Status of Women Committee on March 11th, 2008

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Yes.

[Louise Levonian]

I think it's $12,000, but let me just check....

Yes, the working income tax benefit begins to be phased in at $3,000. It's phased in at a rate of 20%. It plateaus, and then it phases out, for a single individual in 2007--because it's indexed, it grows every year--at $12,833.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

And she doesn't pay any taxes anyway.

[Louise Levonian]

At that level?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

For a single mom.

[Louise Levonian]

For a single mom, no, I don't believe so; not at that level.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

What about for a family?

[Louise Levonian]

For a family, again, it begins at $3,000, is phased in at 20%, and plateaus at $1,000. That's the maximum amount you can get. Then it's phased out by $21,167, for the year 2007.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Now, that's where we've been grappling with this issue: how can a person or a family earning this much be too poor for the working income tax benefit and too rich for the child tax credit?

So a person earning $22,000 to $23,000 becomes too rich for the working income tax benefit and too poor for the child tax credit. That's something we have never received an answer on. Perhaps you could, from a gender perspective, help us out there so that we understand.

[Louise Levonian]

What's the question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

If a person earns $23,000, up to $25,000, they don't even pay taxes. They are too rich to take advantage of the working income tax benefit but too poor for the child tax credit.

Just reflect on it and get back to us. Would you be able to do that?

[Louise Levonian]

No, no, we can explain.

Go ahead, Baxter.

[Baxter Williams]

The child tax credit, going back to a statement that Louise made earlier, is one of a number of adjustments made to ensure that income is properly recognized in determining taxes payable. That's the nature in which it was introduced. As a result, it reduces your taxes payable.

For a family now earning $21,000, because of the generosity of the existing basic personal amounts available to them and dependants and other credits, they're generally non-tax-paying at that level. As a result, they wouldn't need the credit, as they're not paying taxes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

And they couldn't take advantage of the WITB either.

[Baxter Williams]

That's correct. At that income, it would be phased out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay.

I have one last question, and it's on the RESP. How many students have income such that they could deduct the RESP? I thought it was the parent who contributed to it. The contribution limit for the parent is up to $50,000.

You said that a female student benefits from it, but I can't understand how. The female student wouldn't have the income to be able to take it as a credit.

[Louise Levonian]

Parents put the money into a registered education savings plan, it grows, and then when the student or the child goes to school they take the money out. Generally speaking, the student doesn't really earn a lot of income and therefore doesn't pay any tax on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

So the parent gets a tax benefit from it.

[Louise Levonian]

Together they get a benefit, because the parent is putting in the money. It's taxed when it goes in, but when it comes out it's in the hands of the student.

There are two parts to it. First, there's the contribution part. When the contribution goes in, it's taxed, but it grows tax free. When the contribution part is taken back out it is in the hands of the parents, but they don't have to pay tax on it because they've already paid tax on it. The part that's grown is in the hands of the student, and generally speaking, students aren't earning sufficient income to pay tax. Plus there's the grant portion. So there's the return and there's the grant portion.

Does that help?

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Okay.

Are there any final comments or questions from anyone?

I'd like to thank you for being here. We have raised more questions, but we will see where we can get some answers as well. If you could get an updated version for us, we would really appreciate it. Thank you for being here.

Now we have committee business to attend to.

Just to let you know, the ski jumping report will be presented to the House on Wednesday.

We have before us a motion from Madame Demers. Madame Demers, would you like to read your motion for the record, please?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

The motion reads as follows:

That all the women of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women request the support of the women of their respective caucus, to denounce Bill C-484 and the dramatic consequences which it could have on the women of Quebec and Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Do you want to explain?

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, last week, when we voted on Bill C-484, I realized something, and I think that most of the women present here also realized the same thing.

For nearly six months, we have been the victims of a propaganda campaign regarding this bill. Mr. Epp has been sitting in Parliament since 1993. At that time, he was a member of the Reform Party. The members of the Reform Party have been trying to present a bill against abortion for a long time, by making people believe that this bill was meant to help and protect women. There is such legislation in 37 American states, where some women are currently reduced to performing abortions on themselves. If they are caught, they are jailed. Some women who are taking medication are also locked up because the medication can put the life of their fetus in jeopardy. There are other women who have substance abuse problems, and rather than sending them to drug treatment centres, they lock them up. We hear about such horror stories in those states.

I submit to everyone around this table that it is important to be informed on the impact of such legislation. Last week, if we voted, it was because everyone was not fully informed. We were so certain that such a bill could not be adopted. We could not believe that it would be adopted because 20 years ago, we decided that women were in charge of their own bodies. We did not want to believe that we had been caught with our pants down.

We must do our work and make sure that the bill does not pass. If it is carried, it would be a step backwards, not 20 years, but 50 or 60 years back, and there would be frightening tragedies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Yasmin Ratansi]

Thank you.

We'll go Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I say this with the greatest of respect to my colleague, and I perfectly agree with her, by the way, that I think it's important for all members to be informed about matters that are before the House. The thing I really question in this particular motion, the way it is worded, is that what it's doing is compelling or requesting that members of Parliament advocate amongst their caucus members to take a certain action on a bill.

I question, Madam Chair, that this sort of motion is really in order, first because it's not asking that the committee or the House do a certain thing, but rather that individual members of Parliament take up certain advocacy initiatives. I would say, in the reading I've done in regard to these matters, that any actions that take up a form of interference or obstruction, or even to go to the nth degree, intimidation, around provoking members to do a certain thing, is getting very close to being an affront to the House, because members' privilege is privilege to be able to make those kinds of considerations on their own. That's particularly true with private members' business.

So while I fully appreciate the member's comments on this issue, when one looks at the actual wording of the motion to denounce a bill, these are actions that really this committee, even if it were to pass this motion, has no course or power to incite; and in fact, if it did so, it would be almost in contempt of the House, because members have to be free to make those decisions of their own accord.