because their income is too low.

In my own family situation, my sister, who's a VON nurse, has had to cut back her hours to help take care of my 82-year-old mother, who has Alzheimer's. There are a lot of Canadian families in the same situation. They are caught in a situation where they have to cut down their work hours to take care of a loved one, so there's a negative impact on their family income that would take them below the threshold to actually qualify for this caregiver tax credit.

We believe that excluding the poorest Canadians--the Canadians who have the greatest need--from these tax credits is wrong, morally wrong, and that it will worsen the growing income inequality in Canada. So in an effort to address this constructively, my office has worked with the House of Commons legislative counsel to draft an amendment that would make these tax credits refundable, so that low-income Canadians could qualify for the benefits of these programs.

The legislative clerk has a copy of this amendment. I'd appreciate his advice on the admissibility of the amendment. Specifically, could he advise us as to when and how this amendment can be moved?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you very much, Mr. Brison, and thank you for notice of this amendment.

As the chair, I do have a ruling.

Bill C-13 provides for non-refundable tax credits in a number of areas. This amendment seeks to amend the bill so that certain of these non-refundable tax credits would become refundable tax credits. House of Common Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states at pages 767-68:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

In the opinion of the chair, therefore, the amendment proposes a new scheme, which seeks the expenditure of funds for a new and distinct purpose. In so doing, it attempts to alter the terms and conditions of the royal recommendation. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible, and this ruling is not debatable.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

I'd appreciate the clerk's advice as to whether this amendment would be—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

This is the clerk's advice and this is the chair's ruling.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

--at report stage, whether that would be....

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

It would have to be accompanied by a royal recommendation, and it would have to be done by a minister, and it could be done in the House.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

So it could be done in the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

But it must have a royal recommendation.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Certainly--