Finance Committee on June 4th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I call this meeting to order. This is, again, the 69th meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. Our orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 14, 2012, are on the discussion of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures. We are in clause-by-clause consideration.

Colleagues, I'll just outline how we are proceeding here. I'm going to take my time doing so to make sure everybody understands it.

As is tradition, we postpone clause 1 till the end. We start with clause 2. I will go, obviously, in numerical order.

I'll just highlight for the members a couple of things from the motion that this committee adopted on May 15:

B. the Committee shall proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-38 no later than Monday, June 4, 2012, provided that the Chair limit debate on each clause to a maximum of five (5) minutes per party per clause before the clause is brought to a vote;

That means each of the three parties will have five minutes for each clause, should they choose. They can, obviously, speak for less if they decide so.

The second thing I want to highlight for committee members is:

E. if the Committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-38 by 11:59 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, 2012, the Chair shall put, forthwith and successively, each and every question necessary to dispose of the Committee stage of the Bill and to report the Bill to the House, without further debate or amendment, and that the Chair be ordered to report the Bill back to the House on or before Thursday, June 7, 2012.

These are two items that I want all members to keep in mind.

I've done these a number of times. It helps if members, because of the number of clauses, prioritize the clauses they wish to speak more to rather than less. Obviously, if all three parties take five minutes for each clause, we're going to run up against the time deadline of 11:59 p.m. tomorrow night.

Given that, I believe we have, just for your information, 58 amendments before us. We have 51 from the NDP and seven from the Liberals—I hope those numbers are correct. I will start, obviously, with clause 2.

If members wish to group clauses or if they wish to move at a quicker or slower pace, please indicate to the chair.

Starting with clause-by-clause consideration, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1 is postponed. The chair therefore calls clause 2.

(On clause 2)

I'll just highlight for members that I do not have an amendment until clause 16. I have NDP-1, which is on clause 16. Perhaps what I'll do is ask if there is any member who wishes to debate clauses 2 to 15.

Monsieur Mai, which clause?

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

Clause 4.

(Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to)

(On clause 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

On clause 4, I have Monsieur Mai, s'il vous plaît.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Clause 4 allows for a portion of a dividend to be designated as an eligible dividend and a late designation of an eligible dividend.

One of the issues we have is in terms of revenues when you have an austerity budget that actually cuts. In this case, we are allowing income from dividends to be taxed at a lower rate than other income. In terms of strategy, we're talking about revenues.

We don't think the provision is right. We are against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Mai.

Ms. Nash, on this clause.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

There is a procedural issue for clauses 2 and 3. We want it indicated that we're voting for those as opposed to on division.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I apologize. I will consider them passed.

If it's on division, just please indicate to me if members want it on division. If they don't indicate to me, I will consider that it's unanimously in favour.

So clauses 2 and 3, then, I said were passed on division—I didn't hear on division. I apologize for that. Clauses 2 and 3 were unanimous.

Thank you, Mr. Mai.

Is there any further discussion on clause 4?

(Clause 4 agreed to on division)

On clauses 5 to 15, are there any clauses members wish to speak to?

Monsieur Mai.

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

Clause 7.

(Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to)

(On clause 7)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

On clause 7, Mr. Mai.

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

Once again, this is about the decision-making power that is being given to the revenue minister. Things are getting political. It says…

“qualified donee”

…when talking about the definition of political activity. We have said on a number of occasions that we are concerned that this government is giving the minister more and more discretionary power. That means that the process, in terms of political activity or charitable organizations, is becoming more and more politicized. So we are going to oppose clause 7.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Is there further discussion on clause 7?

Ms. McLeod, on clause 7.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Chair, I just want to comment that this is routine delegated authority and it's not an uncommon piece of legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Ms. McLeod.

Is there further discussion?

Mr. Brison.

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

Just on clause 9.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, let's finish with clause 7.

Is there further discussion on clause 7?

(Clause 7 agreed to on division)

(Clause 8 agreed to)

(On clause 9)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

On clause 9, Mr. Brison, please.

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

I think we're going to revisit clause 9 if we pass this bill, probably in the next budget cycle, because we're being told by tax preparers that this is going to create a lot of difficulties. It requires that tax preparers file returns electronically, but it doesn't allow tax preparers to effectively prepare someone's taxes and then the client can submit the return. It could create a problem where ultimately the final submission to Revenue Canada is not made by the client. There's a certain accountability that some individual taxpayers want to submit their tax return personally, as opposed to having their accountant do it. I think this is going to create some unintended consequences, and I'll express those now.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

Ms. McLeod, please.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Chair, this applies to the ones that are submitted by the tax preparer, but certainly people can have their taxes prepared by a tax preparer and submit them personally.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Is there further discussion on that?

Mr. Brison.

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

It is my understanding that is in fact not the case. Maybe this is one where we ought to have public servants here to answer that question.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mrs. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I recall very clearly that public servants have already answered that question. It's unfortunate that Mr. Brison may not have heard them. They were clear. Nothing precludes Canadians from submitting their own tax documents to the CRA in any form that they desire.

It's been answered, and we will be supporting this clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

(Clause 9 agreed to on division)

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'll just remind members that if they want a recorded vote, they can ask for it, but they have to indicate that to the chair.

I have clauses 10 to 15. Are there any members wishing to speak to any clauses between clauses 10 and 15?

Monsieur Mai.