Evidence of meeting #9 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mclean.
A video is available from Parliament.
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Yes, it's about tabling it until 9:30, and then we would come back. I think we have a couple of suggestions. I think the other side might have some suggestions.
I just want to give a very clear time frame. If we are going to get this bill passed this week, we have to be able to do it this evening, full stop. We have to be able to get through clause-by-clause this evening and be happy with the bill. We have to be able to finish it tonight if it's going to pass this week and if we're going to ensure that businesses don't go out of business, that workers don't go broke and that our economy continues to sustain itself.
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I'm not getting an answer, though. Is there an agreement that they'll come back?
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Let me put it to Mr. McGowan. Subject to acquiescence by my colleagues around the table, if we threw in “if in the qualifying period it paid taxable dividends on common equity”, would that adequately capture anything exempt—any corporate dividends, which I presume are mostly untaxable, and any preferred dividends or any other situation that you say we're trying not to affect here?
8:20 p.m.
Director General, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Thank you for the question.
I think I would direct a question to the chair, or perhaps the parliamentary secretary. I just want to be sure about my role in appearing before this committee. My understanding was that it is to provide technical advice on the contents of the bill and the amendments. I just want to make sure that I would not be acting inappropriately if I were to provide drafting advice as part of this committee hearing.
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Yes, Mr. McGowan, that is correct. You are here for technical advice.
Mr. McLean, do you have a technical question?
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
The technical question was, if that was the wording, would it apply only to common equity that's distributed to shareholders? Are there other instances that might get caught that he hasn't completely brought to the table at this point?
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
With all due respect to my colleague, the question Mr. McGowan asked was whether or not he should be providing advice. He's here just for technical advice. He's not here to draft.
I also want to point out—
8:20 p.m.
Conservative
8:20 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
I think it's moved beyond that, Mr. McLean. We're asking for advice, and I think that Mr. McGowan is asking the question because he is feeling a little uncomfortable.
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
8:25 p.m.
Conservative
Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB
In my opinion, it is a technical question. I'm asking, if we put that wording there, is there any instance that he doesn't see covered by it?
8:25 p.m.
Liberal
Sophie Chatel Liberal Pontiac, QC
Officials are here to talk about the draft as presented in front of us. They cannot talk about a hypothetical draft that is not in front of us. In drafting, to answer questions in the hypothetical without having looked at the draft.... They cannot answer questions about the implications on corporate structure, because they haven't prepared for that.
8:25 p.m.
Bloc
Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette, QC
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
If I understand correctly, we have to pass Mr. McLean's subamendment first, and then we can ask Mr. McGowan what the implications are.
If that's correct, let's just do that.
8:25 p.m.
Liberal