Okay.
Mr. Fergus.
Evidence of meeting #119 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was million.
Evidence of meeting #119 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was million.
2:15 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Ahmed, Ms. Cajee, I would like to echo Mr. Boulerice's comments. It is shocking that these situations persist.
I have a very specific question for you. The passenger protect program has been around for a year now, and it already includes aviation security lists. Have you used or have you requested access to this program? Does it work?
Could you comment on that?
2:15 p.m.
No Fly List Kids
I want to clarify. Do you mean the passenger protect inquiries office, the PPIO?
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Yes, I think that's the name of the program in English. I'm not sure.
2:20 p.m.
No Fly List Kids
Okay. As far as our understanding goes, the office exists basically in name only. I don't know if it's even staffed, to be honest with you. We have applied. They have some sort of application process online that we have applied to, but the response is always basically the same as the response from before the office was announced. It hasn't changed anything in terms of our experience or the fact that the children are still on the list or any of that. That all still remains the same. There is still no mechanism to get the children off the list.
The only thing that's changed with the incoming Bill C-59 is that now the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness is actually sort of legally allowed to say that, yes, your child is on the list, whereas, previously, he wasn't allowed to say that.
That's our understanding, but nothing substantial has changed.
2:20 p.m.
No Fly List Kids
Thank you for your question.
I would say that nothing has changed in two years, absolutely nothing.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I would like to ask a second question.
A provision of Bill C-59 indicates that if the minister does not respond to a request to delist a name, the name will be removed from the list by default. Do you think the provision is acceptable? I know we can do better, but is this provision significant?
2:20 p.m.
No Fly List Kids
That's a very good question, Mr. Fergus.
It may happen that the names of children or adults correspond to names on the list. The response from Public Safety Canada is that, if a person's name does not appear on the list, it cannot be removed.
So the people concerned are left behind. That's why we need a rectification system. Criminals have more rights than our children.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Greg, I won't take your time.
In the original bill, if you were on the list, the minister was not obligated to respond. In the new bill, now the minister is obligated to respond.
Go ahead.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Ahmed.
Since I don't have a lot of time, I will simply ask another question, to Mr. Antunes.
You said how important it is to change habits and find ways of encouraging active participation in life.
With regard to the funds we have allocated to infrastructure, we want to see a standard adopted to encourage active participation. For example, when a light rail network will be built, we want there to be bike lanes next to it, or multi-purpose lanes.
During the summer, I had the pleasure of visiting Sweden for the first time. I noticed how extraordinary the infrastructure is and how it encourages people to bring their bikes to bus stops, to walk, to do all these physical activities.
Is that what you are looking for in all the infrastructure, not only at the federal level but also at the provincial and municipal levels?
2:20 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, ParticipACTION
I will start, and then Marilyn might want to chime in here.
Infrastructure is very important, but it's not enough. The old saying, “If you build it, they will come”, is just not true with respect to physical activity. The behaviour change process is much more complicated. Yes, we do have to have opportunities for people to be physically active, but we also need to ensure that they have the skills to be able to enjoy those facilities and the infrastructure and they need to be motivated to be able to use those things. It's a very complex problem to change behaviours.
If you parallel that to smoking, it's the same thing. We didn't just eliminate smoking places or prevent people from smoking in public places. We did that, but we also had to provide training, tax policies, and public education. It needs a full, comprehensive approach. Building solid infrastructure is absolutely necessary, but it's not enough.
2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Since you've raised the issue, would you support a tax on sugar?
2:25 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, ParticipACTION
It's certainly not within the scope of our mandate to be commenting on taxation policies on health issues. What we're saying is that physical activity and healthy lifestyles are absolutely important.
2:25 p.m.
Marilyn Knox Chair, Board of Directors, ParticipACTION
It's a great question and a source of money that you could redirect into physical activity, if that's your question. There are many places to go. The sugar question is a much deeper one.
You can look at sugar and give people information, but will that actually change their health-seeking behaviours? That's the evidence we'd be looking for, but that's really beyond the scope of ParticipAction.
2:25 p.m.
