Debates of Jan. 28th, 2013

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Parkdale—High Park, the official opposition's finance critic, on her excellent speech. I had the opportunity to work with her on the Standing Committee on Finance. This is an issue that the committee will be examining, and rightly so.

The bill before us has more than 950 pages and amends the Income Tax Act and other related legislation, but primarily the Income Tax Act.

I asked the parliamentary secretary a question earlier. In her speech she talked about simplifying the act, which is already 3,000 pages long. If we pass this bill we will have to add even more pages. We will support this bill because it eliminates some tax loopholes and other measures that lead to fiscal inequity, but the government's philosophy confuses me. How will adding more measures and clauses—even if they close tax loopholes—help simplify the act?

I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks of the Conservative government's process. What is her definition of “simplification” and how should we interpret the government's silence on this issue that concerns both private companies and individuals?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very important question.

Legislation that is too complicated poses a challenge, even for tax experts. If it is too complicated for the people who work with Canadian tax laws every day, it presents an even bigger challenge for Canadian families and businesses.

The government claims it has simplified things by saying that things are black or white. But the act becomes increasingly complicated with every tax loophole. That is why we must simplify the Income Tax Act. Our taxes must be fair and progressive. They must also be simpler so that people understand how to pay their taxes every year. The legislation must be simpler for businesses to better plan their investments. This would help create more jobs for Canadians during a time when unemployment is far too high.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park for her speech. I am also very pleased to be able to join her and the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques on the Standing Committee on Finance. I hope that I can live up to the trust that has been placed in me.

With regard to my colleague's speech, I would like to ask her about the catching up that the government is trying to do. The bill, as it has been introduced, is massive. At the risk of exaggerating, this bill is monstrous. The government's ongoing failure in terms of governance and responsibility to taxpayers and this House is a very serious problem. This is very serious. However, it is not very surprising for us because we have already spoken out about the government's improvisation on various issues.

What worries me is that the government has less than three years left in its mandate. We can perhaps hope that the government will get caught up again. Does the hon. member believe that the government will be able to do a better job of catching up in order to help all of our taxpayers or does she think that we will have our work cut out for us when we take power in order to continue putting tax laws and regulations in order?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. I welcome him as a new member of the Standing Committee on Finance.

With regard to catching up, these changes should be made every year, or so suggests a number of parties including the former Auditor General. I have already asked the parliamentary secretary this question, but I did not get a clear answer.

The government should decide to make changes with regard to fiscal transparency every year. In terms of forecasts, transparency and accountability, it is better to make changes every year. As we now know, it took 11 years for these changes to be made. Yet, they should be made every year.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could pick up on the point in terms of priorities. The government has been in office for a number of years but I will cut it a bit of slack and ask why over the last year the government has been so negligent in bringing forward the legislation. We are talking about hundreds of pages of amendments to the tax legislation. As the member quite correctly pointed out, they are very important tax amendments that could have and should have been made quite a while ago.

If taxation as a policy is important to the government, one would think it would be a higher priority.

Why does the member believe it has taken the government so long to bring forward this piece of legislation? I appreciate that she sits on the finance committee.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a basic measure of good public administration and respect for the hard work of Canadians that we would want to clarify and keep current our tax legislation. It is yet again a misallocation of priorities to let this kind of bill sit and these changes accumulate for 11 years. I also note that when the member's party, the Liberal Party, was in government, there were changes that accumulated for many years and were not enacted. We have 11 years of changes that have been announced and which accountants, families and businesses have been living by but the changes have never been enacted into law.

One would say that is a failure in the realm of public administration. I argue it is. The government needs to capture these outstanding changes in legislation and also to implement what has been recommended many times, and that would be a sunset act to say that if the government announces a change and does not change the law within a year, that change would fall by the wayside and no longer would be applicable.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague, the member for Parkdale—High Park, on an excellent analysis of the bill, for which I am grateful.

My question is in respect of the member's role on the finance committee. Could she advise as to what the government is doing to ensure compliance by the public with the technical tax changes that are contemplated? Is the government being asked to change the way in which it seeks compliance with these admittedly very technical changes?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question because, as part of the cuts by the federal government, there have been cuts to the CRA, the body that oversees our tax compliance. It would lead me to think we would be less vigilant in ensuring our laws are complied with. We do not know exactly how these cuts would take place because the Parliamentary Budget Officer has had such a difficult time getting this information that we need to have. CRA staff members are the ones who ensure that people comply with the legislation.

Once the rules are in place, we want to ensure all Canadians and businesses are paying their fair share.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012.

Bill C-48 is 955 pages in length with 428 amendments. I am going to use my time in the House today to examine how we got to this point, and where we are now examining such a mammoth bill, looking at the recent history of technical tax bills, including the Auditor General's report from November 2009 on income tax legislation, as well as the study by the public accounts committee on that report.

