Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 150000
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:00
Expand
We'll call the meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 60 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee is meeting to study the coming into force of Bill C-208, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (transfer of small business or family farm or fishing corporation).
We went through the rules for this room this morning, on the pandemic and social distancing and so on, so we don't need to go through those again.
We'll start with the witnesses.
I see, Ms. Aitken, you've been working steadily. We've had you on screen here and you've been getting a lot of work done while you've been waiting for us to come on.
We welcome Ms. Aitken, executive director and senior general counsel, finance legal services, law branch. Then we have Mr. Jovanovic, associate assistant deputy minister, tax policy branch; and Trevor McGowan, director general, tax legislation division, tax policy branch.
Trevor is no stranger to this committee. I think he has spent pretty near as many hours as some of us have. Am I right, Ed?
I don't believe there's an opening statement. If there is, raise your hand or yell. Otherwise we'll start with questions, six-minute rounds, with Mr. Fast, Ms. Dzerowicz, Mr. Ste-Marie and Ms. Mathyssen.
Mr. Fast, you're first on deck. Welcome. Go ahead.
Collapse
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-07-20 14:02
Expand
Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. My questions will be for Mr. McGowan.
Trevor, you've been at parliamentary committees many times before, as the chair has suggested, so you know the drill. When private members' legislation comes before a committee, we generally have a robust discussion about the legislation. The government, through its MPs, has the ability to bring forward amendments that would fix loopholes or deficiencies in those bills.
Mr. McGowan, you were present at committee as a witness, as Bill C-208 was being discussed. Is that correct?
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:03
Expand
That is correct.
Collapse
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-07-20 14:03
Expand
All right. Your recent press release, the finance department's press release dated July 19, highlights four specific loopholes that it feels should be fixed in Bill C-208. My question to you is, when you appeared before committee as a witness to discuss this bill, did you or any of your officials recommend amendments that would have addressed the shortcomings Bill C-208 had, and specific wording for those amendments?
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:03
Expand
As was stated, my colleague Shawn Porter and I appeared before the House finance committee and the Senate committee on agriculture to discuss Bill C-208 and provide comments on the technical aspects of the bill. During that time, we provided technical commentary and analysis in respect of the bill, but our involvement was limited to that. We weren't suggesting amendments, but certainly we did raise some of the concerns that are alluded to or mentioned in the July 19 press release.
Collapse
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-07-20 14:04
Expand
What was the purpose of your appearing before committee if there was no process by which Finance could inform the committee and provide it with the assistance and the wording for amendments that could have fixed the so-called loopholes that you've identified after the fact?
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:04
Expand
As I understood it, the purpose of my appearance before the House finance committee was to provide information and analysis on the technical aspects of the bill so that members of the committee had the appropriate information to make decisions.
Collapse
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-07-20 14:05
Expand
Okay, so after royal assent, somebody in government, maybe in Finance or maybe in the Prime Minister's Office, made the decision to announce that Bill C-208 would not be applied. In other words, it wouldn't be implemented right away. Is that correct?
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:05
Expand
Just to be technical in the terminology, when Bill C-208 received royal assent, it became effective. It became part of law. It amended the Income Tax Act. On June 29, the date of royal assent, Bill C-208 amended the Income Tax Act. As of that date, the provisions it had amended were part of Canadian law. That's the date on which it came into law. That's just a fact and not something that could be changed.
Collapse
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-07-20 14:06
Expand
Well, let me say this: I'm so glad that you're now acknowledging that Bill C-208 became the law on June 29. It's something that was not reflected in your June 30 press release.
I want to know who it was in your department, or who it was in government, who made the decision not to respect Bill C-208 and issue the press release that led to the confusion, and quite frankly the bewilderment, of the small business community in Canada.
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:06
Expand
I suppose there are two things to discuss there. The first relates to the decision-making process in terms of the press release. In that, the department follows the regular approval process that we use for all of our public communications projects, in alignment with the requirements of the federal communications policy.
In terms of the substantive portion of the question, as I said, on June 29 Bill C-208 produced its effect and amended the Income Tax Act. The government's announcement on June 30 was that the government proposes to introduce legislation providing that the amendments would apply only as of January 1, 2022. It's perhaps a technical point that the June 30 amendment would amend the Income Tax Act, which had been amended by Bill C-30 ahead of time, but the government was announcing its intention to table legislation to provide a January 1, 2022, application date.
