Bill C-48 (Historical)

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation

Part 1 of this enactment implements, in accordance with proposals announced in the March 4, 2010 Budget and released for comment on August 27, 2010, amendments to the provisions of the Income Tax Act governing the taxation of non-resident trusts and their beneficiaries and of Canadian taxpayers who hold interests in offshore investment fund property.
Parts 2 and 3 implement various technical amendments in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations relating to the taxation of Canadian multinational corporations with foreign affiliates. The amendments in Part 2 are based on draft proposals released on December 18, 2009. Among other things, Part 2 includes the amendments to the foreign affiliate surplus rules in the Income Tax Regulations that are consequential to the foreign affiliate changes to the Income Tax Act announced in the March 19, 2007 Budget. The amendments in Part 3 are based on draft proposals released on August 19, 2011. Among other things, Part 3 includes revisions to the measures proposed in a package of draft legislation released on February 27, 2004 dealing primarily with reorganizations of, and distributions from, foreign affiliates.
Part 4 deals with provisions of the Income Tax Act that are not amended in Parts 1, 2, 3 or 5 in which the following private law concepts are used: right and interest, real and personal property, life estate and remainder interest, tangible and intangible property and joint and several liability. It enacts amendments, released for comments on July 16, 2010, to ensure that those provisions are bijural, in other words, that they reflect both the common law and the civil law in both linguistic versions. Similar amendments are made in Parts 1, 2, 3 and 5 to ensure that any provision of the Act enacted or amended by those Parts are also bijural.
Part 5 implements a number of income tax measures proposed in the March 4, 2010 Budget and released for comment on May 7, 2010 and August 27, 2010. Most notably, it enacts amendments
(a) relating to specified leasing property;
(b) to provide that conversions of specified investment flow-through (SIFT) trusts and partnerships into corporations are subject to the same loss utilization restrictions as are transactions between corporations;
(c) to prevent foreign tax credit generators; and
(d) implementing a regime for information reporting of tax avoidance transactions.
Part 5 also implements certain income tax measures that were previously announced. Most notably, it enacts amendments announced
(a) on January 27, 2009, relating to the Apprenticeship Completion Grant;
(b) on May 3, 2010, to clarify that computers continue to be eligible for the Atlantic investment tax credit;
(c) on July 16, 2010, relating to technical changes to the Income Tax Act which include amendments relating to the income tax treatment of restrictive covenants;
(d) on August 27, 2010, relating to the introduction of the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act;
(e) on November 5, 2010 and October 31, 2011, relating to technical changes to the Income Tax Act;
(f) on December 16, 2010, relating to changes to the income tax rules concerning real estate investment trusts; and
(g) on March 16, 2011, relating to the deductibility of contingent amounts, withholding tax applicable to certain interest payments made to non-residents, and certain life insurance corporation reserves.
Finally, Part 5 implements certain further technical income tax measures. Most notably, it enacts amendments relating to
(a) labour-sponsored venture capital corporations;
(b) the allocation of income of airline corporations; and
(c) the tax treatment of shares owned by short-term residents.
Part 6 amends the Excise Tax Act to implement technical and housekeeping amendments that include relieving the goods and services tax and the harmonized sales tax on the administrative service of collecting and distributing the levy on blank media imposed under the Copyright Act announced on October 31, 2011.
Part 7 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to clarify, for greater certainty, the authority of the Minister of Finance and of the Minister of National Revenue to amend administration agreements if the change in question is explicitly contemplated by the language of the agreement and to confirm any amendments that may have been made to those agreements. Part 7 also amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act to enable the First Nations goods and services tax, imposed under a tax administration agreement between the federal government and an Aboriginal government, to be administered through a provincial administration system, if the province also administers the federal goods and services tax.
Part 8 contains coordinating amendments in respect of those provisions of the Income Tax Act that are amended by this Act and also by the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 or that need coordination with the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act.

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue in the same vein as the hon. member opposite.

In committee, the Liberals moved amendments to try to delay the application of the rules to close the loopholes.

My Liberal colleague said that the Liberal governments of the past were not perfect—clearly not. However, it is strange to listen to them talk out of both sides of their mouths. Today, they are saying that they want to close the loopholes, but they are not doing so. What is more, when they were in power, they did nothing to stop tax evasion or simplify taxes.

The Liberals often say that taxes need to be simplified and that nothing has been done since the Carter commission. Why did they not do anything about tax simplification and tax evasion when they were in power?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we passed a tax housecleaning bill in 2001, and we drafted a second bill in 2005.