I intend to talk about the need for Parliament to regularly adopt technical tax legislation in a timely manner, as well as the overwhelming need to thoroughly examine and, yes, simplify the Income Tax Act.

Finally, I would like to use my remaining time to briefly discuss Bill C-48 itself.

With respect to the recent history of technical tax bills, if Bill C-48 receives royal assent, it will be the first technical tax bill to do so since Bill C-22, the Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, which received royal assent in June 2001, almost 12 years ago.

With such a massive bill before us now, it begs the question as to why Parliament has not approved any technical tax bills since 2001.

The previous Liberal government did publish technical amendments for public comment on three separate occasions: December 2002, February 2004, and July 2005. Those amendments were introduced in Parliament in 2006 as Bill C-33, the Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006. Bill C-33 received third reading and made it to the other house, but it died on the order paper when the Prime Minister asked the Governor General to prorogue Parliament in 2007. Later in 2007 an identical version of this legislation was tabled as Bill C-10. Once again the legislation made it to the other house and died on the order paper when the Prime Minister again asked the Governor General to prorogue Parliament in 2008.

Since then there has been nothing. For four years the Conservatives failed to introduce a technical tax bill in Parliament. Clearing up the growing backlog of technical tax amendments was nowhere to be found on the Conservatives' list of priorities.

Next week the Conservatives will pass the seventh year mark in government, but they have yet to pass a single technical tax bill. It is a failure of public administration. It is not good public administration that it has taken this long, particularly when at the time the Conservative government was elected in 2006 there was legislation ready to be introduced and twice prorogation killed legislative attempts to deal with this.

I want to speak to the Auditor General's report. In the fall of 2009, Auditor General Sheila Fraser reported on the government's inability to take action on this. She emphasized the need for the government to introduce technical tax legislation in order to bring clarity to the Income Tax Act. When she released her report, she said:

The Income Tax Act is one of the longest and most complex pieces of federal legislation. Taxpayers have the right to expect clear guidance on how to interpret the Act so they can determine how much income tax they owe.

That makes sense. In her report she argued that by failing to provide clarity through technical tax amendments, the government was increasing the costs for everyone involved. The report states:

For taxpayers, the negative effects of uncertainty may include

--higher costs of obtaining professional advice to comply with tax law; less efficiency in doing business transactions;

--inability of publicly traded corporations to use proposed tax changes in their financial reporting, because they have not been “substantively enacted”;

--greater cynicism about the fairness of the tax system; and increased willingness to use aggressive tax plans.

For the tax administrator, the negative effects may include

--higher costs for providing additional guidance and interpretations to taxpayers and tax auditors; and

--higher administrative costs for reprocessing the tax returns after an outstanding legislative amendment is enacted and for obtaining waivers to extend the limitation period for reassessment.

The result may be uncertainty in the amount of tax revenues to be collected by the government and possible loss of tax revenues.

What the Auditor General is saying is that this is not some esoteric, arcane discussion as to whether or not it is a failure of the government to provide in a timely manner these technical tax amendments to the House and to pass them. It does result in higher transaction costs for companies. It results in confusion for Canadian taxpayers, not knowing how these will affect them, and higher costs from professionals like accountants and auditors in dealing with these.

The Auditor General's report said that the result may be uncertainty in the amount of tax revenues to be collected by the government and the possible loss of tax revenues. It actually affects the amount of revenue that the government is collecting or can collect.

The Auditor General went on to warn parliamentarians that we must not wait to pass a technical tax bill, that we must clear the backlog immediately and then regularly adopt technical tax amendments. In her report she said:

If proposed technical changes are not tabled regularly, the volume of amendments becomes difficult for taxpayers, tax practitioners, and parliamentarians to absorb when they are grouped into a large package.

Finally, she pleaded with the Department of Finance to fix the situation.

Auditor General Sheila Fraser said:

The Department of Finance needs to do more to bring the urgency of the problem to the attention of the government and Parliament. It ought to review the way it manages this process.

Beyond the Auditor General's report, we also have a report from the public accounts committee. In early 2010, the public accounts committee studied the Auditor General's report. The committee was then chaired by my former colleague from Charlottetown, the hon. Sean Murphy. The committee shared her concerns about the waste and mismanagement that resulted from the Conservatives doing nothing to introduce these technical amendments. Quite naturally, the committee wanted to know when the problem would be fixed, so it called the deputy minister of finance and the commissioner of the national revenue agency before the committee. These officials assured committee members that the problem was under control and the solution was forthcoming. The committee's April, 2010 report stated:

Officials from the Department told the Committee that they are hoping to have a technical bill ready for the government's review within the next couple of months. They are also considering releasing smaller packages of technical amendments on a regular basis.... Although, officials told the Committee that they would not be in a position to propose annual technical bills until the end of 2011.

