Finance Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I encourage—

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

Certainly I would expect that the government would want to fix this, so there is still a possibility for an amendment at report stage.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

As you know, I said there's no debate. I've given my ruling.

Therefore, shall clause 34 carry?

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clause 34 agreed to on division)

The next amendment I have is on clause 85, so I'm going--

[A voice]

The question.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

The question on clause 85.... So can I call clauses 35 to 84?

Go ahead, Mr. Mai.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

In terms of what you were saying about the parts, which part is this?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We're still in part 1.

Can we carry clauses 35 to 84?

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

(Clauses 35 to 84 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 85)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

We're now at clause 85, then.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Chair--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Julian, on clause 85...?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

--could you give us the page number of clause 85?

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

Page 137.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Jean.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

It's page 130.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Page 130? Okay. There we go.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay? There was quite a bit of discussion about this last night, so I'm....

Mr. Julian, do you wish to address this clause?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

No, but I believe Mr. Giguère does.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Monsieur Giguère, on clause 85.

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

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, we'll certainly allow Ms. Glover to comment if she likes.

I would also ask the officials to give a very fulsome comment if they can, because there was a discussion last night at committee--which I'm sure the officials followed--regarding this section and regarding mortgage investment corporations, RRSPs.... I'm sure the officials have gone through the testimony.

I was the chair and I think all committee members would like a very fulsome response to what was said at the committee last night.

Mr. Cook or...?

[Ted Cook]

Would you like that now?