House of Commons photo

Track Bob

Your Say

Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word is question.

Conservative MP for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies (B.C.)

Won his last election, in 2021, with 61% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Petitions March 20th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition representing thousands of people from British Columbia. The petition highlights that last year, 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was killed by a drunk driver. The group of people who have also lost loved ones to impaired drivers, called Families for Justice, says that current impaired driving laws are too lenient. The petitioners are calling for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death. They also want the Criminal Code of Canada to change to redefine the offence of “impaired driving causing death” to “vehicular manslaughter”.

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012 March 8th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that this member would consider it a botched process.

According to the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, they welcome Bill C-48.

As the last technical income tax bill was passed by Parliament in 2001, a significant backlog has accumulated and must be addressed.

My colleague might make comments according to your experts, but we have experts, too, who say that the bill needs to be passed. Experts and Canadians would agree that it needs to be done.

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012 March 8th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is that I do not know. A lot of these measures simply make sense, as the hon. member stated in his comments. Obviously, they make sense to a lot of other taxpayers and to us as a government.

The challenge I made before to the NDP members is that they simply let us get this done and pass the bill.

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012 March 8th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, a simple challenge to the member, then, would be to vote in favour and pass the bill.

The Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, representing over 75,000 tax professionals, stated:

Some of the measures contained in today's bill [Bill C-48] were initially proposed as early as 1999....

With unlegislated tax measures, taxpayers and professional accountants must maintain their records and forms—sometimes for years—to be in a position to comply, even without knowing when and if these measures will be approved by Parliament and enacted. This uncertainty and unpredictability places an enormous compliance burden on taxpayers, businesses, professionals and their clients.

Again, I would ask the NDP to pass this bill.

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012 March 8th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this House today to Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012.

Before I continue, I must say that I do find it remarkable that the opposition has delayed timely consideration of this highly technical bill for weeks on end, for no other reason than to stand in this House and tell us that they agree with its passage. It is truly bizarre.

Despite much of the bill's content having been made public already, despite extensive consultation and endorsement from key stakeholders, and despite pre-study by parliamentarians and the House of Commons finance committee, the NDP stands in this place once again delaying the passage of this legislation for absolutely no apparent reason.

It is not as if it does not know or will not support the bill. These are the words of the NDP finance critic speaking to our government's technical tax amendments at the committee earlier this week:

Obviously we support the goal of closing tax loopholes and making the tax system in Canada clearer and easier to understand for Canadians. [...] it is important that these technical changes be adopted so that there is clarity and certainty in our tax legislation.

However, it is not just the NDP. At the same meeting of the finance committee, the Liberal MP for Markham—Unionville made it clear that these delay tactics are nothing more than partisan games when he admitted, and I quote, “all parties are supporting this bill”. Parliamentary procedure tricks aside, delaying this legislation has very real implications for the Canadian taxpayer. Parliament has not passed a technical income tax bill in over 10 years, and both the experts and the opposition agree that it is long overdue.

For those watching at home who may not be familiar with this legislation, the technical tax amendments act moves to clear the backlog of outstanding technical tax amendments created as a result of Parliament's delay in passing such a bill.

What is remarkable with the opposition's delay tactics is that the government provided them with an advance copy of the bill before it was introduced in Parliament and indicated it would work with them to make any necessary changes to the legislation. However, that was not the opposition's only opportunity.

One would never know from the NDP's blustering partisan rhetoric that the government conducted a wide range of open and public consultations on the majority of the proposed amendments included in this legislation. Specifically, from 2009 to 2011, the government had no fear of any of these consultations that were inviting comments from Canadians, including NDP members. If the NDP had concerns, it could have shared them with the government in December 2009, July 2010, August 2010, November 2010, December 2010, March 2011, August 2011, October 2011, or at any point thereafter.

Instead of working co-operatively to bring certainty for Canadian taxpayers, the opposition has chosen petty delay tactics at the taxpayers' expense. It is not only that, but the NDP needles over a 100-day filibuster and has gotten so out of hand that groups like the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants have come to Ottawa to plead with Parliament to end this ridiculous charade.

The NDP has heard this message loud and clear. Why will it not show some respect for taxpayers and get moving on Bill C-48? While the NDP drone on about process, despite the bill having been before Parliament for over 100 days, failure to move it has real consequences for the Canadian economy, and the experts have warned us of these consequences.