If senior officials were telling a parliamentary committee back in 2010 that a technical tax bill would be ready in a few months, we have to ask ourselves as parliamentarians what happened. What we really need, broadly, is tax reform and tax simplification. The fact is that over a long period of time, not just under this government, the Income Tax Act has grown too large and unwieldy. However, it is notable that under this Conservative government, the Income Tax Act has actually grown by almost one-sixth in size. We have arrived at the point where accountants—the very profession that bases its livelihood on interpreting on behalf of clients the complexity of tax laws—are now regularly lobbying Parliament and the finance committee for tax simplification. Even the accountants are saying the tax code is too complex.

The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants stated in its most recent prebudget submission:

Reducing complexity in Canada's domestic tax regime is crucial to easing the regulatory burden placed on Canadian businesses and attracting investment. Simplifying our tax system would make the country more competitive and allow both individuals and businesses to prosper.

According to the Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011, issued by the World Economic Forum, tax regulations are among the top four most problematic factors cited by business executives for doing business in Canada. Many aspects of Canada's tax system have become too complex. We recommend that the government establish a national consultation process to examine tax simplification measures.

That quote was from the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants' pre-budget submission to the House of Commons finance committee.

The most recent pre-budget submission from the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada includes the following recommendations:

Modernize Canada's tax system—make it simple, transparent and more efficient

Introduce and pass a technical tax bill to deal with unlegislated tax proposals

Implement a “sunset provision” to prevent further legislative backlogs

Appoint an independent panel of experts to recommend steps to reform Canada's tax system.

It is important to realize that we have not had a comprehensive review of Canada's tax laws and our tax code since the Royal Commission on Taxation in the 1960s. The Carter commission published its report in 1966, and the changes were implemented in 1972. That is more than 40 years ago. If we were asked to sum up in one word what has changed in the Canadian and global economy since 1972, it would be “everything”.

The reality is that there have been so many fundamental structural changes to the global and Canadian economies since 1972 that we desperately need a thorough study, review and perhaps royal commission to deal with the tax changes we need as a country, with the objective of building a fairer and, in terms of economic growth, a potentially more competitive capacity to attract investment, as well as a simpler tax system.

In the House we have talked about the issue of income inequality. That has to be a consideration when we are talking about tax reform.

We have talked about issues of competitiveness and what kinds of taxes render an economy less competitive. We have to look at those. We have to study to what extent we can use the tax system to incentivize greater investment in research development and commercialization of technologies, and potentially clean technologies to green our production of energy in Canada, including cleaner conventional energy and the oil sands, as well as what kinds of tax incentives we can offer to make it more attractive to invest in and develop those technologies as we move forward.

When the Carter commission came in, among other things, it got rid of inheritance tax in Canada and replaced it with a capital gains tax. That was a significant change at the time. Today, we may look at that differently and consider some of the advice being given by tax experts both within Canada and globally.

Clearly, not to have had any thorough study of our tax system since 1972 indicates how woefully out of date our current tax code is. The reality is that the tax code under the Conservative government has since increased by one-sixth of its size. It is more complicated and less fair because of what some people refer to as the boutique tax credits the government has brought in for children in hockey and studying music, family caregivers and volunteer firefighters. We all believe it is laudable to support volunteer firefighters, family caregivers and families putting their children in activities, and we support that.

However, first, the reality is that it does complicate the tax code. Second, the fact that these tax credits are non-refundable means that the lowest income Canadian families do not qualify, those people who need the help the most, whether with respect to the family caregiver tax credit or to families with children in activities.

Not only have the Conservatives complicated our tax system, but by making these tax credits non-refundable, they have actually rendered our tax system less fair and contributed to income inequality and income disparity by not helping the people who need the help the most. Those are low-income families who, perversely, do not qualify for these tax credits.

I would like to speak about the Canada Revenue Agency. When the tax code grows in size and complexity, so do the requests to CRA for clarification. Governments have the power to compel residents to pay taxes, and that is a huge power, but with that power comes the responsibility to provide taxpayers with clarity around the law and to recognize that not every Canadian taxpayer can—in fact the vast majority cannot—really afford professional help to deal with these complexities.

One of the ways the government can provide clarity around tax law is with advanced income tax rulings. That is an area the Auditor General examined in her 2009 report. It is also an area where the CRA is failing and the record is getting worse. The CRA has set a target for itself to issue advanced income tax rulings within 60 days, and in 2004 it met this target. Three years ago the average ruling took the CRA 98 days. Two years ago it was 102 days. Last year it was 106 days, close to double the target CRA set for itself. These delays lead to increased costs both for the taxpayer and for the government.

For good public servants in the CRA who work in places like Charlottetown, P.E.I., those cuts to CRA are actually, perversely, going to lead to the government ultimately contributing not only to ambiguity and confusion around interpretation of these tax changes but also to actually collecting less money.