Collapse
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-07-20 14:08
Expand
Trevor, really, that is a re-characterization of what has happened. The June 30 press release made it very clear that the government was going to withhold implementation of Bill C-208 until it had a chance to amend it. In that, it was moving in a way that effectively defied the will of Parliament. My question, which you didn't answer, is who in Finance or who in government actually made the decision that was then reflected in the press release that was issued on June 30?
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:08
Expand
Well, as I said, getting back to the—
Collapse
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-07-20 14:08
Expand
Answer the question.
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:08
Expand
—approval process for the press release, it followed the normal federal communications policy, which involved a number of groups or branches within the Department of Finance working on the press release, so—
Collapse
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-07-20 14:09
Expand
I'm not asking about process. I'm asking who made the final decision—
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:09
Expand
Mr. Fast, give Mr. McGowan the opportunity and the courtesy of time to answer the question—
Collapse
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-07-20 14:09
Expand
With respect, Mr. Chair, you know what he's doing. He's not answering the question. I asked who, and he will not provide me with that answer.
All we want to know is this: Who's the decision-maker who made the decision to issue the press release that reflected the government's decision not to respect the will of Parliament?
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:09
Expand
You've been in government, and in these matters it isn't usually a single individual.
Mr. McGowan, answer as specifically as you can, please.
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:09
Expand
Thank you.
I just want it to be clear that in terms of the press release, we're being clear on specifically what it did. In terms of who made the decision, the press release stated that the “government” proposes to introduce legislation. That is a reference to the elected Government of Canada and its intention to table a bill. That is a proposal of the Government of Canada and not—
Collapse
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-07-20 14:10
Expand
That's right. Let me stop you right there.
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:10
Expand
You're out of time, but I will give you and others time as well. That will be the last question.
Collapse
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-07-20 14:10
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Who in the elected government made the decision to issue this release, or to instruct your department to issue this release, which has led to all of this confusion?
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:10
Expand
Mr. McGowan, I believe you answered that question, but go ahead. We'll give you another snap at it.
Collapse
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-07-20 14:10
Expand
No, he hasn't answered the question.
Who in the elected government made that decision?
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:10
Expand
That's the last question, Mr. Fast.
Collapse
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-07-20 14:11
Expand
You guys are awful.
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:11
Expand
I have a point of order from Mr. Gerretsen. I'm sorry, Mr. McGowan.
Collapse
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
With all due respect, Mr. Chair, Mr. Fast just said, off the cuff, “You guys are awful.” Can he explain who he is referring to? Is it the departmental officials who are before us? If so, he owes an apology for that comment.
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:11
Expand
I'm going to leave it at that. You've made your point.
Mr. McGowan, do you want to say a couple of last words in this round? Then we'll move on to Ms. Dzerowicz.
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:11
Expand
As I said, it was an announcement of the government's proposal. As we start with the approval process, of course the Department of Finance officials provide advice to the minister, and then we implement the government's decisions. I was simply trying to highlight the fact that this was a government proposal to table a bill in Parliament that would affect the application date of the amendments included in Bill C-208.
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:12
Expand
Thank you.
Collapse
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-07-20 14:12
Expand
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, my comment that “you guys are awful” was not addressed to our civil servants, and it certainly wasn't addressed to Mr. McGowan. It was addressed to my Liberal friends across the table from us, who were heckling and guffawing about our asking very significant questions of Mr. McGowan related to Bill C-208.
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:12
Expand
We'll leave it at that on the across the table. We're more than two sword lengths apart here, so we're okay at the moment. We will go to Ms Dzerowicz.
Because we don't have the witnesses here at the table, Mr. McGowan, if some of your other colleagues want to come in and assist on an answer or give an answer, they'll have to yell, I guess. It's the only way I can bring them in, or you can direct us that way.
Ms. Dzerowicz, go ahead for six minutes, if you could, or a little better.
Collapse
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
2021-07-20 14:13
Expand
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank the three officials from our Department of Finance for being here today. I really appreciate their being here to answer our questions.