We tried, but then the Conservatives took power. The Conservatives have now been in office for seven or eight years, and it took them that long to introduce a bill in the House. That is far too long.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since we are all wondering about it, I would like to ask my colleague how it is that he is proposing an annual review.

Could he explain why? Could he explain the background on this? How is it that this was not done between 2001 and 2007-08? Are there really problems? Is it realistic for him to request annual reviews? Can he explain why this was not done under the Liberal government?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the idea of annual bills even existed before 2009, and we were not in power at that time. Accountants had the idea.

As far as I know, no one made that suggestion when we were in office. It is a much more recent thing. Given the problems that this 12-year delay is causing for us today, this would be a feasible and practical reform, even though no one did things this way in the past. This is a relatively new idea that we can examine in the future.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour the point about what the Liberals did when they were in power. That was a while ago, and it will be a lot longer before they have the opportunity to not do things. I think we will all be better off for that.

I want to ask the member, who spoke quite eloquently about what the Conservatives have not done, a question. I do not disagree with the member and will make some of the same points myself later on this morning when I have the opportunity to speak to this bill.

In response to an earlier question, I noted that he said that the Conservatives had not moved on the need for annual updates and annual legislation to update the tax regime since 2001. In fact, we have had Auditor General reports. We have had submissions from tax experts, certified general accountants, before the finance committee for many years. They have advocated just that thing.

I wonder if the member could perhaps explain why it is that his government failed when it had the opportunity. I know that it will be the last opportunity for many years. Perhaps the member could try to give us a better explanation of why the Liberals were not able to move forward. That will help us in weighing the veracity of their complaints against this government.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the hon. member's first statement that it has been some years since the Liberals were in government. I think his second statement that it will be many years before that happens again reflects a certain arrogance in the assumption made by some members of the NDP that they have God's will to become the next government. On that point, I disagree.

It is my understanding, and I might be wrong, that this proposal for annual housecleaning bills began after we ceased to be the government, which was from 2006 onwards. I know that the quotes I read were from 2009, 2010 and 2012. It is possible that such recommendations were made before 2006. I do not deny it, if that is true. I am simply not aware that this was the case.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.

I am rising in this House today to speak to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation. This bill affects many pieces of legislation.

We in the NDP believe that this bill will have a positive impact on revenues and will generally discourage tax avoidance. Frankly, a technical tax bill was overdue. I am pleased to see that Parts 2 and 3 of Bill C-48 deal with the taxation of Canadian multinational corporations with foreign affiliates. These changes reflect the proposals made in the budgets of 2007, December 2009, February 2010, August 2010 and August 2011, and I am pleased to see that they seek to ensure the integrity of the tax system and discourage tax avoidance.

The NDP is in favour of cracking down on tax evasion and tax avoidance. That is why my colleagues at the Standing Committee on Finance have been pushing the committee to complete its study on this.

As an aside, I want to thank our official opposition finance critics: the senior critic, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park, and the deputy critic, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. Over the past few months, they have done tremendous work on finance bills, including the omnibus budget bills and the current omnibus tax bill. I thank them. Their work is much appreciated, and it helps us to better understand the bills that are being introduced.

I am also pleased to see that this bill makes changes in order to reduce tax evasion. What is more, it seems that the committee will continue its study on the matter this year.

It is quite something to think that it has been 11 years since a bill like this has been passed. Tax practitioners have said time and again that Canada is very far behind because this government has taken too long to legislate these technical changes.

In a report released in 2009, Auditor General Sheila Fraser noted that:

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.

We could also see that the Department of Finance Canada had at least 400 technical amendments that, unfortunately, had not been enacted. I believe it is crucial that this type of delay does not happen again.

I also agree with the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, which, during prebudget consultations, proposed to the Standing Committee on Finance that Canada's tax system be modernized to make it simpler, more transparent and more efficient. The association also proposed that a technical tax bill be introduced and passed to deal with unlegislated tax proposals. Finally it suggested that a sunset provision be implemented to prevent further legislative backlogs.

It is also true that the complexity of tax legislation makes this task extremely difficult. Our seniors, our youth and those who do not consider French or English as their first language would obviously prefer a simpler system that is easier to understand. Being a responsible, honest Canadian should not be so complicated.

This huge bill makes things even more complex. We know that this government is a great believer in omnibus bills, as it has demonstrated over the past year with Bills C-38 and C-45. Luckily, this time, I can see that the bill proposes technical amendments to a small number of closely related laws and not laws in other areas. The other two bills, on the other hand, amended laws related to environmental protection, government accountability, immigration, employment insurance and so on.