One of the things we discovered in our study around offshore accounts and the offshoring of personal wealth by many Canadians is that investments by the previous Liberal government to CRA to specifically target offshore accounts led to a huge level of success in terms of return on investment, in terms of collecting this money. The Conservatives have cut back funding to CRA, which will in time reduce governance and the capacity to target, identify and collect from offshore accounts and in other areas where we could collect more in terms of taxes.

The Auditor General said in her report, speaking about the CRA:

If the Agency's guidance is not timely or correct, taxpayers may inadvertently fail to comply with the law or they may become frustrated because the information they need is not available. Either may lead to a loss of tax revenue or an overpayment that later must be adjusted.

She made the following recommendation:

(4) The CRA “should develop more concrete plans to meet its own target times for issuing advance income tax rulings, given the significance of the rulings to proposed business transactions.”

Again, this is another report where the Auditor General is being extremely clear with some specific corrective measures that the government could take.

In 2009, the government said it agreed with this recommendation, but the dismal results suggest that nothing has been done about it.

Last week the Canadian Federation of Independent Business issued a press release entitled, “CRA Call Centre Business Helpline gets C- grade from CFIB”. According to the CFIB, only 61% of callers received full and accurate information “service standards and agent professionalism have declined”. Again, I am not blaming the CRA employees, but the government is making it very difficult for them to do their jobs.

The Liberals are concerned. We support the idea of Bill C-48 being presented now, finally dealing with some of these issues, but we do not support the tax direction of the government, which is ultimately creating a less fair, less competitive and more complicated Canadian tax system. We believe we need more than tax tinkering; we need real tax reform aimed at building a more competitive, fairer and simpler Canadian tax code.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague from Kings—Hants back to the House. I look forward to continuing to work with him on the finance committee.

I appreciated his comments on tax avoidance and tax havens. Certainly that is why New Democrats on the finance committee have been pushing hard to get the government to complete its study of tax havens, which began under the previous government. We believe, especially at a time of fiscal restraint, which the government chooses to address through austerity measures, that if there is money being put in tax havens that ought to be collected by CRA and used for all of the services and programs Canadians want and need, then we should have that money so everyone is paying their fair share.

My colleague emphasized the importance of ensuring that tax changes follow announcements of the measures when they were announced by government. It has been over 11 years since the last changes were made. The last technical tax bill was passed in 2001. Until 2006 a Liberal government dealt with this, a government that also let things slide for several years. During the time the Liberals were in power, why did they too did not live up to their responsibility to ensure these technical changes were passed in a timely fashion for Canadians?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's point that the previous Liberal government had set in place both funding and action to target offshore accounts, and with remarkable success. The investment in CRA capacity at the time led to significant success in collecting money from offshore accounts. Further, the Liberal Senator Percy Downe has done terrific work in the other place on this.

In terms of her question about technical amendments, in December 2002, February 2004 and July 2005, the previous Liberal government published these technical amendments for public comment. These amendments were actually introduced in Parliament in 2006 as Bill C-33, the Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006. Bill C-33 received third reading and made it to the other house, but it died on the order paper when the Prime Minister asked the Governor General to prorogue Parliament in 2007. The Prime Minister, of course, did that more than once. Prorogation under the current Conservative government killed more than that legislation and others, but it actually set back the clock on a lot of these technical amendments.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kings—Hants for his reference to my riding. Prince Edward Island is the only province in Canada where a taxpayer cannot get in-person assistance with income tax issues. That is also the case for immigrants in Prince Edward Island, people looking to have their EI claims processed and veterans. All of those services have been removed. Prince Edward Island is also the only province where one cannot get a passport.

My question relates to his theme regarding income tax simplification. I know my colleague has for some time spoken out against piecemeal amendments to the Income Tax Act and the boutique tax credits. Could he elaborate a little more on what he sees as the process and important elements of the large scale clarification and simplification of our income tax system?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first, we have a tax code that had been bloated since the Carter commission report and the tax changes of 1972. Every government has added to the complexity of the tax system, but no government has added as much complexity to the tax system as the current Conservative government, which has increased the tax code by one-sixth since assuming power in 2006.

We have to take a serious look at the issue of fairness when we make these changes. Certainly the issue of the gap between the rich and the poor and the growing inequality of opportunity has to be a focus. Even the World Economic Forum out of Geneva and Davos, Switzerland came out with a report two weeks ago saying that one of the greatest or the greatest economic challenges facing the planet right now was that of income inequality.

We should recognize that the government's tax credits for various activities, whether it is volunteer firefighters, children's activities or caregivers, and we all support these laudable activities, exclude low-income Canadians because they are non-refundable. This not only makes the situation more complex in terms of our tax code, but it also makes it less equitable for low-income Canadians.