It was just this week at finance committee that Larry Chapman, executive director and CEO of the Canadian Tax Foundation, reminded parliamentarians of the importance of swift passage of this legislation. This is what he had to say:

...it represents 10 years of repairs and maintenance in updating of the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act. Its passage is important to all Canadians. [...] I want to emphasize it again, its passage is very important to all Canadians.

I urge my colleagues in the NDP to listen carefully to his words, which bear repeating. This is very important to all Canadians.

It is not just members of the tax community urging swift passage of this bill. Indeed, the Auditor General of Canada, in a recent report, identified the existing backlog of technical amendments as a pressing issue requiring Parliament's immediate attention. Our government agreed with each of the Auditor General's recommendations and moved quickly to bring forward technical amendments to address them, amendments currently delayed by the NDP in the House.

During its recent appearance before the finance committee, the Office of the Auditor General went even further and explained why delay would do nothing but fan the flames of uncertainty, resulting in lost tax revenue for the government and higher costs for taxpayers.

Let me quote one of those comments at length for the benefit of the opposition, and perhaps it will come to its senses. It states:

Our system of income taxation depends on taxpayers self-assessing their tax obligation based on a clear understanding of the law.

Legislative clarity is important if taxpayers are to easily self-assess and correctly calculate their taxes. When the intent of the legislation is not clearly conveyed by the words, taxpayers may face higher costs to obtain professional advice, may be more willing to use aggressive tax plans, and may need to re-file a tax return at additional cost.

Uncertainty about how the tax law should be interpreted can also affect the efficiency of tax administration. For example, there are higher costs for the Agency to provide additional guidance and interpretation to taxpayers and tax auditors.There are also increased administrative costs for the Agency to obtain waivers from taxpayers to extend the limitation period for audit reassessments until the uncertainty is resolved.

It may even result in lost tax revenues. One would think that those words alone would be enough to bring the NDP onside, especially with its $56 billion in proposed new spending. It could be planning to make up the difference with the $21 billion carbon tax. I do not know.

Nevertheless, the Auditor General has made it clear that we cannot put up with the NDP hyper-partisanship when it comes to the simplest of routine proceedings. While the NDP wants to filibuster a highly technical bill, the majority of which has been in the public domain for years, it feigns ignorance of the need for its timely passage.

In closing, let me recount the recent exchange between the NDP finance critic and an expert tax witness, and Canadians can decide for themselves the true motives of the NDP's needless delay. In response to a question from the member for Parkdale—High Park asking whether it is negative for our economy if we do not pass these amendments in a timely manner, expert witness Gabe Hayos of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants replied, “Absolutely. [...] there's just no doubt about it”.

With that, I urge the NDP to show some concern for our economy, demonstrate respect for Canadian taxpayers and get moving on Bill C-48.

Petitions March 8th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition signed by thousands of people from British Columbia. The petition highlights the death last year of 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius who was killed by a drunk driver.

The people who have lost loved ones to impaired drivers, a group called Families For Justice, point out that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. They are calling for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death. The petitioners also want the Criminal Code of Canada changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death to vehicular manslaughter.

Committees of the House March 8th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the order of reference on Friday, February 15, 2013, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 9th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture in relation to the motion adopted on Tuesday, March 5, 2013, regarding the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's user fee proposal for importer licensing for non-federally registered sector products to Parliament.

Petitions March 1st, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present three petitions, representing thousands of people from British Columbia. The petitions highlight that last year, 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was killed by a drunk driver. A group of people who have also lost loved ones to impaired drivers, called Families For Justice, say the current impaired driving laws are too lenient. They call for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death. They also want the Criminal Code of Canada to change to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death to vehicular manslaughter.

Petitions March 1st, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition representing thousands of people from British Columbia.

The petition highlights that last year 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was killed by a drunk driver. A group of people who have also lost loved ones to impaired drivers called Families for Justice say that the current impaired driving laws are too lenient.

The petitioners call for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of impaired driving causing death. They also want the Criminal Code of Canada changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death to vehicular manslaughter.

Natural Gas February 28th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, natural gas is an affordable fuel that Canadians across our country use every day. British Columbians are fortunate to have natural gas deposits in our province and are benefiting from the jobs that the industry supports and low cost fuel for home heating, electricity and other important uses. Our government puts the jobs and economy first by supporting this important industry.

The Minister of Natural Resources was in British Columbia this week to announce our plan to support the export of natural gas to the fastest-growing economies abroad.

While we act in the interest of Canadians, the NDP would impose a $21 billion carbon tax that would raise the price of everything, including natural gas. That means more expensive electricity bills, higher home heating costs and less money for British Columbians. We will not support this job-killing carbon tax.