I still find it ironic that this government is introducing a bill that is so long when it did not hesitate to denounce such a practice before.

During the debate on Bill C-22, Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, in the 37th Parliament in 2001, my colleague from Calgary Southeast, who is now the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, had this to say:

Let me say at the outset that the bill before us is a classic example of what has gone wrong with parliamentary oversight of legislation, particularly with respect to taxation. The bill before us has some 513 pages of technical amendments. I can say with a fair degree certainty that not a single member of this place, let alone the parliamentary secretary who just spoke or the minister he represents, has read or will read. It is a bill that exercises enormous power over the lives of Canadians through the Income Tax Act which in itself has coercive powers delegated to it by this parliament. The some 500 pages of amendments in the bill are amendments to a tax act which runs over 1,300 pages long.

I think the same observations apply to Bill C-48, especially since it is twice as long as Bill C-22.

I believe that Canadians deserve to be represented by parliamentarians who make sensible decisions when it comes to taxes and spending. Canadians want accountability, and rightly so.

When we see things like the Parliamentary Budget Officer having to take the government to court to get information about how tax dollars are being spent and what cuts are being made to the services Canadians need, I think the public is entitled to ask some questions and to admit that they have lost confidence in this government.

Out of respect for Canadians, a government should be accountable and transparent. Frankly, that should be the very least they can expect.

Since I was first elected, not a day goes by without someone from my riding of Alfred-Pellan contacting me to share their concerns about this government. They are worried about how transparent it is, and if you ask me, they are right to be worried.

In closing, I am thrilled that this bill has been introduced, even though it took a while, because it implements over a decade's worth of highly technical changes to Canada's tax system.

Before I finish, I want to reiterate that the people of Alfred-Pellan contact me often about the omnibus bills. I recently received letters from some of them that I would like to share in the House so that everyone can understand that the public does follow what is going on in Parliament and that it is important to listen to them.

I will quote some of my constituents from Alfred-Pellan. First, Mr. Nadeau said that the Conservative Party is running the country with its own members in mind, and Mr. Nadeau is against the massive bills introduced by the Conservatives. According to him, they are using these bills to try to push through all of their ideas en masse, and it is very sad to see these bills being introduced.

Mr. Prejent said that it is impossible, or at least very difficult, to meaningfully challenge a particular issue. It is becoming clear that this approach allows the government to pull a fast one on the opposition, and by extension the Canadian public.

To Mr. Prejent, I would say that the Canadian public is not affected by extension. This affects the Canadian public directly and the opposition by extension. We see these kinds of things every day.

One of my other constituents, Mr. Jetté, is not happy about these omnibus bills. He said that the Conservatives should talk with the opposition before bringing in such bills, and that it is arrogant and a bit too self-serving not to. He apologized for saying such things, but it is what it is.

I also heard from Mr. Bergeron, who said it was unbelievable that in 2012, the government forgets and fails to listen to the Canadian people.

People are not happy that such bills are being introduced, and I understand. I know how important these amendments can be, especially when things have dragged on and on with this government and also with the Liberals in the past. So it is important to deal with these issues, but we must be cautious. We must also ensure that these laws are useful to the public, because it is extremely complicated to make so many changes in one fell swoop. We must be cautious about the complexity of the law, especially when it comes to taxes.

I think that everyone, in all ridings, just wants to be able to properly fill out their tax returns. We need to give them the right tools. We must make their lives easier and make things as simple as possible.

As parliamentarians, we have a duty to ensure that Canadians trust their government and trust that it is transparent when it manages taxpayer money. Unfortunately that is not always the case with the current government. But I am happy to be part of a team that, in 2015, will show that it is possible to have a government that works fairly, efficiently and transparently.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech and also on the baby she is expecting.

My colleague has raised some very good points about the fact that the current government is introducing omnibus bills.

In this case, these are important technical amendments relating to taxation.

Nevertheless, we are wondering why this has taken so long and why the government waited so long before introducing a technical bill. This kind of bill should actually be drafted on a regular basis. Furthermore, the fact that they waited so long has an impact on the government’s transparency and the public’s understanding of the bill.

Does my colleague believe that this government is transparent with regard to its bills?

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie for his very accurate comments about the transparency of the Conservative government.

There is more to the story. The government often talks about how very responsible it is with regard to the economy and prosperity. So I find it sad that the Conservatives have taken so long to bring in tax measures, all the while claiming to be champions of the economy. However, I am pleased it is being done.