I would argue that we should take a look at examples of tax reform globally. Some countries have conducted massive studies and reforms to radically simplify their tax systems, reduce the transaction costs of investment and business and make their economies more competitive. We can have a fairer, simpler and more competitive tax system at the same time. There is some great expertise within Canada and globally.

Finally, on the issue of fairness, it is interesting that on income inequality, Warren Buffet, who is hardly some global-phobic socialist Luddite, has said that we have too much income inequality, that the tax system should be reformed and that it is not fair that his assistant pays a higher percentage of her income in taxes than he does.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kings—Hants for his speech.

Some of our concerns are very similar to those he mentioned. I asked members of both the governing party and the opposition a number of questions about simplification. It seems that simplification is needed. Our current Income Tax Act is 3,000 pages long. Obviously, a bill of this size—more than 950 pages—will add even more pages.

Simplifying means making the tax code shorter and less complex. In his speech, the member mentioned a few elements that make the tax system more complex. I believe that the tax system is made more complex by two elements, but not necessarily by tax brackets, which are relatively easy to understand. Clearly, one of the elements is tax loopholes. As the system increases in complexity, there are more and more loopholes that tax advisers can recommend to their clients. This sweeping bill is needed to eliminate the use of tax loopholes and to help the government close them quickly.

The second element is something called “boutique tax credits”. In French, they may be referred to as “crédits d'impôt à la carte”. They cater to specific groups of voters, but they add to the complexity of the system.

I would like to ask my colleague this question. He mentioned the possibility of establishing a royal commission or a task force. With the current government's attitude towards taxes and its cavalier approach to these issues to date, would he not be worried to see a commission that could hamper fairness and simplification instead of improving the situation for Canadians and enhancing our competitiveness?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that a commission could evaluate our tax system and make recommendations that would make it fairer, simpler and perhaps more competitive in the context of a global economy. That is a very important consideration.

There were many royal commissions in years past. However, it has been a long time since we had a royal commission study something so essential and important. Perhaps these commissions were overused in the past, and perhaps that was to avoid having to make decisions. But now, particularly for our taxation policies, it may be time to have a royal commission study this issue. In fact, if we use—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The period for questions and comments is over.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C-48. As you can see, it is rather thick. It is more than 950 pages long.

As my colleague from Parkdale—High Park mentioned, we will support this bill because it eliminates a number of tax loopholes and resolves several problems. Decisions about these issues have been made over time by agencies such as the Canada Revenue Agency, so this bill is needed. However, as I have mentioned in other speeches, this bill will amend the Income Tax Act as well as other acts: the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and other related legislation. It will make an already complicated system even more complicated.

I will give some background on this bill. In October 2012, we received a notice of ways and means from the Minister of Finance, which was more than 950 pages long and consolidated almost all of the outstanding tax measures. These measures date back to 2002 and even earlier. More than 400 decisions have been made by different agencies, including the Canada Revenue Agency, which receives inquiries from businesses and tax advisors asking whether they can interpret a specific condition in the Income Tax Act in a particular way. The Agency then sees that this was not foreseen by the legislator and proposes an amendment.

Over time, the Canada Revenue Agency has collected its interpretations of more than 400 issues. Now, over 10 years after the last tax bill was passed, we are discussing another bill.

Obviously, the department drafted this bill after consulting the private sector. The Standing Committee on Finance, on which I sit, has heard from private sector representatives. They spoke about several tax issues, including the technical issues we are discussing, as well as the complexity of the current legislation. I will get back to this a little later in my speech.

The impressive Bill C-48 has been before us since November 21, 2012. I doubt that more than a dozen of the 308 members of Parliament will read the whole thing before they have to vote on it. This is understandable, because these are of course extremely technical issues. It really is a shame, though, because it undermines our role as MPs, as representatives of our constituents. We cannot realistically vote with a full knowledge of all the elements in the bill. They just throw this at us in Parliament, at first reading. Yes, we will discuss it at Standing Committee on Finance meetings. It will eventually be passed at second and at third reading. However, for a matter as important as taxation, the Conservatives are being pretty casual by tabling this bill in the House of Commons and asking us to pass all of its recommendations, which will probably not be studied very carefully by the House. It is not that we are unwilling to do study the bill, but it will be really difficult to understand the scope of the measures being put forward because they are so complex and so highly technical. The Standing Committee on Finance will do the best it can, but still, the way the bill was introduced is a real concern.

Bill C-48 is an omnibus bill. We agree on this. However, unlike Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, otherwise known as mammoth bills or monster bills, this is a real omnibus bill. Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 contained a patchwork of measures and legislation. In those two bills, which are now law, more than 130 items were added, deleted or amended in two votes. Bill C-48 has a single basic principle that aims at amending the tax system consistently and making it fairer.

I would just like to quickly go back to the definition of an omnibus bill to confirm what I am saying. According to the Library of Parliament, an omnibus bill per se is a bill that, while it aims at creating or amending several different acts, has “one basic principle or purpose which ties together all the proposed enactments and thereby renders the Bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes”.

