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.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I just want Mr. Keenan to clarify. I understand Mr. Giguère's concern to be that if someone is perhaps in their sixth year and still has money in the plan from both government contributions and individual contributions, Mr. Giguère believes a penalty would be triggered in that sixth year. I just want Mr. Keenan to indicate that it wouldn't be.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Mr. Keenan, can you clarify? This wording is from Finance Canada.
12:05 p.m.
Acting Director, Personal Income Tax Division, Department of Finance
This wording is defining what a specified year is.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Could I know which paragraph you are looking at, if you wouldn't mind? Then I'll understand better.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Assuming this is the binder provided by Finance Canada, this is in part 1, page 1, on definitions, “specified year”, and part 2. It starts on page 1 and continues on page 2.
Is everybody clear on that?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Part 1 talks about what the current rules are, and then the next page says what the new definition is going to be, right?
12:05 p.m.
Acting Director, Personal Income Tax Division, Department of Finance
This part says that the specified years include the year in which the medical doctor certifies and each of the following five calendar years. That's under the current rules.
The provision says that in any of those years withdrawals can be made without triggering the assistance holdback amount.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
The main concern with this wording is that if someone survives past the five years they will somehow lose benefits. You have to be categorical on this. You're saying that is not true in the legislation or in the explanatory notes.
12:05 p.m.
Acting Director, Personal Income Tax Division, Department of Finance
If someone has certification that says they have a shortened life expectancy, it then says there are specified years. After that period of time, right now I suppose they would need to be recertified. The way it reads, the specified years allow them to make those withdrawals, and there are no penalties if they survive after that period of time. There are no provisions in the bill that if they survive more than five years they are required to repay the amounts they have withdrawn from the plan.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Thanks to our wonderful analysts.
There's actually an error in the French version of the bill. If we look at Bill C-3, after paragraph 2(1)(a) we see “or”, but in the French version there is no “or”.
On page 1 of the French version of the bill, at the end of proposed subclause 2(1)(a), there should be an “or” to reflect the wording on page 2 of the English version.
Could we call on officials from legislative services or Justice Canada if they are here? They may be able to explain this a little bit better.
June 20th, 2011 / 12:10 p.m.
Sonia Beaulieu Law Branch, Tax Counsel Division, Department of Finance
I am Sonia Beaulieu. I am with the tax counsel division of the Department of Finance. It's one of the legal services at the Department of Finance.
You raised the issue of “or” in the English version. However, in French when we draft legislation we don't put “or” or “and” between paragraphs. It's reflected in the preamble of the section and it says:
“[...] ainsi que celles des années ci-après qui sont applicables:”
So the “or” concept is there.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Alain Giguère NDP Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
I followed very well, but I didn't understand a thing.
It's always a problem when we confuse elements with no specific figures in revenue law. Life expectancy is not a specific figure.
The issue, even if you take out the “or”... If you say that everything is there and everything is fine and well, there will be no problem.
I want to know what happens if the person is still alive after five years. Your own documents talk about the five-year period. I even pointed out the page. Will that individual still have the right to withdraw money from their disability savings plan in the sixth year?
If you say that the individual is not penalized for the five years, I want to understand what you mean. It would be the last straw if they were penalized and asked for more money.
However, I want to know if individuals can continue withdrawing money from their disability savings plan if they are still alive after six or seven years.
12:10 p.m.
Acting Director, Personal Income Tax Division, Department of Finance
I'll have to confirm that.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
You'll have to confirm “may”, meaning yes, it's true, or you'll have to confirm it with other officials?
12:10 p.m.
Acting Director, Personal Income Tax Division, Department of Finance
I would just like to go back and confirm with some other officials, if that's possible.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
I think we should table part 1, and we'll have to move on.
Obviously if this bill is to be dealt with by this committee, we need this done expeditiously. So I'm looking to someone in Finance to get an answer to us as soon as possible.
A point of order, Mr. Jean.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Jean Conservative Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I understood earlier—he suggested—that if somebody is going to be in that kind of care they're going to be under the care and supervision of a doctor. My understanding is that they can reapply up to the fifth year without penalty. So the person could obviously redo that, Mr. Chair, and we've already heard that evidence.
That's why it would be a point of order, in my opinion.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
That's not a point of order; it's a point of debate.
This issue, though, is that Monsieur Giguère asked a very specific question, which is the question he's asking.
Mr. Keenan, my understanding is you're not giving a very clear answer. You want time to confer with someone else before giving a clear answer to that question?