I want to start off by clarifying a couple of things, because I think it's important to have this on the record. Could you please explain the difference between coming into force and application, or coming into effect?
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:13
Expand
It is a somewhat arcane thing that doesn't come up much, but it is critically important in the preparation of tax amendments.
As I said initially, for example, the amendments in Bill C-208 came into force on the date they received royal assent; that is to say that the bill amended the Income Tax Act on that date.
That doesn't necessarily mean their application to any particular transaction is going to be clear. In particular, when we're putting together income tax amendments, we typically set out specific application dates. For example, one reading of a coming-into-force date in the middle of a taxation year is that it applies to transactions that occur on or after the date of royal assent. Another reading of the measure is that because a taxpayer's liability for tax crystalizes at the end of the taxation year when it is computed, it's the law at the end of the taxation year that is relevant for the purposes of computing tax.
A coming-into-force date that simply appears in the act on, let's say, June 29, is ambiguous in that it's not clear if it applies to transactions that occur on or after that particular date or for the 2021 taxation year. That's the reason we typically, in drafting income tax amendments, set out specifically when an amendment applies. It could apply, for example, in respect to transactions that occur on or after a particular date. It could apply as of a particular taxation year. There are a number of different formulations. We do that to address that and provide clarity—
Collapse
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
2021-07-20 14:15
Expand
Thank you. I'm sorry, but it's past two minutes now, and I have to get to a few more questions. I appreciate your response.
I'll get to it very quickly. What was the intention behind the June 30 news release? Was it to change the coming-into-force date, the date on which Bill C-208 came into law?
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:16
Expand
I apologize. I'll try to be more brief.
As I said, the coming into force of Bill C-208 was a factual matter. It amended the Income Tax Act on June 29. That's just when it produced its effect.
The proposed amendment would.... Of course, it would have to be included in a bill, as stated. The government would have to propose it to introduce legislation, and that bill would need to receive royal assent. If passed, it would have the effect of providing that the amendments that had been made as a result of Bill C-208 would apply as of January 1, 2022.
Collapse
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
2021-07-20 14:16
Expand
It would go into effect, but the amendments would be applied after January 1, 2022, according to the news release.
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:17
Expand
Yes. It's quite common that when income tax amendments are made, they apply as of a future date. A bill like Bill C-30, the recent budget bill, might have a number of amendments that, even though it also received royal assent on June 29, might not start to apply until a later taxation year or a later date in the future, in order to give the taxpayers and the tax administration time to respond.
Collapse
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
2021-07-20 14:17
Expand
If I own a family farm right now and I decide I'm going to sell it to my daughter, and that transaction happens over the next month, what actually happens? Does Bill C-208 apply, or is whatever is passed or introduced as of November 1 retroactive to sales after June 29?
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:18
Expand
The July 19 announcement provided that Bill C-208 amendments currently apply and that any new amendments put forward by the government, which as we discussed would need to be included in a bill and passed through Parliament, would not apply before November 1, 2021.
Collapse
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
2021-07-20 14:18
Expand
If I sold a farm to my daughter right now, would Bill C-208 apply, including whatever amendments we actually make for the income tax provisions that we introduce after November 1?
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:18
Expand
The relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act as amended by Bill C-208 would apply to a transaction undertaken today. That's based on yesterday's press release. The government announced that any new amendments would not apply before November 2021. For any transaction undertaken between now and the end of October, the government announced that whatever new conditions it might include in the bill, which, again, would need to be passed by Parliament, would not apply.
Collapse
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
2021-07-20 14:19
Expand
I'm actually clear on that, thank you.
I have another question. As you know, Mr. McGowan, the bill that finally passed.... It's actually after the third time of being introduced into the House of Commons that it has passed. It's been discussed for probably around 10 years within the finance department. We know that the U.S. and Quebec already have a model that works. Why is it taking so long to address the loopholes we've identified?
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:20
Expand
It's a complex issue with a number of competing factors. As I said in my earlier committee appearance, a lot of people have an intuitive sense of what it means to transfer a business to the next generation, but it is a difficult thing to legislate with precision so that all of the genuine intergenerational transfers are accommodated under the rules but more contrived or artificial transactions are not. It is a complex thing.
