Finance Committee on March 6th, 2012

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

(Clause 56 agreed to on division)

Clause 57 had an amendment, NDP-6, but the ruling I made on NDP-3 applied to this one, as I mentioned, because it was beyond the scope of the bill, and therefore we will not be discussing that amendment.

(Clause 57 agreed to on division)

I do not have any amendments until clause 76. Are there any questions, concerns, items between clauses 58 and 75? I can group them all together, if there are no issues. I'm sensing that I can.

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

I would like some clarification on clause 67.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

(Clauses 58 to 66 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 67—Application to Federal Court)

We will go to clause 67.

Mr. Giguère.

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

Mr. Chair, please allow me to catch up. You're moving through the votes faster than my pencil can follow.

Clause 67 reads as follows:

67. (1) If an administrator, employer or other person has omitted to do anything under this Act that is required to be done by them or on their part or contravenes a provision of this Act or the regulations, the Superintendent may, in addition to any other action that the Superintendent may take, apply to the Federal Court for an order requiring the administrator, employer or other person to cease the contravention or to do anything that is required to be done, and on such an application the Federal Court may make that order and make any other order that it thinks fit.

I would like some clarification. With certain measures where the speed of execution is essential to protect the inheritance of the contributors, isn't it too much to ask the superintendent to go through this process? It basically gives someone with dishonest intentions ample time to carry out those dishonest operations.

[Carol Taraschuk]

If there were a serious contravention, the superintendent could issue a direction that they take certain actions to remedy the non-compliance.

Proposed section 66 then would be used to do a quick enforcement, as it would only require the filing of the direction with the Federal Court, as opposed to making a formal application.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Jean, please.

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

This is the same as for any other relief that you would seek, including an order of mandamus or certiorari, or compelling them to do anything. The Federal Court has jurisdiction to do so on an emergency basis.

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

If we issue an order, it won't be done overnight.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay.

(Clause 67 agreed to on division)

I'll let Mr. Giguère's pencil catch up to my voice.

(Clauses 68 to 75 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 76—Governor in Council)

I will just address clause 76. We had two amendments here, but the vote on amendment NDP-2 applies to NDP-7, and the vote on amendment Liberal-1 applies to Liberal-2. We therefore don't have to deal with those two amendments.

I had an indication from Mr. Mai that he wishes to address an issue here that he has talked about with Ms. Glover. We'll hear Mr. Mai on clause 76 on this issue.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As discussed, in its brief, the Canadian Bar raised a unintentional consequence of applying this bill, especially with respect to aboriginals. The brief says:

If an aboriginal person earns exempt income, …

And exempt income is defined as a tax exemption under section 87 of the Indian Act.

…no RRSP contribution room is created with respect to that income. Contributions to a PRPP for that individual will generate penalties under Part X.1 of the Income Tax Act. An aboriginal person earning only exempt income could not participate in a PRPP, but can participate in registered pension plans.

The Canadian Bar Association's recommendation was to amend this section of the Income Tax Act. After discussion, we realized that we could not do it here. However, I want to raise the importance of taking this into consideration when there are regulations. We need to make sure that the intention, which was not to exclude aboriginals from the PRPP, will really be protected in that respect.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Mai.

I will ask Ms. Glover, as she's on the list, and then perhaps one of the officials wishes to address that issue.

Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do want to thank my colleague for taking an interest in ensuring that aboriginal peoples do have the same ability to take advantage of some of these measures that are put forward by our committee and by our government, essentially.

Having discussed this with Mr. Mai, I did notify Mr. Mai that the government does have some plans to address some different amendments in the future. We will be considering what has been said here today with regard to aboriginal peoples in that context.

But I would ask the officials, as you've done, Mr. Chair, to address the question of whether or not the Bar Association's determination is accurate. My understanding is that there's a difference between whether or not they apply if you consider it a pension versus a savings plan. With your permission, Mr. Chair, I'll turn it over to them.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Mr. Donelle.

[Andrew Donelle, Special Advisor, Pensions, Tax Legislation Division, Department of Finance]

The tax rules for PRPPs were released in mid-December. There was a 60-day consultation period, which just recently closed, so the tax policy branch is currently reviewing all the submissions we received.

I'd like to point out that in the existing tax rules for pension plans, the definition of compensation would include any employment income that a native Canadian would receive, even if not taxable. But admittedly, the original round of tax rules has a hybrid between RRSP rules and RPP rules, and that point needs to be clarified. I don't know whether we're going to go to the earned income rule of RRSPs or the pension plan rule.

I believe the Canadian Bar Association did send a submission to us, but I don't recall that this particular issue was in their submission, so it probably should come forward to the tax policy branch of the Department of Finance, and we will include it in our current assessment for future recommendations for final adjustments to the tax rules.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Mai, do you wish to speak to this again?

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

I simply want to say that I received the amendments proposed by the Canadian Bar Association yesterday, I could provide them with those.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

For the officials...?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay. Thank you.

(Clause 76 agreed to on division)

Now, I don't have any further amendments, and I don't want to go too fast—

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

—but I will perhaps ask, can I group clauses 77 to 86 together?

(Clauses 77 to 86 inclusive agreed to on division)

Are there any issues for clauses 87 to 95?

(Clauses 87 to 95 inclusive agreed to on division)

Clause 1 is the short title. Shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to on division)

Shall the title carry?

(Title agreed to on division)

On division.... I thought we were going to win that one.

Shall the bill carry? On division?

[An hon. member]

Can we record the vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You want to record the vote?

We'll have a recorded vote.

(Bill C-25 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 4)

The bill carries.

Shall I report the bill to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.