Bill C-48 is an omnibus bill. Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 were not really omnibus bills.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill is nearly 1,000 pages long. It updates the rules relating to many different tax measures that are still outstanding and brings them into harmony with the current system.

Regarding the tax changes, the implementation of the measures in this bill is unique. We have a majority government, and the rules in the bill will be adopted. As my colleague, the official opposition's finance critic, said in her speech, we are going to support this bill at second reading. In fact, the rules are practically in effect already, according to the International Financial Reporting Standards, as they have been ever since first reading when the bill was tabled on November 21, 2012.

They are also valid and in force according to the Canadian accounting standards for private businesses. Since November 21, our businesses have had a little more security and stability under Canadian and international standards, something that will be welcomed by these firms. The Standing Committee on Finance has heard this on a number of occasions.

For a number of years, in fact, there has been an effort to achieve some harmonization of accounting standards and tax rules at the international level. This is another set of issues that the government should at least look into. The reason is very simple: we see it as a way of facilitating the containment of tax evasion. Thanks to my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie, this is something that the Standing Committee on Finance will be addressing.

We are also facilitating trade and investment in a world that is increasingly integrated in economic terms, but in which standards still differ from country to country. Tax evasion is a major problem. It exists because of loopholes in the Income Tax Act and other tax legislation, including legislation on corporations.

With consistent rules and cohesive tax regulations, we can help companies to be much more competitive and to know what to expect. Regulatory predictability is a key factor in minimizing the risks our industries face. The OECD, in particular, has demonstrated leadership in arranging the coordination of rules internationally.

In Canada, it is the Accounting Standards Board that has handled the incorporation of international rules into the Canadian legal system and Canadian standards. According to the Canada Revenue Agency, the rules in this bill are currently in force for publicly accountable enterprises.

With the tabling of this bill today, we have an opportunity to discuss issues relating to Canada’s tax structure, given that action is already being taken by the various accounting bodies. Needless to say, most of the changes in Bill C-48 are in fact not only familiar to the main parties concerned, but more importantly, are already being applied in their operations. Hence, there should be no great surprises in the debate, or in the eventual passage of this bill.

There are no special innovations in Bill C-48, apart from two minor technical amendments that are included in the bill.

As I noted in my earlier questions to the parliamentary secretary and our official opposition finance critic, the Income Tax Act currently runs to 3,000 pages. The original act passed in 1917 had 10 or so pages. Now, it has 3,000. A bill like this one will add many more, in order once again to eliminate specific tax loopholes.

As the system grows in complexity, however, there are more and more opportunities to find loopholes in the legislation that companies and individuals, who in many cases have the resources to work with tax consultants, can use to try to introduce personal arrangements that will ultimately reduce the fairness of our tax system.

A well-known Quebec tax specialist, Brigitte Alepin, who testified last year before the Standing Committee on Finance, has written a book explaining that Canada’s tax system is headed for a brick wall and that the government should do something before it is too late. In her book, she explains that in order to be sustainable, taxation systems should generally follow three major principles: they should be simple, effective and equitable.

The Canadian system, unfortunately, is trying to distance itself to a dangerous degree from those principles, hence the urgency of reviewing the foundation on which it is built.

In her book, Ms. Alepin also points out that an ideal tax system should be cost-neutral; in other words, it should not be too expensive to administer.

She refers to a study conducted by the Fraser Institute, which I do not often quote here in the House. It is worth mentioning here today, however. The 2007 study evaluated the cost of administering the Canadian tax system.

In 2007, the Fraser Institute estimated the cost of the system to be between $19 billion and $31 billion, that is, about $950 per Canadian. Thus, the cost of administering the system is incredible. It is a huge and complex system, but we should not have to pay nearly $1,000 a year for every Canadian in order to administer it.

We need to debate the complexity of the tax system. Indeed, Bill C-48 allows us to do just that. We need to have this debate because the issue of simplifying the system, much like the issue of simplifying the Canadian justice system, is important for every Canadian, including the people we represent here in the House.

I would remind the House that the Supreme Court of Canada stated that tax laws should be certain, predictable and fair so that taxpayers can order their affairs intelligently. It also described some consequences of complex tax laws, and these were reiterated in 2009 in the Auditor General's fall report. She stated:

Taxpayers’ ability to comply with tax legislation depends on their understanding of how the rules apply to their own circumstances. When the intent of the legislation is not clearly conveyed by the words, taxpayers may find it difficult to assess the income taxes they owe and this could foster tax avoidance. Uncertainty about how the law should be applied can also add to the time taken and costs incurred by tax audits and tax administration.

This issue is so fundamental and so important that it was one of the central topics of all the recent prebudget consultations that the finance committee was pleased to have the opportunity to hold regarding previous budgets. During the consultations, several witnesses talked about the problems and difficulties that Canada will encounter if we do not begin to recognize the situation we are in and do something about it.