President and Chief Executive Officer, ParticipACTION
I would say that part of our suggested recommendations is a coordinated effort, not only with organizations in our sector but within federal government departments. Physical activity is often used to help address a number of federal department objectives, whether that's health, which is the most obvious, sport, transportation, environment, veteran affairs, immigration, mental health, and so on. There is a good opportunity for us to look at a way to coordinate efforts of the various departments that can leverage existing investment.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to start with No Fly List Kids, and then I'll move to Mr. Goodis.
Mr. Fergus asked a lot of the questions I was going to ask. I just want to say that I look at your son, and he is about the same age as my oldest. I have three kids, and I can't imagine what you go through. You have my sympathy and support, as well.
I also want to draw a parallel. I used to sit on the foreign affairs committee. We completed a report a few months ago where we offered recommendations to the government on changes to the Special Economic Measures Act. As well, we passed Bill S-226, and it has received royal assent.
In that act, for cases of mistaken identity, we offer foreign nationals an opportunity to get off the sanction list Canada has. In the report the foreign affairs committee put together, we also say that, in cases of international sanctions, people with mistaken identity who wind up on no-fly lists and have their assets frozen should have a legal mechanism to seek redress. I find these two situations completely ridiculous—that we offer foreign nationals a better opportunity than we do for our kids here in Canada.
Mr. Goodis, you have been one of the public advocates against the proposed changes. There are extra proposals now, proposals for the proposal that was put down in July. Obviously, you are a seasoned tax professional. In your professional opinion, how does the series of consultations that the government has put out compare with past consultations on tax policy that Finance Canada has put forward?
2:25 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer and Co-founder, Tax Templates Inc., As an Individual
That's a good question.
I work closely with CPA Canada. In the last few years, we've seen some change in legislation to the small business deduction, along with rules related to safe income, which is subsection 55(2). What we found in those areas where legislation was brought forward—
2:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Can you pull up the mike? This is going through to Ottawa and being recorded.
2:25 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer and Co-founder, Tax Templates Inc., As an Individual
Sure. Thank you.
There were some great submissions made by CPA Canada, but what we found was that not many of them were taken in. A lot of the unintended consequences predicted then have now come true in practice.
I think the concern.... Again, as we saw with the discussion around proposed sections 246.1 and 84.1, where we saw those unintended consequences.... I give a lot of credit to the government for understanding that there were consequences there and taking it back.
However, now, with this new $50,000 cap for passive income, I don't think those unintended consequences have been thought through, in terms of how it affects growth.
2:25 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
On that $50,000, hold your thought there.
This committee, in its last pre-budget recommendations, recommendation 76, said that the government should “undertake a comprehensive tax review with the objective of simplifying the Income Tax Act.” Obviously, the government didn't do that. It didn't listen to the last pre-budget submission.
I am a backbencher on the opposition side, so I'm very much used to not being listened to when it comes to the government. That's okay. It's part of the job.
You said that the government was creating a two-tier system by grandfathering previous investments versus new ones. Can you explain that a bit more? What will actually be happening? How would one keep track of grandfathered investments?
2:30 p.m.
Chief Executive Officer and Co-founder, Tax Templates Inc., As an Individual
That's another good question.
Granted, this is in a proposal stage, so we haven't seen everything. I can comment based only on what I have been able to read, and the announcements by the government.
The way they have explained it, everything that has been earned to date, in terms of investment income or capital, is protected, and it will be under a new system. Let's just pretend that all of that income went to a special corporation where they can do whatever they like forever. This means that people who have generated significant wealth, or businesses that have that capital on hand, have more opportunity than do newer businesses, such as mine. I can't get to that position if I am going to have only $50,000 per year.
As a company, we have no passive income. I am not looking at today. I am looking at where I want to be in the future, and I'm looking at my competitors.
2:30 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
You talked about the compliance nightmare involved with CRA. I have many constituents who have issues with CRA. We had the folks from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation in. The CRA has made a seemingly random decision to start denying the disability tax credit. We saw this folio come out over taxing employee benefits, the health and dental. It goes on and on.
On compliance, you deal with CRA. What's your expectation in terms of their ability and capacity to police this new proposed system?