Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 30 of 56553
View James Rajotte Profile
CPC (AB)
I call this meeting to order. This is meeting number 87 of the Standing Committee on Finance. Orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 25, 2015. We are doing clause-by-clause of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 21, 2015 and other measures.
Colleagues, we will obviously go through clause by clause. We will have different officials, depending on which part of the bill we are dealing with. I want to welcome the officials here for part 1.
As you know, a motion was adopted that guides the committee on how long to speak. The three political parties on the committee have five minutes per clause, but as you know, as chair I can grant a little more time if we speak a little longer for certain items and then group other clauses together. Some parties have helpfully indicated which ones they wish to speak to as a priority. I appreciate that very much.
For clause-by-clause consideration pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed. The chair will therefore call clause 2 dealing with part 1, amendments to the Income Tax Act and related legislation.
I do not have any amendments for clauses 2 to 28, and I understand that I can group clauses 2 to 10 together.
Mr. Brison.
View James Rajotte Profile
CPC (AB)
Clause 1, the short title, is deferred. It's postponed to the end. We're on clauses 2 to 10.
Do you want to speak to one of them?
(On clause 2)
View Scott Brison Profile
Lib. (NS)
I'll begin with clause 2 on the registered retirement income funds or RRIFs. These rules apply to Canadians who are at least 71 years old. The new rules are expected to cost $670 million over the next five years, but many baby boomers won't turn 71 until 2020.
Have you examined how much this will cost once the bulk of the baby boom has turned 71 and falls under the new rules? How much will this measure cost in 10 years?
Miodrag Jovanovic
View Miodrag Jovanovic Profile
Miodrag Jovanovic
2015-06-04 11:51
We did some longer-term analysis of the fiscal implication of this measure to make sure that with baby boomers the cost would not increase significantly over the long term. There will be some slight increase in cost over the next 10 or 20 years, but then there are also some offsetting effects due to the fact that this is a deferral measure in a way; savings will end up being taxed at some point. Overall we haven't seen significant pressure on the fiscal cost over a longer period of time.
View James Rajotte Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you.
(Clauses 2 to 10 inclusive agreed to)
The Chair: I understand the NDP would like to speak to clauses 11 and 12.
Mr. Caron.
(On clauses 11 and 12)
View Guy Caron Profile
NDP (QC)
I just wanted to say that we introduced an opposition day motion in February seeking the exact measures proposed here. So we're very glad that the government has finally listened to reason and taken the necessary steps to help small businesses.
We are pleased with the direction the government has taken and proud of our efforts to get to this point.
View James Rajotte Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you. That's a good way to start the meeting.
Is there further discussion on clauses 11 and 12?
View James Rajotte Profile
CPC (AB)
Okay, we'll have a recorded vote.
(Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to: yeas 9; nays 0)
The Chair: I'm told I can group clauses 13 to 18 together.
Mr. Brison.
View James Rajotte Profile
CPC (AB)
Okay. Shall clauses 13 to 17 carry?
(Clause 13 to 17 agreed to)
(On clause 18)
The Chair: On clause 18, Mr. Brison, go ahead.
View Scott Brison Profile
Lib. (NS)
What was the original policy rationale in 2012 for excluding foreign charitable foundations from being qualified donees under the Income Tax Act?
Miodrag Jovanovic
View Miodrag Jovanovic Profile
Miodrag Jovanovic
2015-06-04 11:55
Prior to changes in 2012 there was already a provision that said that charitable organizations receiving a gift from Her Majesty in right of Canada could actually qualify as donees. When these changes were modified it was just natural to take that same approach.
Now this change in this budget is basically providing a bit more flexibility to recognize that when you look at a foreign organization in the context of the objective of this measure, the distinction between a charitable organization and a foreign foundation may not always be clear. You can do that easily in the Canadian context because you have all the information. In the foreign context you may easily have foreign foundations that are doing the same types of activities with respect to carrying out humanitarian aid or disaster relief and it's just to allow greater flexibility in that context.