One of the people I would like to quote is Denis Saint-Pierre, chair of the Tax and Fiscal Policy Advisory Group of the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada. The Government of Canada quoted this organization to support what it was saying about the benefits of Bill C-38, but the organization said something else that the government failed to mention. Mr. Saint-Pierre said that, when the Standing Committee on Finance invited Canadians to share their priorities for the 2013 federal budget, the committee asked him five questions to which he could provide only one answer again this year and that is that the simplification of the tax system is vital. He said:

Canada's tax system is unduly complex. Entrepreneurs will tell you that. My clients tell me that. There is a growing consensus that the complexity of Canada's tax system must be addressed if Canada is to remain competitive, able to attract business and investment, and create jobs and economic growth.

For example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce identifies Canada' s complex tax system as one of the top 10 barriers to competitiveness. Tax simplification is the number one public policy priority for CGA-Canada.

Robin Bobocel, vice-president of public affairs for the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, said exactly the same thing:

One of the significant costs that business bears with such a complex tax code is compliance with it. There's a significant cost borne on simply filing tax returns and trying to ensure that you're taking full advantage of the tax code as it sits.

This was mentioned in the study conducted by the Fraser Institute. Quite frankly, Canada's global competitiveness will suffer the consequences if we do not conduct a comprehensive review of the tax code.

Here is one last quote from someone who testified before the Standing Committee on Finance on the very important issue of the complexity of the tax system. Michael Conway, chief executive and national president of Financial Executives International Canada, had this to say before the committee:

We again recommend that the Minister of Finance establish a task force to undertake a comprehensive review of the federal Income Tax Act, with the objective of reducing complexities, because—to be clear—compliance has become unmanageable, and the costs are killing everyone.

That act is too cumbersome for the government to administer and it creates an excessive burden on business, especially small business, which is one of the engines that drive our economy.

In its final report on the pre-budget consultations, the committee unanimously recommended that the federal government undertake a comprehensive review of the tax system and ensure its fairness as well as neutrality by continuing to close tax loopholes that allow select taxpayers to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

The tax system's complex and cumbersome nature, in addition to being costly for the taxpayers, undermines the concept of fairness that would allow taxpayers to see it as legitimate.

The Standing Committee on Finance has already done some work on this. For some people the tax system is an exciting issue, while for others it seems more technical. It affects one of the essential elements for Canadians, that is, to contribute fairly to this society and this country in which we live.

Since 2011, when we became the official opposition, and even since the current government took office in 2006, the government has shrugged off all taxation issues in a most disingenuous way. During debates, the government regularly mentions the phantom carbon tax the NDP wants to impose, although there is no such thing. Moreover, in all their speeches, the Conservatives say that the NDP wants to tax and spend, which is also not the case.

If we look at the records of all the NDP governments in the country—provincial ones, since we have not governed the whole country—we find that NDP governments have achieved more balanced budgets than the other parties that have governed the provinces, territories and the country since 1987, or even 1982, if we want to go back that far.

Now we need to debate tax policy like grown-ups. The NDP is ready to do that and the other opposition parties are probably ready as well. We must stop treating the taxation system as a purely political issue and listen to the voters who are stuck in a system so complex that they cannot tell the true facts from the illusions the government has created.

When people talk about the complexity of the taxation system, the tax brackets are not the problem. The tax brackets are very simple for the individuals or businesses filing their tax returns.

We must consider three key elements, two of which are easy to analyze.

First, there are loopholes. Bill C-48 is supposed to deal with this problem. We certainly hope that some of these loopholes can be eliminated.

Then there are tax expenditures, and especially boutique tax credits, that is, a choose-your-own list of tax credits for various parts of Canadian society. They include tax credits to assist volunteer firefighters and those for families that want their children to have more training in the arts or sports activities. These are non-refundable tax credits. The people who use them are paying taxes. Thus, the people who need them most are not able to use these tax credits.

Finally, there is a lack of concerted effort and coordination internationally. This has to be addressed at the most basic level. It is necessary for Parliament as a whole and every member of Parliament to participate in seeking more fairness and exploring ways our tax system can adapt to the new reality, because the Income Tax Act has been around since 1917, and making sure than Canada remains competitive.

Adding the complexity of Bill C-48 to the already complex Income Tax Act is not the way to resolve this fundamental issue that will soon have to be addressed.

We will support Bill C-48 at second reading.

We hope to have a good debate on it in the Standing Committee on Finance. I will be pleased to take questions from the hon. members.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We are seeing an expert on this issue at work and he has given us a complete analysis of Bill C-48.

My colleague spoke about complexity in relation to this bill and the technical aspects that have been addressed. However, it is essential that we guarantee the integrity of our tax system.

