Evidence of meeting #59 for Finance in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was change.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Guy Caron NDP Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Yes, just a little one.
Why was Quebec included in these measures since it already has a registered disability savings plan? Was it because the plan was not consistent with the standards that the federal government wanted to impose?
4:05 p.m.
Director, Personal Income Tax Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
As I think the Minister of Finance said yesterday, there are streamlined processes that are available to allow the ease of another individual to become a plan holder for an RDSP and that are less cumbersome than processes that exist in certain provinces. He has asked all the provinces to provide him information on the processes that are in place in certain provinces. He has received a number of responses.
With respect to the Government of Quebec, my understanding is that the issue was that the Minister of Finance had sent it over to the Minister of Justice and they hadn't indicated necessarily that action had been taken. The measure would apply all across Canada, but certainly the intention or the idea is that if there's a problem that exists in Quebec, action would be taken, because it is a provincial jurisdiction.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
Merci.
I have one more member who has indicated that she has questions. I have Ms. Nash. Hopefully, then I can move to part 2. If not, members, please indicate to me if you wish to ask further questions.
Okay. Ms. McLeod and then Ms. Nash.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. McCauley might be in the best position to address this issue.
People have made comments in terms of the ability of the minister to suspend the licences of charities. Currently, I think her only ability is a permanent ability, so the one year that's in here is sort of more interim, which provides more options. Can you just confirm if that's accurate?
4:05 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
The measures provide for intermediate sanctions and for the suspension of licences to charities. We think this would be helpful. Right now there are fewer public tools available to us, and we think it will be helpful in making our interaction with charities more current. It will allow us to deal more quickly with charities where the public is at risk. It will also allow us an intermediate sanction that will have a consequence without puting a charity permanently out of business. We think it will help on the administrative side.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
I'd like to pick up on a comment that Mr. Rajotte made about the charitable tax credit. I want to thank you for your clarification. The Minister of Natural Resources had talked about environmental and other radical groups, and the Minister of the Environment had talked about charitable organizations engaging in money laundering by using donations for political activities. There has been a great deal of apprehension about the charitable tax credit.
As I understand it, fewer than 2,000 of the 85,000 charities in Canada take foreign donations, the largest being organizations like CARE Canada and World Vision Canada. The only environmental organization in the top ten is Ducks Unlimited.
I'm unclear what the minister is referring to. Have CRA officials clarified to ministers that this is an arm's-length process, and not a process that can be used for targeting opinions they don't like?
4:10 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
Our minister has been pretty clear in the House and has communicated that message. I trust she will continue to do so.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
They have toned down their comments somewhat, but you can appreciate the chilling effect that those kinds of comments have on some organizations. They are concerned that if their views are in disagreement with those of the government, they're going to be targeted.
Is there any outreach from CRA or any further clarification for environmental organizations? There is a genuine concern, and it's quite understandable, given the comments that have been made. It would be helpful to reassure them that they will not be targeted because their views happen to differ from those of the government. Unfortunately, not everyone watches question period.
4:10 p.m.
Assistant Commissioner, Legislative Policy and Regulatory Affairs Branch, Canada Revenue Agency
The minister has been clear. We've been clear in our testimony both here and at the Senate. The director general of charities gave a speech to the Canadian Bar Association a week ago, and she was also clear. We're going to be posting that speech in both languages on our website, in the next day or two, so we are doing everything that is reasonable and responsible, given that the bill is still under consideration, to clarify what our role has been and will continue to be in how we approach files like this, and how we intend to operate in the future.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
I was tempted to do a point of order, but I thought I'd be respectful and do it through you, Mr. Chair.
We are here to allow a full discussion on the bill. The officials have been clear. They are not here to answer political questions. Ms. Nash's questions were completely out of line. They were political in nature. They were misleading to Canadians watching. In fact, they were absolutely atrocious, and I would ask the chair--
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Peggy Nash NDP Parkdale—High Park, ON
Frankly, I don't appreciate being lectured by the parliamentary secretary. I'm a member of this committee, and I have as much right as any other member to express my views and to question witnesses. I don't appreciate another member attempting to censor my comments.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Tax shelter mechanisms are part of this, and there is a relationship potentially; if a tax shelter mechanism is abused, it can be considered money laundering. So in fact Ms. Nash is completely within her right to ask questions on something that is clearly a provision of part 1 of this bill. Tax shelters are part of part 1, and abuse of a tax shelter could be considered money laundering. Of course it's not from the opposition parties that the use of the term “money laundering” to describe Canada's environmental NGOs has emanated. That came from the government.
I just want to clarify and support Ms. Nash's position, respectfully.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative James Rajotte
With respect to the point of order, the reality is that members have a fair amount of leeway in terms of what they can say. If it's a point of order, I mean.... Political debate has a fairly wide ambit in the House of Commons. As members know, the Speaker gives fairly wide ambit to that, and obviously we do so as chairs of committees.
Whether something's appropriate or not, as a point of order I would say that this is not a point of order, Ms. Nash. If a member is attacking another member, then obviously that is a point of order and I would step in.
I would just encourage members, and perhaps I'll use this opportunity, in terms of the budget implementation act, to try to keep our points on policy as much as possible. We can disagree with each other on policy in a very passionate way without making comments about other members of the committee. I would encourage members to use the strength of their arguments against the arguments of the other member, rather than saying something about the other member. I say that to all members at this point. Let's use the strength of arguments against the other arguments. Let's not say something about other members as we make our debates. I would just ask, as your chair, that this is the method we should follow.
We are at hour 48 here, so this is going to get a lot more intense, and I think we should do this as respectfully as possible. I would just ask you as your chair.... You have a fair amount of ambit in terms of what you can do with respect to your rhetoric as members, and I don't want to limit that, but I would just advise you and encourage you to use the strength of your arguments with respect to other members' arguments, rather than with respect to what you may think of other members.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'll continue as I was, through the chair, indicating as a comment that the ministers are not here to respond to any allegations made about them, or to correct the record, as we would say. We have officials who are here to gladly answer questions about the BIA. This side has chosen to try to provide as much time as possible to opposition parties, who continue to say repeatedly that they don't have enough time to study this bill. So I would recommend, Mr. Chair, that perhaps we could focus in on the BIA-1 questions, and leave the political rhetoric to the politicians, as, frankly, the ministers aren't here to defend themselves or to correct the record.
Those would be my comments.
I do want to also thank one of our officials for clearly stating that what was alleged by Ms. Nash was not in fact correct. I believe he will continue to do that if these kinds of suggestions continue. So I would hope that we don't use our time in a way that is not producing the results we are looking for, which is to understand the bill so that we are educated enough to vote on the bill at the end of the day.
Having said that, I'm going to pass my time once again to opposition members to make sure they have every opportunity to learn about the bill, so that they are educated enough to vote on it. I would hope this continues on a better vein.