Evidence of meeting #13 for Finance in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was rate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
In summary, Canadian families enjoy a net benefit from this $14 billion in the last federal budget.
12:20 p.m.
General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
If you take those measures into account, the answer is yes.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
François-Philippe Champagne Liberal Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC
If you consider those measures.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have no other questions.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
On the same topic, I have the budget here but since he's opened up the lead I can do it. I want to take you to page 63, please.
I've been dying to ask this question, I have to tell you. There is a series of examples given that purport to give comparisons between the way things were before the budget was submitted and the way things will be when this budget is passed with the majority government. What I find interesting, as always, is the fine print on this. That is to say, at the very bottom of these examples where it's assumed that in every single case families are better off after the changes than they are before it, there's a very important subtext on this which says, the very last words, that the calculations above “do not claim any deductions”.
To be clear, is it not the case that in every one of these examples the possibility of the couple who fit the profile for these examples do not include the education tax credit; the book tax credit, if it's available; income splitting; the child fitness tax credit; or the child's arts tax credit in order to compare the changes that are being sought in this budget?
12:20 p.m.
General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
These illustrations compare the new Canada child benefit with the existing federal child benefit system. So the existing child benefit system includes the Canada child tax benefit and the universal child care benefit.
12:20 p.m.
General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
That is what it does.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
Right, but they do talk about net, after-tax amounts. Presumably, if it's net after tax you should include the deductions that the family had available to them to show a true net, after-tax amount.
12:20 p.m.
General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
The reason for this footnote is to be clear that these benefits, particularly under the current system, may vary for a number of reasons. It may depend on the distribution of income within the couple because the universal child benefit is taxable in the hands of the lowest income.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
If I may, example number one, Avine and Sareta have two kids, aged eight and five. Avine makes $30,000; Sareta earns $60,000. Is income splitting available to that couple according to that example?
12:20 p.m.
General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Again, income splitting is not considered here.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
I understand that, but in that example would you not agree with me that income splitting is something that would be available to that couple?
12:20 p.m.
General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
It's available yes, but I'm not sure what the benefit would be in this particular case—
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Lisa Raitt Conservative Milton, ON
It's not considered in this example to show whether or not Canadian families are better off. Do you think that's transparent, sir?
12:20 p.m.
General Director, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
I can't answer that question. All I'm saying is that this is comparing just two systems.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Okay that's the last question for this round. We'll suspend for five minutes and then go to motions.
On behalf of the committee, I want to thank both our witnesses, Mr. McGowan, and Mr. Jovanovic, for your pretty detailed answers to complicated questions.
Thank you very much.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Thank you, members.
We had four, and we have three motions left. Normally the way we deal with them is in the order they came in unless, as happened in the previous meeting, we get one moved from the floor and get it dealt with.
First, before we go to motions, there's the request for the budget for the hearings on Bill C-2, of which I think everyone has copies. All the witnesses who were proposed and who wanted to come were accepted, I think. The various parties put their witness lists in. The total amount requested for the hearings on Bill C-2 would be $16,300. That includes costs of four persons from Vancouver, two from Toronto, one from Montreal, one from Calgary, and the ones here from Ottawa. This is laid out before you.
Does somebody want to move adoption of that budget, or is there any discussion?
Go ahead.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is the first one I've seen, so forgive me if it's really standard, but why are there cost discrepancies? For example, for four people from Vancouver there is only $500 more than for one person from Calgary. Is there a standard?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Is that a standard for committees, in terms of the upset limit?
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
The numbers of witnesses are according to the list that we have, which we're not always so fortunate as to have. The cost is the estimate based on previous costs. In fact, the clerk tells me that this will likely come in somewhat under, because there's been a willingness to do video conferencing, which is cheaper than bringing people in.