Evidence of meeting #3 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cmhc.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Acting Assistant Comptroller General, Financial Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
They are sharing most of the corporate services on the HR side. For instance, for the staffing, instead of Treasury Board Secretariat and Finance duplicating and having two units to help with staffing people, we have combined this expertise and we are making economies of scale.
Acting Assistant Comptroller General, Financial Management Sector, Treasury Board Secretariat
The IT services at Finance I think are shared. Yes, we share.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Okay. So this just legislates the fact that it's already happening.
Thank you.
Conservative
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I'll just say a quick sentence.
Rather unlike Mr. McCallum, I think Canadians expect us to have government departments that can work together. To be frank, I was quite stunned that we actually had to have legislation that required us to do that.
I think it's very sensible, and I guess we're ready to move on.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Okay. Thank you.
(Clauses 34 to 36 inclusive agreed to)
Thank you to all the officials.
We'll go to part 12, which is clauses 37 to 45.
Are there questions?
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. Chair, I am told that I would be able to ask the officials questions on an element from part 4 and the Canadian Youth Business Foundation. I wanted to ask for some clarifications. Have you already voted? Is it over?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Part 4 has passed. We've already voted on part 4.
The Finance officials who were here probably have left, but you can certainly consult with them. We'll maybe have someone from Finance or through Ms. Glover attempt to answer your question. But that section has already passed.
(Clauses 37 to 45 inclusive agreed to)
We have to return to part 1.
I'd perhaps ask Mr. Keenan if he'd come back to the table. Hopefully we have some clarification with respect to the questions that have been asked.
Acting Director, Personal Income Tax Division, Department of Finance
In the definition at the top of page 2, under proposed paragraph 2(1)(a), there are two definitions for what a “specified year” is. In this instance, what we're adding is the specified year for the purpose of allowing you early withdrawals without penalty. It says: “if the plan is a specified disability savings plan”, which is what this measure does, “each subsequent calendar year, but does not include any calendar year prior to” it. What that provision is saying is that after the election is made, after the certification is received, it can be any year after that. It's not limited to the five years.
In response to the question, in year six there's no requirement for recertification. Once the certification has been received, the provisions of this measure apply in any subsequent year.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Just to clarify, then, when you have proposed paragraph 2(1)(b), with each of the five calendar years....
Acting Director, Personal Income Tax Division, Department of Finance
Proposed paragraph 2(1)(b) starts with “in any other case”. There is an existing provision in the act that says that if you are withdrawing funds, there are certain minimum withdrawal rules that apply and maximum withdrawal rules that apply. If you have a shortened life expectancy—we're piggybacking on that definition of the “specified year”—in those five years, then the minimum and the maximum payment amounts do not apply. That's when you're withdrawing funds. The provision that allows you to have it become a specified disability savings plan says that it's in the year of certification and each subsequent year.
Conservative
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
That answers my question, especially since I assume that the statement made by the finance department's official will be on the record. Therefore, his interpretation will have the force of law. Individuals who remain extremely ill after five years will still have the right in the sixth year to withdraw money from their disability savings plan without having to repay the government. That's what Mr. Keenan said. I take his statement as is, and since it's on the record, that interpretation now has the force of law. It is part of the rules of interpretation for revenue laws.
Conservative
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Mr. Giguère wants to turn an employee's statement into law, but that's not how things work here. He just specified that that's how the bill is explained. Personally, I have faith. It's only once we, as parliamentarians, pass this bill through a vote in the House of Commons that it will become law. It won't become law because an employee of the finance department provided us with some explanations. I just wanted to make sure that's understood. I have faith that, given the nature of the bill and the fact that it mentions five subsequent years, those still suffering after five years will receive money under the plan.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
There is a gradation. We refer to the law and, if we want more details, we can refer to debates, officials' explanations and even their talks. We can say that's part of the jurisprudence. I take that statement as is. It was made here and was accepted by everyone. Therefore, I expect that individuals who are still alive after five years will never experience problems.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Mr. Keenan, obviously that was a matter of concern for the committee, so we want to thank you for coming back and clarifying that.
I see no further questions on this section.
(Clauses 2 to 8 inclusive agreed to)
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Keenan.
Shall the short title carry?
Conservative