Finance Committee on May 31st, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

On amendment NDP-4, is there any discussion?

Hearing none, shall the amendment carry?

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 47 agreed to on division)

There are no amendments to clauses 48 to 59.

(Clauses 48 to 59 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 60)

We have amendment PV-2.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Chair, as you can see, my amendments have derived in good measure from the Canadian Teachers' Federation's concerns.

There is a list under the heading “School Supplies Tax Credit” that ties into the creation of that credit in clause 33. In clause 60 we find (a) to (d) how the tax code purports to define allowable prescribed durable goods, in other words, that a teacher would buy in one school season materials that would be used in the next year or years after, and would still be eligible for a credit.

The point made by the Canadian Teachers' Federation was that it really isn't helpful to enumerate an exhaustive list of non-consumable items that a professional teacher may deem necessary. What my amendment does is very simple; it merely creates a catch-all:

(e) other goods that have a life expectancy of more than one school year.

They still have to meet the definition of eligible school material in clause 33. You can't buy something that isn't of educational value, isn't important for teaching, and so on. Having described what an eligible teaching supply should be in clause 33, clause 60 now purports to prescribe very specifically what one would consider a durable good for a school. Clearly, books, games, puzzles, containers and educational support software are durable goods, but the professional teachers have asked that it be a bit more flexible as there may be other things a teacher may want to buy.

Therefore, I put forward my amendment. I hope it will have a fair opportunity to be passed now. It does no damage to the tax code and it meets a concern of an important group in our community, the very group the government has spoken to in helping teachers out by providing the school supply tax credit. Let it not be prescriptive to this extent.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, Ms. May. I have to do a ruling on this amendment.

Bill C-15 seeks to amend the Income Tax Act and related legislation by introducing a refundable tax credit for specific teaching supplies. Amendment PV-2 attempts to add a category of prescribed durable goods eligible for the tax credit. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states on pages 767-8, “Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.”

In the opinion of the chair, the amendment would relax the conditions specified in the royal recommendation. I therefore I rule the amendment inadmissible.

(Clause 60 agreed to on division)

There are no amendments to clauses 61 to 66.

(Clauses 61 to 66 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 67)

We have amendment NDP-5. Mr. Caron.

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

Once again, this is about sharing nformation with the Canada Revenue Agency. This amendment is designed to ensure that the agency submits to Parliament a report containing accumulated statistics on the frequency with which its new powers are used.

I would like to point out that I have seen government members vote against a simple amendment that was designed to provide for more serious supervision of these new powers. They voted against that proposal.

Before we move to the vote, I really would like to know what justifies this refusal to require the Canada Revenue Agency to provide a report on the frequency with which the new powers it has been given are used. I would like to be able to understand the government's objection.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion on this point?

Mr. Grewal.

[Raj Grewal, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

The CRA already has existing safeguards in place to protect against the improper use of this information, and we'll continue to work with the Privacy Commissioner to minimize any compliance concerns in implementing and administering the proposal. This is an ongoing review that will happen every year. The record- keeping requirement will not add to taxpayers' protection, which is the most important thing for the CRA and for this government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Caron.

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

I am trying to understand. Each of us is one of 338 members of Parliament representing our constituents. These amendments would affect all those constituents because, under the new powers given to the Canada Revenue Agency, they are at risk of seeing their data being shared.

I really do not understand the objection. We are asking for the agency to report to Parliament, meaning all those whom our constituents, those affected by this measure, have elected. We are being told that it is not necessary. I am trying to understand. On the one hand, we have the data given to the government of which the Liberal members are part. On the other hand, we have public reports to Parliament as a whole, meaning all Canadians represented in the House. Do the government members see the difference between the two?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Caron.

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

I would like a recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It will be a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 67 agreed to on division)

There are no amendments to clauses 68 to 70. Are there any clauses to pull up?

Mr. Caron.

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

No, I would like to comment on clause 71.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes, clause 71.

(Clauses 68 to 70 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 71)

You have a point to make, Mr. Caron.

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

I can say that we are pleased to see the government continuing its efforts to legitimize and give official status to the NDP efforts to remove the GST on feminine hygiene products. I am very pleased to see that the efforts made by my NDP colleagues in the last Parliament are now rewarded by this measure becoming official.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Your point has been made.

(Clause 71 agreed to on division)

(Clauses 72 to 74 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 75)

We have amendment NDP-6.

Mr. Caron.

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

This will be the third try. Third time lucky as they say. You never know.

I still do not understand the government’s objection. I hope that Liberal members understand the difference between information provided to the government and information provided to Parliament as a whole, meaning to all Canadians, whom we represent. There is not a single government member of Parliament in this room at the moment; we are Canadian members of Parliament representing different constituencies, different constituents. I am trying to understand, but, once again, I am getting no clear explanation.

The Canada Revenue Agency has been given new powers but with no requirement for it to be accountable when it exercises those new powers. How can you be opposed to a measure whose only objective is to provide a report to Parliament on the matter?

If each of us went to see our constituents and told them that the Canada Revenue Agency would have access to new data about them, I am sure that they would be concerned. On the other hand, they would be reassured by a requirement for increased accountability from the Canada Revenue Agency.

It is one thing for the agency to provide a report to the government. No one in this room would have access to it, with the possible exception of the parliamentary secretary. The agency should make that report accessible to Parliament as a whole by tabling it in the House of Commons, the very heart of our system of parliamentary democracy.

If there is an objection to ensuring greater accountability, I would like to know what it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

It will be a recorded vote on amendment NDP-6.

(Amendment negatived: nays 5; yeas 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 75 agreed to on division)

There are no amendments from clauses 76 to 81.

Mr. Caron, are you pulling up one?

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

Could I ask for a five-minute break before we begin studying part four of the bill?

We have got to part four of the bill, haven't we?

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes, I think we're okay with that.

We'll suspend for five to seven minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Order. That's what you'd call a P.E.I. five minutes. We stretch it.

[An hon. member]

It's island time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Yes, it's island time.

Turning, then, to clauses 76 to 81, was there anything we were wanting to pull up?

(Clauses 76 to 81 inclusive agreed to on division)

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

Mr. Chair—