Regarding transparency, we could go over it again. This is precisely what angers my constituents in Alfred-Pellan. I assume that my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie has also noticed that his constituents feel the same way.

People are angry about the lack of transparency. They get in touch with us every day to tell us about the government’s lack of transparency, primarily with regard to the omnibus bills that it brings in for the various budgets.

Unfortunately, there is a double standard here. It is a good thing that these measures are being introduced, but I still have many questions about the fact that the bill is omnibus in nature.

It is sad to see that the Conservatives have to pass this kind of bill in order to get their message across.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the NDP for finally taking this opportunity to think about Canadian taxpayers' pocketbooks.

Obviously we disagree on what we should be doing for Canadians. Our government lowered the GST, from 7% to 6% to 5%. The NDP voted against that. We have lowered taxes for Canadian families by $3,000 since we have been in government. We have actually cut taxes over 140 times. However, the NDP voted each and every time against that.

Now it has new-found thoughts for Canadian's pocketbooks. If we look at its platform, the NDP has promised $65 billion in unfunded tax promises. These are promises for things it would do if it ever had the opportunity to form government. We know it has a $21 billion carbon tax, which is huge, but there is still a huge shortfall in income to pay for $65 billion in unfunded promises. Therefore, I was wondering, where is the NDP going to be making up the difference? Is it going to raise the GST too? Canadians would like to know where the NDP is going to come up with that difference, over $40 billion in unfunded promises.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary.

As he knows, a budget involves choices. According to the latest study from the Department of Finance on the budgets presented by the different parties, the most balanced and the most reasonable budgets come from the NDP. Next come the ones presented by the Conservatives, and trailing far behind are the budgets by the Liberals, unfortunately.

Budgets involve choices. We can talk, for instance, about their attacks on employment insurance, the hidden taxes they pass on to consumers and the fees imposed on small businesses. We could talk for quite a while about that.

However, I find it interesting that we agree on the principle in the House today. It is nice to work together on a bill.

I hope this co-operation will continue during the committee’s consideration of the bill and that the Conservatives will listen to the official opposition, which does not just whine for the sake of whining. Constituents do not agree with the decisions being made by this government, and we represent them. The government must listen to Canadians.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to show support for my colleague following that last question from the government, I would like to say that we on this side will always oppose omnibus bills that directly attack the economies of our regions or certain segments of the population, even though an omnibus bill may contain some decent measures. There are always negative measures and, unfortunately, they overshadow the rest.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation.

Generally speaking, bills should not be this lengthy. But since it should have been introduced years ago, we can understand why it is so large. It contains amendments that should have been made long ago and that must be made now.

I would like to congratulate the minister on finally introducing this bill, given that the last time Parliament passed a technical tax bill was in 2001. I believe we can say that this is long overdue.

In her 2009 fall report, the Auditor General at the time, Sheila Fraser, said this:

No income tax technical bill has been passed since 2001. Although the government has said that an annual technical bill of routine housekeeping amendments to the Act is desirable, this has not happened. As a result, the Department of Finance Canada has a backlog of at least 400 technical amendments that have not been enacted, including 250 “comfort letters” dating back to 1998, recommending changes that have not been legislated.

How is it that the last technical tax bill was passed in 2001, when the government acknowledged the need to introduce such a bill every year? Perhaps those were simply meaningless words from the minister. It happens all the time with bills. This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened with a bill.

A few months after he came to the position, the Minister of Finance introduced the first version of a bill to make technical reforms to the tax system. I say “introduced” rather than “enacted” for a reason.

It was not possible to enact that bill, and not because it had not gone through all the necessary steps in the House; rather, it was because the government decided to throw everything out and prorogue the first session of the 39th Parliament, in 2007. The bill was reintroduced, but it must be noted that two elections and three prorogations later, no legislation has yet been enacted.

It is all very well to recognize that a bill like Bill C-48 needs to be introduced every year, but let us not forget to pass it. Let us hope that in the case of this bill, the Conservatives are not preparing us for another prorogation.

Bill C-48 implements about 200 technical amendments to the tax system, spread over more than a decade. It is therefore essential that we pass it, because ultimately, these changes to the system will have a positive impact on revenues and will deter tax avoidance.

We in the New Democrats have long spoken out against tax avoidance, unlike former governments. We believe that we must fight tax avoidance and tax evasion, while preserving the integrity of our tax system. For that reason, I will be supporting the changes made by this bill. It does not solve everything and we will have to do more to deal with tax evasion, but this kind of bill needs to be passed.