View Scott Brison Profile
Lib. (NS)
What was an unintended consequence of the change in 2012? Were there any unintended consequences of the change in 2012?
Miodrag Jovanovic
View Miodrag Jovanovic Profile
Miodrag Jovanovic
2015-06-04 11:56
In 2012 the intention was to take the rules as they were and just add some conditions and have a better process around that provision, and now it's kind of a separate decision just to add a bit more flexibility.
View Scott Brison Profile
Lib. (NS)
Could you provide the committee with an example of a foreign charitable foundation that was a qualified donee prior to 2012 but became excluded because of the 2012 rule change? Could you give us an example?
Miodrag Jovanovic
View Miodrag Jovanovic Profile
Miodrag Jovanovic
2015-06-04 11:57
There are some. I think, for instance, the Aga Khan Foundation has been on the list for many years and that could be one potentially.
View Scott Brison Profile
Lib. (NS)
Miodrag Jovanovic
View Miodrag Jovanovic Profile
Miodrag Jovanovic
2015-06-04 11:58
I don't have much information on that. They are carrying out a lot of work in Middle Eastern countries—humanitarian and education. Their activities tend to be relatively broad.
View James Rajotte Profile
CPC (AB)
I understand the NDP wants to deal with clauses 19 to 24 separately.
Mr. Rankin, go ahead on clause 19.
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2015-06-04 11:58
Clause 19 effectively doubles contribution limits for the TFSA, moving it from $5,500 to $10,000 in tax year 2014. We think this is wrong-headed and have said so of course in the House. Any plan that allows the top 20% to get the majority and to get more than the 80% who are in the bottom of the income levels is something we will oppose. We think with the middle class struggling to make ends meet and huge mounting household debt, this is just a pipe dream for most Canadian families, so we're just basically concerned about any plan that leaves middle-class families paying for tax breaks for the wealthy few.
We've said this over and over again and we certainly will say it here.
View Scott Brison Profile
Lib. (NS)
On May 26 officials told this committee that they had examined how these changes to TFSAs would impact the provinces.
Can you share with us how these changes will impact the provinces? Do you have that information in terms of the fiscal impact?
Miodrag Jovanovic
View Miodrag Jovanovic Profile
Miodrag Jovanovic
2015-06-04 12:00
Roughly speaking, the effect on provinces would be roughly half of the impact at the federal level.
View Scott Brison Profile
Lib. (NS)
It's no longer a cabinet confidence because the legislation's been introduced, and further to that, members of Parliament of all parties have a fiduciary obligation to Canadians to have this information.
Miodrag Jovanovic
View Miodrag Jovanovic Profile
Miodrag Jovanovic
2015-06-04 12:01
Yes. What we have on the provincial basis is the effect on the tax base, so that we have.
View Scott Brison Profile
Lib. (NS)
I'm saying this respectfully. I have great regard for our public servants, but that information ought to be provided to committee and should be provided in a timely manner. It would have been helpful to have it today.
Have you examined the long-term impact to these changes on OAS? We were told by the parliamentary budget office that this change is going to have some unintended consequences on OAS cost.
Miodrag Jovanovic
View Miodrag Jovanovic Profile
Miodrag Jovanovic
2015-06-04 12:01
About 15% of our cost is associated with the OAS-GIS program.
View Scott Brison Profile
Lib. (NS)
But some financial advisers are telling their wealthier clients that they can continue to get the maximum guaranteed income supplement for three years while living off their TFSAs. They are being told to maximize their annual TFSA contributions, delay their CPP benefits and pension plans as well as RRSP withdrawals until the age of 70, and this way they can collect the maximum in OAS and GIS for three years from 67 to 69 while supplementing their income with their TFSA accounts.
Is the government, or are you, aware of this loophole that will allow quite wealthy people to qualify and receive a guaranteed income supplement?
Results: 1 - 30 of 56553 | Page: 1 of 1886

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data