Collapse
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
Lib. (ON)
View Julie Dzerowicz Profile
2021-07-20 14:20
Expand
Thank you.
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:20
Expand
Did you want to add more there, Trevor?
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:20
Expand
No, thank you.
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:20
Expand
All right. We'll go to Mr. Ste-Marie, followed by Ms. Mathyssen.
Collapse
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2021-07-20 14:21
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to welcome the witnesses and thank them for being with us today.
Before I get to my questions, I want to recognize the important work that senior officials and all employees at the Department of Finance have done during the pandemic. This committee met often, and we regularly heard from department officials. They have done incredible work to save the economy. I want to commend them and thank them again for all their hard work.
My questions are for Mr. McGowan.
After yesterday's news release and Ms. Bendayan's earlier comments, everything was clear in my mind, but the answers, details and clarifications you gave Ms. Dzerowicz confused me. Therefore, I'm going to ask you the same question.
Since Bill C‑208 received royal assent in June, the provisions in Bill C‑208 have applied in the case of parents who sell their farm or family business to their son or daughter. Is that correct?
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:22
Expand
Right now that is absolutely correct. What I was saying with respect to the government's July 19 announcement was that while the government has announced its intention to provide additional conditions that may need to be met at the end of a consultation process, those new conditions would not apply before November 2021. Right now the rules in the Income Tax Act that were amended by Bill C-208 are the law and can be relied upon.
Collapse
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2021-07-20 14:23
Expand
Thank you.
Julie Bissonnette of the Fédération de la relève agricole du Québec wanted us to ask you that question. Both my fellow member Ms. Dzerowicz and I have asked it now. You gave a clear answer, which I appreciate.
Nevertheless, something you said in response to my fellow member's question worried me, and you said it again when you answered my question. You said that it has been that way since yesterday's news release. This morning, however, the law clerk for the House of Commons and former members of the House told the committee that it has actually been that way since the bill received royal assent, regardless of what the news release said. Yesterday's news release reiterated that fact. However, since Bill C‑208 received royal assent, it has been possible to sell a business for the purposes of an intergenerational transfer of a family farm with the usual rights and benefits. Is that correct?
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:24
Expand
If I understand the question correctly, right now the rules as enacted by Bill C-208 apply and can be relied upon. It is the law of the land.
Collapse
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2021-07-20 14:24
Expand
Very good. Thank you.
Now I'm going to move on to another topic; it has to do with the amendments. As you said, in yesterday's news release, the government announced its intentions to make changes to the amendments set out in Bill C‑208. It is our understanding that a new bill will be introduced to amend the changes contained in Bill C‑208, without altering the bill's intent.
Something about this whole process surprises me. As we heard this morning, the first reading of the bill took place on February 19, 2020. That means the period between when the bill was given first reading and when it received royal assent was 527 days. As Mr. Dufresne, the law clerk, pointed out this morning, at almost every stage of the legislative process, the government could have brought forward the amendments it is now saying it will introduce in a future bill.
I gather from the answers you gave Mr. Fast that, when Bill C‑208 was at committee stage, the government had not asked the Department of Finance to draft amendments to the bill that would close the potential tax loopholes. Is that correct?
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:26
Expand
As part of our committee appearance this spring to discuss Bill C-208, the departmental officials were present to help explain the technical aspects of the bill, and I would need to defer to the honourable chair of the committee in terms of the rules. I'm not even aware of whether departmental officials could table amendments to a bill at a committee hearing, or whether that would have to be done by another—
Collapse
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
BQ (QC)
View Gabriel Ste-Marie Profile
2021-07-20 14:26
Expand
Pardon me, Mr. McGowan. I don't think I made myself clear. I meant that it was up to members of the government, not public servants or senior officials, to bring forward amendments that would have addressed the concerns you raised with the government regarding this bill.
My question is this. Did the government ask you to draft amendments to rectify the potential problems resulting from Bill C‑208, amendments that could have been proposed when the bill was being studied by the committee? Did the government ask you to draft such amendments?
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:27
Expand
In connection with my last statement, I want to answer the questions as fully as possible, but that starts to get pretty close to describing our advice and internal instructions from the government. I would defer to my colleague Jenifer as to whether that's something that can be appropriately answered.
