Finance Committee on Oct. 31st, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Is there any further discussion?

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

For clarification, is there a reason that we have November 22 with regard to the limit, just so that I understand in terms of procedure?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Do you have any clarification, Ms. Glover, on the dates?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

The clarification is basically that we want to see this move back into the House. We also have other agenda items on our calendar that we all discussed before, as a committee and a subcommittee, that we want to see move forward. We're trying to honour those commitments that we made as a committee prior to today.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

Mr. Brison is next, and then Monsieur Caron.

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

I understand Ms. Nash's point with regard to some parts of this motion being similar procedurally to those proposed for Bill C-38, but it's the parts that apply specifically to the division of Bill C-45 and some of the very specific divisions of the bill going to which committee and which sections. That's the part that can't obviously be identical to what was done in the previous bill, because it's a different bill. That's where, for this part, it would have been helpful if we had been provided with this motion prior to this meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Thank you.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

From the explanations I have heard up to this point, this is a significant change. It seemed clear to us, according to the schedule of committee meetings that had already been established, that we were going to do the clause-by-clause study of this bill on November 29. Pre-budget consultations were already scheduled on November 21.

Here is why Ms. Nash made her suggestion: if we receive amendments from other committees by November 20, we will have the time to analyze the amendments, internally and one by one, and we could be ready for the clause-by-clause study on November 29.

We are not opposed to the idea of sending clauses to some committees, getting them back, studying them and then doing the clause-by-clause study on November 29 as scheduled. That is why I am confused by the desire to finish everything before November 21 and to send it all to the House on November 22.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I'll just respond on this.

Ms. McLeod, do you want to go first?

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

I was just going to say, Mr. Chair, being at subcommittee and then making our recommendations from subcommittee to committee, we had always indicated we weren't completely sure of the timing and that we would be flexible. Now we have our timing, and tomorrow at subcommittee we'll have the opportunity to look at our workload and adjust within what the timeframes would prepare us for.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

I don't know how many committee members have their schedule, but the first potential bills meeting is obviously today. Potential bills meeting number two is set for tomorrow, which will happen. Meeting number three was set for Monday, which will happen. Meeting four is set for Tuesday, November 6. Then we had set meeting five for November 29, so if this motion passes, that is the one date that would have to be moved.

As I mentioned earlier, if members want to add or subtract meetings, it's up to them, depending on how much time this committee feels it needs to get through the bill.

Just for clarification, this motion would affect one meeting, on November 29, and then there would be any other subtractions or additions the committee would make. Is that clear to members?

Go ahead, Monsieur Caron.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I would like to make the following amendment to the motion: that parts (d), (e) and (f) be sent to the subcommittee for a decision, given that it involves a change to the previously agreed schedule, and that we vote on the rest of the motion at the end of the meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Can I clarify whether the committee wishes to deal with the motion and the vote now, or does it wish to set time at the end of the meeting?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

If you agree to my presenting my amendment at the end of the meeting, it is no problem. We can wait till then.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

You want to set 20 or 30 minutes at the end of the meeting and deal with the motion. Is that acceptable?

At 30 minutes I'll come back to you, Monsieur Caron, and you can move your amendment.

Go ahead, Mr. Jean.

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

Just as a matter of record, when you say “at the end of the meeting”, are you talking about the regularly scheduled meeting? We can't have any motions dealt with past 5:30 because of the agreement between the parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Exactly. I would come back to this at 5 p.m., and we'd have to have a vote on any amendments and the motion by 5:30 p.m.

Okay, d'accord.

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

D'accord.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Seeing no objection, then, at 5:00 p.m. we will return to the motion.

I want to welcome officials from the Department of Finance. Welcome back to the finance committee. It's a pleasure to have you back.

Colleagues, I will proceed, and we will do rounds of questioning as we normally do. I will start with NDP, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative. We'll have five-minute rounds. We'll deal first with part 1, the amendments to the Income Tax Act and related regulations.

I'll ask our officials if they wish to make an opening statement with regard to this part of the bill.

[Ted Cook, Senior Legislative Chief, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance]

If the committee would like, I can provide a brief overview of all the measures that are contained in part 1 of the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Okay, a very brief overview would be in order. Thank you.

[Ted Cook]

Thank you very much for having us here.

My name is Ted Cook. I am senior legislative chief with the tax legislation division of the Department of Finance. I am here this afternoon with Geoff Trueman, director of the business income tax division; Shawn Porter, director of the tax legislation division; and Ian Pomroy, a senior tax policy officer with the personal income tax division.

I'll simply highlight each of the measures in part 1, and then we can turn to your questions.

The first set of five measures relates to registered disability savings plans. The first one is an amendment with respect to the so-called 10-year rule. What the measure in the bill will provide is that when a holder of an RDSP makes a withdrawal, instead of having to pay back the entire assistance holdback amount, which is the Canada disability savings grants and bonds paid into the plan for the last 10 years, the payback would be $3 for each $1 withdrawn.

The second measure allows a rollover from RESPs, registered education savings plans, to an RDSP in certain circumstances when the RESP and the RDSP share a common beneficiary.

The third measure relates to the disability tax credit, and it provides that in circumstances in which the beneficiary of the RDSP ceases to be eligible for the disability tax credit, in certain circumstances the RDSP can remain open for up to five years following that event, rather than the current case in which the individual ceases to be eligible for the disability tax credit and the RDSP has to be wound up.

The next measure relates to maximum and minimum withdrawals from an RDSP. This measure has two components.

The first is to take the minimum annual withdrawal requirement, which is currently applicable only to plans that are primarily government-assisted, and extend that to all RDSPs once the beneficiary of the RDSP attains 60 years of age.

The second part of this measure takes the annual maximum withdrawal limit that is currently applicable to plans that are primarily government-assisted and provides that the amount that can be withdrawn in a year is the greater of two amounts, the currently existing amount and up to 10% of the property in the RDSP.

As well, there are a few administrative changes to facilitate and make life easier for issuers of RDSPs, providing that when an RDSP is transferred, more information will be provided by Human Resources and Skills Development Canada from one RDSP issuer to the other, and it will take out a couple of specific date deadlines to provide greater flexibility to issuers.

The next measure has to do with group sickness and accident insurance plans. This measure provides that on a go-forward basis, employer contributions to—

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Please hold on, Mr. Cook.

I'll ask the committee.... We're doing part 1. We've done part 1(a) as explained in the summary. Do you want me, then, to ask for questions on part 1(a) and deal with all the questions, then do part 1(b)? It might be simpler for members.

Some voices; Agreed.

You've covered part 1(a). Is that right, Mr. Cook?

[Ted Cook]

Are you referring to your summary background document?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Rajotte]

Yes.