I would now like to talk about how thick Bill C-48 is. In the last year and a half, we have learned how fond the Conservatives are of giving us a lot to read. But they do not give us figures, testimony, scientific studies or exhaustive data to read—just a lot of different laws in a single omnibus bill.

It is not reasonable for one bill to lead to so many changes to so many laws. For once, at least, the laws are closely connected. I will therefore not accuse the minister of putting everything but the kitchen sink into one bill, this time.

I simply want him to understand that if he had done his job properly and each year we had passed a bill like this one, we would not be having to consider a brick like this. The work of Parliament would then be much more effective, and more importantly, much more transparent, not to mention the fact that we would have a good administrator for a government. This government is unfortunately proving that the opposite is true.

The massive size of the bill proves that there is still much work to be done in order to transpose these kinds of technical changes into legislation. If the job is not done, it will penalize the business community and complicate the process of the evaluation that Parliament must do.

However, I would like to reassure the minister: he is not the only one to blame. He did introduce a similar bill in the past, but we might say that his boss did not think it important enough to be passed. He preferred to keep opening Parliament and shutting it down.

It is difficult for a bill of this magnitude to get through the whole legislative process. We must not forget that the Liberals are also partly responsible. They were in power for the first five years after the last such bill was passed in 2001. What is more, some Department of Finance comfort letters date back to 1998. I am not an accounting expert, but according to my calculations, fifteen years have passed since 1998. The government should have been doing this work regularly every year for a long time now.

There were also warnings when the Liberal government was in power. For example, Marlene Legare, former senior chief of the sales tax division of the Department of Finance, said the following when she appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce on September 20, 2000:

Until now, the choice has probably been more in favour of combining measures so as to put forward fewer bills. I think the lesson that we learned from this experience is that it may be preferable to change the balance somewhat. That may mean putting forward smaller bills which would contain measures that would be enacted on a more timely basis.

Yet, here we are 12 years after the most recent technical bill. The idea of a greater number of “smaller bills” does not apply here. At this very moment, as we debate this bill, there are still 200 more changes announced in comfort letters, which are agreements approved by Parliament. As everyone knows, in Canada, Parliament passes laws. That is the case even though we sometimes get the impression that some people would prefer that it be done another way.

Bill C-48 contains a number of positive changes. I would like to mention three changes that have not yet been pointed out by the government. First, some income tax restrictions have been removed to help labour-sponsored venture capital corporations address transition issues resulting from the elimination of the support program for such corporations.

Second, the formula for allocating the taxable income of air transportation companies has been changed to ensure that the income generated by taxing these companies is allocated to the provinces and territories where the company is permanently located.

Finally, there is the implementation of a measure concerning the tax treatment of shares held by short-term residents, for the purposes of the air transportation tax, according to the comfort letters dated 2003 and 2007. The bill is not a step in the wrong direction. I simply want the minister to understand that in the future, it should not take so long to get this through.

To conclude my speech, I would like to quote Denis St.-Pierre, chair of the tax and fiscal policy advisory group of the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada:

First, the government must introduce a technical tax amendments bill. The last time a technical tax bill was passed by Parliament was over 11 years ago. Literally hundreds of unlegislated tax amendments to the Income Tax Act—which I showed this committee last year by bringing the Income Tax Act, if you recall—have been proposed, but not yet enacted, which brings uncertainty and unpredictability to the process. Second, we strongly feel that implementing a sunset provision would ensure that tax amendments are legislated...

He went on to say that it was necessary and healthy for our economy to introduce amendments annually or on a regular basis.

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

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives took a long time writing these technical amendments into law. In a report tabled in 2009, the Auditor General at the time remarked that the Department of Finance had accumulated at least 400 technical amendments that were outstanding.

Can my colleague tell us about the actual scope of such a bill?

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the actual scope of such a bill is important because legislation must be amended. The bill we have before us now is Bill C-48.

However, there is a problem because while this bill is being debated, other amendments that need to be passed pile up. This bill already contains a huge number of amendments. So, the process needs to be undertaken regularly. It is good for our economy and will combat tax avoidance. It is necessary and, in the future, it must be done every year.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening carefully to my NDP colleague and I would like to know, in clear terms, how the NDP will vote on this bill. Moreover, I would like to know whether we can count on the NDP regarding the measures we have put forward to reduce Canadians' taxes.

Obviously, in the past, the NDP said that it wanted to increase the GST. Twice, the New Democrats voted against the cuts proposed by this government. However, today, things are clearer and the NDP members are perhaps ready to say that they will support tax cuts for Canadians.