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:28
Expand
Ms. Aitken, would you like to come in? I think it's pretty clear that the officials would advise government on what amendments should be made, and those would have to come forward at that stage as either government amendments or those by a member of the committee. I think that's the procedure.
Ms. Aitken, do you want to come in?
Collapse
Jenifer Aitken
View Jenifer Aitken Profile
Jenifer Aitken
2021-07-20 14:28
Expand
Mr. Chair, I think you've expressed it very well in terms of what we are or are not at liberty to say. I agree with Mr. McGowan that we want to say everything we possibly can to be helpful—that's what we're here for—but we're not at liberty to talk specifically about questions of advice. I think, Mr. Chair, you explained the process.
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:28
Expand
That's fine. We understand that there's the political side and there's your side. I thank you all for that round.
We'll go to Ms. Mathyssen for six minutes, and she will be followed by Mr. Kelly for five.
Collapse
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
NDP (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to back things up a little and go back into the history of this bill. As Ms. Dzerowicz mentioned, there were several iterations of it. Of course I refer to the NDP version of this, Bill C-274, which was actually voted against by this government, and which we were told would not pass.
However, after the election, in budget 2019, it was indicated that a similar piece of legislation would come forward to help farmers, small businesses and fishing businesses, and in fact it was also in the minister's mandate letter from the Prime Minister.
Can you indicate to this committee what plans and what directions were received from government, from the minister as directed by the PMO, to put forward this legislation? I think, to build upon what my colleague Mr. Ste-Marie was discussing, with all of that time and with those plans in place, why were a lot of the amendments that came forward under Bill C-208 not prepared for legislation?
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:30
Expand
Mr. McGowan or Ms. Aitken, we may be—
Collapse
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
NDP (ON)
That's for whoever is allowed to answer.
Collapse
Miodrag Jovanovic
View Miodrag Jovanovic Profile
Miodrag Jovanovic
2021-07-20 14:30
Expand
Maybe I can take this one.
Mr. Chair, I think the question goes somewhat in the same direction as the previous one. It seems to be related to the nature of the advice provided to the government. I don't think it would be appropriate for us to go into any detail as to the advice that was provided or what the advice would cover. I would just say our role as tax policy officials in the department is to make sure that on an ongoing basis the department and the government have all they need to make decisions. Our role is to try to provide advice to the extent possible and—
Collapse
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
NDP (ON)
I appreciate and understand that, and I understand the response that was given previously. However, I would argue that this is actually the other way, right? This is direction from the government—coming through the minister, coming through a mandate later and coming through budget 2019—and you were told to put it forward in terms of ongoing or upcoming legislation that the government had in its plans. It would be going the other way.
Collapse
Miodrag Jovanovic
View Miodrag Jovanovic Profile
Miodrag Jovanovic
2021-07-20 14:32
Expand
I would maintain my answer, that effectively it would not be for me to say, for instance, what measure has been considered by cabinet, which would potentially become a cabinet confidence. I don't think I'm at liberty to say whether following the commitment made in 2019 or in the mandate letter a specific proposal had indeed been put forward and discussed with the government. I'm not sure I'm at liberty.
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:32
Expand
It's just the other way around, Ms. Mathyssen. I think Mr. Jovanovic is correct on that.
Collapse
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
NDP (ON)
Okay. That's fair enough.
Could we then discuss those specific amendments that are being brought forward and that were in the newly released press release in which clarification was provided? It's my understanding that the government said that parents could already sell to their children on a tax-free basis, using a lifetime capital gains exemption, before this Bill C-208 was brought forward. Is that true or is that false? I believe it was in a speech from Mr. Gerretsen, actually, when he was discussing Bill C-208.
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:33
Expand
That's correct. The amendments relating to Bill C-208 apply only where an individual sells shares to a corporation owned by their child or grandchild. On a direct sale of shares from a parent to their child, the anti-avoidance rule in section 84.1 would not apply, to cause there to be a dividend. In fact, assuming all the conditions are met, the lifetime capital gains exemption can apply to eliminate tax—or up to the lifetime capital gains exemption limit anyway—on any gains.
Collapse
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
NDP (ON)
One of the requirements or the amendments being made was that enough time and a specific timeline be put forward for that transition to ensure that it was a legitimate.... It's the idea of a legitimate sale to a child. Within that Bill C-208 legislation, it also says, though, that the person receiving the gift of this farmer or small business would have to own it for five years. Why is that not good enough within the Bill C-208 legislation?
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:35
Expand
There are a few technical issues with that. First of all, the amendments enacted by Bill C-208 place the five-year, or 60-month, holding period on the corporation that purchases the shares from the parent, and not the child. There's actually no requirement in Bill C-208 that the child maintain any sort of share ownership in the business. It's the corporation that purchased it. The child could, in fact, sell the shares of the [Technical difficulty—Editor] within the five-year window.
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:35
Expand
This is your last question, Ms. Mathyssen.
Collapse
View Lindsay Mathyssen Profile
NDP (ON)
Well, it's just confusing. Where these amendments don't.... They seem to do what's already being done, and if not.... It's that there's a belief that ultimately these families and these children are trying to undermine the government, to take advantage of tax loopholes. I find it interesting that the government now is so interested in closing tax loopholes where it wasn't before. However, it seems that a lot of this was already done and that these amendments may be redundant.
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:36
Expand
Do you have any thoughts on that, Mr. McGowan?
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:36
Expand
As I said, the five-year holding period imposed by the rules enacted by Bill C-208 applies to the purchasing corporation and not the child. The child could sell within that period. It does not actually provide an effective rule that would require the child to indirectly hold shares for five years.
I should say as well that the government's news release that went out yesterday did not provide specific amendments that would be made. Rather, it announced a general set of issues that would be taken into consideration in the development of draft legislative proposals. Those included the transfer of legal and factual ownership of the corporation to the child, the extent to which the involvement of the business is transferred from the parent to the child, and some other measures like that. It was more a description of the types of issues that would be considered in the development of draft legislation than a specific set of draft legislative proposals that was announced yesterday. The draft legislative proposals, I think, would be released at an early opportunity and then subject to comments. The final draft legislative proposals would be released later on.
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:37
Expand
Thank you, all.
We'll go to five-minute rounds.
Mr. Kelly, you're up, followed by Mr. Fragiskatos.
Collapse
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
View Pat Kelly Profile
2021-07-20 14:37
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. McGowan, Mr. Fast asked you many times in his opening statement who authorized the announcement or who decided to put that announcement out. The first several times, you didn't answer the question, merely referring to the regular process. The final time, you spoke of members of the elected government as making the decision on this announcement. By that I presume you mean the Prime Minister, other members of his cabinet, or the members of their offices who serve them.
Can you tell the committee who in the elected government decided to put out the first notice on June 30 to announce that you were not implementing a law passed by Parliament?
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:39
Expand
Thank you for the opportunity to continue that. I apologize if my answers were a bit long-winded in getting to the point. To your question on who decided to announce that the amendments would apply as of June 30, as I said, it was an announcement of the Government of Canada. It's something that the department officials briefed on, the minister made her decision, and it was implemented—
Collapse
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
View Pat Kelly Profile
2021-07-20 14:39
Expand
Did I just hear you correctly that it was the minister who decided that you would delay implementation of a law passed by Parliament? Was that the Minister of Finance?
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:39
Expand
You see, that's part of the difficulty in answering the question, because the announcement was not to delay implementation of a bill passed by Finance. Rather, it was to table a bill in Parliament that would, if passed by Parliament and given royal assent, provide that amendments, or rules in the Income Tax Act that had been implemented through Bill C-208, apply starting as of January 1, 2022. Of course, as we discussed, the amendments to the Income Tax Act were made on June 29. There was nothing that could be delayed on that front.
As I have said before, including before the senate committee on agriculture, the CRA would apply the law as enacted, because it is the law of the land, barring some future Parliament action.
Collapse
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
View Pat Kelly Profile
2021-07-20 14:40
Expand
Mere hours before this committee meeting was scheduled to begin, where parliamentarians could demand answers as to why this announcement of June 30 went out, there was a clarification to backpedal this announcement.
Again, the question I really want clarity around is this: Whose idea was it in the first place to delay? The June 30 announcement is pretty clear. It talks about the absence of an application date. It talks about implementing on January 1 following amendments. You said “the minister” in your last answer to me. Can you clarify that you meant the Minister of Finance?
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:41
Expand
Mr. Jovanovic.
Collapse
Trevor McGowan
View Trevor McGowan Profile
Trevor McGowan
2021-07-20 14:41
Expand
I see that Mio has joined in.
Collapse
Miodrag Jovanovic
View Miodrag Jovanovic Profile
Miodrag Jovanovic
2021-07-20 14:41
Expand
Yes, if I may, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
I think I would like to maybe go back to the nature of the announcement to understand the process here.
Collapse
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
View Pat Kelly Profile
2021-07-20 14:41
Expand
Please answer the question.
Collapse
Miodrag Jovanovic
View Miodrag Jovanovic Profile
Miodrag Jovanovic
2021-07-20 14:41
Expand
I think it's instrumental to understanding the decision process, because what happened in this instance is no different from what happens in all other instances where the elected government announces that it intends to table legislation, if Parliament approves, to modify existing legislation.
Just to be clear, this is exactly what happened here with the announcement on June 30. It's no different. The process we follow is that typically we provide advice and options to the government. It's frank and impartial advice. The government deliberates. At the political level, it has its own set of considerations. We don't necessarily participate in those discussions. The government makes a decision, and we have to implement that. As part of the implementation, we continue to provide advice to make sure—
Collapse
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
View Pat Kelly Profile
2021-07-20 14:42
Expand
I'm sorry. I'm going to have to interrupt. You're—
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:42
Expand
I'll give you the time. We'll go over the time a little, because we're going to have lots of time in this two-hour panel, but I want Mr. Jovanovic to have time to respond to the question.
Collapse
Miodrag Jovanovic
View Miodrag Jovanovic Profile
Miodrag Jovanovic
2021-07-20 14:43
Expand
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In this instance, when a decision is made to release that announcement, we want to make sure that the announcement reflects the decision of the government, that it is technically accurate, and that it is respectful of the role of Canadian institutions, including Parliament. That is our primary role and, to the extent possible, we hope we do it properly.
When it comes to determining who made the decision, it's unfortunate but we really cannot provide more answer to that.
Collapse
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
View Pat Kelly Profile
2021-07-20 14:43
Expand
We've had about 10 minutes now of the question from my Conservative opposition colleagues, and in this time we've circled it down to a “minister” seems to have the decision. We can't confirm yet which one, but that was the question, whether it was the Minister of Finance.
Further to that, I take you to the June 30 announcement. This announcement speaks of the bill having received royal assent but not having an application date. Then it goes on to talk about amending it and starting on January 1.
I don't really even want to go down that path any further about what the amendments you may propose might be. We'd like to know who made the decision on that press announcement—which minister.
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:44
Expand
I actually think, in fairness, Mr. Kelly, the witnesses have said all they can on that subject. Any decision is by executive council as a whole. Whatever specific minister helped make the decision, it's a matter of cabinet decision.
Collapse
View Ed Fast Profile
CPC (BC)
View Ed Fast Profile
2021-07-20 14:45
Expand
Did cabinet make the decision?
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:45
Expand
Well, it's the executive council, at the end of the day. You know that. You've been in cabinet.
Collapse
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
View Pat Kelly Profile
2021-07-20 14:45
Expand
This was a decision of cabinet, not of the department.
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:45
Expand
I don't know if you want to add anything further on that, Mr. Jovanovic.
Collapse
View Pat Kelly Profile
CPC (AB)
View Pat Kelly Profile
2021-07-20 14:45
Expand
This was the decision of the executive council.
Collapse
Miodrag Jovanovic
View Miodrag Jovanovic Profile
Miodrag Jovanovic
2021-07-20 14:45
Expand
No, Mr. Chair, I think I'm fine.
Collapse
View Wayne Easter Profile
Lib. (PE)
View Wayne Easter Profile
2021-07-20 14:45
Expand
All right.
We'll go to Mr. Fragiskatos.
Collapse
View Peter Fragiskatos Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you to the officials.
Mr. Chair, I will be splitting time with Mr. Gerretsen.
Collapse
Results: 1 - 100 of 150000 | Page: 1 of 1500

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

For more data options, please see Open Data