Could my colleague say a little more about this issue of integrity and tell us how to facilitate the incorporation of the technical changes into the legislation?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Saint-Lambert for this very important question. One of the things I mentioned was that 400 measures or 400 opinions of the Canada Revenue Agency and other authorities were included in this technical bill. There are another 200 measures that have been proposed or submitted by the Canada Revenue Agency and other authorities that are not included. So we still have a lot of work to do.

The issue of integrity is crucial and is central to the debate. If we are to form a coherent society in which people are able to see that the system is fair, everyone has to be able to contribute their fair share and not have the feeling that some people, some groups, some businesses, are able to get away with not paying their fair share toward the development of the society in which we live.

It is therefore crucial that we be able to address not only a few technical issues—of which there are many, particularly in this document—but also the question of simplification. We have to ensure that everyone is able to identify with it. No one can really claim that they are fully conversant with the system and are able to get all the benefits of it without having a tax advisor, something that is not necessarily in everyone's budget. The issue of integrity and fairness is therefore a fundamental one that this government must address.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his speech. I would also like to send him my greetings and say that I am eager to join him on the Standing Committee on Finance to help improve things.

In my experience on other committees, and particularly the Standing Committee on International Trade, I have had the opportunity to admire very close up what might almost be seen as candour, albeit relatively harmless. I am referring to the culpable naivety of the government when it comes to Canada’s ability to compete in the world. In relation to fiscal policy, we are talking about both individuals’ and corporations’ ability to compete.

Sometimes it is frightening to see the extent of the magical thinking that goes on. My colleague has observed this very accurately. Unfortunately, while we do support Bill C-48, the Income Tax Act will be a great deal more complex.

I would like to invite my colleague to share his vision of matters in relation to the problem of the ability of the various actors in Canada’s domestic economy to compete on the international market, in connection with the problems he has identified.

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the question may be addressed on many levels. I will not be able to provide all the answers in the one I am giving now.

There are two specific aspects. The first is that all the resources invested by our businesses to comply with the Income Tax Act and all tax legislation are resources that cannot be spent or allocated elsewhere, on research and development or international marketing capability. There are many areas where those resources would probably be better spent. Unfortunately, they must be allocated to tax planning, which is necessary because of administrative complexity.

The second aspect concerns competition between nations. This is competition that I consider somewhat fictitious, but it nevertheless exists and must be taken into consideration. Some jurisdictions, countries wishing to lower their tax rates for large businesses—what we call tax havens—attract some businesses, or at least their parent companies, and make it much harder to ensure that those businesses will contribute to Canada's well-being through the tax system.

Industrialized countries have taken many measures, through the OECD, for example, but much work remains to be done to ensure that there is international co-operation and that businesses operating in all countries with tax systems similar to ours do not play countries against each other in a race to the bottom.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to put the following question to my colleague because he was our party's industry critic.

A few days ago, some business people bluntly criticized me for the government's ongoing lack of recognition. This is a big problem. Here again, we are talking about competitiveness, support and fair play. As my colleague will agree, our entrepreneurs need clear and simple rules, but they especially need fair play because the cheaters absolutely should not be rewarded by administrative complexity and loopholes.

Would he like to elaborate further on that subject?

[Guy Caron, NDP, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the member for Beauport—Limoilou, I have heard the same comments from the business community.

It must be understood that, like most individuals, the vast majority of businesses pay what they are required to pay in accordance with the currently established rules. People find ways to work around the rules, but that could be the topic of another debate or discussion on the question of what the tax burden of corporations and individuals should be. In the business community and among individuals in general, there are some bad apples who try to cheat the system and let others bear the burden. That is how the system gets a bad reputation and no longer achieves its fairness objectives.

With respect to the scope of the question, we must also understand what is currently going on in Quebec, particularly with the commission investigating the construction industry. That is giving the general public a relatively negative image of business people and entrepreneurs that is not really consistent with reality.

A lot of work has to be done. The business community has already approached the NDP and most MPs, asking them for help in developing a better image and making a meaningful contribution to Canada's development.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques will have two and a half minutes to finish his remarks when the House returns to this matter.

Newmarket Winterfest

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to invite members and all Canadians to my beautiful riding of Newmarket--Aurora this February 2 and 3 for two days of adventure and outdoor fun at Newmarket Winterfest.

There will be crafts, games, pony rides and face painting for the little ones; spaceball gyroscope, snowshoe races, and a treasure hunt and snow painting for teens; and snow bowling, a hockey shot challenge and snow golf for any age.

People can start their day with a pancake breakfast, take a horse-drawn wagon ride, watch the chainsaw carving demonstrations, enjoy entertainment on the Riverwalk Commons' outdoor stage or go for a free family skate or swim.

I, along with the organizing committee and the hundreds of volunteers working hard to make this the best Newmarket Winterfest yet, hope to see many people there.