I have MP Lawrence.
Evidence of meeting #92 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was employment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #92 for Finance in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was employment.
A video is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Would the clerk be kind enough to read that section into the record for our viewers?
Thank you.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's clause 4. I'll be doing it in French this time around:
4(1) Subsection 12(3) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Interest income
(3) Subject to subsection (4.1), in computing the income for a taxation year of a corporation, partnership, unit trust or any trust of which a corporation or partnership is a beneficiary, there shall be included any interest on a debt obligation (other than interest in respect of an income bond, and income debenture, a net income stabilization account or an indexed debt obligation) that accrues to it to the end of the year, or becomes receivable or is received by it before the end of the year, to the extent that the interest was not included in computing its income for a preceding taxation year.
(2) Paragraphs (g) and (h) of the definition investment contract, in subsection 12(11) of the Act are repealed.
(3) Subsection 12(13) of the Act is replaced by the following:
Definition of flipped property
(13) For the purposes of subsections (12) and (14), a flipped property of a taxpayer means a property (other than a property, or a right to acquire property, that would be inventory of the taxpayer if the definition inventory in subsection 248(1) were read without reference to subsection (12)) that is:
(a) prior to its disposition by the taxpayer, either:
(i) a housing unit located in Canada, or
(ii) a right to acquire a housing unit located in Canada; and
b) owned or, in the case of a right to acquire, held, by the taxpayer for less than 365 consecutive days prior to its disposition, other than a disposition that can reasonably be considered to occur due to, or in anticipation of, one or more of the following events:
(i) the death of the taxpayer or a person related to the taxpayer,
(ii) one or more persons related to the taxpayer becoming a member of the taxpayer's household or the taxpayer becoming a member of the household of a related person,
(iii) the breakdown of the marriage or common-law partnership of the taxpayer if the taxpayer has been living separate and apart from their spouse or common-law partner for at least 90 days prior to the disposition,
(iv) a threat to the personal safety of the taxpayer or a related person,
(v) the taxpayer or a related person is suffering from a serious illness or disability,
(vi) an eligible relocation of the taxpayer or the taxpayer's spouse or common-law partner, if the definition eligible relocation were read without reference to the requirements for the new work location and the new residence to be in Canada,
(vii) an involuntary termination of the employment of the taxpayer or the taxpayers' spouse or common-law partner,
(viii) the insolvency of the taxpayer, or
(ix) the destruction or expropriation of the property.
(4) Subsection (3) applies to the period throughout which a flipped property of a taxpayer is owned or held by the taxpayer in respect of a disposition that occurs after 2022.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Thank you, Mr. Méla.
At this time, we're going to get services reoriented here in the room and also give everybody an opportunity for a bio break and a stretch break. We're suspending for the next 15 minutes or so.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
Members, we are back.
We thank our legislative clerk for reading into the record clause 4 in French.
I see one hand up. Go ahead, MP Lawrence.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Mr. Chair, I would like, at this point, to bring a motion to the floor: That given the committee has yet to achieve its objective of obtaining 20 hours of witness testimony on Bill C-47, notwithstanding the motion....
I'm getting some feedback, Mr. Chair.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We're getting some very bad feedback, so let's see if we can fix that.
We're going to suspend.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We're back. Let's hope we have those technical challenges fixed with the feedback.
MP Lawrence, test your mike to see how we're doing.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
I had a bit of an echo, Mr. Chair, but I think it's gone now.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
MP Lawrence, yes, you're fine. The sound now is good.
Read your motion, please.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll start from the top because of the interference. I move: C-47
That given the committee has yet to achieve its objective of obtaining 20 hours of witness testimony on Bill C-47, notwithstanding the motion adopted by this committee on May 16th, the committee allocate an additional 10 hours for witness testimony and that clause by clause begin immediately following the 20th hour of witness testimony.
I'd like to continue with that motion if it is found to be in good order, Mr. Chair.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The reason why we want this testimony and why we believe it's so critical is there are a number of issues that our leader, Pierre Poilievre, has outlined in a number of great speeches. One of those issues, which I'm particularly compelled by and I think this budget will make far worse, is the issue of having paycheques go further. Paycheques are being continually and increasingly eroded by an ever-growing and ever-expanding federal government that takes more and more of the proverbial oxygen from the room.
As I started talking about before, there is a great article written for the C.D. Howe Institute by Alexandre Laurin and Nicholas Dahir called “Softening the Bite: The Impact of Benefit Clawbacks on Low-Income Families and How to Reduce It”. I'll continue where I left off. For those who didn't catch the summary, Hansard is available.
Tax benefits are government payments to individuals. The largest are old age payments to seniors and benefits to families with children. Childrens’ benefits play an important role in the reduction of child poverty by providing income support to low-income families.
It goes on and says:
Governments must balance redistributive objectives with the effects of these tax benefits on the public purse. As families earn more taxable income, benefit entitlements are reduced (or “clawed back”) at various phase-out rates, which reduces their overall cost for governments and ensures that they remain targeted to the intended lower-income families. Benefit reductions, however, act like hidden tax rates: they reduce the effective gain from working to generate additional income. To determine the tax system’s full impact on a family’s financial gain from work, the combined effect of both taxes paid and cash benefits reduced must be taken into account.
This Commentary presents various estimates of effective tax rates on personal earnings for families with children. These effective rates play a key role in family work decisions by reducing the monetary reward of earned income.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
It's just in terms of relevance. I'm reading the motion that was circulated by the clerk. It has to do with whether or not we'll go back to hearing witness testimony on Bill C-47, not hearing the testimony itself from Mr. Lawrence. I would ask that he stay relevant to the motion on the floor so that we can have a vote on it and decide how this committee is going to proceed.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
Perfect. I will make that clear to the parliamentary secretary.
Of course, tax policy is a huge issue that numerous witnesses would talk about. In fact, several of the witnesses we would have in front of us today, if not for the recalcitrance of the chair, we would be hearing from right now, so this is directly on point.
I thank the member for his assistance, but I think the relevance is clear.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
Mr. Chair, I don't think the relevance is clear. I'd like you to rule on whether or not it is relevant. I don't believe him reading a prepared speech of witness testimony is relevant to the motion currently being debated. I think this is more a filibuster. I think it's just more comfortable for the member to go back to his prepared speech instead of actually talking about the clauses.
We've been debating clauses for a couple of hours. We've made it to clause 4. I'm really excited about getting to clause 5. Could we actually get a ruling on relevance, debate the motion that's on the floor and get back to work?
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Peter Fonseca
We'll allow MP Lawrence one more turn to make it relevant to his motion.
I want to say, MP Lawrence, that you mentioned me. There was one thing that I wasn't sure I was clear on at the beginning of my opening remarks when we started this meeting. Maybe I didn't say it. I know that you, MP Lawrence, as well as MP Chambers, MP Hallan, etc., have texted and emailed me many a time. I've gotten back to you, as you know full well, MP Lawrence, within minutes on whatever you've asked for. However, over the last week and a half, I didn't hear at all from you.
I just wanted to make that clear for those watching, MP Lawrence. I think you mentioned something about how this all got started. I get emails and texts from you. I have not received anything over this past week.
We just wanted to make that clear. If you think differently, please let me know.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative