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

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be back here in this wonderful House of Commons, where I am pleased to kick-off debate on this important piece of legislation, both for taxpayers and tax professionals, because it represents a major advancement in the simplification of Canada's tax system.

While admittedly it is technical, I should remind members of the many Canadians who helped craft its development over the years through numerous open and public consultations. In fact, the technical tax amendments act represents over a decade of miscellaneous tax announcements that have already been made public but have yet to be formally enacted, causing a significant backlog in our tax system. This backlog can be traced back to the fact that Parliament has not passed technical tax legislation in over a decade, something the Auditor General identified as a matter of legitimate concern.

I will read directly from the Auditor General's fall 2009 report, to provide members with further background on this issue. It states:

The last technical bill on income tax law received royal assent in 2001. Each year, more deficiencies are identified, contributing to an ever-growing backlog of needed technical amendments.

—The Department of Finance Canada alone cannot correct this situation, but it can do more to bring the urgency of the problem to the attention of the government and Parliament....

The Auditor General also articulated some powerful reasons to explain why clearing this backlog should be a priority for Parliament. Again, the report states:

Canada’s tax system relies on taxpayers to self-assess and pay the income taxes they owe.... [M]ost taxpayers will meet their tax obligations if given the proper tools and information.

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.

I strongly encourage all parliamentarians and Canadians watching at home who want to learn more about this issue to read the very comprehensive work of the Auditor General, available online at www.oag-bvg.gc.ca. Specifically, I suggest they look at chapter 3 of the fall 2009 report, which shows that the government agreed wholeheartedly with its findings and recommendations. Indeed, we indicated in a formal response included in the report that we recognized these concerns and would once again introduce technical tax legislation in Parliament.

To facilitate passage of the bill, we have consulted extensively with Canadians over the past few years in order to get as much feedback as possible before introducing it and so that we could proactively address any concerns that were raised.

We are now at the most important stage of the legislative process: the careful review of the bill in Parliament.

For many years now, as Parliament has tried to pass tax bills under other governments, Parliament has never managed to complete its examinations.

I think all members will agree that it is time to address this backlog of over 10 years, and that taxpayers should not have to live with the uncertainty of additional backlogs.

Even the all-party Standing Committee on Public Accounts agreed. In its 2010 study of the Auditor General's report, the committee issued the following statement:

The Public Accounts Committee believes that the integrity of Canada’s income tax system depends upon taxpayers and tax auditors having a clear understanding of the requirements of the Income Tax Act and its associated regulations. A lack of clarity can lead to increased costs for taxpayers who may need to seek out professional advice. As a result, it is of particular concern to the Committee that no income tax technical amendment bill has been passed since 2001.

I would also note that the all-party finance committee, of which I am honoured to be a member, has heard from diverse witnesses about the importance of addressing the technical tax backlog. These groups include the Real Property Association of Canada, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Tax Executives Institute, the Canadian Tax Foundation, and many more. However, perhaps the most vocal of these groups has been the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, sometimes known as CGA Canada.

While I know that all members would likely support the general principles of tax simplification, as well as ending uncertainty for taxpayers, we must nevertheless conduct a thorough study of this legislation, especially at the finance committee. In fact I have already consulted with my committee colleagues about holding multiple meetings on this legislation, and I am pleased to report that members are in broad agreement.

As some of the amendments included in today's act date as far back as the late 1990s, pre-dating both our government and the majority of sitting MPs, I think we can all appreciate the need to examine them closely in a non-partisan manner.

I will briefly go over the content of this legislation for those who are not familiar with this substantial bill.

As I already mentioned, this bill is about further simplifying Canada's tax system by making various changes to the Income Tax Act and other related legislation.

The CGA represents over 75,000 tax professionals and has appeared before various committees over the years to stress the need for Parliament to act to clear this backlog. As such, I would like to read at length part of the statement made by CGA Canada following the release of this legislation in November:

By tabling this legislation, the government is taking concrete action to deal with the backlog of unlegislated tax proposals....The new bill will provide more certainty to Canadian taxpayers and lessen the burden of compliance.

Some of the measures contained in today’s bill were initially proposed as early as 1999.... What’s more, since 1999 these draft rules have been re-released a number of times and revised by the government, making taxpayers uncertain.... 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.

I will now walk through this legislation, piece by piece, to highlight key measures and their intended purpose. Although the legislation is highly technical, I will be brief in my remarks.

Let us start with part 1 of the bill. Our government is proposing enhancements to the Income Tax Act to better target and simplify the rules relating to non-resident trusts, taking into account comments received during extensive public consultations.

Parts 2 and 3 relate to the taxation of Canadian multinational corporations with foreign affiliates. Again, our government consulted extensively with stakeholders and the public on these proposals, some of which date all the way back to 2004. The result will be a simplified, fair and equitable tax system that will be easier to comply with and more straightforward to administer.

Part 4 of the bill will help ensure that its amendments will function under both common and civil laws. More specifically, these amendments will ensure that provisions that rely on certain private law concepts are bijural, such as right and interest; real and personal property; life estate and remainder interest; tangible and intangible property; and joint and several liability. In other words, the bill will ensure that they reflect both the common law and the civil law in both linguistic versions.

Part 5 of the bill will close certain tax loopholes and ensure greater fairness for taxpayers, measures on which we consulted extensively. These measures include closing tax loopholes related to a specified leasing property; ensuring that conversion of specified investment flow-through trusts and partnerships into corporations are subject to the same rules as transactions between corporations; preventing schemes designed to shelter tax by artificially increasing foreign tax credits; and finally, implementing a regime for reporting tax avoidance.

Taken all together, these measures will help crack down on the problem of tax avoidance and ensure that everyone pays his or her fair share.

Tax fairness is a basic principle that we have worked hard to respect ever since we took office. We are proud of our commitment to strengthening the integrity and fairness of the tax system and of our continued efforts to eliminate tax loopholes.

In fact, since 2006, we have introduced over 50 measures to eliminate these loopholes in order to guarantee that taxes are collected in a manner that is fair and consistent with their intended policy objectives.

Our efforts have therefore allowed us to collect nearly $2 billion on behalf of taxpayers. Canadians can be assured that in the future, our government will continue to take the necessary measures to ensure the integrity of the tax system, because eliminating tax loopholes helps to keep taxes low for everyone.

Before moving to part 6, I should also note that part 5 includes a number of technical changes designed to ensure that the income tax system functions in the way it was intended. Many of these changes are relieving measures and will address issues previously identified by taxpayers.

Part 5 also implements an amendment relating to the enactment of the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act. It extends the personal income tax credit in respect of employment insurance premiums to apply to premiums paid by self-employed individuals.

Part 6 of the bill implements technical improvements to the GST and HST, including relieving GST or HST on the administrative service of collecting and distributing the levy on blank media imposed by the Copyright Act.

Part 7, the final portion of the bill, makes administrative changes to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.

As all of these parts will be examined in greater detail by the finance committee, I will simply say that the underlying intent of each of these measures is to simplify the tax system and thereby ensure fairness and equity for all Canadian taxpayers.

In closing, I will quote from an op-ed originally published in The Globe and Mail by Tim Wach, a respected tax professional with the firm Gowling Lafleur Henderson, which speaks again to the importance of passing today's legislation. It states:

—there are only two certainties in life: death and taxes. While one cannot take issue with the first part of that statement, the second is increasingly coming into question. The fact that we have to pay tax is no less certain, but certainty in the detail of Canada’s tax laws arguably has been decreasing. This results from the increasing “legislative backlog”–the gap between the announcement of changes to the tax system and the legislative enactment of those changes.

This gap is making it increasingly difficult for Canadians to plan their affairs with confidence and certainty and to comply with their tax obligations. When taxpayers are uncertain about their obligations, their trust and faith in the system diminishes.

It continues:

—parliamentarians can bring a higher degree of certainty to our tax laws by moving forward swiftly, in a non-partisan, non-politicized manner, to enact outstanding changes. Let’s hope they do just that.

In closing, I encourage all members to listen to the advice of the Governor General and the appeals of the tax experts represented by CGA-Canada, as well as taxpayers, who have told us repeatedly that they want to know where they stand with the tax system.

Let us take this historic opportunity to move forward in a non-partisan manner to give this legislation the careful consideration and passage it deserves.

I look forward to any questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her comments and look forward to continuing to work with her on the finance committee.

She is quite right that there is a huge backlog of tax changes that have been announced but not implemented in law. In fact, there is well over a decade's worth of changes, which creates uncertainty and unpredictability around our tax legislation. Therefore, we acknowledge that it is important to get these changes coded into law.

However, my question to the hon. member is this. Given that there are still hundreds of outstanding changes that have been made or addressed in comfort letters or other ways, will the government wait another decade or more before bringing in additional technical changes, or will it agree with the recommendations that have been made to bring in technical changes on an annual basis to create greater certainty, predictability and transparency in our tax system?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to welcome my colleague, the finance critic for the NDP, back to this wonderful House. It leads me to believe that the NDP members are excited about the bill and that they want to see it move forward quickly because they have asked a question about how we will progress in the future.

This government has indicated clearly that we intend to bring forward legislation in a timely fashion so we do not have this backlog repeat itself. It is this government that put forward an attempt to solve this backlog in 2008, and we continue to move forward in that way. I might add that part 8 has been added to the technical tax bill, which deals with some very recent tax changes.

Once again, I want to reassure all colleagues in the House that this government is set to continue to pursue tax legislation in a timely and considerate manner.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the tone of the member's speech. When most Canadians think of tax reform, they want to see tax reform that is fair and that will make a difference. However, they also want it to be consumer-friendly. There is a sense that our tax laws are very complicated and more and more people have to use accounting services, whether it is the H&Rs or private accountants, but there is a certain percentage of the population like the 130 or 140 people I met with yesterday. On their annual T4s, I would suggest they probably make less than $40,000 a year. They want consumer-friendly tax legislation to enable them to file and get a tax rebate or if they have to pay some money that it can be done in a relatively simple fashion.

To what degree does the member believe this legislation will serve the desire of many who want to see a simpler taxation system?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague from the Liberal Party back to the House. I find it a bit odd to be standing here answering the question. Although I have tremendous respect for my colleague from Winnipeg where I reside, it was the Liberal Party and the official opposition that put forward a number of amendments to the Budget Implementation Act, which passed before the Christmas break, to go against any desire to close tax loopholes.

I am glad he and the Liberal Party have come on board to try to ensure that tax loopholes are closed, because that is what consumers want to see. They want to see tax fairness. I can assure the member that consumers and tax professionals will be well served by getting through this backlog. If they look at the Income Tax Act and all the grey pages in the book that governs how to deal with income tax issues that many tax professionals use, it is so complex that this technical tax bill would eliminate many of those grey pages and make it simpler.

I thank my colleague for coming to the table and I hope he will be supporting this in a timely fashion.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about the grey part in the Income Tax Act. It is important to reflect on that further. In budget pre-committee, we had many experts who showed us the grey sections. Those grey sections related to pieces of the budget that had not actually been turned into legislation.

Could my colleague talk further about the importance of turning that grey section of the Income Tax Act into legislation and how visual that was in terms of assuring us that we needed to move forward?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary sits in committee, at times for hours and hours, trying to ensure she serves the people in her riding and all Canadians in an effective way. This is just another example of how the parliamentary secretary has been very involved in trying to ensure this technical tax bill moves forward. Her expertise on this issue has been very much appreciated, so I want to thank her publicly for all she has done in this endeavour.

With regard to her description of the grey pages in the book that was presented in committee, let me just describe for Canadians at home how that looked to all of us on the finance committee as the CGA representatives explained the complexity of those grey pages. They produced a book, the Income Tax Act, which is about the size of a bible. My family bible is fairly large. They were very disturbed that almost every second page in it contained what was a grey page or a grey section. The grey pages or sections are those parts that have been announced as measures to be changed but have not been enacted. This caused a complexity because the tax professionals had to keep track. Every budget, for over a decade, that announced a measure that would change went in as a grey section and they had to keep track of them year after year to ensure they followed comfort letters or followed the intent, even though legislation clarifying and detailing the measures was not enacted.

One can imagine a book the size of a bible with almost every second page having a grey paragraph or a grey page. It is time to fix this. I am glad to have the support of members opposite to ensure it is done quickly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's speech, and I would like to welcome my colleague back to the House.

One thing she mentioned in her speech seems particularly important to me. She talked about simplifying the tax system. As everyone knows, the Income Tax Act was adopted in 1917. At the time, it was only about 10 pages long. Now the act is 3,000 pages long. The bill before us covers technicalities and seeks to do away with tax loopholes and ensure greater fairness. This bill would make the Income Tax Act almost 4,000 pages long, which is a major problem. To my knowledge, no other Canadian law is as long as this one.

Canadian accountants, businesses and even individuals have written to tell us that the current system is really too complex for them to understand all of the finer points of the legislation. On their behalf, I would like to ask my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, two questions.

First, even if this bill closes tax loopholes, how can she justify calling it a simplification when it will make the Income Tax Act nearly 33% longer?

Second, does the government intend to truly simplify the Income Tax Act someday?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and welcome him back to the House of Commons too.

As I said before, our government is committed to simplifying this law. We have listened to what Canadians and the experts have to say about this. They want clarification. They were the ones who asked us to introduce a bill that would put an end to confusion about things that were announced in budgets over the past 10 years but that were never implemented at the legislative level.

Once again, I would like to reassure my colleague that our government is making an effort to work with experts and Canadians to create a simplified tax system that will protect them, a system that is fair and efficient.

I hope that my colleague will support our efforts. We will see when it comes time to vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to welcome all my colleagues back to the House. I trust they had an enjoyable break over the holiday period, and that they are all energized and looking forward to getting back to what I am sure will be a very busy winter and spring session.

Today I am pleased to rise on Bill C-48. The bill implements over a decade of highly technical changes to Canada's tax code.

The way I feel about it is that one of the most if not the most important work for us, as elected members of Parliament, is to make decisions about taxation and spending. It is about respecting how hard Canadians work to earn the money they get. We make decisions about taxing that money so we can provide for public services, public infrastructure and democratic machinery.

Most Canadians accept the principle of paying taxes as something that keeps a healthy society. However, they want us to have a very careful eye on their tax dollars and on how that money is spent. I think most Canadians want, and I fear they do not feel they get enough of, is transparency and integrity in our system of tax collection and spending and in our government. They want accountability. They want respect for every dollar they send here.

When we have a situation, for example, like the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who has to take the government to court to get information about how tax dollars are being spent or what cuts to services, which Canadians depend on, are being made, that decreases confidence in our system, in the accountability and transparency of government.

So too does the complicated nature of our tax legislation. Individuals who may not have English or French as their first language, or seniors or young people really struggle with the complicated nature of our tax legislation and certainly yearn for greater simplicity.

That brings me to this bill. Many of these changes seem like they make a lot of good sense. There are provisions in Bill C-48 to ensure that all of an airline corporation's taxable income will be attributed to the provinces and territories in which the corporation has a permanent establishment. There are provisions to discourage tax avoidance in the taxation of foreign affiliates of Canadian multinational corporations. There are anti-avoidance measures for specific leasing of property, limits on the use of foreign tax credit generators for international tax avoidance, as well as housekeeping changes to the Excise Tax Act such as repealing a provision that has not been in use since 1999.

We believe these changes in total will be revenue positive and that they generally move to discourage tax avoidance and therefore ensure the integrity of our existing tax law. Furthermore, the vast majority of these measures have already been in practice for several years, since it is standard practice for tax measures to take effect upon their proposal. Once they have been announced, people accept them as adopted. For these reasons the official opposition New Democrats will be supporting the bill.

Bill C-48 implements over a decade of highly technical changes to Canada's tax system.

In the end, we believe that these changes will be revenue positive. They generally move to discourage tax avoidance and ensure the integrity of the tax system.

The vast majority of these measures have been in place for several years, since it is standard practice for tax measures to take effect upon their proposal. For these reasons, the official opposition will be supporting this bill.

New Democrats believe in cracking down on tax avoidance and tax evasion, while ensuring the integrity of our tax system. That is why we have pushed, since the election in 2011, to have the finance committee complete its study of tax evasion. It looks like we will finally be doing that this year. However, that is why we support the changes being made in the bill, especially those that aim to reduce tax avoidance.

I do want to raise some concerns relating to the size of the bill, which comes to us at close to 1,000 pages.

First, the massive scale of the bill indicates that the government needs to be more responsible regarding its handling of the tax code. In particular, it must ensure that tax proposals are legislated on a regular basis. In fact, the last technical tax bill was passed in 2001. In her fall 2009 update, the former Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, raised concerns about the fact that there were at least 400 outstanding technical amendments to the tax code, which had not yet been put into legislation.

No technical income tax 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.

Over 200 of these outstanding changes are addressed in Bill C-48, but that still leaves hundreds of outstanding amendments.

I spoke recently in Calgary to a group of more than 1,000 tax practitioners, general accountants, certified general accountants and tax lawyers. They agreed that the comfort letter process works, but they wanted the clarity of having these laws fully in place. It would make their jobs so much easier and create greater clarity for Canadians. The Auditor General's 2009 fall report also expressed a need for these legislative changes so that the comfort letters identified could be enacted.

During this fall's pre-budget consultations, the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada told the finance committee:

—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...have been proposed, but not yet enacted, which brings uncertainty and unpredictability to the process.

These are the experts speaking, the tax practitioners who deal with this work every day of the week. The quote continues:

—we strongly feel that implementing a sunset provision would ensure that tax amendments are legislated, which ultimately will eliminate the ever-growing backlog of unlegislated tax measures once and for all. With this provision, if a tax policy change is announced and not incorporated into legislation within a reasonable amount of time, the measure would lapse. This would bring greater clarity and certainty to tax legislation, reduce the compliance and paperwork burden, and, perhaps most importantly, prevent any future legislative backlogs.

What they are asking for is a sunset clause so that if government announces tax changes in one year, by the end of that year, it would bring those changes into law. It makes perfect sense. We should not be waiting 11 years to get clarity on tax changes the government has already made. We strongly support this recommendation from the CGA.

The Income Tax Act is a living document, perhaps more so than any other piece of legislation. Feedback from the lived experience of taxpayers and tax practitioners can help us make amendments in order to ensure the integrity of our tax system. The responsible management of the tax code means that these changes must be made on an ongoing basis. Failing to do so can lead to uncertainty for business and for tax practitioners.

One thing I have heard, while going across this country and talking to businesses from the east to the west coast and in many places in between, is that they find the government takes too much action on an ad hoc basis for political reasons and does not create enough certainty by laying out a plan and following that plan.

Anything we can do to create greater certainty for business leads to a better investment climate. It helps businesses make decisions about investing in machinery and equipment and creating more jobs, because they have greater certainty of what the future will look like. Clear tax legislation helps do that. Failing to do so leads to uncertainty. That is why we need the government to act so we do not have decisions being made on an ad hoc basis. People and business want predictability and reliability in our tax system. Without these basic building blocks of predictability and reliability, businesses cannot do effective fiscal planning.

Canadian families need the same certainty. These ad hoc, boutique tax credits, which undermine our tax base and take revenue out of our tax system, are also unpredictable for Canadian families. Their introduction on an ad hoc basis means that it is difficult for families to plan ahead for their tax obligations.

As the former Auditor General noted:

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.

Amen. That is what we have today, a bill of about 1,000 pages. Bringing more than a decade of tax changes into one bill does not create a situation of the greatest transparency. Yet we need transparency and accountability for our tax legislation, which is something that touches all Canadians and all businesses. It has become a pattern in this Parliament to create these massive omnibus budget bills with hundreds of pages of legislation and very little time to examine them. Furthermore, only a fraction of MPs, similar to the Canadian public in general, are tax specialists.

With regard to Bill C-48, tax lawyer Thomas McDonnell said that we should also remember the huge so-called technical tax bill introduced last fall. The hard copy of the amendments and explanatory notes was over 900 pages. He believes that this bill will also be passed without an informed debate in the House of Commons, and most parliamentarians who vote on the bill will admit that they did not read it or really try to understand the impact of their vote no matter which way they vote. He added that this is not the way Parliament is supposed to carry out one of its main duties, which is to generate revenue. It is sad to say, but he believes that most parliamentarians do not understand this aspect of Parliament's role or they do not have the courage to stand up and defend this role.

While we do not support the government's serial use of omnibus legislation, we recognize that it makes a big difference that Bill C-48 makes technical changes to a smaller number of closely related laws. The vast majority of these measures have already been in practice for several years and have incorporated feedback from tax practitioners. This is a stark contrast to the Conservatives' Trojan Horse budget bills, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, which made sweeping changes to everything from environmental protection and government accountability to immigration and EI, all without thorough consultation, debate or scrutiny.

That being said, the bill still poses a definite challenge for most parliamentarians, who will not have the opportunity to thoroughly study it and will not be able to study it at committee.

Transparency must be at the heart of our work as publicly elected representatives. We must do everything in our power to ensure that legislation receives full and informed debate in the House. I therefore urge my colleagues to ensure that the legislation receives thorough debate and consideration at all stages, but we also need to go further.

It is our responsibility as MPs to be continually examining how we can most effectively represent the interests of our constituents, including in the tax system. People lose confidence when they see the government's ineptitudes, such as the financing of the F-35 procurement program or individual expenses such as $16 orange juice.

However, in the tax system, when a dishonest few refuse to live up to their responsibilities not only do the rest of us pay more to make up for it, but those who do seek to live up to their responsibilities are put at a competitive disadvantage, and I am thinking of businesses here. This places enormous pressure on corporations and business owners. Too many businesses find themselves in a race to match the tax avoidance measures of their competitors. Yet public budgets provide so much of what Canadians value most. Basic government services are the foundation of our economy: infrastructure, police, education, our legal system.

In testimony to the Senate banking committee Marlene Legare, the former chief of the sales tax division in the Department of Finance's tax policy branch, explained:

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.

She is speaking of the omnibus bills. She continues:

That may mean putting forward smaller bills which would contain measures that would be enacted on a more timely basis.

That is, going forward, let us make the changes within a year after they are announced so that there is clarity for taxpayers and for tax practitioners, and so that we are fully recouping the tax dollars for changes that have been announced. It is inexcusable that it has taken so long for the sitting government to take action on these changes.

The official opposition stands firmly in support of focusing on compliance and creating clear tax structures in a timely manner to ensure the integrity of our tax system. That is why we are supporting Bill C-48. However, the massive size of the legislation demonstrates that there is still a huge amount of work to do in getting such technical changes legislated in a timely fashion. Failing to do so hurts taxpayers and tax practitioners and makes it difficult for a proper evaluation by Parliament.

The official opposition stands firmly in support of focusing on compliance in order to ensure the integrity of our tax system. That is why we are supporting Bill C-48.

However, the massive size of this legislation demonstrates that there is still a huge amount of work to do in getting such technical changes legislated in a timely fashion. Failure to do so would hurt taxpayers and tax practitioners and make it difficult for a proper evaluation by Parliament.

I therefore urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to work to ensure that the bill receives thorough examination and discussion in Parliament. We will continue to work to ensure the integrity of our tax system with a more effective process when it comes to technical tax legislation. We need to continually demonstrate our respect for the hard work of Canadians and the taxes they send to Ottawa, and to reward that with transparency and predictability. New Democrats, when we get the opportunity in 2015, will do just that.

[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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has two and a half minutes left for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to ask my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques another question.

Canada's competitiveness issues have been mentioned a lot. My colleague talked about this. We could go even further and talk about how accessible the tax system is to individuals. According to one very worrying statistic, more than half of Canadian taxpayers do not fill out their own income tax returns.

I would like the member to comment on that, given what he already said in the House during his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou for his very pertinent question.

The fact is that over half of all Canadians need help to file their tax return. That is very problematic because the Canadian law is based on the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse. It cannot be used as a defence. However, when we are dealing with the Income Tax Act, it is very difficult to really know all the ins and outs, and all the interpretations.

It is very problematic to have an act so complex that we cannot expect Canadians to know it thoroughly. Even tax experts do not know all the ins and outs of this legislation. Canadians must rely on softwares that are still relatively imperfect. Ultimately, if we want a tax adviser who can really help, it is going to cost us an arm and a leg.

Right now, there is a fundamental problem: citizens, and even businesses, are unable to comply with the act. They can easily and unwittingly violate it, because it is complex to the point of being incomprehensible.

This should prompt the House to reflect seriously on the complexity of the Canadian tax system and on how it could be made simpler.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really delightful to be back on the Hill. However, I had an amazing time while in the riding of Newton—North Delta, meeting with my constituents, going to events and listening to their concerns. It is good to be back here so I can bring their concerns into the House. I want to thank them for the amazing busyness they provided for me while I was in the riding. It certainly was delightful.

Once again, we have another omnibus bill that is close to a thousand pages and thicker than most of our communities' phone books.

This omnibus bill is a lot different than the Trojan horse budget bill in which the government buried everything that it did not want Canadians to know about, whether with respect to the degradation of environmental protection, changes to refugees or EI and a huge number of other protections. All of those were embedded in the Trojan horse budget bill, which made it very unpalatable, as was the bill we debated just before the House rose. There was also so much stuff in there that was not related. However, under the guise of the budget, the Conservatives were trying to carry out their agenda so we as parliamentarians could not debate it.

However, this bill is a little different. I know this will come as a shock, but I rise today to support the bill because the legislation has been a long time coming.

When I look at the history of when the last changes were made, the last technical tax bill was passed in 2001. When I think about that, so much has changed and yet we have not had clarity there for either investors, the business community or for Canadians who want to try to understand the tax system.

What does disturb me, though, are the changes that should have happened under the Liberal government too. Therefore, I am not just saying that this has been a delay from the side of the Conservatives. Rather, my colleagues in the Liberal caucus, while they were in government, were very remiss in not providing the kind of clarity that we all needed when dealing with taxes and people's money. They avoided doing that too, so we are pleased to see this here.

Before we go any further, let me make it perfectly clear that the New Democrats absolutely believe in cracking down on both tax avoidance and tax evasion, while ensuring the integrity of our tax system. We are pleased the government, although very late, is trying to clarify some areas and close some loopholes to avoid getting into difficulties where people can manoeuvre the system and also avoid paying legitimate taxes, which help to provide Canadians with the services they so cherish. Therefore, we support the changes being made to the bill, especially those that tackle tax avoidance.

However, in 2009 the Auditor General raised concerns with respect to the fact that there were at least 400, not 5 or 10, outstanding technical amendments that had not yet been put into legislation. That is a lot of technical issues within our income tax laws that were there but not made legal through the legislative process.

I am concerned and I hope the Conservatives will look at addressing the 200 amendments that they have not included in this legislation. We really have to take a look and pay attention to the Auditor General.

When I visit my constituents in Newton—North Delta and other Canadians, whether in Edmonton, or Saskatoon, or Montreal or any of our other great cities and communities across the country, they expect something from the government. They expect us to do the work in the House with a fair and open debate, not closure after closure to shut down debate. It is only when we debate that they get hear what is happening.

However, there is something else they expect and that is transparency. I believe this legislation would give greater clarity and more transparency that would have be legislated and people could get to know this.

I do not often feel sorry for accountants and tax consultants and all those people who do a job I could not possibly do. However, I get a headache just thinking about the hundreds of amendments they will have to deal with if they are to do their job well. We want them to do their job well and we also want our Canadian citizens and residents to know what the rules are, but a lot is being dumped on them. At the same time, at least it will give them some clarity.

What I hear from my constituents and from Canadians in our diverse communities, whether rural or urban, is that they want transparency. I think they are looking for transparency from the Conservative government.

Sometimes I am amazed. I am glad we are dealing with these amendments and previous colleagues have gone into a lot of the technical side. However, why do we have these amendments to give clarity and transparency and yet we have a government that does not believe in that when it comes to its own actions? After all, the Parliamentary Budget Officer had to threaten to go to court and had to take steps to get the government side to put on the table information that should have been available to him so we could look at it and examine it. That should cause us a great deal of concern.

It is one thing to say clarity for others, but it is time that the government and my colleagues across the aisle start to take a look at their own actions and how they run government, whether it shutting down debate in the House, moving time closures, rushing through legislation and burying legislation in omnibus budget bills that really have very little to do with the budget. More or less they are trying to cover and hide things from Canadians.

We really have to urge the government to think about how it portrays itself to the greater public.

When I was in my riding, I kept hearing people say that they were concerned about the taxes they paid, that they expected some services for those taxes. One of the things I kept hearing was that service centres were being shut down and that people who needed to go on EI kept phoning 1-800 numbers and would have to wait for hours and even then they did not get any great satisfaction, and that was even before they had filled out their forms.

There are a lot of questions about why the government is cutting so much of that front-line service, whether it is shutting down our Canada service centres where people get all kinds of assistance, or whether it is shutting down our CIC centres around the country and people are left without any services in those areas as well.

People are concerned about transparency, which is what this legislation is all about.

I also heard from community after community about the long waits for citizenship. I found out that in order for a family with two children to get Canadian citizenship, even after they have met all the requirements, they have to pay a fee of $200 per adult and $100 for each child. In order for them to get their Canadian citizenship they have to save. Many families work two or three jobs to make ends meet. They save that money and with a great deal of pride, they apply for their Canadian citizenship thinking they are going to get it within six to twelve months. I saw a room full of files. A citizenship judge told me that he would not get to them for two and a half years.

Our front-line services are being cut. Residents of Canada who qualify to vote and have other rights as citizens are being denied those rights because so many front-line workers who are absolutely critical are being cut.

Not an hour goes by that I do not get either an email in my riding office, or a phone call, or a message on Facebook or through the Twitter world asking why people have to wait so long. People who work here and pay their EI dues wonder why they have to wait. People who live here and meet all the criteria wonder why there has been no action and why they have to wait so long for their citizenship.

The other thing that came up, which again has to do with transparency and priorities, was the debacle the government made of its procurement. It is a well-known story to men, women and children across the country. It has become a joke at the kitchen table. We have been told it will be a few billion, or $17 billion, or such and such billion. Then we are told the government does not have a contract so it will start again.

People want to know about transparency. They want to know the government's priorities. The Conservatives talk about job creation and the economy. To my constituents the reality is that the gap between the rich and the poor is getting wider.

Many residents in my riding of Newton—North Delta are working two or three jobs at minimum wage or a bit higher in order to make ends meet and they have to pay more user fees for different things. They look at our priorities and transparency around the hospital in Surrey. For one of the fastest growing cities, our hospital is in dire straits. I have nothing against the staff members. They do an amazing job. I had the misfortune to go with someone into the emergency room and I realized that we needed to look at priorities. We need to address key health care issues across the country. We need to address the issue of doctors. Once again it is about where we put our resources.

I talk to taxi drivers. I talk to people who work on building sites. I go door-to-door and talk to people. I talk to thousands of people at big events. Over and over these people have told me that they have heard the government say that it will do something about credentials, but they have not seen the government take any action. Words do not cut it anymore.

My constituents are looking for clarity from the government. It is really time for the government to look at its priorities and start to address the dire needs of many of our citizens.

In my riding, the food bank does an incredible job. I am so grateful to the communities of Surrey and Delta because they donate so generously, both businesses and individuals. It breaks my heart to see the children of the very families who have received help from the food bank come in to donate because they know what it is like to be hungry and financially stretched.

These are the kinds of priorities we should be investing our resources in. We know that if we addressed the issue of poverty, it would have a huge impact on health care costs. If we invested in education, it would have a huge impact on health care costs, resulting in huge savings.

It is a very technical bill. The consultants, lawyers, accountants and business community will spend days perusing this bill because there is a lot of stuff in here, and we will tackle all of these issues at committee. As I said, we are supporting this piece of legislation, but at the same time we are questioning where the government's priorities are when it comes to the utilization of taxes paid by the Canadian public.

I want to thank my colleague who visited my riding. We canvassed the business community on Scott Road and the Scott Road Punjabi Market. For members who do not know that market, I have to say that the first time my granddaughter went there she told her teacher that she had been in India on the weekend. My daughter lives on Vancouver Island. It is a diverse community with a very strong South Asian community with lots of businesses.

A businessman there showed me his credit card bill, and even though he had a negotiated rate of one-point something percent, because of the kind of credit cards that are being used, his bill was actually at a rate of 3.64%. He said he was struggling daily to keep his business going, because that rate eats into his profit margin. Small businessmen live in a very competitive world. It is a business community that we need to support because those jobs stay in our riding and that money gets spent in our ridings and communities right here in Canada. It almost broke my heart listening to him tell the kinds of struggle he was having. Of course, when we told him that come April 1 there would be a further increase, he said he would just have to tell people that he would not take credit cards any more. That, he said, would lose him a lot of business because a lot of people do not carry cash but use their cards for all kinds of things. That is really critical.

I met with young people from different schools, and in my riding office as well. I asked them what their priorities were and what was important to them. They told me that the number one issue was the environment. The second issue was affordable housing and addressing the gap between the rich and the poor, and the poverty issues. The third thing they said was that we have to address the issues of our aboriginal communities, which I was delighted to hear. They were sensitized to that because of the Idle No More movement, which has done a lot to raise the average person's awareness of these issues. The students then mentioned the need for decent paying jobs right here in Canada. Their point was that when we extract our resources, we should do it in an environmentally safe way and then develop decent paying jobs right here in Canada so they can have a future without having to work two or three minimum wage jobs and wonder whether they can ever afford to have a family.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, when listening to the member's speech, it was almost as if she had not been here for the last number of years, but I know she has. She asked a number of times about the government's priorities, which I would just like to remind her of.

For example, the government has said that its number one priority is jobs and the economy. We have created more jobs than any other comparable industrialized economy in the world, now over 900,000. Statistics Canada has said that the bulk of these are full-time and good paying jobs.

We have also made health care and education priorities. We have funded those more than any other government in history and we have protected transfers to the provinces.

We have also made it a priority to stand with our partners in NATO. I know the Minister of Foreign Affairs has spoken out on behalf of those less fortunate in the world, those who need someone to speak on their behalf.

Those are the priorities of our government. Where has the member been?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my hon. colleague that I have been debating many of these issues. We have a disagreement. When the member talks about our commitments internationally, the concern I hear over and over again in my community and other communities is the loss of Canada's international status. We have lost our standing. We no longer have a seat on the Security Council. In some ways we are seen as more belligerent than even our friends to the south.

When the member talks about investing in jobs, I want to take him to the real world, the world I go back home to every weekend. It is a world where people who were once making $18 to $22 an hour are now working at $12 to $13 an hour because of the actions of the government, with many of their jobs now contracted out. I would challenge the member to see if he could support a family in Canada today in the suburbs of Surrey on $13 a hour and see how great his economic plan is going.

When we look at environmental issues, he says that the Conservatives have protected the environment. However, one just has listen to elementary and high school students, who get it, that the government has absolutely degraded our environmental protections.

The Conservatives cannot say they are economic boosters. As a matter of fact, I would say they are doing more harm in the short term and the long term.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will pick up on the issue of priorities because it is important not to lose sight of that issue. We need to recognize there are numerous technical amendments to the taxation legislation through Bill C-48. There is nothing new there, in that we have been waiting for amendments for many years now.

Ultimately, government could argue that we should wait two or three years, allow these to accumulate and then bring in a more modest bill, maybe of 100 or 150 pages. What is obviously wrong with this legislation, even though we will be supporting it, is that the government took so much time to put into place the necessary and important technical amendments in legislation. If we look at tax documents, we will find they are asterisked and colour coded, showing that there are many amendments necessary.

In keeping with the issue of priorities, does the member not believe that if this type of legislation were the priority of government, that it could and should have been dealt with two or three years ago in smaller bills? We do not have to respond immediately to the vast majority of the necessary technical amendments, but it is reasonable for us to expect that every three or four years there should be some sort of legislation brought in to make the changes. Does the member not agree?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my hon. colleague the last time his own government, which had a majority, made any technical changes and brought them to the House was in 2001. His government did not even follow the kind of road map the member puts out right now.

I would say, absolutely, if we have technical changes they should be made on a cyclical basis. As we said, because they are so technical, that makes sense.

To me this is all about priorities, the priorities that Canadians expect us to be addressing here in Parliament and the issues they need us to address.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct what the member for Peterborough just said in the previous question to the effect that transfers to the provinces would remain the same, including health transfers. On the contrary, the government has already announced its intention to reduce from 6% to 3% the rate of growth of transfers to the provinces. This change shows already that these transfers are not a government priority.

Another priority found in Bill C-48 deals with closing tax loopholes, which is a complex issue in the Income Tax Act. Let us not forget that it is the first time in a period of over ten years that we have a technical bill amending the Income Tax Act. In the last three of four years of their term, the Liberals had the opportunity to introduce these changes, but they did not do it.

Since 2006, the Conservatives have let income tax changes accumulate and they did not introduce any bill like this one, with the result that we now have a piece of legislation that is 950 pages long. The result of this neglect is that Canadian businesses, among others, and citizens, are experiencing much greater uncertainty. The rules are not clear, nor are the government's intentions, until an omnibus bill of this magnitude is tabled.

I would like to hear my colleague on the famous priorities of the Conservative government and on how it can deal so flippantly with an issue as important as taxation and the Income Tax Act.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has said, at the end of the day it is all about priorities. However, if we have a government that does not practise accountability and transparency in its own actions or the actions of its ministers, then it is very easy for it to put off these kinds of technical changes.

I absolutely agree that looking at closing loopholes for tax avoidance should be a priority, because every penny we collect should be used to provide services. However, how can we expect a government that does not want to be held accountable at any level to preach about accountability?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Drummond has less than two minutes for a brief question.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will indeed be very brief. I would first of all like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech.

I would like to ask her a question about some concerns already raised by the Auditor General with regard to the slow pace at which the government enacted technical changes.

As mentioned earlier, this bill is nearly 1,000 pages long. It is huge. It could be called an omnibus bill, even though it is very different from Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, which were terrible, horrible omnibus bills because they tackled a range of issues. This bill is quite technical.

What does the member think of the Auditor General’s advice that the government should move faster in order to avoid ending up with a bill so huge it is impossible to adequately address all the issues? The government should be more efficient.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The hon. member for Newton—North Delta has a little less than 30 seconds.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what is very clear is that the government finds it very difficult to act on the recommendations of an Auditor General and, as a matter of fact, seemed to flagrantly disregard them.

At least in this legislation the government has tabled about 50% of the amendments that are necessary and are waiting to be implemented. However, the government seems to show very little regard for the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Auditor General, and the recommendations that have come out, because of its arrogance in thinking that it knows it all.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak in the House with regard to Bill C-48, a bill that I believe is important.

I am going to take the liberty of beginning my speech with some slightly monarchist comments, by showing how princely I can be and by giving the government credit for drafting this huge bill that at least allows us to deal with a major taxation backlog. This must be acknowledged. It will be a great pleasure for me to support this bill because I wish to serve all Canadian taxpayers, be they wage earners, pensioners or entrepreneurs. It is about time.

As we have heard over and over again, the government has made countless tax rulings, some of which were obvious while others were less so. The real problem is that unfortunately both this government and the preceding Liberal governments used some artistic license that was actually rather inelegant and left everyone in a state of confusion. Ultimately, all the experts and everyone else in Canada had to fly blind without solid legislative instruments or the necessary regulatory instruments for businesses to make informed decisions and move ahead.

I will remind hon. members that the massive immobilization of capital is one of the major problems we now face, one of the great economic challenges now confronting us. More than $500 billion are languishing in corporate coffers. I referred to this before the Holidays: it is a very clear symptom of a feeling of insecurity. It is something I was reminded of once again a scant few days ago when I had the pleasure of meeting business people in Quebec City, where my riding of Beauport—Limoilou is located.

Business people are very concerned, and have been for a number of years, about the failure to recognize entrepreneurship: people who have ideas and decide to take risks and make a real contribution to society in keeping with their talent and their ideas, and about a glaring problem with respect to the entrepreneurial succession. I refer to this because this government, for all its grand claims, is unfortunately producing very few results, and is even working directly against our common interest. I say this because after seven years in government, business people are still concerned, and companies remain cautious in their activities and in their efforts to invest and grow. So where does the problem lie? The problem is attributable to this government.

As my colleagues can see, I have stopped handing out compliments. I was happy to compliment the government on the bill it has introduced, but now we are going to take a few shots to make it truly clear that the emperor has no clothes.

I am going to take advantage of the opening of the hockey season to use an analogy from our splendid sport. Ultimately, Bill C-48 is an effort by the government in the middle of the third period to try to overcome a 10-nothing deficit. Mathematically, of course, the government may ultimately hope to emerge with a victory, but in reality, there is a huge deficit in terms of planning, vision and responsibility towards all the players on Team Canada and the spectators in the stands.

I am using this image to say “better late than never”, but there is nevertheless a limit.

The other problem, as my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques has rightly pointed out, is that this corrects nothing. On the contrary, it increases the lack of transparency in the tax system due to its excessive complexity. Its great complexity is driven by, among other things, the government’s neglect and its very long-standing pork-barrel approach.

I first became active in politics in 2005. In 2011, I was in my third election campaign. I witnessed the blue wave in the greater Quebec City area. I was able to see the claims of the government, and the illusion it has maintained for years about its competence and capability. Unfortunately, those claims are utterly contradicted by the facts.

Getting back to the issue of the complexity of the tax system, I would like to state one very simple truth. Last week, sadly I was surprised to find out that the Canada Revenue Agency will no longer be producing a simplified tax return package. A great many people file a very simple tax return. Often people have only one source of income to declare and claim only a handful of credits. They do not need a detailed tax package that covers a wide range of areas, unlike the return I had to file in years past when I had several different sources of income. Several years ago, I was self-employed, among other things.

Doing away with the simplified income tax package represents a major, insurmountable obstacle for most taxpayers. As my colleague for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques pointed out, over 60% of Canadian taxpayers required to file a return do not prepare their own tax return. They rely on someone close to them or a professional to do their taxes, which is quite understandable.

I would like to give you one example from the Province of Quebec. When it comes to housing and rental laws, my reference source is the Civil Code.

In addition to having a unique Civil Code, Quebec also follows its own special practices. One agency, the Régie du logement, acts as a safety net and also provides support to all tenants and landlords in the province. I am talking here about residential leases, not about commercial leases.

The standard lease is one basic tool that has been around for many decades. It is a standard document that is easy to understand. It sets out the rules governing residential leases. It is a contract between a landlord and a tenant.

In the course of my work both as a politician and as a volunteer in private life, I have had to dispel and fight many myths associated with the basic rules governing rental housing. Another thing that is unique to Quebec is that landlords currently send out notices to their tenants advising them of changes to their lease. These notices are governed by very specific rules. Tenants are required to respond to these notices. Many tenants, despite the fact that they have a lease and a clear document, are under the mistaken impression that simply because they received this notice, they will be forced to move if they refuse to accept the proposed changes to their lease.

It is truly a horrible situation. For starters, tenants are not exercising their fundamental right to negotiate in good faith and this unfortunately results indirectly in a certain amount of speculation.

I do not have an actual copy of a lease agreement with me, but given that most people cannot understand a simple document like the one I have just described, just imagine how they feel about the general income tax package.

I logged on to the Canada Revenue Agency’s website. In addition to the general income tax package which is at least 50 pages long, if not longer, there is also the tax package for Quebec residents. There are basic tax forms, tax calculators and 13 separate schedules, including one calculating federal tax in Quebec, one for calculating federal amounts transferred from one’s spouse or common-law partners, one for capital gains or losses, one for a statement of investment income and so on and so forth. A number of schedules apply to self-employed workers who do not automatically pay employment insurance premiums or make contributions to the Régie des rentes.

When you look at the amount of paper provided in the basic general income tax package—which incidentally will be the only paper package for people—I must say it is so incomprehensible for most people that they cannot be faulted for not understanding it. The public did not ask for a tax form or tax package this complex.

I have received letters from people in my constituency who are indignant that the short form has disappeared. It made filing an income tax return much easier. Imagine the problem for seniors and people with low literacy levels, who already have trouble reading and understanding written texts beyond a certain degree of complexity, not to mention a lot of people who find it very hard to do basic calculations.

In fact, the government is sending the clear message that taxation is reserved for an elite, for people who have the education, the ability or the financial resources to have their taxes done for them. Unfortunately, my basic principle is that taxation should be affordable and accessible enough so that people do not have to spend a penny. In our democratic system, this should be something comparable to exercising the right to vote.

The government has failed at this, and Bill C-48 unfortunately will not help matters, although we can be glad that we can add measures that were passed more than 10 years ago to the act and regulatory framework. That is wonderful.

I am going to talk about another issue. There are a lot of them, of course, but I am particularly concerned about this one because I spoke about it before the holidays, and that is the issue of tax evasion. Unfortunately, after complimenting the government for once, I must really offer it some heartfelt criticism. The government is saying one thing and doing another.

It is great that the measures in Bill C-48 to address tax evasion can be passed and added to the act. We agree on that. However, as I have previously said in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and in other forums, what is the point in having a written act if it is not enforced or if we do not provide the means to enforce it?

These are two very important issues. Basically, the act states an intention and gives us a tool, but we have to use it and pay the price to enforce it. Otherwise, these are just meaningless words.

Before the holidays, we had a debate on the adoption of a free trade agreement with the Republic of Panama, which is practically a kingdom, one of the five most attractive tax havens in the world. I criticized that treaty because the government could not be unaware of that state of affairs, despite the claims made by the Republic of Panama. Panama may have laudable intentions of improving, but before going any further we will await the results. We really need to have results we can see.

Intentions have led to a great deal of human suffering, in relationships and in many other areas. As the singer Dalida said, "words, words and words". She saw things clearly and rejected this flood of words, because she had nothing more tangible or solid to rely on in her dialogue in that famous song.

If Bill C-48 passes, then the government is making a mockery of these measures by signing an agreement with the Republic of Panama. In my speech in the House, I provided proof positive that Panama was still a very popular tax haven. There are very attractive and very up-to-date websites, particularly European sites, saying that Panama is a winner if you want to evade income taxes, and feel free to help yourself. What purpose is there, then, in the government’s pretences if it is then going to contradict them by establishing an ongoing relationship, by sanctifying and recognizing the Republic of Panama, when it does not fully deserve such recognition?

Apart from enacting the measures, there is another aspect. We are seeing a flood of massive, savage cuts. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, those cuts mainly affect direct services to the public, the public service, essentially: the resources available to the Canadian government for carrying out its various missions. The measures concerning tax evasion set out in Bill C-48 will ultimately be no more than pretences, with no resources and no returns, or diminishing returns.

If there are no truly motivated employees in the public service who are trained and numerous enough to meet the challenge of tax evasion, we can enact all the laws we like, and we will simply be a laughing stock. In fact, and let us not delude ourselves, this is already the case. I have heard enough harsh comments. Some of my constituents have even used a few words to describe this government that I cannot repeat in this House. It is true.

I have only a minute left. My goodness, how time flies. I could have used at least another 20 minutes, or 40 minutes, to talk about C-48. In closing, I want to stress this inconsistency, which will not stop my colleagues in the official opposition and myself from supporting Bill C-48, which is nonetheless important. My questions have informed my colleagues about my concerns regarding the fact that we are only catching up halfway and we will not give up until we see the end of this government.

Hope will return when we form the government, but as always, New Democrats will find we have a heavy workload. However, we are not afraid of hard work. It will be our pleasure to rise to this challenge and do justice for all citizens of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

He spoke about the complexity of tax regulations. According to him, the bill is limited in terms of all of the technical changes that will have to be made based on changes to the legislation.

What does my colleague think about this challenge? Could he speak to that?

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

Mr. Speaker, in light of the scope of this bill, there will no doubt be things that get through that we will unfortunately have to fix later. The government is a slacker in its approach. It procrastinates, tries to pull things together, quickly produces something at the last minute, submits it and ends up with a very flawed bill.

This is very concerning. The government does not take into account concerns from informed groups, from taxpayers and from the experts who must interpret and use the act. Since we will unfortunately not be able to find all of the mistakes and issues that could cause a problem, we will end up having to duplicate, or even triplicate our work after the fact. That is very disappointing.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou on his excellent speech.

My colleague pointed out some of this government's shortcomings as far as taxation and the economy are concerned. I find that very interesting.

The riding of Drummond has many small and medium businesses that drive the economy. These businesses need a tax system that is simple, efficient, fair and equitable. Right now, the bill does not quite meet these criteria. Unfortunately, the Conservative government has failed.

Earlier, the hon. member mentioned that the bill is almost 1,000 pages long. It is a very thick document. It is huge. It is also very complex. A great deal of work should have been done before. As was pointed out, the last amendments were made in 2001. Since they took office, the Conservatives have been dragging their feet on this issue, just like the Liberals.

I want to mention that the Auditor General raised serious concerns regarding how slow the government was in enacting the technical amendments described in the Department of Finance's comfort letters. When we are dealing with a 1,000 page document, how can we properly analyze, read and understand all these amendments? How can we do a serious job as members of Parliament and then report to our fellow citizens? It is very difficult with a document like this one. We should have similar legislation every year to keep up to date, instead of waiting for years and take forever to understand the details of this legislation.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of all this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Drummond for raising several issues.

I am going to use a metaphor to illustrate how this government really does not know where it is going. Problems of all sorts have accumulated. The government is trying hard to polish its image in an attempt to get off the hook and to hide the reality. It is like a wolf that gets trapped and cuts its paw to get away. The government is trying to fool us by saying that the wolf was set free. However, the wolf now only has three legs. It is handicapped, which creates a huge problem.

I am going to provide a very simple example regarding employment insurance. One of my constituents in the riding of Beauport—Limoilou is a qualified worker in Quebec City. Unfortunately, he works in a seasonal job. Because of the new rules, he must meet the government's unsustainable requirements. Still, he looks for work and tries to find a job in his field of expertise. But he is offered jobs that pay much less. As he said, he does not work all year round, and the annual salary—which he will never have for a full year—is around $50,000 or $60,000. Should he take a job that pays $35,000 or $40,000 annually?

This is truly a downward spiral. For the majority of Canadians, it is the quintessence, the promotion of mediocrity. It is really shameful for the government to do that. Of course, the hon. member for Drummond also sees firsthand the impact in his riding. He did well to raise this issue. It is our role to do so.

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

Mr. Speaker, aside from the initial statement by the parliamentary secretary, it does not appear that many people on the government benches are prepared to defend and explain Bill C-48. I have a question for my colleague.

Given that 400 notices have been issued by the Canada Revenue Agency and other similar bodies, and that 200 such notices still remain to be integrated into the Income Tax Act and other tax legislation, we can expect to see another bill. It may not be as massive as Bill C-48, but it will be relative weighty nonetheless. The bill will be needed to integrate these technical aspects. This matter has been dragging on since 2001. Technical notices that needed to be presented in the form of legislation had been piling up for over 10 years.

I would like to know what my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou thinks about the government bringing in over 10 years’ worth of these measures in an omnibus bill, rather than tabling updates and amendments on a regular if not yearly basis, to tax legislation such as the Income Tax Act? If no one from the government can explain why this is not done on a yearly basis, then I would like my colleague’s opinion on the government’s response.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his very important question. I think that the government is showing contempt. Let me explain what I mean.

I will use another analogy, namely that of the White Birch Paper Stadacona mill in Beauport—Limoilou. Mill workers unfortunately lost part of their pension fund after a contribution shortfall on the part of management. In essence, premiums paid by workers were not deposited into the fund.

The situation we have here is somewhat similar. When spread over a number of years, whether or not contributions are made or obligations met may seem harmless. Tabling technical legislation should be an annual obligation. However, when we consider a period of 10 or 15 years, there is a great deal of ground to make up.

Let me make another analogy, because I love doing that. Imagine a bank putting up with a person not making mortgage payments over a 10-year period. You can be sure that if the bank decided it had cut the person enough slack, demanding all at once 10 years’ worth of outstanding payments, plus interest, would represent a fairly substantial sum of money.

This illustrates the extent to which the government has failed to assume its responsibilities and lacks perspective and consideration for Canadian taxpayers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-48 this afternoon.

I would indicate right at the beginning that the Liberal Party does support the bill. We would like to see the bill ultimately go to committee. I do not think that comes as a surprise to members, because at the end of the day, we would argue that many, if not virtually all, of the amendments we are talking about should have been and could have been passed years ago. There is a cost to Canadians, because the government has been so lax in wanting to pass this necessary legislation.

Having said that, I think Canadians would likely recall that last year the Conservatives had two massive budget bills. In those budget bills they threw in all sorts of pieces of legislation. For some peculiar reason they felt it was necessary to bundle in so many pieces of legislation and pass them through the back door of the budget debate.

When I reflect on it, and I have had the opportunity to discuss the issue with many of my constituents, I think the general feeling is that it was just wrong and anti-democratic. So many things could be said about what the government did last year, which was inappropriate, undemocratic and just not worthy of passage through this House.

On the other hand, we have this massive bill. It is important to take note of it. The bill is in excess of 900 pages. Sometimes when legislation is overhauled, there is a need to bring in substantial changes that will dictate that we have to have literally hundreds of pages, thousands of words, to get through all the amendments necessary to change that legislation. That does not apply to this particular bill.

Over the years we have seen the need for numerous changes in our taxation laws. The number has dramatically increased over the last few years. This matter was before our Auditor General. It was before our public accounts committee. A couple of years back, our public accounts committee suggested that the government act on this issue and that the government bring in smaller pieces of legislation to enact the many technical changes that are required for our tax laws. The committee made those recommendations years ago.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the government has sat idly by and allowed the list to grow considerably, to the point at which today we have a document that is excessive in terms of the number of amendments that have to be made to modernize or update our taxation laws.

Those amendments are all technical. Many of them are very small in nature, but some of them are quite significant. In reading it through and being provided some information, I want to highlight two or possibly three of them to provide examples.

For example, self-employed individuals can now contribute to EI. Bill C-48 ensures that those contributions are deducted from the annual income for taxation purposes in the same manner that employees' contributions are deducted. It is a very important change.

Then we go to the labour-sponsored venture funds. In 2010, Ontario was phasing out the tax credits for these funds. There have been other issues surrounding labour venture capital funds. I could talk at great length on some of the problems we had in the province of Manitoba while I was an MLA. At the end of the day, changes will be made to our taxation laws that will help deal with some of those funds.

Regarding airlines, provinces and taxes, this clarifies the allocation of miles flown over certain territorial waters for the purpose of provincial taxation.

There is one change regarding our first nations with respect to GST, so that they might choose to levy a sales tax on a reserve by allowing the Canada Revenue Agency to collect an administrative tax. All money collected would be returned to the band council. Bill C-48 would allow Revenue Quebec to fulfill that same function.

Even though we talk about the hundreds of changes that are very technical in nature, it is important that we recognize that those changes are absolutely critical. In fact, what we will find quite often when we look at the taxation books that try to provide advice to consumers is that much of it is coded, whether with asterisks, different colours or faded colours. Generally speaking, that is in reference to the fact that there was a need to change the legislation, but it has not yet been changed; it is still pending. Because it is still pending they have to make a note of that. We have an industry out there of tax lawyers, accountants, all sorts of advocacy groups and others who assist individuals in preparing their taxes. They have to take note of the many different changes we are expecting because until they pass they are not the law. Therefore, it is a very important issue.

I question why it took the government so long. Taxation is of critical importance to our nation. I have had the privilege of being an elected member, whether it was here or in the province of Manitoba as an MLA, for 20-plus years. People are concerned about taxes and the many forms of taxation. They believe there is a need for change. They would like to see more progressive changes to the way government collects its taxes. We need to have that debate. We need to encourage reforming the system where we can, not only these minor technical changes but in some cases major technical changes. There is a lot more that we can actually do.

I am surprised that the government has taken as long as it has. I felt that it would have been in a good position two, three or four years ago to put together the legislation that would have made many of the changes that were proposed many years ago, as opposed to allowing them to accumulate. I say this now because we know that, as time continues on, there will be future changes. We are not suggesting that it has to be done on an annual basis or even every second year. It depends on the technical changes that are required, the number of changes and, in good part, the government's agenda. It could be a budget implementation coming forward, which would cause additional changes. It could be a wide variety of reasons for which one could ultimately justify holding off for three or four years. To wait for 10 years, to allow it to go that long, has done a disservice to all Canadians because we want certainty in our tax laws. We better serve all forums, whether business or individual, by ensuring our laws are fair and are updated on a regular basis.

I encourage the government not to wait as long and, ultimately even when we go into committee, to look at and be open to the possibility of having other changes. In that sense, we in the Liberal Party support the bill to go to committee. We are not here to hold up the debate on the bill. We would like to see it go to committee.

I want to take advantage of this opportunity to speak on this bill to expand on a couple of ideas or thoughts I have had. Yesterday there was a special event in Winnipeg North. It is kind of an annual perogy lunch that I host. We had about 140 to 160 people show up. It afforded me the opportunity to really have some good healthy discussions with many of them and to address the group.

There are some real concerns that need to be addressed. Some of those concerns deal with taxation and the potential of providing tax deductions. This applies to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, but I talked to one individual who said she is on a very limited income, as are many seniors. They own their home because they have maybe lived in it for 25 or 30 years. However, they are on a fixed, relatively small income. At times there is a need to improve or fix up their homes.

Quite often what these seniors are looking for is a tax deduction or something that would allow them the opportunity to improve the structure of their home or to make some improvement. It would ultimately improve our housing stock if we allowed more seniors to be able to do that. They have the equity.

At the end of the day, tax incentives or tax deductions may be able to assist a senior and possibly stimulate the economy. When home renovations are encouraged or promoted, as the Liberal Party has done over the last year or more, talking about the benefits of having home renovation programs, the money will be spent locally, which in turn creates more employment.

If tax dollars can be grown by $6, $7, $8, $9 or $10 because individuals are using some of their own money, it all helps out. These are the types of things that I would like to think we should be talking about more inside the House, not only during budget debates but also when the public accounts committee meets and when we have bills of this nature and are talking about the technicalities of taxation laws.

We should be talking about the importance of how taxation laws allow us to facilitate government programs through deductions or tax credits. Imagine the impact we have on charitable organizations.

Every province and territory has numerous charitable organizations that are very much dependent on those charitable tax numbers. Progressive government policies and good tax programs or incentives allow those charitable organizations to prosper and to be able to help Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Again, it goes right back to the Canada Revenue Agency, our taxation laws and priorities for the government. That is why I am suggesting it is very important for us to add it to the debate.

I am very concerned about our middle class. The middle class in Canada could be doing so much better. To what degree are our taxation policies allowing the middle class to grow? I believe most economists would tell us that the middle class is actually shrinking in Canada, even though the vast majority of Canadians, 90% or more, would say they are a part of the middle class.

At the end of the day we know that the rich in Canada are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, relatively speaking. We know that the middle class is not growing. There is a growing inequity that is taking place. Taxation laws are one of the tools that can be used to deal with that issue.

When we talk about taxation laws, I believe it is a very important subject in which members should participate and share their ideas on how we could be a better society if we deal with it.

I made reference to different forms of taxes. Over the years, Revenue Canada does just one component of taxes. Income, property and consumption taxes are likely the big three. These are issues with which the public have a great deal of concern. There is a feeling the government is not doing enough to justify collecting the taxes that are being collected.

At the end of the day, it is important that we recognize all forms of taxes when we talk about income tax because that is what the average Canadian does. When we talk about income tax and in particular Bill C-48, I would ask the question I posed to the parliamentary secretary. What is in the bill to make taxation that much simpler for the average Canadian to understand? How does the middle class benefit from it? Is it consumer friendly?

Today I had a discussion with an individual who indicated to me that people cannot get a printed version of the income tax booklet. At one time the post office had income tax booklets which contained all the basic tax laws and information required to complete the forms. It is my understanding the booklet is no longer available, or at the very least to the same degree that it was available in the past. People say that we can get the information from the Internet. I think it is a mistake for us to be so dependent on individuals having to use the Internet or purchase a computer program in order to file their income tax returns.

Are there ways in which we can make the system simpler? What about those individuals who have a difficult time filing the very basic income tax returns? That happens a great deal. There are some non-profit groups that have a fairly decent understanding of our taxation laws and offer services to a lot of people who are on low or fixed incomes. To what degree would the proposed changes make it simpler for those individuals to get their taxes done on an annual basis?

I have had the opportunity over the years to go through my own income tax and I have had assistance in dealing with it, primarily because of time constraints and so forth. However, the bottom line is that I believe it is becoming more and more complicated in many different ways.

There are issues relating to why one group would get a tax break over another group. The issue of tax fairness is what I am referring to there.

I have heard many members in the chamber talk about the importance of dealing with tax avoidance. There are many individuals across the country who get away with not having to pay their fair share of federal tax. That applies at the provincial level also where there are many who are escaping paying their fair share of taxes.

Taxation is an important policy issue. It is through taxation that we are able to provide the types of services that Canadians want, whether it is in connection with health care, Canadian Forces, or the many other services that we provide throughout the land. That is all based on our ability to collect taxes and having good, solid tax laws.

The government has the responsibility to maintain the integrity of our taxation laws. That is the reason I believe it is important to have this debate now and to take this to the next step and allow the bill to go to committee so that ultimately it can pass and Canadians can see better tax laws.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak again in the House today after spending time in our constituencies.

The goal of this legislation, as we mentioned earlier today, is to provide clarity to certain components of the tax act. We consulted with professionals across the country. There are many things in the bill which we believe will help improve providing service with regard to the tax act. Many professionals have provided input over a long period of time.

Given that the member's speech was all over the place, does he acknowledge that these measures need to come into force and will he support the bill?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is what I indicated. Obviously the member was not listening. The Liberal Party supports the bill. We want to see the bill go to committee.

The member talked about the government working with the stakeholders. The government has been working with those stakeholders for years now. The government has attempted to give the impression that it is acting on reforming our taxation laws and making that a priority, when in reality the opposite is true. The government has been negligent. The government has dropped the ball. It has not made taxation reform and bring legislation forward in a timely fashion a priority. That is the reality. Many if not most of the clauses that will be debated once the bill goes to committee should have been passed years ago. The government has to take responsibility for its negligence in not doing its job in a timely fashion.

I indicated earlier the important point that Canadians very much deserve to have a taxation system that is fair, up to date, modern and completely legal. The government should not just say that the change will be made whenever we pass the legislation. We have far too many pieces of tax law that are in place unofficially. That is because the government has been so negligent.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a brief question. I realize that the hon. member was not here during the last Parliament or the previous ones.

I agree with him when he says that it is not possible to study all the elements of such a large and complex bill and vote on it with full knowledge.

We have already said that we would vote in favour of this bill, but the underlying problem is that we waited 10 or 12 years for all the technical elements to be put together as a law.

First, can the hon. member confirm that his party wants to have regular updates of the various technical elements of the Income Tax Act and other taxation acts put together as a law?

If so, I would like to know why his party, which was in government prior to 2006, did nothing during the last four, five or six years of its mandate?

I see that as a problem because, while the Conservatives have not done anything about this and have let things get worse, the Liberal government that preceded them did not do anything either during the five or six years it was in power.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question, albeit it is somewhat misguided.

At the end of the day, we have to realize that it is not just one or two years. We also have to have amendments that are being proposed. We have to put it in the context of what kind of technical amendments have to be made. The last time the Liberal government did, it would have been in 2000-01, around that period of time, I believe. It would have been three or four years. Maybe the member can stand in his place and say exactly how many technical amendments were there. There is a need for us to be able to consult, to work together, and so forth. At the end of the day, if there was a need, I suspect that need would have been met.

It does not have to happen every year. That is why I indicated in my comments that a lot depends on what are the technical amendments.

What I am suggesting is that the technical amendments that we have before us today in the 900-plus pages of this bill are far too excessive. That was acknowledged back in 2009 from our public accounts. The Auditor General of Canada made that announcement. For example, from what I understand, back in 2003 the Auditor General of Canada did not say to bring in the legislation right then. The demand would not have been there. I suspect Jack Layton might have said something had that been the case, but it likely was not the case. We have to put it in the perspective of time. Today is far too long. Ten years is too long, not only because it is 10 years, but because there are so many technical amendments. Most of those technical amendments could have been made back in 2009. That is the reason the government is wrong in terms of bringing in a huge 900-plus page bill today.

The government should have drafted maybe a 400-page bill back in 2009. Then today we would only be dealing with a 300-page or a 400-page bill. It should have been broken down into other bills. Some of those bills could have been brought in earlier. That is what we would have ultimately argued.

At the end of the day, at least we have it here today. Let us get the bill passed and sent to committee. Canadians have been waiting far too long to see these technical changes that should have been put in place five, six, or seven years ago.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North spoke of fairness. One of the things I found in a lot of the government's omnibus budgets is tax credits that are available only to people who actually have income. We know that in order to enjoy a tax deduction, people have to have income to deduct it from.

A lot of these tax credits should be available to those who do not have income. In fact, those who need it the most are those who do not have income.

I wonder if the member would talk about the lack of fairness in tax deductions or tax credits when they are not designated as refundable tax credits.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question.

We could cite the example of volunteer firefighters and others, many of whom were not eligible to receive any of the benefit because it was a credit as opposed to a deduction. If the government was trying to send a message through government taxation policy, it missed the mark back then.

There are so many opportunities for government to have an impact if the desire is there to assist and to make a difference. It can be done through all sorts of tax incentives, tax credits, tax deductions, and so forth. When we talked about the budget bill, there was a huge fundamental flaw in that legislation. It did not allow for individuals who did not have the income to receive the tax benefit individuals who were more well off received. That is why there was a valid argument, and the Liberals made that argument, that there should have been a tax rebate, a refundable tax credit, for those individuals.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add one very important thing to what my colleague said, concerning tax avoidance and tax havens. It is important to note that a small effort has been made in the fight against tax avoidance and against all kinds of tax evasion. Still, it is only a tiny step. The government must work much harder to prevent the loss of this money that could be used for much better purposes, such as social programs. It is not right to slash old age security and raise the age of eligibility to 67, while still tolerating tax evasion.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the fact that the government must work harder to prevent tax evasion.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, measures could be taken to get individuals paying a fairer share of tax. That, I think, is what the member is trying to highlight, the fact that Canadians as a whole do not mind paying taxes as long as they believe they are paying a fair share and everyone is contributing. The government has to make a decision whether or not it supports that concept.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Malpeque, Food Safety.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise 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.

First of all, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Manicouagan.

As I mentioned earlier and as many of my colleagues in the House of Commons have said today, this bill is very big. The bill is huge, and with nearly 1,000 pages, it is the size of a very thick brick. It is a bill that dates from 2001 and to which no amendments of this scale have been made.

This bill is so big because previous governments had been dragging their feet, because they did not do their job and because they took too long to bring the bill to the table. Because they did not do their job properly, today we are faced with a huge bill, a bill that we might call an omnibus bill.

However, this bill does not compare to the horrible omnibus bills C-38 and C-45, which covered a range of different items such as the environment, the economy and old age security. Those were really bad bills. It was with good reason that they were called “Trojan horses”. Those omnibus bills were horrible, “monster” bills.

This omnibus bill is acceptable as it deals only with income tax legislation. However, the problem is that the bill is so huge that it is practically impossible to study it carefully within the timeframe we have been given. The Conservative government must be much more attentive and efficient in bringing forward their bills on a more regular basis, which would allow us to have time to study the amendments to these bills.

In this regard, Auditor General Sheila Fraser stated in the report she tabled in the fall of 2009:

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.

This has been dragging on since 1998.

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.

As I mentioned, that is what happened. The Conservatives have wasted time since coming to power, and now we have a hefty, 1,000-page omnibus bill. Of course I am neither an expert or a tax practitioner. However, as parliamentarians, it is important that we study bills with as much rigour as possible and within a reasonable amount of time. Unfortunately, we will not have the opportunity to do so with this bill.

Another point I would like to address is tax avoidance. Bill C-48 is a first step towards fighting tax evasion. However, the Conservative government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. On the one hand, it is taking a small step to prevent tax avoidance; on the other hand, it is signing bilateral agreements with countries that flaunt basic tax rules and are even tax havens. This government is not taking this seriously.

A number of my NDP colleagues sit on the finance committee. They heard some very interesting things from Brigitte Alepin, a very well-known tax expert. She has written two books that are reference works for anyone interested in fighting tax evasion and tax havens.

The first book is called Ces riches qui ne paient pas d'impôt. I recommend that all members of the House read it, particularly the Conservatives, since the work on tax evasion in Bill C-48 was not done properly. This excellent book, which was published in 2003, describes all the pernicious ways people use on a regular basis to avoid paying taxes, whether it be by deferring their taxes for ever or by inventing a rather questionable foundation.There are bona fide foundations but others can be very questionable. Clearly, there are also all sorts of subsidies.

I am going to talk about various issues but these are the choices that have to be made with a bill such as Bill C-48. The environment is very important and, right now, the government is shamelessly providing billions of dollars in subsidies to the oil and gas industries. They are even providing coal subsidies. I am not talking about tax evasion here but about subsidies that make the tax roll unfair and inequitable.

Ms. Alepin describes the three basic principles that are very important to a sound taxation system: the system must be simple, effective and fair. That is very important. However, right now, the Conservatives do not have a simple, effective and fair tax system, far from it. I mentioned a few aspects. I would like to read a short summary of Ms. Alepin's latest book, La crise fiscale qui vient, which is very interesting. If my colleagues have not read this wonderful book, I recommend that they all do so, particularly my Conservative colleagues since they did not do their work on the fight against tax evasion properly. This is what the book summary says:

The author identifies the signs of the impending fiscal crisis, which has already begun in most western economies. She provides a simple and enlightening description of the new conditions that exacerbate this crisis: the increased number of charitable foundations [I spoke about this earlier], the development of electronic commerce, the increasing use of tax havens [I also spoke about this], the competition between states to attract large corporations, etc. Although current governments seem to have given up on dealing with this crisis [and the Conservative government is a good example], Brigitte Alepin shows that there are solutions to this problem. She also shows how tax measures can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, among other things.

That is why I referred just now to tax measures and environmental measures. My colleagues also said that we could promote tax measures to favour, say, renovations. We had the ecoENERGY Retrofit--Homes program for energy efficient houses. Such programs are very good from the tax point of view. They are straightforward and keep the economy moving. It is the same thing here. When we have a government that stands up and earnestly tries to prevent tax evasion, and wants to invest in good things that benefit our economy and our planet and are good for our children and for future generations, we can make fairer and more enlightened choices.

To sum up, Brigitte Alepin is truly a tax expert. She has written other books, like Ces riches qui ne paient pas d'impôt about rich people who pay no taxes. The summary I have just read you is taken from La crise fiscale qui vient, about the looming fiscal crisis. I advise everyone to read these books, and of course to invite Ms. Alepin once again before the Standing Committee on Finance, because she has a lot of useful things to say.

In closing, it is very important when embarking on such reforms to do so quickly, so that there is not too much work to be done, so that it is not impossible to do it, and above all, to make enlightened choices that will be the right ones for future generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments. I do have a specific question with respect to compliance, which is a key aspect in maintaining the integrity of our tax system.

What does my colleague think of the fact that this government has not provided for a time frame to enable people to comply with the technical changes being made in the tax system? What does he think of this oversight?

Moreover, since compliance could have an impact on tax evasion, would that be necessary in his view?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague from Saint-Lambert for her excellent comment. Indeed, if there had been a time frame, we might not have had to deal with a doorstop of some 1,000 pages. It is almost impossible for the Standing Committee on Finance to consider all the changes in a reasonable and careful manner.

All members of this House were elected to work carefully and thoroughly. It is very important that we be given the tools to do so. When omnibus bills with hundreds of pages are introduced, like Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, we are prevented from doing our job. Yet it is very important that this work be done carefully.

I wish to thank my hon. colleague for pointing out that work to prevent tax evasion has unfortunately not been done on the other side. This is just one small step. It is not a serious one. We have to work much harder and make choices in order to carry out a tax reform that reflects our priorities. Instead of making old age security at age 67 a priority we should be focused on increasing the guaranteed income supplement, and on the environment, in order to offer a better tomorrow for future generations.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his presentation, my colleague primarily condemned tax evasion. What measures does he and his party propose to deal with this issue?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question.

Several measures could be proposed. I am not an expert in finance, but I know that the Standing Committee on Finance is examining the issue. In fact, many colleagues of mine have recently held meetings on this issue. The Leader of the Opposition and member for Outremont attended these events and he delivered a speech.

We support the fight against tax evasion. That job must be done seriously and rely on various approaches. Concrete measures can be taken, such as those that I mentioned and that Ms. Alepin proposed. That is also the choice of a political party and government. As a government in waiting, the NDP will make sure to respect seniors and to leave a healthier environment to future generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Drummond is absolutely right in stressing the issue of tax evasion. Incidentally, the tax measures passed by the federal government often have an impact at the provincial level. Indeed, for harmonization purposes, provincial governments must often, for better or worse, adopt similar measures, which can greatly promote tax evasion.

Could my colleague comment on this issue faced by the provinces?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou for his comments.

That is very important indeed. I am just going to give an example. Recently, the Conservative Prime Minister refused to attend interprovincial meetings with provincial premiers. That is not the way to act if we want to promote co-operation, or if we want to find out the needs of the provinces. By contrast, an NDP Prime Minister will attend interprovincial meetings. We will be there to co-operate with the provinces in order to have a tax system that will be beneficial to all.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin the New Year by addressing some notions that are, to say the least, tiresome, since they are associated with the ins and outs of the Canadian tax system. The spirit of plurality that should inform remarks made in this House and my constant concern to highlight the ethnic diversity of this country encourage me to present these comments, which deal with Bill C-48, from a perspective of exposing white-collar crime, tax avoidance schemes and corporate tax evasion on aboriginal lands.

At the risk of repeating myself, I did teach for one semester at the Cégep in Sept-Îles. My course was on legal and administrative aspects of aboriginal organizations. I have therefore gone very deeply into the subject, which I was teaching at the time at the college level, and I have decided to bring that knowledge up to date. Within the course, one section dealt essentially with white-collar crime, and the ways organized crime has found to interfere in the management and economic operations specific to Indian reserves. I think it is timely to share this information with all Canadians.

The Conservatives must already be telling themselves that they addressed this idea in Bill C-27. However, they are on the wrong track, because the people behind this economic malfeasance and who work on the fringes of Indian reserves in Canada are most often, in fact, non-aboriginal. They are foreign elements. They are financiers, lobbyists, people with special interests who prowl around the reserves and work on the fringes because of the special schemes relating to income and other taxes, among other things.

That is why these financiers propose phoney corporate vehicles, which are mere fronts. The most common method is to exploit a few willing Indians on a reserve. The corporate vehicle is developed with a very special capital structure. From that point, the rules respecting income and other taxes come into play. We have to address this reality when we talk about tax evasion on the reserves in 2013.

If we consider this interference in the context of economic expansion in our communities, it is related to the successive announcements about such matters as the development of natural resources in remote communities, but it is also related to economic growth. I have already indicated in the past that the people who live on Indian reserves across the country have been compelled over the last 150 years to develop what is designed to be a parallel economy, not “parallel” in the pejorative sense, but because it meets special requirements, responding to a way of life and to adversity.

The aboriginal communities in Canada have long been ignored in the development of economic growth measures as proposed by the various governments, even in 2013. These communities have been left behind, and for a long time, many communities, if not nearly all the Indian reserves in Canada, have gone without.

Over the last 50 years, there has been an expansion, with the development of special schemes and alternative measures. There has been a genuine expansion. Economic conditions in some communities are very good. This is not true of most Indian reserves, but some communities are fairly well provided for with respect to their economic basis. This interference by harmful elements and criminal elements has been accentuated with this growth in the economic strength of Indian reserves.

The concerted efforts of tax authorities, combined with joint investigations carried out by specialized police units in Canada, have in fact highlighted the real mark left by embezzlement on the part of organized cells of shady operators, on the fringes of the aboriginal communities in Canada.

I said there are special tax rules for Indian reserves. Nonetheless, it took a few years for promoters from outside the communities to find compliant actors, among other things, on Indian reserves.

To set up these business vehicles, which are dubious, to say the least, it still takes a token member of the community. Often, these people are well placed and visible within the communities, but there also has to be a form of compliance on the part of both the federal and the provincial government authorities.

At one point, when I worked for my band council, I submitted this problem to the Indian affairs representative who travelled there. I was told quite brusquely that this did not fall within their mandate and I should approach some other authorities to resolve that kind of problem. In other words, they turned a deaf ear. I concluded as follows: there was compliance and blinkers had been very carefully placed on the representatives of government agencies at both the federal and provincial levels. This is a known fact.

When I taught that course, I based what I said on information compiled by information agencies here, agencies of Canada. So this was a well documented problem. When we talk about tax havens, we think of foreign destinations, but this type of scheme operates and is observed right here in Canada. We cannot ignore this.

On the subject of the compliance that existed, I would say that the various governments engaged in cherry-picking. In other words, they take a different view of operations in communities that are more docile or are relatively supportive of the policies of a particular government.

Other communities, some of whose representatives come to testify before the committee fairly regularly, support the existing government policies. In those communities, the schemes run by shady operators, organized crime or white-collar crime will be given free rein, even though that is not how it looks at first glance. These kinds of operations will be allowed to go on in certain more docile communities that toe the line promulgated by the government authorities.

The New Democrats believe this kind of tax avoidance and tax evasion has to be combatted, while at the same time preserving the integrity of our tax system. We support the changes this bill makes, and particularly those aimed at reducing tax avoidance.

I indicated that measures like the ones in Bill C-27 will make us look at our own community leaders and members as negative influences and the only ones responsible for tax avoidance and obvious financial wrongdoing, and this is a mistake. This is false in most cases, based on what has been proven. Studies and wiretaps from undercover operations and intelligence agencies in Canada indicate that these negative influences are located outside of the community. These include businesspeople as well as people involved in organized crime. Biker gangs have also expressed interest.

Furthermore, it is important to understand that most native reserves are located in isolated communities in the north. Verifications are done by financial institutions. However, based on my own experience and my own reality, other auditors and people in a position to shed some light on these kinds of economic activities and wrongdoings take very little interest in the development of and the realities facing communities above the 52nd parallel. That is why these kinds of wrongdoings can persist.

Make no mistake, in most cases, the expertise comes primarily from people who are outside of the community. Legal and judicial advisors have developed economic and financial schemes. They also develop share capital and divide this phony share capital in such a way that puts all voting shares in the hands of one individual or group. Everything is calculated very carefully. The same goes for imposing shotgun clauses.

Since I have studied corporate law at the post-graduate level, I am in a position to dissect share capital and to see it for what it really is. On the face of it, a business can call itself aboriginal, even though that technically may not be the case. A business might be owned by aboriginal interests on paper, but when we really look at how the share capital is divided up, we quickly see that the power is held by individuals outside of the community.

I submit this respectfully.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at this bill, we see it is really huge. It is nearly 1,000 pages long. Therefore, it is very difficult to discuss the entire bill and to see what is missing from it.

The hon. member talked about the first nations. I think it is very important to talk about them. Today we saw a demonstration on Parliament Hill because the first nations have not been consulted and have not been taken into consideration regarding certain other bills.

With respect to such a bill, does the hon. member agree that when any bill is introduced, or even before it is introduced, the government has a duty to assess the impact of a bill's measures on the first nations and ensure that there are consultations and that accommodations are made?

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question. I have briefly studied the bill before us, and the only mention of aboriginal peoples in it concerns the harmonization of taxation on reserves.

As for consultation, this is the federal government's duty because of the fiduciary relationship between the Crown and the first nations that takes precedence over any initiative, whether it deals with land, legislation or anything else that could interfere with or have a negative impact on the lifestyle of a reserve in 2013, whether traditional or modern.

If such an initiative could interfere with this lifestyle, the government must consult the communities. A pro forma consultation, if I may use a legal expression, is not enough. The communities and their members must be consulted at length. That has not been done in most cases. I do not even think this bill will be the subject of much consultation with the Canadian population in general.

I thank you.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague, the hon. member for Manicouagan, for his evocation of a world that is very rich but has unique problems.

That is why, a little earlier in our working day, I talked about Quebec City businessmen who want some recognition. Everyone aspires to a relatively normal life. But a normal life is not necessarily a life of conformity or submission to orders that do not solve problems, like the ones the government issues. It is especially sad to see aboriginal communities and band councils crushed under a burden that no other administrative body in Canada would accept.

I would like the hon. member to speak more about the lack of governance and lack of dignity that afflict first nations communities.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that question.

I am going to draw on my experience. Over the holidays—they were supposed to be holidays, but that was not the case—I was asked to develop a course on the amendments to the Indian Act and on bills C-27, C-38 and C-45.

For Bill C-27, I addressed certain concepts related to accountability, sharing and public disclosure of financial information on economic transactions and the financial information of private on-reserve businesses. The imposition of those measures is a first in Canada. It is likely that they will be fast-tracked and ultimately adopted. Well, with Bill C-27, it will be a first. Private and corporate entities will have to make their financial information available to the general public on the band councils' websites for a minimum of 10 years.

Once again, it is likely that there will be cherry-picking, that these measures will be imposed on certain communities and that the government in power will be quite accommodating and hands-off with other communities that support it more. I submit to you that there is a willingness to keep the communities at a certain level.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River.

Before I begin I want to wish everyone a happy new year. Members are back from their constituencies after a break over the holidays. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have talked to hundreds of my constituents. The priorities of the current government are not the priorities of the people of north Surrey.

People are very concerned about a number of bills that were introduced last year. Clearly Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 are not the priorities of my constituents from Surrey North. They are concerned about the degradation of our environment and the service cuts being put in place. Those are some of the things I heard. I am hoping that the government will go in the direction that Canadians want. Canadians' priorities are about getting jobs and providing services to Canadians. Clearly the government has not done that.

It is an honour to rise today on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North to speak to Bill C-48, which is 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.

Bill C-48 is a massive, monster bill, with over 1,000 pages to it. Members have seen this before from the government. We have seen legislation, two omnibus bills introduced by the government in the last year. We had Bill C-38 and Bill C-45.

Members all know what was in those bills. Those bills dealt with hundreds of different laws. They amended different acts that made no sense whatsoever. Those bills should have been split into various different areas, which we then could have debated in the House. The Conservatives rammed them through without the proper oversight of Parliament and the parliamentary committees. We have seen that the Conservatives did not even listen to one amendment. There were thousands of amendments introduced in committee and in the House, but the Conservatives failed to take any of those amendments into consideration. They rammed those bills through and we are seeing the consequences of ramming those bills through the House.

This morning members saw a protest outside the House, when the Idle No More demonstrations took place. In fact, they took place across this country. One of their concerns is the government's lack of consultation with first nations. It is not only with first nations. The government failed to consult Canadians on legislation it was bringing in. It failed to consult the very people who should have been consulted, the very people whom Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 were going to impact.

Again, Bill C-48 is a large omnibus bill, but there is one difference from Bill C-38 and Bill C-45. The bill actually relates to income tax issues, but to put this together in a large bill is still an issue for the opposition. Basically a huge bill creates a huge burden for those trying to understand what is included and what is not included in the bill.

On top of that, members have not seen this sort of bill for the last 11 years. We heard from the Auditor General, through one of her recommendations, about the impact that doing this legislation every 11 years could have on our economy, on the services we deliver and on tax evasion and those sorts of things, which we are trying to prevent.

I am going to look at the concern that the Auditor General raised previously about the slow pace of government in legislating the technical changes found in the Department of Finance comfort letters. Certainly the size of the bill, which again is close to 1,000 pages, and the long lapse of time between Bill C-48 and the last technical tax bill indicate that this process still needs improvement.

It took 11 years to move on some of these technical income tax issues. We need to address this on a yearly basis so we can close the loopholes that people and corporations are taking advantage of. We should not be waiting 11 years to update our tax code and legislation and to crack down on tax avoidance and tax evasion. New Democrats believe in cracking down on tax evaders and tax avoiders while ensuring the integrity of our tax system. We support the changes being made in the bill, especially those aimed at reducing tax avoidance.

The bill is so massive that trying to decipher it, to look at what is included and what is not, is difficult. In fact there are 400 recommendations that were offered by the Auditor General. However, only about 200 are covered in the bill. Therefore, not only is this a slow pace but the government has still not addressed some of the loopholes that have been pointed out by the Auditor General.

This is a good bill. We should not be waiting 11 years to bring it forward to address some of the concerns that have been pointed out by not only the Auditor General but other Canadians and organizations that deal with tax evasion and tax issues on a daily basis. The CGA is one of the associations that has strongly criticized the government about the need to have the code updated on a regular, yearly basis so that it is up to date and our businesses have clarity as to what needs to be changed and what they are dealing with from the government side.

There are many parts to the bill. I am not going to go through all of them because I know I do not have a lot of time. Part 1 of the bill deals with the offshore investment fund property and non-resident trust and includes proposals from budget 2010. Also, some of the changes in Bill C-48 are largely designed to ensure the integrity of tax system remains in place and to discourage avoidance. They incorporate feedback on proposals previously in Bill C-10.

Part 2 deals with the taxation of foreign affiliates of Canadian multinationals. Some of these changes reflect proposals from way back in 2007 and 2006. It deals with a number of different areas, but the fact is that the government is failing to update our tax code so we can catch those avoiders and can provide certainty to businesses.

Auditor General Sheila Fraser's 2009 fall report states:

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.

The Conservatives are failing to update some of the changes that are required. They are slow. Their priorities are not right. The priorities of Canadians are not the priorities of the government. We saw that with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, where the government brought in omnibus bills and rammed them through the House without even consulting the very people they would impact.

In its pre-budget submission in 2012, the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada stated:

CGA-Canada strongly believes that the key to sustained economic recovery and enhanced economic growth lies in the government’s commitment to tax reform and red tape reduction. Therefore, CGA-Canada makes the following two key recommendations: 1. 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 future legislative backlogs....

I want to summarize this. The Conservatives have been slow to get these technical changes legislated and they go as far back as 1998. Bill C-48 aims to deal with more than 200 of these changes, but there is still a large number of technical codes that need to be changed. The Conservatives have failed in that sense.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his informative speech.

I would like him to explain to us how having so many rules at the same time—this bill is nearly 1,000 pages long—complicates the administration of all those rules for companies. If they did not put so much energy and so many resources into understanding all the tax laws, they could be a little more competitive and create other jobs elsewhere than in tax administration.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we saw this last year with Bill C-38 and Bill C-45. The government brought in these large bills without any consultation with communities and rammed them through the House. Now we have another omnibus bill which deals with similar acts. I have to give that to the Conservatives. This legislation does not deal with hundreds of acts like Bill C-38 or Bill C-45 changed, but it would change a number of acts.

The Auditor General has asked for technical changes on a yearly basis so businesses can get to know them on a regular basis. Certainty would be provided to businesses, accountants and Canadians so they could deal with these on an ongoing basis. The Conservatives have basically waited 11 years to bring in this bill, 7 and a half years of their government and 6 and a half of another. We are happy with that, but the issue still remains. They have only dealt with half of the technical amendments that need to be changed and businesses need certainty. The Conservatives are clearly not providing that.

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

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

He said this bill was massive. That also proves that much remains to be done to convert the various technical changes into legislation. In fact, those conversion difficulties penalize the business community. What does my colleague think about that?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. The Certified General Accountants Association of Canada strongly believes that the key to sustained recovery and enhanced economic growth lies in the government's commitment to tax reform and red tape reduction. The government has not brought in this sort of technical tax bill that deals with taxes for the last 11 years. It has failed to provide leadership and it has failed to provide certainty for our businesses. Any Canadian would tell us that uncertainty in the business environment is not good. The Conservatives have failed to see that.

The Conservatives have certainly failed to address some of the loopholes that need to be closed so businesses and individuals do not take advantage of these loopholes and hard-working Canadians who pay taxes into our system to have the available services are not cheated. Everybody has to pay their share.

The Conservatives have their priorities wrong. I clearly heard that from my constituents in Surrey North over the holidays. They wonder what the government's priorities are.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish you and all my colleagues and everyone on the Hill a very happy new year. I am very happy to be back after a good few weeks in my community and my constituency of Scarborough--Rouge River.

I am happy to rise 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. Let us be straight. Bill C-48 is massive legislation that contains numerous technical changes. It is close to 1,000 pages long. This is definitely an omnibus bill, yet another omnibus from the government.

However, it is in stark contrast to the Conservatives' Trojan horse budget bills they presented as Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, which made sweeping changes to everything from environmental protection and government accountability to immigration and employment insurance, everything but the kitchen sink or everything and the kitchen sink.

Bill C-48 at least makes technical changes to a few closely related pieces of legislation. That is the big difference. The changes in Bill C-48 are largely designed to ensure the integrity of the tax system and discourage tax avoidance. The New Democrats believe in cracking down on both tax avoidance and tax evasion, while ensuring the integrity of our tax system. We support the changes being made in this bill, especially those that aim to reduce tax avoidance.

Moreover, the majority of measures in Bill C-48 have been in practice for several years, since it is the standard practice for tax measures to take effect upon their proposal. Once they have been announced, people accept them as adopted. It is for these reasons that we are supporting the bill. However, as I will reiterate later, the government needs to be more diligent in legislating these technical changes in a more timely manner rather than once every decade or so to avoid these massive pieces of legislation.

Bill C-48 includes outstanding legislative proposals dating as far back as 1998. Consultations with tax specialists and lawyers have indicated that the measures in Bill C-48 are overwhelmingly positive and that the changes in the bill are necessary technical changes. We believe these changes will in total be revenue positive and they generally move toward discouraging tax avoidance. Given the size of the bill, it certainly covers a great deal and many of these changes make sense.

Bill C-48 deals with offshore investment fund property and non-resident trusts and includes proposals from budget 2010 and August 2010 that are aimed at taxing the worldwide income of Canadian residents. It also deals with the taxation of foreign affiliates of Canadian multinational corporations.

The proposed amendments also ensure that provisions that use certain private law concepts, for example real and personal property, joint and several liability, reflect both the common law and civil law in both linguistic versions. Industry feedback that we received since July 2010 is entirely in favour of these changes.

The bill also includes: anti-avoidance measures for specific leasing property; ensures income trusts and partnerships are subject to the same loss utilization restrictions between corporations; limits the use of foreign tax credit generators for international tax avoidance; clarifies rules on taxable Canadian property for non-residents and migrants; and it provides an information regime for tax avoidance. All avoidance transactions, for example, any transaction where the purpose is to get a tax benefit must now be reported, even if the transaction is not abusive. Additional reporting will be required in cases where the transaction raises red flags for abuse of course.

The proposed bill clarifies the minister's authority to amend schedules and annexes to tax administration agreements if doing so does not fundamentally change the terms of the agreement which is already the practice.

The proposed bill also now allows tax administration agreements for the first nations goods and services tax between the federal government and aboriginal governments to be administered through a provincial administration system if the province also administers the federal GST. This will have the effect of simplifying the administration of the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act.

However, these are all good things but I do have a few concerns that I would like to point out.

First and foremost is the timeliness and predictability. Given the complexities of this bill and its vast and massive scale, we believe the government needs to be more diligent and responsible when handling tax code. This bill seems way overdue. The government must ensure that tax proposals are legislated on a regular basis as failure to do so can create uncertainty in the business community, as well as among tax practitioners.

The chair of the tax and fiscal policy advisory group, in a prebudget consultation meeting on October 15, argued that implementing a sunset provision would ensure that tax amendments would be legislated and eliminate the growing backlog of unlegislated tax measures.

He stated that a sunset provision:

—would bring greater clarity and certainty to tax legislation, reduce the compliance and paperwork burden, and, perhaps most importantly, prevent any future legislative backlogs.

He also added that these:

—steps that would go some distance in improving and strengthening Canada's tax system. Canada needs a 21st century tax system that is simple, fair, efficient, and transparent with low, internationally competitive tax rates.

We agree. Efficiency, transparency and predictability in our tax code are important for Canadian businesses, fiscal planning and a healthy economy.

The Auditor General also agrees, and raised concerns a few years ago about the slow pace of the government in legislating these technical changes found in the Department of Finance comfort letters.

In 2009 it was raised at that time that there were at least 400 outstanding technical amendments that had not yet been put into legislation. Now, going on four years later, 200 of these outstanding amendments are finally being addressed in Bill C-48.

In the 2009 fall report, the Auditor General wrote:

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.

While Bill C-48 aims to deal with more than 200 of these changes, it still leaves a good deal remaining. One has to wonder how long we, the business community and tax practitioners, will have to wait for the next update.

The second concern is with respect to transparency. Certainly the size of this bill, close to 1,000 pages, and the long lapse of time between Bill C-48 and the last technical tax bill indicate that this process clearly still needs improvement.

The government must work harder to ensure the integrity of our tax system. The size of this bill also says something about the government's concern for transparency. I hope this bill of approximately 1,000 pages receives thorough scrutiny by parliamentarians and full debate in the House and proper examination and consideration at all stages.

The large nature of the bill due to the infrequency of technical income tax bills has negative impacts on the business community and certainly makes it difficult for proper evaluation by Parliament.

As the Auditor General wrote:

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 need to do better and ensure that we are doing the necessary due diligence when we are responsible for the affairs of Canadians.

Finally, the third concern is compliance. While the measures in the bill are much needed and important, we also need to focus on compliance. While the vast majority of these measures in Bill C-48 have already been in practice for several years, as it is standard practice for tax measures to take effect upon their proposal, the aspects that have not yet taken effect typically involve direct reporting or compliance.

Compliance is extremely important to ensure the integrity of our tax system, as well as the need to close unexpected loopholes in a timely manner. While we agree that these changes are necessary, I wonder what efforts the government is going to take to ensure that people are complying with the ongoing technical changes?

Finally, ensuring the integrity of our tax system is essential. The last technical bill was passed in 2001 and the long lapse of time between Bill C-48 and the last technical bill indicates that this process still needs improvement.

The responsible management of tax code means that changes must be made on a regular and ongoing basis so those impacted are not left in a state of uncertainty. The Conservatives must ensure to further improve the process for getting these technical changes into legislation on a regular basis to create greater certainty, predictability and transparency in our tax system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech.

She talked about the need to process technical changes every year in order to avoid a backlog. The size of this bill quite obviously shows us that we will have to have smaller, more human-scale bills in order to simplify the regulations of the Income Tax Act.

Can she comment on that?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Saint-Lambert when she says it makes it a much more palpable and easy process for everybody, whether they be parliamentarians, clerks and our people who work in Parliament, business professionals, tax practitioners or whoever they may be. It makes it much easier when these practices are brought into law on a regular basis in small, bite-size bills rather than big telephone-book-size bills.

When the former senior chief of the sales tax division, tax policy branch of the Department of Finance, Marlene Legare, appeared before the Senate banking committee in September 2000, she said:

—I think that the main problem that has resulted in an especially long delay in this case is a timing decision. Once a particular set of measures has gone through that process and is ready to be put forward, should it then be put into a smaller bill, meaning Parliament would deal with more bills in a particular session, or should it be held aside to be included in a larger bill? We are developing a technical bill on an ongoing basis. 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.

So even the former senior chief of the Department of Finance's sales tax division, tax policy branch, agrees that it should be brought forward in smaller bills in a more timely manner so that our laws and legislations are actually, in effect, reflecting the practices in this country.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate all of the feedback we are getting on this side of the House with respect to this particular bill.

In particular I would like to touch on part 7, which talks about the first nations goods and services tax between the federal government and aboriginal governments to be administered through a provincial administration system if the province also administers the federal GST. If we think back to how that issue was bungled when the HST was rolled out in Ontario, it will help us avoid a similar scenario in the future.

On that note, I have been speaking with some first nations youth from Whitefish River First Nation this weekend, and they still wonder why the government does not meaningfully consult with and accommodate first nations when it comes to legislation, such as this one as well. As members know, it was a big issue with respect to the GST and the HST discussions and even of the bill itself, and we would not have seen ourselves in that situation.

Can my colleague comment on the importance of having the government meaningfully consult, accommodate and get free and prior informed consent before tabling legislation that affects first nations?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the extremely hard work she does. I have learned that the terrain of her constituency is vast, and how she is able to meet with constituents of all parts of her terrain is absolutely mind-blowing, and the work she does is laudable.

The member is correct that it is imperative that the government consult with the people who would be affected and impacted by the legislation that the government is proposing, especially the first nations communities that have the right to know what is coming up the pipe. I agree 100% with my colleague that the Conservatives have the fiduciary responsibility to consult with the people who are going to be affected by the changes they are proposing.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time this afternoon.

I am most pleased to join the debate on Bill C-48, a bill to amend the Income Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Act and related legislation.

The bill makes important and long-overdue changes to the tax laws, and this is the issue. While New Democrats support the bill, we do take issue with the omnibus nature of it. At close to 1,000 pages, it leaves little opportunity for study and debate.

The very point of Parliament and our democratic system is not only to introduce laws but to scrutinize those laws and ensure they are accurate and they work in the best interests of the country. That is the very reason we are all here, to work toward the betterment of this great country.

We put at risk our very democracy and we shun the very core of Parliament by introducing huge pieces of legislation that leave little time for such scrutiny.

I notice the members across have chosen to put up only one speaker on the bill, leaving the official opposition with the task of carrying out that important scrutiny of Bill C-48. That should be the role of all parliamentarians, but it seems that upholding the functions, checks and balances that Parliament is supposed to provide is not a priority with the government.

Conservatives take partisan rhetoric to the extreme and continue to introduce mammoth bills with as little debate as possible, and in fact with closure motions, so that there is as little debate as possible.

I want to add that it is not the changes that Bill C-48 undertakes that New Democrats are concerned about; it is the fact that the bill is so very large that the ability to scrutinize it is almost impossible. The changes outlined in Bill C-48 should have been introduced over the years, not grouped into one unwieldy bill.

There is no need for this massive piece of legislation. It should have been introduced in smaller pieces as routine housekeeping bills over the years. In fact, Bill C-48 includes outstanding legislative proposals dating back as far as 1998. Many of us in this chamber were children then. Good heavens, what a long time to postpone and procrastinate.

Even if the Prime Minister was not aware of these much needed updates to taxes, in 2009, the Auditor General raised concerns about the fact that there were at least 400 outstanding technical amendments that had not yet been put into legislation. There is no excuse. There were several years and plenty of time after this report was released to introduce the smaller bills that would have addressed the backlog of tax changes that needed to be addressed.

Of the outstanding changes outlined by the Auditor General, more than 200 are now in Bill C-48. Most tax practitioners have been relatively happy with the practice of the comfort letter process. However, as I have indicated already, the Auditor General's 2009 report noted “an expressed need for the legislative changes that the comfort letters identified and should be enacted”.

I want to quote a little further from the Auditor General's fall report of 2009:

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.

The Auditor General is very clear. The need for updates to the legislation is important, perhaps even critical, and we had plenty of opportunities to pass bills related to tax legislation long before now.

Sadly, this is not the first time the Auditor General has complained about this issue. She expressed concerns over and over again, and in response the Department of Finance Canada stated:

—the government intends to release a package of income tax technical amendments on an annual basis, so that taxpayers will not be subject to more lengthy waiting periods as in the past before amendments are released to the public.

While comfort letters have since been regularly released to the public, very few technical bills have been introduced or passed in recent years. In the last 18 years, only four such income tax bills have been enacted. Annual income tax technical amendments were promised, but neither Liberals nor Conservatives bothered to do this basic annual housekeeping. How on earth can they continue to misrepresent themselves as good managers when their ability to manage is so obviously bad?

I would like to reiterate that there is absolutely no need to create massive bills such as this. At close to 1,000 pages, this is most definitely an omnibus bill. However, in contrast to the government's Trojan Horse budget bills, Bill C-48 does make some technical changes and does have a purpose as opposed to the callous lumping together of Conservative legislation into two omnibus bills in the spring and fall sessions. In those bills we saw the dismantling of environmental reviews, the rewriting of the Fisheries Act, the elimination of wildlife habitat protection, the repeal of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, the reduction of the powers of the Auditor General and the dissolving of the Public Appointments Commission meant to fight patronage.

We also saw the gutting of food safety inspection. It was a one-stop shop of Conservative slicing and dicing through services Canadians rely on, while making changes to a slew of laws that they never once mentioned in their budget. By forcing omnibus bills such as the Trojan Horse bills through, the Conservatives demonstrated a mastery of the art of circumventing the democratic process and ignoring the concerns of Canadians and the concerns of first nations.

We now see another massive bill in Bill C-48 and that tells me that there is still work to be done among Conservatives if we are to see important changes legislated in a timely fashion. Failing to do so would hurt the business community and make it difficult for proper evaluation by Parliament.

It is not just difficult for parliamentarians. The government claims that its goal is to boost the economy, but by introducing overly complex bills, it does not allow small business people to invest the time and resources they need in order to understand them. They are in the business of business. They are not in the business of circumventing all of this red tape.

The Auditor General was clear about this and said, “If proposed technical changes are not tabled regularly, the volume of amendments becomes difficult for taxpayers [and] tax practitioners...”.

It is not just the Auditor General who has noted this issue. We heard from the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada. In its pre-budget submission, it said that, “CGA-Canada strongly believes that the key to sustained economic recovery and enhanced economic growth lies in the government’s commitment to tax reform and red tape reduction”.

There is a need to modernize the system and smaller bills would do that.

Finally, I would like to address the very important issue of tax avoidance, parts of which have been addressed in Bill C-48. It is very important for the government. New Democrats absolutely believe in cracking down on both tax avoidance and tax evasion while ensuring the integrity of the tax system.

As members know, there are many honest and hard-working Canadians out there who believe in the systems that our taxes support such as health care, social assistance and various environmental policies, even though they have been dismantled and disrupted. Those Canadians need to know that everyone is paying his or her fair share and that every business and every person is making the contribution to this country that we need. Therefore, it is important to focus on compliance in order to ensure the integrity of our tax system. It is important to get rid of the loopholes in a timely manner. In an ever-growing complexity of tax codes, we now need simplification, clarity and changes that will make it progressive and effective.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

We have continually challenged the government on its primary responsibility to respect Canadians by being predictable, fair, clear and disciplined in being accountable and in adopting tax measures, in order to help the public cope with economic difficulties. I am thinking about the business owners I spoke to when I came back after the holidays, just a few days ago. They are demanding recognition and respect from the government.

My colleague is facing many challenges, as am I in Beauport—Limoilou. Big businesses have made massive cuts, and this affects small businesses that subcontract or that draw some type of benefit. I would like my colleague to talk about the lack of trust business owners in her riding have in the government because of its negligence and inaction.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right about the difficulties facing people not only in all of Canada but particularly in ridings where multinational corporations have taken and taken and taken, whether tax benefits, resources, consuming infrastructure, or utilizing the expertise of the workers who made them wealthy and competitive industries and simply walked away, leaving the country high and dry, as we saw with the community of London—Fanshawe when the offshoot of Caterpillar left.

The future of this country is very clearly with small- and medium-size businesses. They are part of the community. In fact, last week I had the profound pleasure of speaking to members of the Rotary Club, made up of members of the small- and medium-size businesses that employ people, that are contributors to the community. They are not just there to take, take, take; they are there to give back and make for strong neighbourhoods. Therefore, we need a tax system that suits their needs. We need to stop these huge and ridiculous tax breaks for multinational corporations, the polluters, the banks, which are giving back very little, if anything at all, and we need to look very closely at small- and medium-size business and in that process make it as easy and expedient as possible for them to do their jobs as we would like.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether my colleague can tell us if there would be a way for the government to make these tax measures much easier for the average person to understand—for me, for all MPs here, as well as for all businesses—instead of presenting a massive one-time reform of tax laws with 1,000 pages every 10 or 11 years. How could it be simpler?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is really quite clear to us on this side of the House that smaller, more manageable bills would be the way to go. The promise to have an annual legislative process in place, I think, is the intelligent way to go. In that way, people could digest the small chunks at a time instead of this 10-year process where a thousand pages come at us and we try to sift and sort and understand them.

This is not exactly in regard to taxation, but very recently I received a number of complaints from concerned seniors who are being told that their income tax returns will now have to be done over the Internet. They are absolutely apoplectic. This is just another example of a government that is not looking at the needs of Canadians and is steamrolling over those Canadians.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first time rising in the House in 2013, I would like to take a minute to wish my constituents a happy and prosperous New Year.

I am glad to speak to Bill C-48 today, a bill that has been a long time coming. I hope it will not be another decade before we undergo this exercise again.

As we have heard, this is a huge bill. It addresses the changes to 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. It is almost a thousand pages.

What sets this large piece of legislation apart from the omnibus budget implementation acts that we debated last year is that it makes changes to a few closely related pieces of legislation. Therefore, I am perplexed as to why the government did not just throw it all in with the other stuff.

As we heard today, these changes are mostly old news and have been in practice for a number of years. That said, the bill is needed, as it has been more than 10 years since we have updated tax code legislation.

It is not that there have not been changes. The bill will include hundreds of tax measures that are already in place and have been enacted by comfort letters. In that respect, a lot of Bill C-48 amounts to technical housekeeping.

As the House is aware, the New Democrats are supporting the bill, but that does not amount to the acceptance of the government's direction on taxation or the belief that this entire process should not be improved. Certainly, the long period between updates to the tax code lead us to the situation that we have now where the legislation becomes so large. If we were to go through this process a little more regularly, we could avoid the scenario where MPs are forced to vote on bills that defy thorough study.

Tax lawyer Thomas McDonnell stated as much in a blog that touches on Bill C-48 as he discussed the legislative process with respect to taxation in both the United States and Canada. He wrote:

This Bill will also be passed without much in the way of informed debate in the House. Most parliamentarians voting on it will admit that they have not read it, let alone tried to fully understand the consequences of voting for (or against) it. This is not how Parliament is supposed to deal with one of its essential functions–the raising of revenue.

With that in mind it seems fairly straightforward to suggest that the government would do well to set a more regular schedule for this type of legislation going forward. I cannot imagine that such a move would be anything but positive, especially for those people whose business it is to work with the tax code.

We know there is broad support to do the work set out in the bill to get these measures into the tax code proper. The Auditor General has told us that it is long overdue. She told Parliament in 2009 that there were at least 400 outstanding technical amendments that had not yet been put into legislation. Over 200 of those outstanding changes are addressed in Bill C-48. While the Auditor General acknowledged that most tax practitioners were relatively happy with the comfort letter process, she noted the need to enact the legislative changes the comfort letters identified. Why it took four years to act on that advice is a question the government will have to answer. With the support it is receiving for Bill C-48 today, it is obvious that this could have been done some time ago.

When we are speaking about taxes, especially in the technical manner that we are today, most Canadians will not be sitting on the edge of their seats. This is not a bill that is likely to be newsworthy, since most of it is old news. What the bill does a lot of is to bring existing measures into the tax code that are designed to curb tax avoidance, which is actually good news for the vast majority of Canadians.

While the political discourse on taxation is often stuck in one gear, namely how to cut taxes, what is usually lost in the debate is the role that taxes play. Despite the universal desire to pay less, most people recognize the necessity of taxes. They allow us to operate as a country and can help us do a lot of good. Let us not forget about all the infrastructure dollars that go into our communities; they come from part of our taxes.

It is also a simple fact that countries require revenue and that revenue largely comes from taxation. What people absolutely want to see is a tax system that is fair, a system that guards against tax avoidance and a system that does not reward those people who are in a position to hide their money from their country. People do not want to feel that they are paying to subsidize others who have managed to use loopholes to minimize their contribution. That will not sit well with hard-working Canadians, and it should not sit well with parliamentarians either.

New Democrats understand this. We believe in cracking down on both tax avoidance and tax evasion, while ensuring the integrity of our tax system. We support the changes being proposed in the bill, especially those that aim to reduce tax avoidance.

The work being proposed in Bill C-48 is long overdue. Among the beneficiaries of the bill will be small businesses. These are the cornerstone of our communities, and it is important for us to do everything we can to create an environment that would make it easier to do business. These business people have enough to worry about without having to consider things like comfort letters. In that respect, what we are debating here is good. We would be streamlining the workload that businesses will have to comply with. Based on what I hear from businesses in my constituency of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, that would be a good and welcome thing.

As we have heard today, it would be impossible for any one of us to give a detailed account of such a large bill in the limited time we have to speak to the bill, so I will touch on one last item that I believe is timely.

What I am talking about is part 7 of Bill C-48. Part 7 clarifies the minister's authority to amend schedules and annexes to tax administration agreements if doing so does not fundamentally change the terms of the agreement. It would also allow tax administration agreements for the first nations goods and services tax between the federal government and aboriginal governments to be administered through a provincial administration system if the province also administers the federal GST. If we think back to how that issue was bungled when the HST was rolled out in Ontario, it would certainly help us avoid a similar scenario in the future.

I am sure members remember the discussion on the HST in Ontario. When the HST was brought in, how it would affect first nations was an afterthought by the Conservative government. Only some eleventh-hour negotiating at the insistence of Ontario chiefs like Chief Shining Turtle of Whitefish River First Nation, who is also the chair of the United Chiefs and Councils of Mnidoo Mnising First Nations on Manitoulin Island and Anishinabek Nation Grand Council Chief Patrick Madahbee. They avoided a showdown over the issue. In the end the solution was there all along. The Conservative government and the Government of Ontario chose to ignore it until they had no choice.

It is fitting that the Idle No More national day of protest was held in front of Parliament today. This is a similar issue. Some of us, along with the leader of the NDP, took the opportunity to meet with these people who have travelled a long way to bring their message of dissatisfaction to Parliament. Much of the frustration they are expressing comes from exactly the type of oversight that was on display when the HST turned first nations' tax exempt status into an exercise in red tape. What was forgotten at that time was the constitutional obligation of the federal government to meaningfully consult and accommodate first nations in decisions that directly affect them. I would like members to think about that because it seems that people have forgotten those words. I will repeat them: meaningfully consulting, meaningfully accommodating first nations in decisions that directly affect them.

This has been a sticking point for the Conservative government and I hope it has now recognized that first nations are not going to merely roll over and accept top-down directives. Had the government consulted, it would have heard that messing with tax exempt status was a non-starter and it could have moved immediately to the solution. Had the government remembered about the HST fiasco, it would not have gone ahead with the type of legislation that it threw into Bill C-45.

I met with some young people from the Whitefish River first nation. They do not understand why the government is not respecting their treaty rights, the accords and other agreements that have been signed. They are beyond themselves when it comes to the fact that the government often does not respect doing meaningful consultation. They have a right to that. New Democrats are hopeful the government will now show signs of understanding this and will proceed accordingly.

In closing, I reiterate that although New Democrats are supporting this bill, it is by no means an endorsement of the government's tax policies which put too much of the burden on the little guy while allowing an increasingly freer ride for the top earners in this country. We remain unconvinced that such a model is the best way to create wealth or jobs, but that is not the goal of this legislation either.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed my colleague's speech, especially her conclusion.

I found her comparison of the bill and the situation we are currently facing with our aboriginal communities particularly insightful. I found the connection quite relevant. In both cases, it appears that the government is waiting till the last minute to make any changes, despite how crucial they are. This is the eleventh hour, but we have no choice, since we are up to 950 pages.

It took the government 10 years to legislate technical changes recommended by the Canada Revenue Agency and other organizations and introduce this bill. Yet the situation decried by the Idle No More movement is the same: the government is waiting for a crisis to address a situation that should have been addressed long ago.

I wonder if my colleague could share her thoughts on how this government is governing. It always waits till the last minute and hopes that it can still manage things once they turn into a crisis situation, whether it involves aboriginal issues or fiscal matters. This bill, or at least certain parts of it, could have been implemented a long time ago.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

Obviously, it is the government's responsibility to consult and accommodate first nations. Before a bill is even introduced, the government should determine if the bill will affect first nations and if it has a responsibility to consult them. The government should also undertake other consultations once the bill has been introduced.

We should be getting the green light from first nations before we move forward with bills that have an impact on their reserves and their rights. That is very important to us. As we said, we have been waiting and waiting for this type of bill to put tax issues in order.

It is unfortunate that the Conservatives introduced a 1,000-page bill because with them it is hard to know what they might have added or what we may have been missed, since we do not have a lot of time to study it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her speech.

We are talking about a very complex tax system, yet this government has introduced a bill that is more than 900 pages long and in no way simplifies the system.

Does my colleague feel that this bill will ensure the transparency and integrity of our tax system?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right.

This 1,000-plus-page bill includes approximately 200 changes. The Auditor General said that more than 400 changes needed to be made, but not all of them are here. There is still work to be done. It is unfortunate that it is taking this government so long.

It prefers to change things that adversely affect people instead of doing the work of the House to ensure that the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed.

The House resumed from January 28 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the subject of Bill C-48, which is now before the House. The bill could be termed a housecleaning bill, which does not mean that it is unimportant because it is important to keep one's house clean and in this case we are talking about the cleanliness of our tax system. The bill enacts into law previous comfort letters and other statements by the Department of Finance, which have already been enacted by CRA but which are not yet enshrined in the law.

As I will indicate, the Liberal Party will support the bill. Our only complaint is that it is far too long in coming. There have been massive delays to the point where the bill is almost 1,000 pages long with, I believe, 40-something amendments. This has caused great cost and great uncertainty to the tax system. We believe that it is simply bad public administration that the government should have delayed so long in bringing the legislation forward.

The last housecleaning tax bill passed by Parliament was in 2001, almost 12 years ago. We believe as a matter of course such bills should come before the House every year, so that the complexity of the tax system would be alleviated and taxpayers would have a clearer idea of what their rights and obligations are.

Let me begin by going through a little bit of the sad, lengthy history, which has led us from 12 years ago when the last bill was passed to where we are today. As I said, in 2001, a tax housecleaning bill was passed, 12 years ago. The Liberal government prepared another one but then was defeated. The Conservatives made two attempts but both failed. Because of an election or because of prorogation, those bills simply did not get through the House and were dropped.

The next event that is of some importance is the Auditor General's report of 2009. The Auditor General made it crystal clear that there were major costs imposed by not acting more expeditiously in this area. I would like to read a few of the key recommendations that were made by the Auditor General in 2009.

She said:

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.

She continued:

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.

These points are extremely clear. The Auditor General makes it very clear that the absence of housecleaning legislation presented promptly imposes major costs on taxpayers in terms of their ability to understand the law, their need for professional advice and also imposes greater delays on rulings by CRA, which further reduce the efficiency of the system.

Following the Auditor General's report, the parliamentary committee on public accounts met and I would like to read its recommendations, which were published in the year 2010:

RECOMMENDATION 1

That the Department of Finance Canada facilitate the elimination of the backlog by ensuring that bills making technical amendments to the Income Tax Act only relate to technical tax matters.

RECOMMENDATION 2

That the Department of Finance Canada not wait until technical amendments bills are passed by Parliament before releasing further proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act for comment.

RECOMMENDATION 3

That once the current backlog of technical amendments is passed, the Department of Finance Canada should prepare annual technical amendments bills for consideration by Parliament.

RECOMMENDATION 4

That the Canada Revenue Agency provide by 31 March 2011 a progress report to the Public Accounts Committee on actions taken to address the recommendations contained in Chapter 3 of the Auditor General’s November 2009 Report.

It is clear as we stand now, in 2013, that these recommendations of the public accounts committee were not followed. It called for this housekeeping legislation to be presented on an annual basis. It called for a reduction in the time that CRA took to give its tax opinions or directions. This has not happened. The time has gotten longer, not shorter. Again, I would argue that this is a case of really bad public administration in an area that is not particularly exciting to the public but is, nevertheless, critical to the good functioning of our economy.

Now, one would think that accountants, of all people, would love tax complexity because they are paid for helping people to complete their taxes. If the system is more complex, they are needed even more and they would make more money. However, quite to the contrary, both the chartered accountants and the certified general accountants have recently been arguing very strongly in favour of expeditious passing of the legislation as well as a more general reform of the tax system.

I would like to read from both the recommendations of the chartered accountants and the certified general accountants on these issues. In 2010, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants said:

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 business 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 much too complex. We recommend that the government establish a national consultation process to examine tax simplification measures.

This is a government that talks all the time about caring only about the economy, about being competitive, about attracting foreign investment, and yet tax complexity is number four on the list of negative factors, according to companies, investors. The government has done nothing since these recommendations of 2009-10 until three years later, today, notwithstanding the pleas from the accountants, the Auditor General and the public accounts committee, to act expeditiously.

Let me now read what the certified general accountants said:

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 future legislative backlogs

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

That statement about a sunset provision is interesting because it would say that when Finance issues a declaration or a comfort letter that effectively changes the system, unless it is placed in law within a certain time, such as a year or two years, it sunsets. It disappears. This would be a good change to the system because it would be an incentive for the Department of Finance or the government to implement these housecleaning bills annually or expeditiously so as to reduce this growing complication of Canada's tax system.

However, as members will have heard from these quotes, the issue goes further than simply these housecleaning bills. It has been 12 years since our last housecleaning bill and close to 50 years since our last full-scale examination of Canada's tax system. The last time that was done, I believe, the report was issued in 1966 and it was done by the Carter commission. The accountants and I say that it is high time we have another overall study of Canada's tax system with a view to simplifying it and making it more competitive, less complex and more fair. This would be a major undertaking, and since it has not been done in almost 50 years, it is high time that we do it.

One obvious unfairness, which would become apparent if such a study were done, is the operation of our tax credits. The government offers tax credits for young soccer players or young violinists. Some economists would prefer that such measures be put into overall cuts in income tax, but that is another issue. My point is that these tax credits are grossly unfair because they deliberately exclude those people whose income is not high enough to pay significant tax. Therefore, low-income Canadians' sons and daughters might want to play soccer or the violin just as much as a child of a higher-income Canadian, but because their income is low and they do not pay tax or much tax, they are excluded from the benefit. That is a gross unfairness. Item number one in reforming our tax system would be to make those tax credits refundable so that they are available for all Canadians and not just for well-heeled Canadians.

That is just one tiny item in the overall scheme of things. We need an overall review of our tax system, which has not happened for nearly 50 years, and it is high time that this was done. We do support the bill. Our complaint is that it is far too late in coming.

I will go over a few of the provisions of the bill. I obviously cannot cover in detail the nearly 1,000 pages of changed legislation. One of the problems with it is that it is just too much to absorb correctly all in one bite and to analyze appropriately. However, I will mention some of the things that would be changed.

There would be changes to the foreign affiliate rules, which would probably be the most important changes for business. These changes would generally be considered to be relieving for business, although they also would increase the complexity of meeting those tax obligations.

On income trusts, the bill would affect how debt would be treated when an income tax trust is taken over by a corporation after the infamous 2006 income trust tax announcement.

There would be a change for employment insurance. Now that self-employed individuals can contribute to EI, Bill C-48 would ensure those contributions would be deducted from annual income for taxation purposes in the same manner that an employee's contributions are deducted.

On GST, first nations would be able to choose to levy a sales tax on reserve by allowing the Canada Revenue Agency to collect and administer the tax. All money collected would be returned to the band council. Bill C-48 would allow Revenu Québec to fulfill that same function.

On labour-sponsored venture funds, in 2010 the Province of Ontario announced it was phasing out its tax credit for labour-sponsored venture funds by 2014. Many of those funds are no longer attracting the capital they need to continue as labour-sponsored funds, and the fund administrators have asked that they become mutual funds. However, the Income Tax Act imposes some severe federal penalties for making that switch. Bill C-48 would waive those penalties in recognition of the Ontario government's change. It would also allow shareholders to sell their shares to other investors instead of back to the fund.

Finally, on airlines, provinces and taxes, this clarifies the allocation of miles flown over certain territorial waters for the purpose of provincial taxation.

As we will see from that list, none of those items is likely to make a headline, but cumulatively, when added together, the absence of such provisions in our income tax law adds complexity and costs and reduces the competitiveness of the Canadian economy. That is why the Liberal Party, while supporting this bill, would also make a plea to the government that the next such housecleaning bill be introduced in the House approximately one year from today.

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

Mr. Speaker, from my colleague's speech, I take it that it is a certainty that he will be supporting the Conservatives in moving forward with these amendments to close loopholes. However, I am wondering if he could clarify the position of the Liberal Party.

His colleague from Kings—Hants, I believe, put through 3,000 amendments. Some of the amendments would actually stop us from closing some of these loopholes. In the best interests of Canadians, would he clarify what the Liberal position is? Would he and the Liberal Party be working with us to make sure that this is expedited and moved through as quickly as possible?

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

Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member would have to consult the member for Kings—Hants to get clarification on that point.

My own view is that these measures are far too late, perhaps 11 years too late. My view is that if they can be passed, they should be passed as quickly as possible. As I also said, I hope we have another much smaller set of technical amendments, perhaps a year from now.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are certainly interested in closing tax loopholes. I was very interested in the parliamentary secretary's comments on amendments introduced by the Liberals that might prevent us from closing tax loopholes.

The hon. member talks about this being 11 years late. However, during the first five and a half years of that 11 years, his party was in government, and I believe that he was a minister. If he believes that these should be introduced every year, what happened during those five years when the Liberals were in government?

It is important that we update our tax code and that businesses have a clear idea of what is expected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that the Liberal governments of the past were in every respect 100% perfect. However, I think we were certainly much better on this issue than the current government, because we introduced changes that took effect in 2001 and other changes that would have taken effect under a Liberal government in 2005. When we were defeated, the Conservatives took over those changes, and they dropped the ball until today.

I think there is scope for improvement on the part of all Canadian governments. I do not think any of them have brought in changes as frequently as once per year. In the intervening time, since the Auditor General's report of 2009 and the accountants' reports I quoted earlier, it has become clearer to all that once per year would be the ideal frequency of these housekeeping bills.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the NDP will always be in favour of reducing the tax burden on Canadians. Still, we are talking here about all Canadians. It is not true that the NDP would decrease taxes on large corporations without requiring that they reinvest in their communities, as the Conservatives have done.

We can all agree that tax reductions were provided to large corporations without any conditions. They simply put the money in their banks. That was money belonging to the Canadian people, which has not been redistributed throughout the society and which is not making any contribution at all to the economy. That is not good economic management.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech.

When we talk about technical amendments to the Income Tax Act and other complex acts things are not always obvious, especially when the bill has some 1,000 pages. The issue is not necessarily the number of pages in the bill, but the fact that it has taken so long to be introduced.

When we talk about technical amendments, we know that it is a good idea, not only to clarify the law governing income tax and related matters, but also to reassure the entire business community.

What does my colleague think about the government taking such a long time? This is really a long time, because the amendments in this bill date back to 2001, more than 10 years ago. What impact will this have on ensuring that the public is well aware of the bills that affect us all?

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

Mr. Speaker, it tells me that up to now we have been governed by poor administrators who have created uncertainty in the economic sector and among the general public. If we suddenly bring in tons of amendments to the statutes that affect the economy, the transition will be much more difficult than if a few laws were changed each year.

Thus, we have some poor administrators and they must realize that there are important things to be done, and that a bill like this should be introduced at regular intervals, and not once a decade.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.

I am pleased to rise 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.

First of all, I would like to point out that this is a huge bill. It is almost 1,000 pages long and contains many technical amendments. The bill is extremely complex and only adds to the complexity of our tax system, which says a lot. It is, without question, a real omnibus bill.

However, unlike the mammoth budget bills we have seen recently, at least this one contains technical changes to a few very closely related bills. So, this represents quite a change, since we do not have to focus on a range of topics that have noting to do with the bill.

Nevertheless, the scope of this bill demonstrates just how much the government must do better to ensure the integrity of our tax system. Such a large bill can only complicate the work of parliamentarians and penalize businesspeople. Thus, it is imperative that the government do a better job managing our tax system, starting with introducing tax-related legislation on a more regular basis.

That is exactly what the Auditor General recommended in her fall 2009 report, which 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.

The purpose of Bill C-48 is to make some highly technical changes to our tax system that have been accumulating for a very long time. Most of these changes have been announced in press releases and comfort letters from the Minister of Finance and in budgets since the most recent technical bill passed over 11 years ago.

These changes will definitely be revenue positive and, more importantly, help prevent tax avoidance. Accordingly, we strongly support the changes proposed in this bill. Tax evasion and avoidance are fundamental problems that we need to address.

It is therefore high time that action was taken to stop tax evasion and tax avoidance that deprive the government of large amounts of revenue. Government revenue comes in large part from taxation, and we must protect the integrity of our tax system and ensure it is equitable. We cannot just forget about this tax revenue.

While we support the amendments made by the bill, the government must make these changes in a timely fashion, instead of doing everything at the same time. The most recent technical bill was passed in 2001. Why did the government wait so long before taking legislative measures to implement the 200 or so technical amendments that were still pending?

Canada’s Auditor General noted with concern in 2009 that there was a backlog of at least 400 technical amendments that had not been enacted. The report that she released in the fall of 2009 was nonetheless very clear about this and emphasized the fact that tax practitioners had expressed a need for the legislative changes that the comfort letters identified to be enacted.

This is therefore very complex bill, and I will take this opportunity to go through some of its parts in detail, to draw attention to what it is we are discussing.

Bill C-48 deals first with offshore investment fund property and non-resident trusts. Some of the proposals in the bill were in fact part of the 2010 budget and the budget of August 2010. The amendments in this part of the bill aim primarily at protecting the integrity of the tax system and preventing tax avoidance. For instance, there are measures that are meant to guarantee the taxation of Canadian residents’ worldwide income from all sources. This was not the case in the past, and this measure will have the effect of discouraging tax evasion.

Bill C-48 also deals with the taxation of Canadian multinational corporations with foreign affiliates. Here again, the intent of these amendments is the same: to protect the integrity of the tax system and prevent tax avoidance.

There are other measures to prevent tax avoidance, such as those relating to specified leasing property, to subject income trusts and partnerships to the same loss utilization restrictions as transactions between corporations, to limit the use of foreign tax credit generators in order to avoid paying foreign income tax, to clarify the rules on taxable Canadian property of non-residents and migrants, and to establish a tax avoidance information system.

Any tax avoidance transaction, that is, any transaction that is intended to obtain a tax advantage, must now be reported, even if it is not abusive. Other reporting requirements will apply if the transaction raises questions as to its lawfulness.

This is just a brief overview of some of the amendments included in the bill. While all of these changes are important and necessary, I would still like to point out that the government has taken too long to enact these technical amendments. Knowing that the most recent technical tax bill was passed in 2001, we can say that the time frame was far too long.

In the meantime, the government racked up hundreds of outstanding technical changes over the years. Some of the changes in Bill C-48 go back as far as 1998. These changes should have been made periodically and not through a massive 1,000-page bill. This bill includes a series of beneficial and necessary measures. The government must change its way of doing things. It must considerably improve the amendment process, which is far too slow, as we have seen. The ever-growing backlog of tax measures must stop.

In other words, the government must introduce a greater number of smaller bills, in order for their provisions to be enacted in a more timely fashion. That is precisely the view of the former senior chief of the Sales Tax Division at the Department of Finance, who said the following in September 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. As I said, it is a trade-off between how many bills enter onto the agenda, and their size and timeliness

Accordingly, in order to beef up our tax system, we must simplify tax legislation by making it clearer and more predictable. Obviously, that means incorporating tax policy changes into legislation on a more regular basis and therefore in a reasonable timeframe.

The complexity of our tax system creates many loopholes for businesses and individuals, which makes it especially difficult to achieve fairness in our system. I think we should seize the opportunity that this massive bill is giving us to debate the complexity and fairness of the system.

We need to have a real discussion about taxation in Canada. For example, there are many non-refundable tax credits offered by this government. These credits can only be used by people who pay taxes and, therefore, they are not available to the people most in need, who earn less. I am thinking specifically of the disability tax credit. People with the lowest incomes are exactly the people most in need of this assistance, and they should be targeted by this program. Consequently, these non-refundable tax credits have a limited ability to foster income security.

In conclusion, we support Bill C-48. However, I would like to point out that the government must improve the administration of its tax laws, especially the process for making amendments. We fully support the amendments in this bill. It includes measures to eliminate tax evasion and avoidance, while preserving the integrity of our tax system. This is an important fight for the NDP as it attempts to ensure that our system is fair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which provided us with a lot of information about the bill and how it came about.

Bill C-48, which is before us today, contains over 1,000 pages, but the question I want to ask the member has nothing to do with the number of pages. What I want to know is why it took so long to introduce the bill and address these issues. As my colleague mentioned, this bill addresses a number of technical issues that should have been dealt with long ago. When the government takes too long to introduce legislation, it leads to insecurity in the business community. This government, therefore, is a laggard.

Can my colleague tell me why this government takes so long to address problems when solving them could help the business community?

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

All I can say is that introducing a 1,000-page bill slows down its passage. If bills were more modest and not as big, they could be passed more quickly. More bills would be introduced, but it would not take as long to pass them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montcalm for her excellent speech on an extremely large bill. Quite frankly, the 1,000 pages is enough to make your head spin.

This morning, I raised my concerns regarding omnibus bills and the Conservatives' habit of introducing very large bills that affect a lot of legislation and take a long time to pass.

Often, my constituents in Alfred-Pellan, in Laval, voice this concern by mail or over the phone. They tell me that it is not logical to introduce omnibus bills because, often, they are duplicitous.

What feedback has my colleague had from her constituents regarding omnibus bills like this one, or the budget bills, such as C-38 and C-45, which were introduced in recent months?

How have the constituents in her riding reacted to the arrogance displayed by Conservative government in introducing this kind of omnibus bill?

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an easy question to answer.

The residents of Montcalm often tell me that they wonder why such big bills are introduced as they undoubtedly contain hidden punitive measures that will affect their lives one day or another.

I tend to agree with them. I still read their messages and the same concerns keep being raised.

When a bill is too big, the fear is that some things will be kept hidden and Canadians will suffer the consequences.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I heard my colleague from Alfred-Pellan say that her office had received a lot of correspondence about the previous omnibus bills. We are not talking about the current omnibus bill, which is nevertheless related to all that.

Has my colleague received any correspondence from her fellow citizens on the two previous omnibus bills, Bills C-45 and C-38?

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, people are talking about them.

Everything voluminous is also highly complex. It is hard to explain such a long bill to our fellow citizens in a few words, and in a few minutes, and to show them the impact it will have on their lives.

I imagine I will continue to receive messages about this. More and more constituents are writing to me. I get increasing numbers of letters at my office every time we deal with a bill such as this one.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about 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.

The title is long, and the bill is voluminous. It is a necessary bill that makes amendments, and thus changes. The vast majority of the measures it contains have been in place for several years now. This bill makes them law.

Many people wonder why it has taken so long to introduce this bill. It is true that it is highly complex. Having studied law, particularly tax law, I can say that reading this bill is quite a difficult task. Let us just say that no one will be reading it for fun. The right frame of mind is essential.

I would like to thank the Department of Finance people who helped us during the briefing. They were very clear. They answered all our questions, unlike what the Conservative government is doing. The department's co-operation with us on this bill was good.

As my colleagues have already mentioned, no technical changes or clarifications have been made since 2001. That is a problem because we need more constant and regular review to achieve a degree of credibility and stability so that we can clearly understand the laws. In this case, the Conservatives have been asleep at the switch. It is time for them to wake up and do their job.

Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General of Canada, stated the following in her 2009 report:

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.

Yet, of the some 400 amendments in question, only 200 are included in this bill. There is therefore a problem with the government's approach. The government needs to do some housekeeping. It is important in order to build some degree of stability and understanding.

In this regard, the Standing Committee on Finance—of which I was a member not long before I joined the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—mentioned tax simplification in its report. Many organizations testified before the committee of its importance. Tax simplification was even included in the Standing Committee on Finance's recommendations.

What is meant by tax simplification? With this 1,000-page bill and the Income Tax Act, tax legislation is piling up and becoming increasingly complex. Tax professionals and tax lawyers are increasingly sought after in order to sort everything out.

The more complicated this legislation gets, the more chances there are for loopholes or opportunities for evasion. Fortunately, this bills implements certain measures to close these loopholes.

The government is not doing enough to stop tax evasion. However, I am very pleased that our colleagues from the finance committee are currently examining the issue of tax evasion and tax havens. My colleagues know that I feel very strongly about this issue since I am the one who moved the motion. I am therefore very happy that the finance committee is moving forward on this. That being said, the government is clearly not doing enough from a practical standpoint.

In fact, the government has no estimate of how much money Canada is losing. Canada is losing billions of dollars, but they seem to be saying they are working on it. However, when we look at how the government is working on it, we see that there have been cuts at the Canada Revenue Agency and that the positions of people responsible for looking into tax evasion are even being cut.

To come back to the bill, I will say that some measures tackle tax evasion, or rather what is called tax avoidance, to close the loopholes. That is very important.

The bill is quite lengthy, but some parts are very worthwhile. As I explained, the bill is very technical and very lengthy. However, in order to understand the bill better and have a better idea of its scope, I am going to refer to a few aspects of it.

Part one deals with offshore investment fund property and non-resident trusts. The changes are aimed at taxing the worldwide income of Canadian residents.

It is therefore a good proposal.

Parts two and three deal with the taxation of foreign affiliates of Canadian multinational corporations. Again, that is an interesting and important issue.

Part four deals with amendments to ensure that provisions that use certain private law concepts reflect both the common law and civilian law in both linguistic versions.

It is quite technical, but it is important to make progress in this regard.

Part five of the bill implements a variety of technical elements.

In this case, I will not go into too many details, because it is rather tough going. Generally speaking, it is quite technical, but these are necessary amendments.

Part six includes housekeeping changes to the Excise Tax Act, repealing a provision that has not been used since 1999.

Once again, we see that the existing measures have not really been used, and that it takes a long time for the government to do something.

Part seven talks about certain powers of the minister. Certain things relating to that are dealt with.

Part eight says that Bill C-48 covers all of the amendments made in Bill C-45, which was introduced last fall.

To come back to what I was saying in relation to simplification and the fact that the government is not doing that enough, as I said a minute ago, I can tell you what people are saying about the need to make things simpler.

For this I blame both the Conservatives and the Liberals, who talk about simplifying taxes and ask why nothing has been done since the Carter Commission, that is, for several years now. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have done anything in this regard. I find that quite deplorable, and I am not the only one. A number of groups, including the certified general accountants, a rather important group that has much to propose in this regard, feel the same way. I am going to read the recommendation made by that group in the pre-budget consultations.

—we strongly feel that implementing a sunset provision would ensure that tax amendments are legislated, which ultimately will eliminate the ever-growing backlog of unlegislated tax measures once and for all. With this provision, if a tax policy change is announced and not incorporated into legislation within a reasonable amount of time, the measure would lapse. This would bring greater clarity and certainty to tax legislation, reduce the compliance and paperwork burden, and, perhaps most importantly, prevent any future legislative backlogs. Those are a few simple but important steps that would go some distance in improving and strengthening Canada's tax system.

Those are a few simple but important steps that would go some distance in improving and strengthening Canada's tax system.

Again, the sunset provision is important; it should be a priority. It would keep us from having so many bills that go back more than 10 years, as has been mentioned, and whose tax measures have not been implemented.

Bill C-48 is a good start, but we would like the government to be more responsible, both administratively and fiscally.

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

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting to hear the Liberals passing the buck earlier, saying that they had not done anything. In 2009, it was suggested that a bill like this be introduced every year. The first legislative amendments proposed in such a bill date back to 1998, almost 15 years.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that. What was the government's attitude towards our country's administration during those years?

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

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

Today the Liberals were criticizing the Conservative government. Everyone is passing the buck. It is always the fault of previous governments. When one party is in opposition, it blames the party in power.

There is a way of doing things, especially in this case. We have a 1,000-page document. What is important is not the number of pages but the number of years it took us to get here. When the Liberals were in power they did not do much on this issue. Now they are saying that it should be done every year. They just happened to think of this solution. They did not do their homework to find the simplest solution.

Simplifying things makes it easier for taxpayers. Even tax experts are calling for simpler legislation that people can understand better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

In his speech, he said that the NDP thinks we must fight tax avoidance and tax evasion, while preserving the integrity of our tax regime.

In this case, could my colleague tell us what he thinks about the importance of compliance? This plays a key role in maintaining that integrity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

Yes, in fact, for us in the NDP, the issue of tax evasion and tax havens is extremely important. This is why we were the ones who moved the motion to ask the Standing Committee on Finance to consider the matter. The NDP would also like to thank the other parties for agreeing to look into the whole issue of tax evasion and tax havens.

This is really all about fairness. It is about saving money. Corporations that use tax havens and avoid paying taxes should pay their fair share. This is completely normal and acceptable. However, in concrete terms, the government is not taking the necessary measures to address this scourge. This is why it took an NDP motion to make progress on the issue.

Let us hope that once the Standing Committee on Finance has completed its study, the government will finally take action and force corporations to abide by every aspect of tax law.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very carefully, but there is something I would like to hear a clear answer to.

In the House we often hear about the NDP's $21-billion carbon tax scheme. It has been in the NDP platform. Also, on September 14, in a Financial Post interview of the NDP caucus chair, he expressed his frustration that our government has rejected a carbon tax policy, which we do. We do not believe it would do anything to help our country.

Would the member please clarify this $21-billion carbon tax scheme, because it was in the election platform of the NDP.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really do not know what that has to do with C-48, the issue on which I was speaking. This is an important bill. However, I would like to respond to my colleague’s question.

During the election campaign, we put forward the same idea as the Conservatives did in 2008, regarding what is called a carbon exchange. My colleague does not understand the difference. I would love to explain it but unfortunately I do not have the time.

She should look at the her party’s election platform in 2008. There is a difference between a carbon tax and a carbon exchange. Perhaps my colleague should read about it and find out more about the issue. I would happily provide her with information about it.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before resuming debate, I would like to inform hon. members that there have been more than five hours of debate on this motion. Consequently, the maximum time allocated for all subsequent interventions shall be ten minutes for speeches and five minutes for questions and comments.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to weigh in, for a few moments anyway, on Bill C-48. I commend the member for Brossard—La Prairie, not only for his speech but also for the incredibly valuable work he performed as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. Not to put too fine a point on it, he is a brilliant deputé and made an important contribution. I know that he will make a similar type of contribution on the justice committee, where he is now focusing his attention.

We are dealing with a bill that is nearly a thousand pages long. As others have said, it deals with a huge number of needed amendments that have been outstanding for nearly 15 years. They were announced but were not enacted in legislation, creating great confusion and problems for tax practitioners and individual Canadians.

The point made by one of the groups we spoke to, and that I am sure he heard from, Blakes, was that as a result of allowing this backlog of amendments to build up, the government has increased the complexity of the tax system. That flies in the face of everything the government has claimed it stands for as it relates to things such as reducing red tape and simplifying the tax system to make it easily accessible and understood by Canadians. That is another example of how the government tells Canadians one thing and goes ahead and does something else.

We heard from other members of this caucus that the Auditor General, in 2009, reported to the House that there were upwards of 400 tax amendments that had been proclaimed and were being carried forward but they had not been codified and enacted in legislation. That was creating a problem, a sense of confusion and an added level of complexity. He said it was simply bad practice and was not the way to run something as technical and important as the tax system under the finance acts.

Bill C-48, I understand, deals with about half of those. It does not deal with the additional ones that have been announced by the government since 2009. Therefore, even though we are dealing with a piece of legislation that is 1000 pages long and is extraordinarily complex, we will not have time to go through it in the kind of detail with which we probably should go through it. The government is still not dealing with all the changes in the tax system that have been enacted already but that have yet to be codified.

That is why the experts, such as the Certified General Accountants-Canada and the Auditor General, have said it is so important. We have comments from Thomas McDonnell, from Thorsteinssons LLP tax lawyers, and others who have said it is important to make sure that, for the tax changes that are proposed, announced and put in place by the Minister of Finance or the government, whether at budget time or at other times during the year, the government should be introducing legislation annually in the House to make sure that happens.

In 2007 the Conservatives introduced Bill C-10, which was an attempt to try to catch up to the backlog. Members will know that in 2008, they pulled the plug, because they felt that they might be able to get a majority government at the time. Even though they were flying in the face of fixed-term legislation that the Prime Minister himself lauded, they went to the polls in the fall of 2008. As a result, Bill C-10 died on the order paper.

The point is that they should not be waiting years to take care of business that should be looked after on an annual basis. It would give legislators here and experts across the country an opportunity to take a small chunk of legislation and amendments and to have a full discussion about their implications. That would be a sign of good governance.

If Parliament were up to date on those kinds of legislative changes, and the government of the day decided to prorogue the House or call an election or whatever, we would only be dealing with one year of changes next time around and would not be participating in a buildup of a backlog.

As everyone who knows about this system has said, it is extraordinarily complex. Allowing this backlog to build and bringing in amendments this way to an extraordinarily technical piece of legislation of almost 1,000 pages does not provide the clarity and opportunity for simplifying the tax system that we should be looking for. It is in the interest of all Canadians.

Since my time is winding down, I will make three points. I have said already that the bill is extremely technical. New Democrats think it does not need to be so technical.

In respect of good governance and legislative management, it should be done on an annual basis. Let me be clear that we on this side believe in cracking down on both tax avoidance and tax evasion while ensuring the integrity of our tax system. We support these changes, but we want to ensure that they happen on a more manageable basis.

This is an omnibus bill of sorts, but as opposed to Bills C-45 and C-38, it does not bring 60 pieces of legislation together with nothing that ties them together. It deals with changes to closely related pieces of legislation.

Finally, the massive size of this bill demonstrates that there is still work to be done in getting technical changes legislated in a timely fashion. As I have said and will reiterate, failing to do so hurts the business community. It makes it difficult for proper evaluation by Parliament. Ultimately, it impacts the economy of this country and individual Canadians who are trying to work with an increasingly complex tax system as they go about their business and their daily lives making sure they provide for themselves and their families and build stronger communities and a stronger country.

That is our goal. Those are the measures we would like to see the government move forward with.

We will be supporting the legislation. I urge the government to ensure that this is done on an annual basis from here on in.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He did a good job of explaining why these measures should have been in place many years ago. It is clear that, over the years, several experts, including the auditor general of Canada, have raised the issue of considerable delays.

As the member clearly explained, we are now dealing with an extremely large and complex document, and conducting a thorough review of it is no easy feat.

Nevertheless, I would like my colleague to talk about the important provisions of Bill C-48 that the NDP supports.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say that the question of tax avoidance is an issue we take very seriously. It is something our colleague from Brossard—La Prairie focused on as a member of the finance committee. I know that our members of the finance committee will continue that initiative.

There are provisions in the bill that deal with tax avoidance, and we support them. Let us be clear. We want to close the loopholes. We want to ensure that people pay their fair share, that companies that are obligated to pay taxes to the Government of Canada in fact do so.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not rise immediately after the member's speech, because I actually had to think about exactly how I would phrase this with dignity.

I listened to the member's speech of balderdash for the entire time. He said very little about the bill but went back to 2008. It was kind of a cathartic exercise about how the election happened. Of course, he forgot to mention the fact that it was a minority government and that the opposition, actually, was in charge of having the government fall and having us go to an election. He also failed to mention that after the election, we actually were in government again.

At the end, he mentioned three issues and said his party would support the bill. He talked about how inefficient we were in getting these measures through and about wanting to do it annually. If that is the case, and they want to support it and make it happen, would they be prepared to go ahead, finish their speakers' list today, and move the bill into committee? Let us get it done. Let us work together as the loving partners we are so that we can get the--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting intervention, with the member trying, again, to rewrite history. When the election was called in 2008, it was a decision made by the Conservative government, by the Prime Minister. It was not a decision forced by the opposition.

However, the opposition did force the government to bring in a stimulus package, a stimulus plan, to deal with the economic troubles facing this country. In fact, the opposition put so much fear into the government that it prorogued the House. Let us not forget that the Conservative government prorogued the House. It ran in fear from this place, because it was afraid that it would be defeated democratically by this Parliament.

In answer to that question, let me say that we agreed that we would support this legislation. However, we are not going to give up our right to stand up and represent our constituents, my constituents from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, just because members opposite are in a hurry.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the time of year when Canadians are going to have to start thinking about completing their income tax returns. It is not something Canadians necessarily enjoy doing, but whether we like it or not, it is a tradition. Sharing wealth is also one of Canada's traditions. Doing so enables us to have social programs so that when people fall ill, they can seek the help of a doctor, go to the hospital, and receive universal health care that is both free and accessible.

Our taxes also provide us with programs such as employment insurance. This program ensures that if a person is unfortunate enough to lose his or her job or get laid off during a plant closure—as we have seen occur over recent years—the family will still have an income. Single people will still have a roof over their heads and be able to purchase essential items, such as groceries.

Our taxes and laws also make it possible to have shared programs with the provinces for infrastructure and public transport. All of this contributes to the common good.

I am very pleased, therefore, to rise to speak about 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 is large and contains over 1000 pages. I have often risen in this House to denounce large bills, including the omnibus bills that the government has introduced as so-called budget implementation bills. The NDP has taken a strong stand against this type of legislation because many of the measures are not necessarily related to the budget. They contain any number of amendments to various pieces of legislation, and there is not sufficient time to review the measures in committee. In any event, we have been denied the opportunity to study these omnibus bills in specific committees. We have voiced our opposition to this and we shall continue to do so as much as possible in the House.

The difference in this case is that the bill amends acts that are similar and that deal with related issues. The reason it is so bulky is that over the years—in fact, since 2001—previous governments dragged their feet. They did not follow the sound advice of the Auditor General to correct things. They should have acted, they should have amended acts, but they waited and let the years go by. That is why we now have such a bulky bill. Such changes should be done on an ad hoc basis, but we did not do our homework. We did not do what should have been done.

The NDP supports Bill C-48 because it is important that this legislation continues to focus on compliance to guarantee the integrity of the tax system.

We say that tax loopholes must be eliminated in a timely fashion. This bill is very important to protect the integrity of our tax system and to have all the winning conditions.

I want to underline three points. We must fight tax avoidance and tax evasion while preserving the integrity of our tax system. This bill is a step in the right direction.

We support the changes proposed in this bill, including those that seek to reduce tax avoidance.

Again, this is a bulky bill. I explained why earlier. I believe we can do better, and Canadians deserve better. Over the years, it will be important to conduct regular and ad hoc reviews of the tax system.

Unlike the previous omnibus bill that brought major changes to all sorts of acts, this legislation proposes technical amendments to a number of acts that are closely related. We will have to ensure that ad hoc reviews are conducted.

In 2009, the Auditor General of Canada was concerned about the fact that at least 400 technical amendments had not been enacted through legislation.

Bill C-48 enacts more than 200 of these changes. There is still work to be done. It can be done, but we need to ensure that our tax system is fair and that all of the loopholes have been eliminated.

The bill has a number of parts. I would like to speak specifically about part 5 of the bill, which would implement various technical amendments, some from as far back as 2002.

I am not going to go into the history of these changes, but part 5 includes anti-avoidance measures for specified leasing property, measures to ensure that income trusts and partnerships are subject to the same loss utilization restrictions as transactions between corporations, measures to limit the use of foreign tax credit generators for the purpose of avoiding foreign tax, and measures to clarify rules on taxable Canadian property for non-residents and migrants. It also provides an information regime for tax avoidance.

Any tax avoidance transaction, that is, any transaction that is intended to obtain a tax advantage, must now be reported, even if it is not abusive. Additional reporting will be required in cases where the transaction raises red flags about its legitimacy.

According to experts, the majority of these changes were already in place and should have been even earlier. We hope that this bill will provide effective measures for fighting tax evasion. A review mechanism should also be put in place so that we do not find ourselves with another bill of this size in 10 years.

Canadians will appreciate it and it will make our work as parliamentarians easier.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my hon. colleague on her speech.

Several members, including the member who just spoke, have mentioned the huge size of the bill. A great deal of legislative work remains to be done on this bill.

What does the member think of the repercussions this will have on both the assessment work and on the business community?

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

Mr. Speaker, definitely, the fact that this bill is so huge implies a certain complexity. We hope that this complexity will actually lead to greater clarity, and that all taxpayers will find the system easier to understand. What we really want to emphasize here is the importance of establishing clear rules and preventing tax evasion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the NDP speeches throughout the morning.

I want to thank NDP for supporting our government in trying to close these loopholes. However, I have not received a straight answer from the NDP as far as what it feels overall on taxes for Canadians and where it stands.

As members know, we have decreased the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, and the NDP voted against that. We lowered taxes 140 times, and the NDP voted against it. We decreased taxes for families, $3,000 per year for a family of four, and the NDP voted against that.

The NDP has $65 billion of unfunded promises it made to the Canadian people. We have heard about the $21 billion carbon tax that the NDP wants, but that is still a $40 billion discrepancy.

Therefore, could the NDP let Canadians know where it is going to get that money? If the NDP really cares about Canadian families, when is it going to put its money where its mouth is and let them know where it is going to get the money?

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for the question.

In fact, what I noted and what I would like to point out about this bill is the fact that it closes the loopholes in the current taxation system that people and corporations were using to avoid paying income taxes. Those individuals and corporations will now have to pay their share and comply with the Income Tax Act. I think this bill is a good way to settle these technical issues so that the Government of Canada can collect the taxes it is owed.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, regarding these measures, does my colleague believe it would be appropriate for the government in power, regardless of its political stripes, to introduce a bill every year to correct shortcomings in the tax system? When does she think would be the ideal time? I would like to hear her thoughts on that.

We are examining this bill today, but we may not have time to complete debate before tax time comes around. When would be the ideal time to introduce this kind of legislation so that the measures it proposes would come into effect in time for the next income tax period, while also giving businesses enough time to adapt to the changes?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very pertinent question.

In my opinion, we should consult the experts on this. Unfortunately, I cannot say when would be the ideal time to do this. I believe that my colleague has raised a very important point, that is when would be the best time to introduce this type of legislation in order to properly inform all taxpayers, corporations and businesses about their tax returns.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to support this bill on behalf of the people in my riding of Pontiac. A good housecleaning in this area can only help businesses in particular.

Bill C-48 implements over a decade of highly technical amendments to our tax system. I believe that these changes will have a positive impact on revenues and that they will generally discourage tax avoidance, which is an important element.

The very size of this bill shows that the government must manage the tax system in a more responsible manner. It must ensure in particular that it periodically passes legislation on proposed tax measures. Otherwise, there will be greater uncertainty for business people and tax experts, and it will be almost impossible for parliamentarians to deal with such lengthy bills.

I also want to point out the importance of guaranteeing the integrity of the tax system. Moreover, I believe that we must eliminate unanticipated tax loopholes in a timely manner. We must also consider the increasing complexity of tax laws and insist on the need to simplify them over time.

Like my fellow New Democrats, I think we must fight tax avoidance and tax evasion while preserving the integrity of our tax system. That is why I support the changes being made in this bill, especially those that aim to stop tax avoidance. It is a significant loss of revenue for the state, and that revenue is essential to support our social programs, which reflect the values of all Canadians.

Still, at nearly 1,000 pages, this bill is the perfect example of an omnibus bill. Fortunately, unlike the monster budget bills that contain badly designed and poorly conceived policies, this bill makes technical amendments to several closely related acts.

This bill's massive size is proof that there is still some work to be done in transforming such technical amendments into legislation and, as I said, doing that with good speed. Not doing that penalizes businesses and complicates Parliament's tasks. And that has a cost.

The harder it is for businesses to find their way around the country's tax laws and pay their taxes, the less effort they will make to pay their fair and responsible share of taxes. It is these taxes that the state uses to redistribute revenue and help the neediest people in our society and anyone who runs into problems.

In the fall of 2009, the Auditor General reported that there were more than 400 technical amendments that had been proclaimed but had not yet been enacted in legislation. Bill C-48 will enact more than 200 of these changes, or about half, but the others will be left in limbo. When can we expect to see those 200 amendments become law?

We may all wonder what is causing this delay. When the Liberals were in power, they, too, took some time integrating the technical amendments into tax law. The most recent enactment of a technical tax bill was in 2001, more than a decade ago.

I wonder why the Liberals did not pass such technical taxation bills regularly after 2001. They may have an answer. The Conservatives, too, have taken their time transforming these technical amendments into legislation.

Bill C-48 is designed to implement more than 200 of these changes. However, it is crucial that the other 200 be enacted and that the integrity of our tax system be maintained. The Conservatives should try to do a better job of incorporating these technical amendments into the legislation.

Compliance is a key aspect of maintaining the integrity of our tax system. What is the government doing to ensure that people comply with the technical changes being made in the tax system? We have not yet had an answer to that question.

The official opposition has consulted tax professionals and lawyers, who have told us that the technical changes in Bill C-48 are largely beneficial and necessary, but that there are not enough of them. That said, there have been other attempts to pass technical tax bills.

For example, Bill C-10 was introduced in October 2007 and was quickly passed by the House of Commons, but it had not passed the Senate committee stage when the 39th Parliament was dissolved in September 2008.

Governments have not been acting quickly enough. And that costs Canadian companies and taxpayers money. We want the government to act more quickly when it comes to tax changes, and we want these changes to be tabled more often. Many experts agree with us. For example, here is a quote from the Auditor General:

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....

In the 1991 Report of the Auditor General, Chapter 2, we expressed concerns that income tax comfort letters were given without public announcement. In response, the Department of Finance Canada stated that “the government intends to release a package of income tax technical amendments on an annual basis, so that taxpayers will not be subject to more lengthy waiting periods as in the past before amendments are released to the public.”... comfort letters have since been regularly released to the public...

Denis Saint-Pierre, the chair of the Tax and Fiscal Policy Advisory Group for the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, said the following in committee:

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...—have been proposed, but not yet enacted, which brings uncertainty and unpredictability to the process.

In its 2012 prebudget submission—not too long ago—the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada said:

CGA-Canada strongly believes that the key to sustained economic recovery [the question was about economic recovery] and enhanced economic growth lies in the government’s commitment to tax reform and red tape reduction.

It is clear that we must take action that is in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers, to develop a tax system that makes sense and serves everyone.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, several Conservative MPs have spoken about my party's platform after hearing our speeches on the bill.

I would like my colleague to remind the House how much we would save by abolishing the Senate, which is unelected and spends money hand over fist. Could he remind Canadians how much money they would save by abolishing the Senate?

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

We would start at $90 million, which is not chump change. We would also need to strengthen the tax system to ensure everyone pays taxes. I am thinking of big businesses, mostly. Too many big businesses in Canada do not pay taxes. This translates into lost revenue for the state, revenue that could be used to fund programs to help those most in need.

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

Mr. Speaker, the last questioner did remind me that I have stood in the House a few times to ask NDP members to explain their $64 billion in unfunded platform promises, so I thought I would give it a shot again. We have another NDP speaker.

First, we are encouraged and happy that the NDP is supporting the bill to close these loopholes, but NDP members voted against the GST when we lowered it from 7% to 6% to 5%. We have lowered taxes for families and businesses in Canada 140 times. They voted against that every single time. That is $3,000 less in federal taxes that families now pay as a result.

The NDP have made $65 billion in promises but have not told Canadians how they will fund them. The question is very simple. We know about the $21 billion carbon tax, but there is still a big $45 billion gap that the NDP have not told Canadians how they would fund.

Could the member stand up and give us a straight answer and let Canadians know what the NDP plan is for all its promises.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is founded on some premises that I would question. One of them is that somehow Canadians are largely benefiting from the tax credits provided by the government. However, when I ask people in my riding what they think about the majority of those tax credits, they say the credits either do not apply to them or “Oh, yes. Okay”.

That is not a solution. That is not a tax policy. That is not a policy that will ensure that the state has the revenue it needs to support those programs, the medical system, for example, which Canadians strongly support. We are not the ones who are cutting transfers to the provinces for these programs.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Nor are we. Try to be factual.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

There is $31 billion less in the system.

We are talking about priorities. We have different priorities than you do. You want to give tax cuts to the largest corporations—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. Just as a reminder to hon. members, when we start using the “you” word, invariably the tenor of the debate begins to go in a different direction. I remind hon. members to direct their comments and questions through the Chair.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, since the hon. Conservative member raised the issue of promises and party platforms, I would remind the Conservatives that they said in their 2008 platform that they would not export bitumen. They also brought in fixed election date legislation in 2006, which they violated in 2008.

In terms of tax policies, the federal government and the Conservatives in British Columbia brought in the HST in the latter province, a tax that was roundly opposed by 80% of British Columbians and rejected in a referendum.

I am just wondering if my hon. friend would care to comment on some of the problems with the Conservatives' inability to keep their promises and their betraying the Canadian people as a result.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I had to enumerate all the promises the Conservatives have broken, I would be here all day.

Let us just start with the Senate, which is unelected, unaccountable and under investigation. It costs the taxpayer $90 million. That is respect for the taxpayer. Maybe we will finish at that.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the honourable member for Portneuf, I should let her know that I will have to interrupt her at 1:30, at the end of the time provided for government business.

Resuming debate. The honourable member for Portneuf.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit I am very disappointed to learn I will have so little time to talk about a matter that so fascinates people, as I have seen here today. However, I will nevertheless add my voice to those of my colleagues in speaking about Bill C-48, a new bill nearly 1,000 pages long that makes many highly technical changes to Canada's tax system, changes that have been piling up for over a decade.

As I have mentioned several times in this House, most of the changes contained in Bill C-48 have been announced over the 11 years since the most recent technical bill was passed in the many news releases and comfort letters of the Department of Finance and in the budget. These amendments have been brought into effect, but they have not been made the subject of a technical bill. Now the government seeks to enact them all more officially.

In addition to the measures we already know of, Bill C-48 introduces three new measures never previously announced. First of all, it repeals certain tax restrictions to assist labour-sponsored venture capital corporations in addressing some transitional problems. It amends the formula for allocating the taxable income of airline corporations to ensure that taxable income stays in the provinces or territories where those corporations are permanently established. It also provides for the implementation of a measure respecting the tax treatment of shares owned by short-term residents of Canada for departure tax purposes.

We in the NDP believe that the technical changes this bill will make to Canada's tax system will be beneficial and will generally have the effect of discouraging tax avoidance. That is why we will support this bill on second reading.

Tax avoidance is a problem often criticized by people across the country, particularly in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. These are honest taxpayers who pay their taxes and who see more privileged Canadians benefiting from privileges to which honest Canadians who pay their taxes do not have access. They want their members of Parliament to address this problem.

As representatives of these people, we have the responsibility to do everything it takes to minimize tax evasion and eliminate loopholes in the legislation. We must ensure that the state has all the resources necessary to guarantee that Canadians have the services and public institutions they depend on and deserve.

The Conservatives are offering all sorts of tax cuts and tax credits to oil companies without expecting anything in return. They are forfeiting revenue that the state needs and are never able to cut spending enough to lower the deficit. The Conservatives are using smoke and mirrors every day. They want us to buy the ridiculous idea that they are good managers of public funds, but they are unable to effectively and regularly implement the new tax measures that they are proposing to improve Canada's tax laws.

It is essential that the government quickly considers this problem and takes an effective approach to enact these technical amendments and thereby eliminate the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the current system. It is important for taxpayers, businesses and tax experts.

The government must act quickly to remedy this situation, which is problematic in a number of ways. We want Canadian businesses to be competitive so that they can perform well on world markets. They must have a clear understanding of the tax laws in effect and access to up-to-date information as quickly as possible. That is what we are asking from the government.

That is why we are going to support the bill at second reading; however, there is still work to be done. This government must do the work quickly in order to help all Canadian taxpayers and businesses.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier will have six minutes for her speech and five minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on the motion.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from February 15 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The last time the House considered the motion, the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier had six minutes left for her speech and there were five minutes left for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel especially privileged to have the chance to speak twice on Bill C-48, which amends the Income Tax Act. Not everyone has an opportunity to address this highly charged issue.

As I mentioned the last time, this bill is nearly 1,000 pages long and makes a number of very technical changes to Canada’s tax system, changes that have accumulated over more than a decade. It seeks to obtain official approval for the various technical measures that have been put forward by the Minister of Finance over the years, over more than 10 years now, in fact.

We in the NDP believe that the technical changes proposed in Bill C-48 will be good for the Canadian tax system and will generally reduce tax avoidance. This is why the NDP will be supporting the bill at second reading.

The NDP believes that, as parliamentarians, as the elected representatives of Canadians, we have a duty to do whatever we can to minimize tax evasion and get rid of loopholes in our legislation, to ensure that the government has all the resources it needs to provide Canadians with the government services and institutions that they depend on and, more importantly, that they deserve.

Because of the Conservative government's budgets, we are facing drastic service cuts that will affect the Canadians who need those services the most. Money that is in the system could be invested in our social programs and in the institutions Canadians depend on, such as the universal public health insurance system. Ultimately, we could even set up other programs. Instead of being used to benefit the most privileged among us, this revenue should benefit the whole of Canadian society. It is important to do everything we can to bring the money back into the system so that the government can use it.

It is all well and good to cut a little bit here, there and everywhere, but we must be able to generate the revenue we need so that we can maintain what we have achieved, improve and enhance existing programs, and then come up with new programs that meet the needs of Canadians. I think that if a government is not able to do this, it is not doing its job. Unfortunately, this is true of the current Conservative government. This is what the NDP will be changing in 2015, when it forms the government, of course.

Since the Conservatives would have us believe that they are good managers of public funds, I find it really surprising and very disappointing that they waited so long before doing what was needed to get the technical amendments in Bill C-48 through Parliament.

In fact, the most recent technical tax bill was passed in 2001. That is more than 10 years ago. By 2009, at least 400 technical amendments had still not been enacted.

Bill C-48 is huge, nearly 1,000 pages, and it clearly shows that this government must be more responsible in managing tax legislation.

It is absolutely unacceptable to penalize taxpayers and the business sector by perpetuating so much uncertainty and unpredictability in Canada’s taxation amendment process.

Furthermore, because the Conservatives are so slow, we are once again dealing with a massive omnibus bill and we have very little time to really study it and to examine the implications of its legislative measures.

It really is a shame that the Conservatives persist in using this strategy, which, frankly, hinders the work that we in the House must do, that is, to study and consider bills and their impact on the Canadian public. The fact that we are prevented from conducting our parliamentary work properly has a direct impact on Canadian democracy and Canadians’ trust in their elected officials.

At least things are a little better this time around because the Conservatives had the decency to combine a series of bills dealing with the same subject in Bill C-48. It is actually quite refreshing compared to Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, bills that sought to hide a raft of drastic and socially harmful changes in areas such as environmental protection, immigration, employment insurance, old age security and many more.

Despite all that, although tax measures are involved and it is all one subject, in general we are in favour of the bill’s content. However, the fact remains that we are dealing with a document that is incredibly long. We do not have much time to study the amendments, which are technical and relatively complex and merit careful study. A number of them have already been implemented by tax professionals, accountants and businesses, but some things are still not clear and should perhaps be given further consideration. Once again, we do not have an opportunity to do so, because this is an omnibus bill.

Every week, my constituents come into my office in Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier to tell me that they are tired of seeing these kinds of bills in the House, tired of seeing these huge documents and tired of seeing that their elected officials, whom they elected to represent them, are incapable of doing their job.

Canadians are fed up with the way this government operates. Things have to change and quickly. The government needs to stop dragging its feet and establish a truly efficient process for quickly and regularly enacting the technical amendments in the comfort letters issued several times a year by the Department of Finance.

I think the message is clear. I will repeat what a number of my colleagues have already said: we will be supporting the bill. However, we must ensure that a situation like the one we are faced with today will not occur again, and we must ensure that the government will present us with technical amendments on a regular basis so that we can do our job properly.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her very informative speech.

This is so complicated because there are so many measures to be implemented at the same time; 200, in fact. Does my colleague think that the average Canadian will be able to understand all this? Even experts think that the legislation is difficult to interpret and that it is hard to understand all the ins and outs of it. Businesses think it is burdensome.

How is the average person—who is not necessarily familiar with every tax measure—supposed to make any sense of this and file accurate returns?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very important question. In fact, the answer is simple: average people simply cannot make any sense of this.

It is hard enough for us as MPs to understand exactly what is included in this bill. It is so long and complicated and goes back such a long way that it is hard to know where things stand and what still applies.

It is just as hard for tax experts, business people and our various merchants. All these people who actively contribute to our economy and our global productivity are a bit lost and do not necessarily have all the necessary resources to contribute fully to our economy.

I find it rather surprising that the government, which boasts about being there for businesses, creating jobs and enhancing Canada's economic growth, is in this situation. Frankly, this is standing in our way. The government is counting on these people to grow our economy, create jobs and ensure that people have enough income to live well in this country.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her excellent speech. She highlighted all of the flaws of this bill. We will support this bill, since it is a step in the right direction, but there are some problems with it. For example, the government could have improved certain things, such as tax evasion. This bill is a step towards combatting tax evasion, but it is just a start.

The NDP recently held a meeting where it condemned the Conservative government's complacency towards combatting tax evasion. The Leader of the Opposition was there. He spoke and mentioned that the NDP wants more tax fairness, so that everyone pays their fair share.

I would like to hear what my hon. colleague thinks about more seriously targeting tax evasion so that Canadians get their money's worth from a services perspective.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his extremely important question.

I have a number of comments. First, I would like to say how important it is to address tax evasion. It is a question of justice and equality for each and every Canadian. These are honest people who are paying their taxes. We want to defend honest Canadians when it comes to employment insurance and the correct use of taxes. The NDP does not defend fraudsters; we defend those who are honest, no matter what the government says.

Allowing certain privileged Canadians to have benefits that none of us here could have is unacceptable, and the fact that they enjoy these benefits at others' expense is just as unacceptable. The government must act quickly.

Second, it is also extremely important that we bring that money back to Canada, to the government, so that we can provide the programs and resources that our people are calling for, that they deserve and that they need.

This government is making cuts in every department, except for the propaganda department, of course. We all have to listen to the half-truths that the government is spewing. It is spending millions of dollars on propaganda at taxpayers' expense.

It is making all these cuts, but it is never going to take in enough revenue to maintain what we have and improve existing programs. It is offering tax breaks to big business, letting people hide their money in tax havens, making cuts, lowering taxes and so on.

It has very little revenue, and it is not able to make the machinery of government work the way it should. And that is why it is so important to keep tax evasion in Canada to a minimum or eliminate it entirely.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the passage of the last technical tax bill in 2001, the government has made a number of tax-related changes through the use of comfort letters.

However, these new measures have become common practice and have never been incorporated into a technical tax bill.

Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act and other tax legislation, will incorporate more than 200 changes made to the tax code since 2001, over 12 years ago.

We support this bill because it will implement a series of technical amendments to the tax system that have been developed over the last decade. These technical changes are in fact largely beneficial and necessary. In the NDP, we believe that these changes will ultimately have a positive impact on revenues and are a good way of reducing tax avoidance, as has been discussed at length in this debate.

Tax evasion costs Canadians a lot of money. It is estimated that Canada foregoes revenue amounting to nearly $80 billion every year because of various forms of tax avoidance.

Numerous measures can be adopted to deal with tax avoidance, including the fair and uniform application of tax rules, as is done in this bill, and the automatic exchange of tax information and adoption of a protocol for publishing the taxes paid by corporations. It is in fact impossible to enact all these measures without leadership from the government.

I believe that this bill and the measures it includes are a step in the right direction, to help the government combat tax avoidance and deter these various practices.

Similarly, the bill talks about various measures to ensure that income received by residents of Canada from any source is taxed, and measures relating to the taxation of foreign affiliates of Canadian multinational corporations. The purpose of those measures is essentially to guarantee the integrity of the tax system and deter tax evasion.

The bill also contains provisions implementing various technical measures that have been developed since 2002. Among other things, that part contains anti-avoidance measures, which I will not list because this is very technical, measures limiting the use of foreign tax credit generators in order to avoid foreign tax, measures setting out the rules for taxable Canadian property of non-residents and immigrants, and the creation of a regime for information reporting of tax avoidance transactions so that people can be informed about how avoidance occurs and avoid falling into that trap or to make it easier to identify these forms of avoidance.

Any avoidance transaction that is for the purpose of obtaining a tax benefit will now have to be reported for greater transparency, even if it is not improper.

The bill also includes three new measures that we support and that had not been announced already.

First, a number of federal fiscal constraints will be rectified to solve transition problems.

Second, the formula for the attribution of taxable corporate income that applies to airline corporations is amended to ensure that the taxable income of one of these companies is entirely attributed to the provinces or territories where it has a permanent establishment. That is logical.

Third, a measure relating to the tax treatment of shares owned by short-term residents for departure tax purposes. Obviously, this is all very abstruse, but it is part of the 1,000 pages being added. This adds to the complexity, which we find unfortunate in view of the fact that there have already been 3,000 pages of tax measures in the last few decades.

All in all, by ensuring the integrity of the tax law in force and minimizing the potential loopholes, these measures will operate to increase government revenue. As my colleague said, when government revenue is increased, then we can invest in social programs, for example, and in programs for health care, the environment and greater fairness.

In its present form, however, the tax system is unendingly complex. That complexity affects individuals, for whom it is very difficult to plan their taxes with the vast menu of tax credits we now have.

The tax system also poses problems for Canadian businesses and undermines their competitiveness. If they have to dissect it all and invest in administrators or accountants who have to analyze each of the 200 amendments being made a decade later, for example, that is money that they cannot invest in local jobs or jobs in their small business. It therefore reduces their productivity and competitiveness.

The difficulty of planning their spending also limits investments in innovation and hiring. Clearer tax rules could improve the competitiveness of our businesses and create more jobs.

While we support the bill, the document is nearly 1,000 pages long and has all the makings of an omnibus bill, again. Obviously, the last technical tax bill, which was more than 12 years ago, incorporates certain legislative amendments, some of which go back to 1998. The enormous scope of this bill demonstrates that the government has to be a lot more responsible in its management of tax legislation and make sure that proposals relating to tax law are enacted more regularly.

Unlike the gigantic budget bills, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, the changes made do not affect a huge spectrum of legislation, and rather affect certain specific statutes. But this bill still does much to complicate the work that parliamentarians do in assessing bills, given that a lot of time is needed to process a bill and get through a thousand-page block, time that we do not have today.

As well, prioritizing the elimination of tax loopholes has to be done in a timely manner. Most of these measures have been adopted in current practice. The fact that they are not being enacted until years later brings an element of uncertainty and unforeseeability to the business world. Experience seems to tell us that it might be time to rethink how we do this. Tax bills should be much more modest—shorter, that is—and there should be more of them, introduced on a regular basis, to ensure that their provisions are implemented in a more timely manner.

In addition to legitimizing the work done by parliamentarians, that would operate to reassure the business world. It would also show that we are much more democratic and would mean we could avoid having unenacted tax measures accumulate, since this impedes progress, and at the same time allow us to improve and strengthen the Canadian tax system. It would also operate to facilitate financial planning and management for businesses, taxpayers and tax experts, who themselves have trouble making their way through all this jumble of rules.

As well, enacting tax measures speedily after they are announced would also enable the government to collect large sums of money that could be reinvested in programs for health care, education, food inspection and environmental assessment, for example.

This position is shared by many experts, including the former Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, as well as Marlene Legare, former senior chief of the Sales Tax Division at the Department of Finance. They all agree that this will help improve the process and simplify our tax legislation, which is becoming increasingly complex.

We recently led a campaign against the excessive fees that credit card companies are charging small and medium-sized businesses and other merchants. Businesses are already overwhelmed by all the paperwork. With all that those companies contribute to Canada, the Conservatives—who claim to be the best advocates of local economies and small and medium-sized businesses—are blocking the growth of local economies and job creation. It is hard to believe the Conservatives when they introduce these kinds of bills.

In closing, in 2009, the former Auditor General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, was already concerned about the fact that at least 400 technical amendments still had not been enacted through legislation. Bill C-48 enacts more than 200 of these measures and changes. I wish to echo Ms. Fraser's concerns, given that another 200 changes still have not been applied and remain outstanding.

Can the government tell us when it plans to incorporate those measures into legislation and how? It would be a shame to have to wait another 10 years before those changes are adopted, especially since, much like this bill overall, they will have a positive impact on Canada's tax system. Just like the measures that will be added to the legislation thanks to Bill C-48, the purpose of these measures is to ensure the integrity of our existing tax legislation, close the loopholes to discourage tax avoidance, increase our revenues and therefore take part in positive economics.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her cogent presentation on this mammoth bill.

My hon. friend has mentioned the comments by former Auditor General Sheila Fraser, who said that there had not been an updating bill along these lines, to update the tax laws, since 1998. I also notice that Thomas McDonnell, who is a tax lawyer with Thorsteinssons, added what seem to be the comments of the general public about the omnibus budget bills by the government. He said, “My printed version of the changes and accompanying notes runs well in excess of 900 pages. The Bill will also be passed without much in the way of informed debate in the House”.

The hon. member has raised very validly the delay in bringing forward these kinds of changes. Clearly, the changes are long needed and are supported. Could she speak to whether it is important for the government to start bringing forward, at least on a yearly basis, these kinds of changes? At least then we could be sure that we were increasing the revenue side of the stream, if not the payouts to those who are deserving of the support of the federal government.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. In fact, she is right.

As we have said over and over, many tax experts are criticizing the fact that the bill is very complicated, given its scope. Too much time passes between the amendments and their application. Too many measures have to be adopted at the same time. Therefore, the government should introduce bills on a more regular basis, with much fewer changes, so that they are easier to understand.

When even tax experts find the bill difficult to understand, imagine what this can mean for mere mortals and businesses. This affects our economy, and also democracy, because we have to vote on it. However, it is difficult to get at the facts when even the tax experts cannot figure the bill out.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear colleague for her very interesting speech.

I was shocked to see that there were about 200 measures that have not yet been considered. Businesses and Canadians who try to do their homework and pay their taxes are the ones who suffer. The legislation is incredibly complicated. There are contradictions, duplications and errors. I think the delay in getting this done has taken a toll on the economy.

Has my colleague heard her constituents complain about how complicated the legislation is or offer any solutions?

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pontiac for his very relevant question.

As we have said many times, small and medium-sized businesses will suffer the most from all of these changes. This will prevent them from moving forward and investing because there are a lot of risks.

We are proposing that we have measures like these more regularly, to reassure people and make the restrictions clear. We are also proposing that we combat tax avoidance. Nearly $80 billion a year is lost to tax havens, and the government is not doing anything about it. We are suggesting that the government provide information on tax avoidance in its many forms, and publish all corporate taxes. People would then be aware and could verify the tax sources.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to follow the member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who gave a wonderful, detailed speech.

We have just begun to really delve into this bill that is more than 1,000 pages long. Bill C-48 is absolutely enormous.

As my colleague just said, we are talking about measures that should have been taken 10 or more years ago. Some of them go back as far as 1998. We have to wonder why the government took so long to introduce this huge bill in the House. Why did it take so long to address the 200 various sectors affected by previous budgets? Why did the government drag its feet on introducing these technical amendments in the House?

When we look at the size and scope of this massive bill, we are talking about areas touched throughout the tax system: changing how labour-sponsored venture capital corporations are treated and the transitional issues that arise from that; amending corporate taxable income allocation formulas; looking at the tax treatment of shares dealing with offshore investment fund property and non-resident trusts; dealing with taxation of foreign affiliates of Canadian multinational corporations, affecting legislation that touches both common law and civil law; avoiding anti-avoidance measures for specific leasing properties; clarifying rules on taxable Canadian properties; looking at housekeeping changes to the Excise Tax Act; clarifying the minister's authority; allowing for tax administration agreements; and putting in place coordinating amendments.

Many of these measures date from more than a decade ago. As my colleagues from Beauharnois—Salaberry and Edmonton—Strathcona mentioned earlier, the former Auditor General of Canada called the government on its complete absence of bringing forward all of the 1,000 pages of technical amendments that should have been brought forward years ago.

Commitments were made at one point. I am not going to criticize just the Conservatives. I am going to criticize the Liberals, as well.

Indications were made in the past that these types of technical amendments should be brought in on an annual basis. What the Parliament of Canada would be called upon to look through would be, basically, one-twelfth of what we are looking at today. On an annual basis, technical treatment would then be updated. That is a necessary part of our tax system. That would mean, as well, that we would avoid the kinds of loopholes that exist when the House of Commons passes budgets or measures are put into place and the technical amendments are never brought forward.

That is not what happened under the Liberals. We know now that the Liberals were simply unable to put in place an effective administrative structure for technical amendments. It has not happened under the Conservatives, either. This is something New Democrats deplore. Of course, we support these technical amendments, but instead of dealing with a yearly review that would allow those technical amendments to be brought in in a systematic way and on a timely basis, we are dealing with another massive Conservative bill of 1,000 pages that Parliament is being asked to scrutinize, because for over a decade, the work was not done.

This is symptomatic of why many Canadians consider the idea of Conservative administrative competence to be an oxymoron. We have seen this time and time again, whether we are talking about technical amendments that have not been brought in or massive budget bills that are thrown on the floor of the House of Commons without the government having any understanding of what the impacts are.

We saw last spring massive changes to environmental assessments and the National Energy Board. Charitable people would say that the government was simply unaware of what it was trying to do when it gutted 99% of environmental assessments in this country. That is what a charitable person would say. The government was simply incompetent. Many others believe that it was mean-spirited and deliberate. Even though the government pretended that it had no idea that it was gutting 99% of environmental assessments in this country, the government actually did understand that it was doing that when it threw those amendments forward. Either way, what we are seeing is administrative incompetence and mean-spiritedness of the highest order.

I am privileged to come from the political party that over the last 20 years, when it has been in power, according to the federal Ministry of Finance, has been the most effective at managing the nation's finances and paying down debt in various provinces. For the last 20 years, the fiscal period returns, year after year, have indicated that NDP governments are much better at balancing budgets and paying down debt. They are much better than their Conservative counterparts and much better than their Liberal counterparts, who seem to be even worse than the Conservatives, if people can believe that, in terms of balancing budgets and paying down debt. Fiscal period returns show that. We certainly have no lessons to learn from anybody.

I would say to the Canadian public that we always have to endeavour to be better and more transparent. We had the Leader of the Opposition stand in the House today and put forward an NDP bill to put in place a Parliamentary Budget Officer. What we believe in is a system of checks and balances, in terms of finance, to ensure that the public is aware that the figures we are putting forward are tested by an impartial third party. We believe in supporting our Auditor General's department and in actually enhancing the ability of the Auditor General to look at the nation's finances as well.

What have the Conservatives done? It is quite the opposite. By death from a thousand cuts, they have cut back on the Auditor General's ability to actually look at the nation's finances. They are seriously, in the most vicious, underhanded way, attacking the Parliamentary Budget Officer. They are systematically removing, and this is the only government in the western world doing this, the checks and balances the Canadian public depends on.

On our side of the House, not only are we better financial administrators, we also believe in the impartiality of a third party to ensure and verify that the financial figures put forward by a government are tested and are subject to those rigorous tests of checks and balances the Canadian public expects.

In my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster, what I hear most often from people who voted Conservative last time, because I still had about a third of the public in Burnaby—New Westminster vote Conservative last time, is that they voted for administrative competence, and they have gotten incompetence. They say that they voted for some kind of honesty on fiscal matters and have gotten exactly the opposite.

People who voted Conservative are now saying that what they got is the F-35 scandal, the continuous shame of Conservative senators trying to bilk the public and milk the public of every last dollar, pretending they live in provinces where they do not and trying to break the law in a couple of jurisdictions.

What former Conservative voters, because they are not going to vote that way in 2015, are telling us is that it is not what they voted for, but that is what they have gotten.

When we look back to Bill C-48, we can see that this is symptomatic of a much greater malaise. We have a Conservative government that is administratively incompetent, that is mean-spirited and that is unable to control the natural inclination of the Prime Minister to go after shiny baubles and pay whatever it takes, whether we are talking about the Muskoka spending of $1 billion or the $40 billion or more that would go into the F-35s or the ongoing scandal of Senate-gate, with 15 Conservative senators now trying to hide where they live to cover up their past indiscretions.

When we look at all of those things, what we see is symptomatic of why so many Canadians are saying that what they want to see, whether we are talking about a bill like this or any other government decision, is competence. They want to see a government that actually understands the impacts of what it is doing. They want to see a government that is not bringing forward 14 years of technical amendments, because it has been dropping the ball, systemically, for the last seven years.

In 2015, what Canadians will get is a government that is competent, an NDP government that will be submitting technical amendments on an annual basis, because that is what is right and proper for this House of Commons to consider.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP member opposite talked about the NDP record in government. That party has never been in government at the federal level. Let us hope that trend will continue so its record is not blemished. Those members have not had an opportunity to do that and let us hope they do not get that opportunity.

There is a trend here that I am really bothered by. The legislation would make technical amendments to the tax code. The member talked about how the bill is too big for his party to deal with properly. Those members complained about the two budget implementation bills that implemented our last budget, saying they were too big to deal with effectively. There is a trend. The opposition seems unwilling to do the work required to provide proper scrutiny for these bills. The opposition seems to be a bit lazy, quite frankly.

Why does the member not do his homework and deal with the bill and other bills like it?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a member of the Conservative Party has just called Sheila Fraser lazy. That is beyond the pale. Sheila Fraser said the following, “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”.

The member criticizes the NDP for quoting Sheila Fraser, the former Auditor General of Canada. If the member went back to his own riding and asked whether his constituents believe him or whether they believe Sheila Fraser, I think nine times out of ten the residents of his own riding would say they trust Sheila Fraser over the Conservative talking points that come from the PMO. That would be pretty—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Toronto—Danforth.

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are still 200 technical amendments that have not yet found their way into this very long piece of legislation. I am wondering if my colleague thinks it would be appropriate at committee stage to move an amendment saying that those 200 other amendments must come forward, at least, on an annual basis and/or that some kind of sunset provision for the outstanding technical amendments should be implemented. Is there any way that we can hurry up the process of the government getting to the remaining 200 technical amendments?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Toronto—Danforth asked a very good question. There is no doubt that we want the government to get busy doing what it should be doing. We would welcome those kinds of amendments.

It has been said that if a Conservative managed a house there would be leaks in the roof, no shoes for the kids, the grandparents would not be able to buy their medication but there would be a nice shiny Ferrari out in the front yard. That is what we are seeing here. The government has been trying to systematically gut all of the protections that have been in place. We have seen a mess in EI. We have seen an elimination of environmental assessments for goodness' sake. We are seeing wide problems in terms of most Canadian families seeing their real income decline. Instead of tackling all of those things and tackling technical amendments, the government in a very mean-spirited way is proceeding with its own ideology.

Bringing forward amendments that would get the job done is what the NDP is all about. Of course we will be pushing those things forward because that is what New Democrats do in the House of Commons. That is why we have grown from 19 seats over there in the corner to 36 seats to now over 100 members of Parliament strong. In 2015 we will be 180 strong and we will be able to set right what the Conservatives have broken over the last few years.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that my speech will be as amusing as the one given by my colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster. It was an excellent speech. I will try to make my points as interesting as possible.

As legislators, we have a duty to take a serious look at bills such as 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. It is obviously a very large bill. We are seeing that a lot in the House.

The NDP and many key players and experts in the fields of finance and accounting agree on that point. The majority of the changes in Bill C-48 will protect the integrity of the tax law in force. But we have been waiting a long time for these technical amendments to be introduced as part of a tax bill in the House. The most recent review of technical amendments happened in 2001. That was a long time ago.

There are amendments that date back to 1998, so this should have been ready a long time ago under the Liberal governments or under the current Conservative government. There is some reluctance to ensure that our tax laws are up-to-date. All Canadians should be wondering why it takes so long to get these things sorted out.

For example, this fall, the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada stated in its pre-budget submission to the Standing Committee on Finance that:

[T]he key to sustained economic recovery and enhanced economic growth lies in the government’s commitment to tax reform and red tape reduction. Therefore, CGA-Canada makes 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 future legislative backlogs...

There are therefore three elements: modernize the system; introduce the bill that is before us today; and make sure that the major delay that has resulted in us having to examine a bill that is a few hundred pages long does not happen again. As CGA said: it is good for our economy.

The Conservatives are always saying that the economy is their priority, but one has to wonder if that is really true when it takes them so long to respond to a request from the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, a basic request that is good for our economy. The Conservatives seem to agree on these elements but their measures do not live up to the rhetoric, such as what we heard today.

We can therefore truthfully say that the Conservatives are not meeting their responsibilities properly and that this bill is very late. This government took over seven years to remedy the chronic delay in passing technical tax amendments.

In 2009, former Auditor General Sheila Fraser pointed out that more than 400 amendments were outstanding, as they had not been enacted by legislation. She 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.

She added that it is advisable for such a bill to be presented every year in order to make routine changes to tax laws. That is what the Conservative government wanted to do, but it never happened.

Today, we have a huge bill that would enact more than 200 of these changes. There are still hundreds of changes that must be enacted by a technical tax bill and that await debate in Parliament.

Unfortunately, I am not surprised that it has taken so long to put these changes into a bill, which does not even cover all the changes. The Conservatives talk about good management and accountability, but they never take appropriate action. It is truly unfortunate, because their talk could almost be taken for propaganda. They say that they are good managers of the economy, but we see that it is not true at all. It takes them a long time to do things that are very routine, that should be done every year. They are incapable of sound financial management. That is evident from the supplementary estimates. It is truly unfortunate that the Conservatives do not walk the talk.

The reality is that the Conservative government's inaction has resulted in a huge backlog. We now have a gigantic technical bill of almost 1,000 pages, and we have not even addressed half of the changes.

We must use tax measures to combat tax avoidance and tax evasion and protect the integrity of our tax system at the same time. We support the changes in this bill, especially those that would curb tax avoidance. This is something the NDP has been focused on for a long time. However, the massive size of this bill shows that there is a lot of work to be done to turn these technical changes into legislative measures as quickly as possible. Otherwise, we are penalizing the business sector and making things difficult for Parliament. It is very complicated for Canadians when these measures are not included in a bill.

That is why, although we support the bill at second reading, we urge the government to do its homework, since Canadians should not have to wait a decade for the government to be accountable to Parliament by making tax amendments. That is simply not acceptable.

The Minister of Finance even admitted himself in a press release that the government had failed to take action. I quote:

It has been over a decade since Parliament last passed a comprehensive package of technical income tax amendments. This has created a significant backlog of outstanding measures that need to be addressed to provide certainty for Canadian taxpayers...

Why did he not do something sooner?

It is rather refreshing to hear a Conservative admit that members of his party have caused economic uncertainty. However, I do not think this admission shows that they are aware of their negligence or that they are committed to change. It has been four years since the Auditor General told the government to fix this problem urgently.

That is all I have to say about this. As I indicated, I will support this bill. It is a long time coming. It is unfortunate that it has been introduced in this fashion and I hope that in the future we will see something simpler.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we move on to questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, Veterans.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc for questions and comments.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague on the other side of the House. She mentioned in her speech how the Auditor General has called for these changes. She spoke about the Certified General Accountants of Canada who have called for the bill, have welcomed it, applauded it and in fact endorsed it. I am glad members on the other side are listening to that advice and will be supporting the legislation.

I just want to clarify this for the purpose of debate. The bill was tabled in November. The minister and the department offered in-depth briefings to any member of the House with respect to any section of the bill. In fact, the committee will be starting a pre-study on the bill tomorrow morning. We would love to have the bill passed by this chamber. Perhaps the member would comment as to why, when the NDP is supporting the bill, it is putting up so many speakers here rather than allowing the bill to be sent to committee.

Second, she says it does not contain all of the amendments that it should contain. Could she deposit with the House or with the committee what specific amendments the bill should be addressing? Perhaps she could address in her answer today what, specifically, should be in the bill that is not in the bill.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny for that member to say that we are in a hurry to get this done when a lot of these changes are outstanding since 1998. That is a pretty long time. Just to give everyone a nice little image, I was nine years old.

Therefore, to say that this has been in the House since November and why are we speaking on it is just ridiculous. This is a massive bill and we should be debating it in the House, like we should debate any bill. It is too bad that we had to wait since 1998 to see any of the amendments. As I mentioned in my speech, there are hundreds of outstanding changes that need to be implemented, that have been announced and have come into effect, but are not currently in the legislation, and that needs to be done. Therefore, where is that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that in any of the tax guides we quite often find asterisks or colour coding. That means accountants look at it and anticipate the legislation will change at some point in time, so in order to be compliant with that potential legislation, this how they calculate or interpret a particular tax law because the need for the change is so great.

It is a fairly thick document. We are talking about numerous changes that have been requested for a good number of years. As a result, the Liberal Party would like to see the bill ultimately go to committee.

Would the member agree that we need to have the bill come on a more regular basis? I believe I heard that from the member and a lot depends on the number of requests and the amount of time in between the last time we make a change. On both occasions the government has failed.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are doing their taxes right now and it is nice to have some clarity as to what we are doing for businesses and for individuals. This is something that we should be doing every year, according to the CGA and the Auditor General. That is also how I feel about this. I think it would improve clarity for everyone.

The last bill of this sort was passed in 2001. That means there were five years of Liberal government where it did not manage to do that either, and some of these changes go back to 1998. Therefore, the Liberals are not a whole lot better than the Conservatives. They have fewer years of not having passed the bill. The NDP would ensure that bills of this sort would come through on a regular basis so there would be clarity for Canadians.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House, following some excellent speeches coming from my colleagues in support of Bill C-48 at second reading. They have indicated the fact that it is time for Canada to get on with it and bring forward changes to our taxation laws, many of which have been practised informally but should be enshrined in legislation. We are saying that it is a long time coming.

The New Democrats believe in cracking down on both tax avoidance and tax evasion, while ensuring the integrity of our tax system. We support the changes being made in the bill, especially those that aim to reduce tax avoidance.

We note that this is an extremely lengthy bill, known as an omnibus bill. However, unlike the omnibus bills that the government has chosen to bring forward, this actually looks at an area of legislation rather than bringing everything in, including the kitchen sink. Not only that, the bill is focused on making technical changes and not the deep structural changes that we have seen time and time again from the government. If we are bringing in a bill that covers a lot of ground, it ought to be done in a specific manner, looking closely at related legislation like Bill C-48 does.

The massive size of the bill demonstrates that there is still work to be done in getting such technical changes legislated in a timely fashion. We believe that failing to do so in a timely fashion hurts the business community and makes it difficult for proper evaluation by Parliament. Therefore, we are here to truly ask the government to move forward in a timely manner on legislation that has been in front of us and certainly necessary for some time.

In 2009 a very highly respected Canadian, Sheila Fraser, the former auditor general of Canada, said:

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.

This message comes directly from a respected Canadian, someone whose role continues to be one of ensuring that we are accountable, efficient and effective in the work we are doing as parliamentarians and certainly the work the government is doing. However, not unlike in other areas, we see that when it comes to moving forward in responding to the reality that Canadians face today, the government has been too slow to act.

While informal arrangements have been made all along the way, Canadians would like to see a strong framework of legislation when it comes to taxation so we deal with them fairly, ensuring that people are not falling through the cracks and that taxes are not being avoided or evaded. Therefore, this is a perfect case of needing to listen to people like the former auditor general of Canada and many others who have indicated that it is time to move on and implement the kind of legislation we have before us.

As well, this is more broadly about prioritizing the sense of fairness that Canadians ought to have when it comes to anything, even when we are talking about taxation. It is something that is at the core of our concept of citizenship and how we give back to society, how we give back to government, recognizing that Canadians do their part in working hard and returning back to the state part of their hard-earned money in order for us to have the kinds of programs, services and infrastructure that we all deserve.

Unfortunately, things are becoming more and more difficult for so many Canadians. This is in part because the social safety net that allows them to get out there and access gainful employment and make a dignified life for themselves is increasingly more challenging as the social safety net is weakened.

Just this week in the House, the NDP has raised a number of instances in which this is the case. Perhaps the best example is the weakening and the cuts to the employment insurance program. As we know, these changes will have a disproportionate negative impact on seasonal and cyclical workers. These are people who go out, do their jobs and support the economy in our regions all across the country. A good chunk of their money goes back into the coffers of the Canadian government to ensure we have the kinds of services on which we depend on.

Unfortunately, Canadians who are now being turned away from accessing employment insurance, who are being forced to move away, who are being forced to look at social assistance or welfare, will no longer be able to contribute to our system of taxation and return the kind of revenue that Canada depends on the way they used to.

Unfortunately, these changes will be felt first by the unemployed or by seasonal workers. Then those impacts will reverberate. They will reverberate once we start seeing communities suffer as a result of seasonal industries no longer being able to find people to work in them. Communities will suffer as we see the service and retail sectors not able to make a go of it because there is less income cycling through the community. We will also see communities and regions lose innovators and people who come to regions and benefit from the domino effect of many of these seasonal industries. That effect will snowball into an unfortunate situation where Canada will have less revenue coming back into its coffers from taxation to do the kind of work we need to do. Therefore, we will start seeing a weakening of essential services.

For the NDP, that is an unacceptable notion. After all, we as parliamentarians are here to guide Canada forward and to work with Canadians so we get better at who we are and so we can improve the standard of living that we all depend on. Unfortunately, the government has made some real structural changes and some severe cuts that will turn us back from the direction that we ought to take.

Therefore, when we are talking about the issue of fairness, it goes back to a fundamental Canadian value, and that is we all work hard and we all want to be part of giving back to our society, our community and our family. However, we need to ensure there are structures in place, like proper and fair tax legislation, like social programs that allow our seasonal industries and our regions to continue to contribute to our economy and our wealth and to ensure Canadians have the kinds of things that have set us apart from the rest of the world, whether it is investment in health care, education, housing or infrastructure. These are the kinds of things we do not see from the government.

I would note, particularly, that the legislation also refers to the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act, again recognizing the issue of tax fairness when it comes to first nations people and recognizing treaty rights and the key role that first nations people have played in building the wealth of Canada and the need for the Government of Canada to be partners going forward when it comes to aboriginal people in our country.

There is a lot of work to do and I am proud to be part of a party, the NDP, that stands in the House every day and calls for fairness. Today, when we are showing our support for Bill C-48 and debating in the House, this is no exception. We hope the government will show fairness when it comes to Canadians in every other way.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments and her support for this bill at second reading.

One of the changes that was made in part 5 of the bill deals with section 116. It was a change that was made in the 2010 budget, which I supported very strongly at the time, and still do, dealing with taxable Canadian property. The amendment at that time was a measure in that budget to exclude from its ambit shares of corporations and certain other interests that do not derive their value principally from “real or immoveable property situated in Canada, a Canadian resource property or a timber resource property”, subject to a 60-month look-back rule.

I know the member represents an area that deals with a lot of resources. I would ask her to comment on this change that was made in the 2010 budget and her impressions of whether it has had a positive impact thus far in Canada.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can definitely say that our region, which does depend upon natural resources, has suffered as a result of recent government budgets. Our dependence on natural resources also means a dependence upon seasonal work, whether it is the forestry industry or development, including exploration. Cuts to EI certainly do not help our region, at all. It puts us back.

Another example where the government has failed our region is opening our region up to foreign investment without a clear indication of net benefit. The result is that the major mining company in our region has been bought by a Brazilian multinational, which has been slow to come to the table to find a solution for our community, after the Government of Canada sold us out.

Other examples are the continued failure for the government to invest in first nations infrastructure, meaning a massive portion of our region lives in third world conditions and is not able to access the kind of economic opportunities that exist in our region.

All in all, I am sad to say that the current Conservative federal government has certainly failed the people of northern Manitoba, and a lot of people across the north in general. We expect better.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is worth saying that there are numerous pages, in the hundreds, within this piece of legislation, and within those pages there are numerous amendments being suggested to our tax laws.

Quite often when we are into the second reading, we want to talk about the broader principle of the legislation and then go into the committee where we have the opportunity to get into some of the line-by-line, clause-by-clause, analysis of what has been changed.

I wonder if my colleague from northern Manitoba would be able to provide some thoughts on the committee stage. How important is it that we reflect on the different clauses and the impact they might have on our tax laws, believing that for the most part they are necessary changes, and that there could even be the possibility of new amendments because it has been a bit of time since it was drafted and brought into the chamber? I wonder if she would reflect on the possibility for amendments.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that committee work is essential, in every way, particularly when we are talking about having to go through, in this case, very lengthy legislation, to ensure it is fair, timely, and that it deals with the kinds of loopholes and gaps that exist today.

What Canadians expect from parliamentarians is that due diligence will be given, whether it is in committee or in the House during debate. Unfortunately, what we have seen from the current government is a tendency to shut down debate and shut down opportunities to look closely at legislation coming forward. A great example is that the current government has brought in closure to critical debates in this House, I think almost 30 times.

We in the NDP certainly hope that this bill will be dealt with in a timely manner, but respecting the role that we have as parliamentarians to do the due diligence and ensure this is the best legislation going forward.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join this debate on Bill C-48.

I hope to use what little time I have to expand on the broader issue of how governments generate revenue, and the role of parliamentarians in being charged with the responsibility of the scrutiny, oversight and due diligence associated with generating revenue through taxation, and then, of course, the spending of that revenue. I do not suppose there is anything more important that MPs do than that. It is certainly the primary function and why our constituents give us their confidence to supervise the public purse.

At the outset, I was pleased to see that Bill C-48 deals with tax avoidance and tax evasion as well as a number of intricacies in the tax system itself.

Chartered accountants and virtually all of the tax lawyers and tax accountants advertise on their websites something called the “tax-motivated expatriation”. They call it that because it has a nicer ring than “sleazy tax-cheating loopholes”, which is what it is when tax avoidance and tax evasion allows one to be a tax fugitive by harbouring one's resources and taking advantage of what taxes buy in terms of a stable, safe community, with public services, policing and health care. It is putting one's money offshore to hide it from the prying eyes of the public and the taxman, and not paying one's fair share but getting the best of both worlds. I am glad that finally this Parliament is seized of the issue.

I was here years ago when the Liberals were in power. Ironically, they tore up a number of tax treaties with different tax havens. However, they left 11 in place, one of which, of course, was where the leader of the Liberal Party at the time, who became Prime Minister, had his 13 shadow company in tax havens, stashing his business away from the tax system, the very tax system that allowed him to live in a such a decent country. That kind of thing makes my blood boil. The tax-cheating loopholes through tax havens has always bothered me.

Another thing that has bugged me is that we focus so much on generating tax revenue, yet we overlook other obvious sources of bankrolling the social services we need. One that comes to mind is another Liberal invention, the corporate welfare program called “technology partnership loans”. Some who have been around here for a while will remember the TPLs, technology partnership loan system.

I did some research when we had been dealing with the paying back of student loans. During the estimates, we learned that the government had to write off $280 million, I think it was, in the supplementary estimates (C). However, 87% of all the money loaned in student loans is paid back, and 95% of all the individuals pay it back. The numbers are jigged because I guess some have larger loans, but 95% of all the people who borrow student loans pay back every penny they owe to that program. With the technology partnership loans under the Liberal government, it is entirely the opposite, with 5% being paid back and 95% outstanding.

When is a loan not a loan? Well, if one never pays it back, it is not a loan at all, but a gift, a handout. It is corporate welfare. It is dumping a wheelbarrow full of dough into somebody's business where one is obviously expecting some kind of a quid pro quo. Why we leave these outstanding technology partnership loans dangling there, I will never understand.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation just did a big report on this in its latest monthly magazine. Members can look it up to see exactly how much which companies borrowed, and how much, if any, they have paid back. It goes on page after page with these hugely profitable companies.

One of my complaints about across-the-board general tax cuts to business is simply this. Any kind of a tax cut to business should be tied to some kind of quid pro quo, a performance, a job creation, some benefit to the taxpayer other than just helping to subsidize the activities of that company, with the exception possibly of SMEs.

When the NDP government was elected in Manitoba, the small business tax rate was 11%. The Conservatives of the day were gouging small businesses mercilessly, to the point where they were staggering under the load. They were crippled by over-taxation in the province of Manitoba. When the NDP was elected, it systematically and annually reduced the small business tax as much as it could afford, 1% at a time. Every year it went down by 1%.

Could you guess, Mr. Speaker, perhaps with hand signals, what you think the small business taxation rate in the socialist paradise of Manitoba is today? Are you willing to hazard a guess, sir? It is a great big goose egg: zero. The small business tax in Manitoba is zero because there is ample empirical evidence to show that when a tax break is given to small businesses, they hire people, expand their businesses, invest in their companies and generate wealth in the community. We know that every dollar spent in the community is spent at least four times before it finds its natural state of repose in some rich man's pocket, which he then invests offshore in a tax haven.

The economic game is not supposed to be like some shady ring toss on a carnival midway. However, that is the way people feel sometimes when it is stacked so heavily against ordinary working people who are simply trying to earn a living, pay their taxes and get decent services.

I used one example with regard to the Liberal regime. I am a little hostile toward the Liberals right now; I was just having a fight with my colleague from Manitoba. I have to remind people that a lot of the time that I spent here was under a Liberal regime. The Liberals chose to balance the books by three things that are still timely and topical today. They cut $50 billion in social transfers to the provinces. That $50 billion gave them a start, cutting and hacking and slashing through every social program by which we define ourselves as Canadians, in the most ruthless and irresponsible way one can imagine.

Where do members think the Liberals got the second part? People forget there was a $40 billion surplus in the public pension plan and the final parting act by Marcel Masse, the Treasury Board president at the time, was to scoop every single penny out of the surplus of the public service pension plan and take it unto themselves. They were not allowed to, and they had to pass legislation to do it. That surplus should have at least been divided among the beneficiaries and contributors, but the Liberals scooped 100%.

Where did they get the third part for their budget balancing? They got it from the EI fund: $57 billion that was not theirs. They did not contribute a single penny to it. They scooped $57 billion out of the EI fund. Let me talk about the impact of the cuts to EI. They created a program where nobody qualified anymore, but everybody had to pay into it. An analysis was done, and their changes to EI in 1997 caused $20.8 million a year of federal money for my riding to be sucked right out of that riding, with all of the corresponding beneficial spending associated with that $20 million. It was like night and day. That is how to not balance a budget. We are talking about revenue, how to generate revenue and how governments get the money they need to provide the services they are obliged to provide. That is not something we want replicated.

When we talk about taxation, we need to talk about the redistribution of wealth. It is one of the ways to redistribute the great wealth of a great nation so that we all enjoy the benefits of living in this society. We forget some of the big picture issues when we drill down and analyze these increasingly complex tax documents. If we are guided by the underlying motif that it is a way to fair taxes, leading to good public services, it is not something to be lamented, and tax avoidance by tax fugitives in sleazy tax-cheating loopholes is not to be tolerated.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if nothing else I found that somewhat amusing. I find it interesting how the member for Winnipeg Centre makes reference to the NDP government in Manitoba and he talked about small business. I was inside the chamber when the New Democrats were reducing small business tax but at that time I was actually in favour of the reduction of small business tax. What the member did not crow about was that it was the provincial NDP that continuously reduced corporate taxes. This was at the same time that the New Democrats in Ottawa were criticizing the corporate tax cuts that were being made in Canada, so the member is very selective of what he chooses to say.

At the national level, the Liberals were against the corporate tax cuts that were being made in 2010 and the provincial Liberals were against the NDP corporate tax cuts that were made in 2009-10. Therefore we can both be selective in terms of what we want to—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I am just wondering if the Winnipeg caucus might want to take it outside and discuss this and get it sorted out.

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to correct the record because this is some of the great revisionist history of the Liberal Party. The Liberals still cannot believe they were thrown out of power. They are still mourning from the traumatic event here. They would have us believe that if we had just elected them one more time it would have been nirvana. It would have been Camelot. We would have a national daycare system and we would have a Kelowna accord.

However, in actual fact, every time the Liberals had a balanced budget and every time they did get a surplus, and there were seven or eight surpluses in a row, they gave it to their buddies on Bay Street in increasingly large corporate tax cuts. They were in a race with the Conservatives, a race to the bottom. They will not be happy until there are zero corporate taxes on the macro scale. Every single time they had an opportunity, instead of spending it on social programs and turning the tap back on that they had turned off to balance the budget, they chose to give it to their Bay Street buddies. Hypocrites.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Winnipeg Centre providing his wisdom to the House. He talked about a race to the bottom between the Conservatives and Liberals to see who could be most incompetent and most ineffective in terms of administration. That was the race.

What we have with the bill here is the opposite. We actually have the Liberals and Conservatives competing to see who can be the slowest to bring in the necessary changes to the tax system. Between the two of them, they waited 14 years. The incompetence of both governments is incredible.

Could the member for Winnipeg Centre just tell us which government is more incompetent: the Conservative government or a Liberal government? Which one is most incompetent, according to him?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a really tough question. I do not know if I can answer that.

After four majority governments in Manitoba of competent, capable public administration, we keep getting rewarded for the balanced budgets and for the fine work we do in the socialist party in Manitoba. It has been a long time since we have had a Liberal government in Manitoba. They were tossed on the trash heap of history.

It is overdue. If we were doing regular maintenance with some underlying principles of what we want our tax system to look like, it would not be getting increasingly complex and we would not have to wait for an omnibus bill that is going to bury tax accountants and tax lawyers in 1,000 pages once every decade. We could be doing this on an annual basis, guided by some fundamental principles of equality and the goal of fair taxation.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it amusing to listen to my two colleagues from Winnipeg. They have a very particular sense of humour. Unfortunately, I do not share that same sense of humour.

I will take 10 minutes to try and talk about a bill that I thought was a bookend when I first saw it. When I saw how big it was, I was taken aback. If you wait a decade to make changes to a system that so obviously needs them, it is clear that special attention needs to be paid once you do make them. This 942-page document is more like a pillow than bedtime reading.

As I said, there are nearly 1,000 very technical pages to be studied in 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.

For many people, myself included, it will likely take another decade to analyze and understand what this mammoth bill, this huge document, is all about.

In all, Bill C-48 will amend close to 20 acts and regulations. That is a huge number and it shows that the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and others have clearly failed to take action in this regard over the past few years.

Basically, part 1 will implement 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 will implement various technical amendments, once again, relating to the taxation of Canadian multinational corporations with foreign affiliates.

As a result, many Canadian businesses will have to meet new tax obligations in order to abide by the new rules set out in Bill C-48.

Since other changes will be made to this tax framework, businesses will also have to deal with the International Financial Reporting Standards, the infamous IFRS, which require businesses to identify the impact of the changes to the tax legislation and to the tax rate for the period in which the legislation is in the process of being adopted. However, for the purposes of the United States' generally accepted accounting principles or GAAP, the proposals must be adopted.

Do Canadian companies that prepare their financial statements using the accounting standards for private enterprises in accordance with the tax method that has yet to be implemented also have to identify the impact of the changes to the tax legislation and to the tax rate for the period in which the legislation is in the process of being adopted?

If so, companies that present their financial information using the IFRS will have to take into account the changes set out in Bill C-48 when preparing their financial statements for the fiscal years ending after November 20, 2012. On the other hand, businesses that present their financial information using the United States' GAAP will not have to take into account the changes set out in Bill C-48 until the bill is passed or, more specifically, until it receives royal assent.

Needless to say, the CGAs and accounting firms of this world will be fairly busy in the coming weeks and months. What is more, the NDP sincerely believes that we must fight tax avoidance and tax evasion, while preserving the integrity of our tax system. I am sure that this is very important to all members of the House. We therefore support the changes set out in Bill C-48, particularly those that seek to reduce tax avoidance.

In my riding, when people come to see me about the Income Tax Act—which happens more often than one might think, especially middle income earners who are having a hard time making ends meet—they often talk to me about tax evasion. They are really worried about their future.

It is certainly not by weakening regional economies with repressive employment insurance measures, with measures that are no good for a social climate that is already deeply troubled by the Conservative government's inaction when it comes to economic development for the regions of Quebec, that the population will be delighted by or care about a document that is nearly 1,000 pages, like Bill C-48.

The main concern of the people in my region, which was once so prosperous in the manufacturing, farming and forestry sectors, is jobs, jobs, jobs. The Conservatives claim they have created 900,000 jobs. I am not seeing these 900,000 virtual jobs. People are beginning to recognize this sham, and they are disappointed.

This document is a perfect example of an omnibus bill, and that is the only thing my constituents will remember. This bill's massive size is proof that there is still work to be done in transforming such technical amendments into legislation, and in a timely manner, otherwise it will penalize the business community and complicate Parliament's work.

The most recent technical tax bill was passed in 2001. Since then, any changes made between the passing of the two technical tax bills have been made by the Department of Finance through comfort letters. Most of these changes become common practice afterwards, even if they are not enacted in any tax legislation. This was even confirmed by the Auditor General.

In 2009, the Auditor General expressed concern that more than 400 of these comfort letters had not yet been passed into law. As some of my colleagues pointed out, more than 200 of these letters are in the bill to amend various tax laws.

Most tax practitioners are pleased with the comfort letter process. However, the Auditor General's report indicated that they had expressed a need for the legislative changes that the comfort letters identified.

The vast majority of the amendments contained in this bill have already been announced in press releases, the finance department's comfort letters and the budgets for the 11 years that have elapsed since the last technical bill was passed.

The government says that it is worried about the economy. I would like to point out that it has shown a certain neglect and skepticism.

We believe that these amendments will result in increased revenues, which is a good thing, and that they are a good way to reduce tax avoidance. As I pointed out, the vast majority of these measures were put into practice several years ago, and tax measures usually go into effect as soon as they are announced.

The sweeping nature of this bill shows that the government must be more responsible in managing tax laws, and it must ensure that proposed changes to these laws are adopted on a more regular basis.

In closing, we nevertheless support this effort because, as I mentioned, most of these measures have been in effect for a number of years and they should increase government revenues.

What my colleagues and my constituents want is for tax dollars collected as a result of these measures to be invested in our communities that really need them.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Liberal and Conservative governments took so long to rework the tax laws has cost our small and medium-sized businesses.

The complex nature of these laws is a constant source of frustration, at least for the small and medium-sized businesses in my riding.

There is one element that cannot be overlooked. Who benefits from not paying taxes? What allows companies to not pay taxes? That question needs to be asked.

When companies or individuals are honest, they pay their taxes. I believe that the responsibility should be shared by all businesses. They should pay their taxes because it helps improve society.

I would like to know if my colleague could tell us who benefits from tax havens, for example.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bigger companies benefit, of course. The more complex laws are, the more small businesses will suffer.

Small business entrepreneurs must develop their products and their markets. If they have to take one day a week, four days a month, to deal with their taxes, meet with their accountant and put things in the hands of someone they trust, that takes time. However, they do not have that kind of time because they are small business owners. They need all of their time to develop their products.

It is not difficult for large businesses. They deal with numerous accountants, finance experts and lawyers, all of whom are highly qualified. They work with people who are capable of helping them. Small businesses do not have the same means, and that hurts them.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his excellent speech. All of the points he raised were very pertinent.

One thing I would like to say about this omnibus bill is that it is too long to examine as thoroughly as we should. At least this bill is a step forward in the fight against tax evasion. But it is not enough.

The NDP believes that fighting tax evasion should be given greater priority. The NDP has even organized information sessions on this. The Leader of the Opposition gave a speech to demonstrate that we support this fight, which should be a priority.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government did not work hard enough on the fight against tax evasion and I would like to hear what my hon. colleague would recommend in that regard.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tax evasion is costing our economy hundreds of thousands of jobs. That money could be invested in our country and in our regions, which desperately need it, whether for small businesses or for environmental projects, in the manufacturing sector or in research and development.

Hundreds of millions of dollars lost to tax evasion could help Canadians, reduce unemployment in remote areas and help first nations populations. Loads of projects are awaiting funding. This bill is a first step towards fighting tax evasion, but it is extremely complicated. What can we do with all this?

Large corporations just have to hire an army of accountants who know tax evasion inside and out. We need to get tougher on those corporations and be relentless, because this is costing the Canadian economy hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I recognize the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, I want to inform her that I will have to interrupt her at 5:30 p.m. because the time for government orders will have expired.

There is approximately six minutes left. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Marie-Claude Morin, NDP, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to say that we support Bill C-48 because it will have some positive effects on revenues, and the changes it makes will help deter tax avoidance, which is good.

I find it interesting that the bill talks a lot about tax avoidance. Members know that the middle class, which pays taxes, can rarely use tax avoidance tactics to pay less and have a little breathing room. The people who have the means to pay taxes also have the means to find ways to avoid them, while the middle class is suffocating under the weight of all of the government's cuts. I think it is good that this bill addresses the issue of tax avoidance. I wanted to share that with my colleagues. Our tax system must be managed much more responsibly, and we must ensure its integrity.

I have a question for the government. Why did it wait so long to legislate measures that have been around for 10 years? Some of these came into effect in 1998. I was 13 years old in 1998. That was a long time ago. The government opposite is not the only one to blame, because it has not been in power since 1998. Thank goodness, since who knows what the House would look like. I get the impression that they suddenly woke up and decided they needed to legislate some tax measures. I find that a little odd.

I do not claim to be a financial expert. I probably never will be. It is not a topic that interests me as much as housing, which I talk about all the time. I am no financial expert, but it seems to me that a competent government should have woken up a little sooner.

When I look at how long this document is, I pity the poor Standing Committee on Finance, which has to examine it. The word “omnibus” also comes to mind. I will certainly never approve of this way of doing things and neither will my party, obviously. The government has a tendency to put everything in one bill, and I do not agree with that practice. For example, Bill C-48 amends the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act.

Given the importance of these four laws, the length of the bill and the need for the measures set out in this bill, I am afraid that the committee will do a poor job of examining the bill, which would be too bad considering how important it is.

Honestly, I find that this bill, which is coming from a government that claims to be so concerned about the health of our economy, is really late, and I think that it should be examined in a different manner. The Minister of Finance himself admitted that the government failed to take action. I would not like to be part of the Conservative cabinet right now.

That being said, given the government's inaction on so many matters of vital importance to our country, I am not really surprised to see that it has been so negligent with regard to tax avoidance and the integrity of our tax system.

I am talking about inaction. I am talking about a government that does not understand the importance of homelessness and affordable housing programs, for example. I am talking about a botched EI reform at a time when workers need EI the most. I am talking about a government that barely makes any investments in the environment, thereby endangering the quality of life of future generations. I am talking about a government that neglects infrastructure to the point where I am now afraid to drive on the Champlain Bridge, and I believe that is a legitimate fear.

When this bill is passed and tax avoidance is being discouraged, can we hope to see revenue increase?

In my riding, there is a lack of affordable housing. Homelessness is on the rise and agricultural businesses are losing skilled employees because of the EI reform. What is more, many environmental organizations are fighting to give our children a habitable earth. Clearly, we also need health infrastructure, a commuter train and a tunnel in order to promote the economic development of our region. Once this measure is implemented, will others follow?

I will stop there.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot will have five minutes to finish her speech another time.

The House resumed from February 27 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this important discussion. I want to speak to the matter of taxes, generally, as opposed to specific elements of the bill, as my other colleagues will do so.

Creating jobs and growth in our economy is the government's top priority. Rest assured, we are working on a number of fronts to create optimal conditions for sustainable growth. We are making it easier for Canadian businesses to successfully compete in the global economy and are making it more attractive for others to invest in this country, with the end goals, obviously, being more jobs for Canadians and a healthy and thriving economy.

Key among the strategies we are employing is our government's low-tax plan for jobs and growth that has made Canada the best place in the world to invest. It began in 2007, when Parliament passed a bold tax reduction plan that started us down the road to branding Canada as the lowest-tax jurisdiction for business investment.

At the same time, our government also encouraged the provinces and territories to collaborate in supporting investment, job creation and growth in all sectors of the Canadian economy by establishing the goal of a 25% combined federal-provincial-business tax rate. Today we have made substantial progress toward that agenda.

The final stage of Canada's incremental reduction in federal business tax rates came into force on January 1, 2012. These substantial tax reductions have lowered the federal general corporate income tax rate from 22.12% in 2007 to 15% in 2012. Also in 2012, the last of the provincial general capital taxes will be eliminated. This follows the implementation, in 2006, of the federal capital tax and the introduction, in 2007, of a temporary financial incentive to encourage provinces to eliminate their general capital taxes.

I do not want to use my time rhyming off a list of measures we have taken since 2006 to fuel job creation and spur economic growth. However, I do want to cite several that are key. They include the provision of a temporary hiring credit for small business to encourage additional hiring by this vital sector; reducing the federal income tax rate that applies to qualifying small business income to 11% in 2008 and increasing the amount of income eligible for this rate to $500,000 in 2009; supporting manufacturing and processing activities by introducing a temporary accelerated capital cost allowance rate for investment in manufacturing or processing machinery and equipment and extending it to eligible assets acquired before the year 2014; eliminating tariffs on imported machinery and equipment and manufacturing inputs to make Canada a tariff-free zone for industrial manufacturers by 2015; and improving the availability of Canadian businesses to attract foreign venture capital by narrowing the definition of taxable Canadian property, thereby eliminating the need for tax reporting under section 116 of the Income Tax Act for many investments.

The fact is that our government's low-tax plan is working, and the world is increasingly noticing.

As a result of these and other tax changes, Canada now has an overall tax rate on new business investment that is substantially lower than any other G7 country and below the average of member countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. This is a significant advantage for Canada in the global economy and will be a key contributor to Canada's long-term economic prosperity. Little wonder that Statistics Canada announced that employment increased in February by 50,700 jobs. With February's strong growth, over 950,000 net new jobs have been created since the depth of the global recession in July 2009. It is important to note that 95% of these are full-time, and nearly 80% are in the private sector.

These are positive signs that we are on the right track for Canada's economic growth. Indeed, Canada has the best job growth record among the G7 countries in recent years, and we do not intend to stop there.

The next phase of Canada's economic action plan continues our efforts to preserve this country's advantage in the global economy, to strengthen the financial security of Canadian workers, seniors and families, and to provide the stability necessary to secure our recovery in an uncertain world.

As members know, Canada weathered the global economic and financial crisis well, particularly when compared to most other developed nations. At the same time, Canada is not immune to the challenges that emanate from beyond our borders. That is why I was extremely pleased to note that as he prepares budget 2013, the Minister of Finance has stated clearly that this is not the time for dangerous new spending that would increase deficits and raise taxes. In uncertain times such as these, the most important contribution the government can make to bolster confidence and growth in Canada is to maintain our sound fiscal position. That means maintaining our focus on fostering prosperity for Canadians and their families by growing the economy and helping to create high-quality jobs. In other words, we have to do everything we can to keep taxes low for Canadian families and businesses.

Since there is only one level of taxpayer, all governments must work together to ensure that Canada's fiscal house is in order, return to balanced budgets and prepare for future economic turmoil. It is important to add that balanced budgets are not important for their own sake.They are important for what they make possible and for what they avoid. Reducing debt frees up tax dollars that would otherwise be absorbed by interest costs. These dollars can then be reinvested in the things that matter most to Canadians: health care, public services, and of course, lower taxes.

Reducing debt keeps interest rates low, encourages business to create jobs and invests in our future. It preserves the gains made in Canada's low-tax plan, fostering long-term growth. It will create more and better-paying jobs for Canadians. Canadian tax reductions that play an important role in supporting economic growth are those that enable businesses to invest more of their revenues in their own operations. Such investments boost efficiency and productivity. It is this productivity growth that allows businesses to hire additional workers or to offer higher wages in order to expand production and earn more profits.

Our government is committed to lower taxes for all Canadians, and that is why we intend to introduce broad-based tax relief with more than 140 tax reductions, such as lowering the GST from 7% to 6% to 5% and introducing the tax-free savings account. Our strong record of tax reliefs is saving the typical Canadian family of four over $3,100 each and every year. What is more, our government has been aggressive in closing tax loopholes used by a small group of taxpayers to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Ensuring tax fairness helps to keep taxes low for all Canadians and their families. I encourage all members to support this legislation before us today and to help create a better tax system and greater fairness for all Canadians.

I appreciate this opportunity to discuss what to many people are some very technical tax changes. In the end, the simple way of explaining the changes to average people like me is to state that we are making the system better. We are making the system fairer. We want to make sure that when people utilize tax loopholes unnecessarily, which causes the rest of us to pay more taxes, we are going to close those loopholes so that we can continue to create lower taxes and make Canada a better place in which to live and raise a family.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Northumberland—Quinte West for his praise of the government's economic record, which is quite far removed from the reality of Bill C-48. That is something we can agree on.

However, he mentioned something in his speech that particularly caught my interest. According to him, corporate tax cuts encourage investment. One very worrisome symptom we have been noticing for years is the dramatic increase in private corporations' cash reserves. In fact, these reserves almost equal the amount of Canada's federal public debt.

What explanation can my colleague give for this lack of investment by private corporations? How does he explain this? How does he think this is dangerous?

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is right that there is a lot of money, liquid assets, we want to see invested in Canada. If we make Canada a fertile place in which to grow businesses, which we have already done with our low-tax scheme for the average Canadian, the people who work for these companies, we will encourage these companies to invest. Quite frankly, it is the global economic uncertainty that is prohibiting these companies from investing the funds. In a recent statement, the president of Cisco Systems said that Canada is one of the best places to do business. What we are doing is setting up a system so that people will invest in Canada.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague for his obvious enthusiasm for these measures and for explaining them in a manner that people watching across the country can easily understand.

In the last number of years, on occasion, I have had to look some of my constituents in the eye and explain what the government is doing to get their jobs back. I often think that my opposition colleagues across the way have never had that opportunity, because all they seem to want to do is pile taxes on corporations and make them less competitive and drive them out of the country.

I would ask my colleague how he would compare and contrast the tax policies of our Conservative government with those that are likely to occur if the opposition ever manages to be in a position to govern.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a distinct difference between this side and that side of the House. We look at lowering taxes. We look to incent businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, to create jobs. Indeed, small and medium-sized enterprises are the engine driving our economy right now.

The difference, quite frankly, is that the other side would bring in schemes to raise taxes for the average Canadian to provide programs that in the end would mirror countries in eastern Europe, and in particular, in western Europe. I think of countries like Greece, where people live beyond their means. We know what has happened there.

If something like a carbon tax is brought in, yes, it will raise lots of revenue, and governments will have lots of money to spend on programs, but it is a disincentive for investment. That is the difference between this side and that side of the House. We want to make sure that there are fewer obstacles for businesses so that they can grow, employ Canadians and grow the economy, whereas the other side wants to create those obstacles. That is basically, in the simplest terms, what my fellow caucus mate was referring to.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour today to take part in the debate on Bill C-48, the short title of which is the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012. Its full title is 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 is obviously an enormous bill, comprising nearly 1,000 pages. More particularly, it is a very technical bill for the majority of members and myself, who are not tax specialists.

The purpose of Bill C-48 is to make amendments to the Canadian tax system that have been developed over more than a decade. Although we may wonder why the bill is long and voluminous, we can downplay that aspect because this bill nevertheless deals with a single subject, which was not the case with the mammoth bills the government previously introduced, Bills C-38 and C-45. Those bills concerned matters that were unrelated but that had nevertheless been grouped together based on an utterly debatable and debated logic.

Let us talk a little about the importance of taxation to Canadians, especially in this month of March when all our constituents are completing their tax returns. I do not believe our constituents are opposed to the idea of paying taxes, but they are appalled at times to see how their taxes are used at every level of government.

We are currently thinking of Quebec, in particular. In my riding, I hear a lot of talk about the Charbonneau commission and about the investigations that UPAC is conducting in Quebec on how taxes have been diverted from their primary purpose, the creation of infrastructure, at the provincial and municipal levels. Faced with misappropriation and corruption, Canadians—and I believe this is particularly true here in Quebec—are appalled at times by the wrongful manner in which their taxes are used; they are not being used properly.

When taxes are used properly, to expand infrastructure, for example, Canadians are quite happy to take part in this national effort. They are even asking us to do more, particularly with regard to infrastructure.

Although we can only be pleased that good measures are finally being included in Canada's tax legislation, we have reason to be concerned about the size of a bill that is nearly 1,000 pages long. Although it is true for all governments, this nevertheless shows that this government in particular should manage the tax code more effectively and work harder to ensure that statutory measures designed to enact tax proposals are regularly introduced.

With respect to the matter before us, the last technical tax bill was passed in 2001. In the update that she tabled in the fall of 2009, Sheila Fraser, then Auditor General of Canada, said she was concerned that at least 400 technical amendments had not yet been adopted. Although 200 of the amendments she referred to now appear in Bill C-48, hundreds of others have not yet been passed.

Bill C-48 includes some promising measures. Part 4, for example, provides for technical changes to the Excise Tax Act, repealing a measure that has not been used since 1999. Part 7 clarifies the minister's authority to amend tax administration agreement schedules, provided that does not make any substantial change to the terms and conditions of those agreements. Part 7 also enables the First Nations goods and services tax, imposed under a tax administration agreement between the federal government and an aboriginal government, whatever it might be, to be administered through a provincial administration system that also administers the federal goods and services tax.

This change will simplify administration of the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act. These are quite promising measures.

This bill also addresses an aspect that is very important for Canadians and, more generally, for people around the world, and that is the problem of tax evasion. My colleague who spoke earlier mentioned Greece. One of Greece's major problems was not necessarily mismanagement or living beyond its means, but rather its level of tax evasion, which was incompatible with the revenue inflows to be expected in a country that aims to be worthy of that name, a country that should have quite a high level of taxation to pay for the goods and services that every government should provide. Where tax evasion levels are too high, they have a direct impact on essential public services. We have seen this in Greece, for example, and it is indeed a serious problem. A number of social problems result directly from those taxation problems.

Any reasonable person would agree that any amendments that increase tax revenue, discourage tax evasion and, as a result, ensure the integrity of our tax system are positive. We therefore need to adopt them as quickly as possible. What is more, most of these measures have already been in place for several years since, tax measures often take effect as soon as they are proposed.

The NDP is of the opinion that cracking down on tax evasion and avoidance should be a priority for any honest and responsible government. That is what we will do when we take office in 2015. We will do even more to make combatting tax evasion a priority.

I must also say a few words about my NDP colleagues who are members of the Standing Committee on Finance and who, since the beginning of this new Parliament, have been continually pushing the committee to complete its study of tax evasion.

One of the questions we have been considering is this: how can we successfully combat tax evasion? We must use measures targeting certain rental properties and Canadian multinational corporations with foreign affiliates. We must impose limits on them with regard to the use of foreign tax credit generators.

I would like to add that the committee heard from a number of witnesses. I would particularly like to quote Denis St-Pierre, who testified during the pre-budget consultations held on October 15, 2012. Mr. St-Pierre, chair of the tax and fiscal policy advisory group of the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, said:

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.

This reminds us of just how much tax professionals, including chartered accountants, want to see a provision that would make their everyday work clearer.

So, for the reasons I have just mentioned, I will support Bill C-48 at second reading. The main reason is that the tax measures it contains are a step in the right direction, and it has already taken too long to incorporate them into our tax legislation.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my friend across the way, a person I have a great deal of respect for. He mentioned that he will support the bill.

He also mentioned that the previous Auditor General said these are measures the government should enact, and I suspect she might have used the word “must”. As well, he mentioned the certified general accountant's deposition before the finance committee, who also said that these things should be done in an expeditious manner and that he would support the bill.

I have noticed that the bill has been before the House and debated here for some 100 days. If the member supports the bill, and he has mentioned people who have stated we need to get on with this and get these tax measures completed, passed and enacted as quickly as possible, then why are we here in the House? We are now going on to over 100 days. What is the explanation for that, if it is so important, if we should do it, and if it is in the right direction, as the member stated?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I certainly share his concerns. I would like to congratulate him for the work he does with us on the Standing Committee on National Defence.

I am sure the member noticed that the bill is 1,000 pages long. It contains a large number of provisions that address various aspects of the tax code.

It is important that our parliamentary and political systems provide every member with the time to debate a particular aspect or provision contained in these 960 pages if they wish to do so. As the member noted, this bill is extremely complicated and technical.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

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

We may not be tax experts, but it seems obvious to me that it would make sense to make this information available more often, instead of waiting and introducing a 1,000-page brick. What does my colleague think?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. A number of members have mentioned the fact that there have not been any technical amendments to Canada's tax provisions for 11 years.

Every government should be more diligent when it comes to updating tax provisions. The reality is that tax professionals—which we are not—who, every day, help businesses and individuals make the right tax choices need certainty and clarity.

The fact that it has taken a decade to implement these amendments has only added to their lack of clarity and certainty in giving advice to their clients.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was quite funny to see the government play the victim yesterday in committee.

My colleague from York Centre, with whom I have the pleasure of serving on the committee, also complained that we were taking time to study this. The witnesses themselves said it is absurd to study a bill that is almost 1,000 pages long because we were going to miss certain problems.

Could my colleague from Saint-Jean tell us more about the fact that the bill is very large and very difficult to study in so short a time?

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for the exceptional and always very focused work he does on the Standing Committee on Finance.

I have to agree with him. These bills are extremely complex, from both a quantitative and a qualitative perspective, and it is important that the committees take the time to study these points properly.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012. It is a very important piece of legislation. While the legislation may be technical, it is nonetheless important legislation that would benefit all Canadians, providing the clarity and certainty to Canada's tax system.

Our government has conducted extensive consultations on the provisions of the bill, some provisions having been announced over a decade ago. As previous parliamentarians' efforts to pass these amendments were unsuccessful, the backlog has increased over the years, and it is more important than ever to pass these technical amendments. In fact, among those calling for Parliament to quickly pass the amendments includes the Auditor General of Canada, who in a 2009 report stated:

Taxpayers' ability to comply with tax legislation depends on their understanding of how the rules apply to their own circumstances. [...] Uncertainty about how the law should be applied can also add to the time taken and costs incurred by tax audits and tax administration.

I could not agree with the Auditor General more. However, it is not just the Auditor General who is saying this; it is all the other parties in the House, as the bill has all party support. In fact, earlier this week, during the finance committee study of Bill C-48, the NDP member for Parkdale—High Park, and finance critic for her party, said, “Obviously we support the goal of closing tax loopholes and making the tax system in Canada clearer and easier to understand for Canadians”. The NDP finance critic went even further, on Bill C-48's first day of debate, saying, “the official opposition [New Democrats] will be supporting the bill”.

One would think that after making such an unequivocal statement of support for the legislation that she and all NDP members would be eager to vote on this important piece of legislation and ensure its timely passage through the House of Commons.

Alas, the actions of the NDP seem to be at odds with the NDP finance critic's statement. I have to ask: What is the reason for the NDP delay? Even more puzzling, it is not simply the NDP finance critic who is displaying these bizarre tendencies; it is every member of the NDP. My hon. colleagues have all declared their support for the bill while at the same time trying to filibuster second reading, for over 100 days. This attempt to disrupt what is only the first stage in a long legislative process continues to delay the finance committee's opportunity to formally study the bill.

I have taken the liberty of reviewing the debate on the bill and, time after time, the NDP MPs are vocal in their support for this piece of legislation. For example, the NDP member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques said, “We will support this bill because it eliminates some tax loopholes and other measures that lead to fiscal inequity”. The NDP member for Beauport—Limoilou said, “It will be a great pleasure for me to support this bill”.

The NDP member for Manicouagan said, “We support the changes this bill makes, and particularly those aimed at reducing tax avoidance”. This sentiment was echoed by the NDP member for Surrey North, who said: “We support the changes being made in the bill, especially those aimed at reducing tax avoidance”.

The NDP member for London—Fanshawe said, “The bill makes important and long-overdue changes to the tax laws” , and then went on to say, “New Democrats support the bill..”. The NDP member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing said, “As the House is aware, the New Democrats are supporting the bill...”.

The NDP member for Scarborough—Rouge River even highlights that her reason for supporting the legislation is that many of the provisions have already been announced, declaring, “Once they've been announced, people accept them as adopted. It's for these reasons that we are supporting the bill”.

These kinds of comments from the NDP continue and continue. NDP member after NDP member have all voiced their support for this piece of legislation, which has been in Parliament for more than 100 days. Furthermore, all of these statements of support came on the very first day of debate; yet more than 100 days later, we are still debating the bill at second reading.

This is simply unbelievable. Why would members of the NDP support the legislation, but not ensure its passage at second reading to the finance committee for closer examination by their own NDP colleagues? One wonders what the NDP hopes to gain by prolonging the debate. Again, perhaps the members are unaware that many of the measures have already undergone extensive debate in this House.

In fact, Bill C-48 has been before Parliament for five months now, as it was introduced in November of last year. Do members know what this means? Clearly, the NDP members do not, and so I will spell it out for them.

Let me state again that the House of Commons has had more than 100 days to examine and debate this bill at second reading stage already. We have already had days and days of debate and heard hours and hours of speeches, but what has all this debate yielded from the NDP benches? As I have highlighted, it is repetition upon repetition of support and praise for this legislation.

Well, if NDP members truly do support it, I plead with the NDP to not stall second reading in debate. Let us work together and pass this important legislation that would help Canadians. Let us make Parliament work. That would be an important change for the NDP, as its members have repeatedly shown that they have a track record of delaying and opposing legislation that would be beneficial to Canadians. For an example of this, we need look no further than our Conservative government's economic action plan legislation in these recent years.

What is more, NDP members have shown time after time that they would prefer to vote against tax relief measures that help Canadians and our economy, such as the hiring tax credit for small business and the introduction of a tax-free savings account. They even voted against a reduction of the GST to 5%.

However, we all know what the NDP does support: a carbon tax. I find this very puzzling. On the one hand, the NDP would gladly support a reckless $21 billion carbon tax that would raise the price on essential goods and services for Canadians, but it would stall well-reasoned and thoroughly examined legislation like Bill C-48.

While the NDP finds these partisan procedural games amusing, Canadian taxpayers and businesses, who are waiting for these technical amendments to be passed, certainly do not.

Despite the NDP's bizarre position on this bill, Canadians can rest assured that their Conservative government will work to ensure the passage of Bill C-48 through Parliament so that taxpayers' confidence is not lost in Canada's tax system.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was very hard to sit here and listen to a comment that parliamentary democracy in the form of debating legislation, which is the duty of parliamentarians, is somehow considered as standing in the way of legislation passing.

This comes from a member of a government that has moved time allocation to cut off debate on critical issues, preventing fair discussion by parliamentarians and preventing parliamentarians from doing their due diligence when they look at the budget and other pieces of legislation.

My question is to the hon. member across the way.

This is a critical piece of legislation. The Auditor General wrote about the urgency of these amendments in 2009. He suggested 400 outstanding technical amendments; we see only 200 of these addressed here. It took four years for the government to address 200 of those, 50% of them. How much longer is it going to take the government to address the rest of the Auditor General's recommendations?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these are bizarre arguments. On the one hand, opposition members are complaining about how long this bill is, at over 1,000 pages, and now we are hearing somebody complaining that not enough amendments are being addressed.

As far as debate goes, it is repetition after repetition. Is it any wonder people are calling them the new Bloc party?

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we can talk about bizarre. There is something that is bizarre right there. The member should stand up and apologize to every member in this House and to every Canadian for misleading them.

She said that we have been debating this bill for 100 days. I just checked with the table officers, and we have been debating this bill for nine hours. That is a long way from 100 days. In my community of Nickel Belt, miners work longer than nine hours a day. We have not even been debating this bill for a day, let alone 100 days. What a ridiculous statement.

Then the member went on to talk about the NDP cap and trade. I have in my hand a copy of the Conservative platform. Lo and behold, on page 32 of the platform, we see “Developing a cap and trade system”.

What a shame. What a bizarre thing to say on the member's part. She should stand up and apologize.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, even before this bill was introduced, it was consulted on for literally years in advance. There were repeated public consultations.

On top of that, this bill has before Parliament for five months now, as it was introduced in November of last year. That means that the House of Commons has had over 100 days to examine and debate this bill already.

We are only at the initial preliminary stage of a very long parliamentary process. We have had literally days and days of debate. We have heard hours and hours of speeches, all saying the same thing. All sides support this bill. All sides recognize it is technical bill, yet for some bizarre reason the NDP insists on filibustering it with 100-day delay.

While the NDP might find these games amusing, Canadian taxpayers and businesses—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

If I stop the member there, we can accommodate one more question or comment. The hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on this International Women's Day, I just thought I would point out the behaviour of the NDP members, who usually like to be the champions of decorum.

My colleague talked about the bizarre arguments that were being made. Then the NDP member pointed at my colleague and said that was what was bizarre. The member was pointing to my colleague and saying that she was bizarre.

It is right to criticize debate here, but to take it personally goes beyond the pale and is certainly not in the spirit of decorum that we want to see.

I would like to ask my colleague now, in a very civil way on International Women's Day, what the consequences will be if this bill is not passed.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the consequences would be tax avoidance. When individuals as well as companies do not pay their fair share of taxes, the rest of Canadians have to take up the slack and pay it in their place.

I thank my hon. colleague for recognizing International Women's Day. It is great to be in the House of Commons on such a day.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this important discussion on Bill C-48, technical tax amendments act, 2012.

This legislation, as clearly stated in its title, is technical. It is nevertheless important, especially to the many taxpayers who want certainty after over a decade without the technical tax bill being passed by Parliament.

The technical tax act, 2012, moves to clear the backlog, with the inclusion of outstanding income tax and sales tax amendments, the majority of which have already been released for public consultation. Specifically, from 2009 to 2011, in advance of the technical tax amendments act, 2012, the government engaged in open and public consultations on the vast majority of the proposed amendments included in the legislation. I should also note that the Auditor General of Canada has identified the backlog of technical amendments as an issue requiring attention.

While outlining the delays and addressing the current backlog of outstanding income tax amendments, the Auditor General made some key observations about the impact of failing to deal with this issue in a timely manner and, of course, it has very far-reaching implications.

With regard to one of the many negative effects on taxpayers from the uncertainty caused by the backlog of these outstanding income tax amendments, the Auditor General noted the following: 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 substantially enacted; and increased willingness to engage in aggressive tax planning. As such, I think we need to applaud the Conservative government for taking action in this over decade-long backlog, and the Auditor General for the report that helped to crystallize this issue for Canadians.

As parliamentarians, it is important that we now move forward to address this problem. That means we all need to work together to put an end to this backlog of technical tax amendments.

We have seen that, to some extent, all parties have publicly declared support for Bill C-48. Indeed, the NDP has spent literally days of debate, with very similar sounding speeches, to make that point. To be quite frank, their behaviour looks suspiciously like political procedure games, as we have been at second reading for over 100 days at this point. We need to move past such games and focus on what would actually help taxpayers.

I want to applaud the work of my fellow colleagues on the finance committee, from all sides. We realized the need to move forward in a timely way with this legislation and we actually started to pre-study the bill a number of weeks ago. We have already heard from witnesses. Every single one of them is supporting moving ahead with this important piece of legislation.

We have heard from groups like the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, who have said the technical tax amendments associated with Bill C-48 will help to improve clarity and certainty. We greet the technical tax amendments act, 2012, with a sense of relief.

We also heard from an expert tax lawyer, who stated:

The adoption of this bill will be welcomed, as it will formally enact provisions, many of which were originally proposed in 1999, and will have effect from 2007 or 2010 and in certain instances even earlier.

He also stated that many of the amendments found in this act have been brought before the House of Commons and the Senate on a number of occasions in the past.

In my remaining time today, I would like to spotlight some of the measures that may have been overlooked in today's legislation, or certainly overlooked in the debate, because there are many technical pieces. I want to highlight a few of them.

One such group of Canadians who will be assisted will be the self-employed, as the technical tax amendment act, 2012, will make some helpful, albeit minor, changes to fully implement a very popular recent initiative of our government, and that is to assist the self-employed. I am referring to the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act.

As parliamentarians may recall, that legislation extended employment insurance special benefits, including maternity, parental, sickness and compassionate care benefits, on a voluntary basis to the self-employed. Thanks to that new initiative, self-employed Canadians will no longer have to choose between their family and their business responsibilities. I think we can all agree that this initiative was good family policy. It represents a very significant positive measure for the self-employed.

As I also noted earlier, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, would make some helpful changes to fully implement that legislation. Specifically, the measure in question would amend the Income Tax Act as a consequential enactment to the Fairness for Self-Employed Act. It would provide for a personal income tax credit in respect of premiums paid consistent with the existing credit in respect of employees' EI premiums.

Another helpful measure, and this is important, specifically in terms of some of the work we are doing currently around tax avoidance and the use of tax havens, is the multi-lateral convention on mutually administrative assistance in tax matters, which is normally known as the convention. The convention was concluded in 1988 to create a multinational network to facilitate, improve and extend the exchange of information between national tax administrators. The objective was to combat international tax evasion. In April 2009, the G20 called for action to make it easier for developing countries to secure the benefits of the new co-operative tax environment, including the multilateral approach for the exchange of information.

In response, the OECD and the Council of Europe developed a protocol to amend the convention to bring it in line with the international standard on exchange of information for tax purposes and to open it up to all countries. We call this the amended convention. This amended convention is a useful instrument to fight against offshore international tax evasion and is consistent with the government's policy on exchange of information. Previously, it was open to members of the OECD and the Council of Europe. Now, more than 40 countries, including Brazil, Germany, the U.K. and the U.S., have signed the amended convention, and many more have stated their intention to do so.

The amended convention supports Canada's G20 commitment to implement the latest OECD standard on the exchange of tax information, which is to provide that bank secrecy should not prevent a country from exchanging information for tax purposes. However, the amended convention has not yet been ratified, since section 241 of the Income Tax Act must be amended first. With the passage of Bill C-48, it would be in a position to do so. This is very technical legislation but critically important.

As members may recall, another example is the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act, or the FNGST. This is a tax applied by participating aboriginal governments on goods and services within their reserves or lands. On reserve, it effectively replaces the GST. The longstanding FNGST arrangements promote self-reliance and political accountability of aboriginal governments to their members, as well as the effectiveness of a national tax system. The FNGST is available to both self-governing aboriginal groups and to interested Indian bands that continue to operate primarily under the Indian Act.

Under the terms of the tax administration agreement, the FNGST is collected and administered free of charge by the Canada Revenue Agency, which acts as the agent of the taxing aboriginal government. That is where the amendments in part 7 of the technical tax amendments bill come into play. These are very big improvements in terms of how we will move forward on this important issue for our aboriginal communities.

As I mentioned earlier, it has been over a decade since Parliament last passed a comprehensive package of technical income tax amendments, so we must move forward. My colleagues and I on the finance committee heard from KPMG, which asked Parliament to act decisively and pass Bill C-48 to essentially clean up the slate of this old legislation and finally bring the Income Tax Act up to date. Taxpayers could then move on and focus on running their businesses and the CRA could carry on administering—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member will have five minutes for questions and comments after question period.

We will now move on to statements by members. The hon. member for Palliser.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

When this was last before the House, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue had completed her remarks, but there are five minutes for questions and comments.

The hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for her speech. I also salute her as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. The only thing I deplore, obviously, is that she is not commenting on the criticism by witnesses at the Standing Committee on Finance regarding the government's negligence and lax attitude.

Let me remind this House that the Conservative Party has been in power for seven years now and could have taken much quicker action to resolve the issue of the mountain of comfort letters. This brings about an enormous amount of uncertainty.

I will not hide the fact that I spoke with a number of witnesses as part of the committee's work and in private after each meeting. Many of them confided in me that they could no longer stand hearing the government claim that the fact that it was a minority and there was a crisis created obstacles to incorporating these comfort letters into the Income Tax Act.

What does my colleague have to say about those comments from our witnesses?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that every single witness who has come forward has said witnesses have been broadly consulted. They are very supportive of moving the legislation forward. They perhaps did not understand why there were so many speakers from the opposition rising and saying essentially very similar things. They encourage all members of the House to move forward.

Certainly, our minister has felt that, as we deal with this very important issue, we need to have regular and effective updates to our important tax amendment legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party indicated a while back that we are supportive of the bill ultimately passing. We feel there has been a fairly significant amount of time since we have had a law passed to deal with the tax changes that are required.

There is a very thick component when we look at tax guides. They have an asterisk or a grey faded colour to indicate that these are measures for which they are hoping to see legislation take place. That is what Bill C-48 would do. It would invoke a series of changes that are long overdue in their passage, and we do anticipate the bill will pass in a timely fashion.

My question to the member is: How often does she feel legislation of this nature should be brought forward on a go-forward basis?

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the support and thank the hon. member for indicating that he recognizes the importance of this piece of legislation and the importance of moving it forward.

We all recognize that, due to some very extraordinary circumstances, it is absolutely time to move forward. Certainly, all the witnesses who came before committee said they were supportive of the legislation, that they have been broadly consulted and that it is time.

We look forward to the quick passage of Bill C-48.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a tax lawyer, I am very pleased to speak to a bill that should have been introduced a very long time ago.

It has been 11 years and the Conservatives have not introduced a technical bill. Unfortunately, they are not the only ones to blame. The Liberal government shares that blame. We now have 200 amendments to the Income Tax Act in a 1,000-page document. We have only nine hours to debate a 1,000-page document.

I would like to know how many parliamentarians here in this House understand how important this bill is. I am sure that in nine hours of debate, no one here has been able to make it through 1,000 pages. Supporting this bill is an act of faith. We are putting our trust in the professionalism of the people who drafted this bill and the officials at the Canada Revenue Agency, because it is clear that parliamentarians are not sure about what they are voting for. That is serious.

The Income Tax Act is probably the most important statute in Parliament. Without this legislation, we are not able to pay police officers, public servants or nurses. It serves as a financial and economic foundation for the government, but the Conservatives decided that this act was not important enough to be addressed every year.

The purpose of this bill is to do nothing more than catch up on the backlog of comfort letters. This bill includes 200 of 400. We will still have to catch up on 200 letters, and we will also have to assume that every budget bill will lead to an amendment of the comfort letters. This should be done every year. Clearly, that has not been the case.

That is why we are blindly working our way through an obstacle course. No one can tell me that parliamentarians sat down and read 1,000 pages. In our legal system, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Unfortunately, the Income Tax Act is obviously an exception to that. Tax experts, who appeared in our committees, told us that they did not know what was in force and what was not.

How can we enforce a law that is not written or that will only be enforced at a given time? Can we say that we will enforce the law when we have the time? How wonderful. One of the main reasons Italy and Greece had financial problems was because these governments were not able to claim the taxes they were owed.

The European crisis is a financial and tax crisis. Those people were expecting their government to have money coming in. The money never materialized because their government did not implement measures to ensure that the ministry of revenue was able to collect the taxes owed to the government.

Here in Canada, there are tax avoidance problems. Tax avoidance is the use of means within the law to avoid or delay payment of taxes. It is legal. For example, RRSPs generally lend themselves to tax avoidance. By contributing to RRSPs, we avoid paying taxes. That is legal.

Unfortunately, the law is now so riddled with holes, confusion and contradictions that a good tax expert can find a legal way for a client to avoid paying taxes. It is legal. It was not planned or foreseen by the government, but the law is so poorly drafted that it allows a good tax expert to find loopholes, and that is legal.

We try to prevent tax avoidance by prohibiting aggressive tax planning. The abuse cannot be censured if the law is poorly drafted. The responsibility lies with the government.

There is tax evasion and tax avoidance. What is the difference? Tax evasion involves breaking the law, circumventing it by fraudulent means, and involves white collar criminals. We have to prohibit tax evasion and implement means to fight it. When a law is poorly written or when officials do not know what to do, it is difficult to put an end to these fraudulent practices. Tax avoidance entails finding legal means to avoid paying taxes that are owing. Tax evasion is a criminal offence. In both cases, and despite commendable efforts, the government is losing control of the enforcement of its legislation. That is a serious threat.

For many years, any tax experts who appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and all committees that are economic in nature indicated that the text of the Income Tax Act had areas that were underlined and shaded in grey. This indicates that a comfort letter was issued, but the change has not yet been incorporated into legislation. There are 400 examples of this. Understandably, people want this to be corrected, and quickly.

Imagine a tax expert who presents a tax plan. That person is told that these comfort letters might be adopted one day, or maybe not. Uncertainty reigns. When there is a change in government, the new government can decide not to approve a comfort letter and never to enforce it; it can reject it. For 11 years, a tax expert might not know if his or her carefully prepared plan is legal or not.

When a comfort letter is drafted, the corrections that it makes should be applied immediately in the months that follow. That is the main message. We are in favour of adopting all 400 comfort letters. The government has presented only 200, but another 200 are still to come. They must be incorporated into the Income Tax Act.

Our hope now is that, in the future, this government will have the decency to amend the Income Tax Act relatively quickly and incorporate these comfort letters any time it brings down a budget that includes comfort letters. This is an absolute necessity if we do not want to find ourselves in the same situation as Greece, Italy and Spain, countries that lost control of their taxes and can no longer collect them and pay their debts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to congratulate my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, my seatmate, on his excellent speech. He enlightened us and imparted his great wisdom. I have probably said enough.

My colleague's expertise allowed him to point out several very important elements. I will focus on one particular aspect that was frequently raised by the experts we met with at the finance department, and that is planning.

Millions of Canadians are facing the threat of tax planning that is in no way fraudulent, but that is unclear because the government has been so lax. Sometimes people are faced with claims or find themselves in unfair situations.

I would like my colleague to talk about this very serious issue, which affects all Canadians.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the tragedy of this situation.

Take, for example, a comfort letter from 11 years ago concerning airlines. These companies' tax situations have evolved and that comfort letter is now worthless. It does not apply. It no longer makes sense from a legislative point of view because airlines have legally restructured under international agreements with other airlines.

That is serious. A comfort letter is drawn up and when it is time to implement it, the situation it addressed no longer exists.

The government has clearly lost control of taxation in a situation like that.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have the tax expertise my colleague does, so I would like to benefit from his wisdom.

The Conservative government is always talking about cuts, particularly cuts to employment insurance. We could make a whole list.

Could my colleague tell me just how much the government loses to tax evasion?

How much revenue would the government be looking at if the problem was tackled head-on?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a serious case.

We have talked a lot about tax havens. Unfortunately, Canadian practices have been assessed at $9 billion by Mr. Lauzon, director of the socio-economic studies lab at the Université du Québec à Montréal.

We are talking about duly incorporated companies being used as tax havens. We are not talking about organized crime. This $9 billion involves duly incorporated companies and individuals who are using illegal methods, namely, tax evasion.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Earlier, the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke stood up and said that this bill has been debated for 100 days. I checked, and it has actually been only nine hours. There is a big difference between nine hours and 100 days of debate.

I think the Conservatives are frustrated. Could my colleague please give me his opinion on the Conservatives' frustration?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my answer will be brief.

We have had nine hours of debate on a 1,000-page text that includes 200 comfort letters. We are forced to abandon our legislative authority and trust the drafters.

No one can tell me that a single Conservative MP has read these 1,000 pages. It is obviously shoddy, haphazard work, makeshift work. This is nonsense. We are ramming through 200 comfort letters. No one better tell me that this is our responsibility.

We had nine hours to talk about 1,000 pages of text. I challenge any Conservative member to tell me that they read and understood them.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

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.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it unfortunate that the member would falsely accuse the NDP of holding up this bill. It is perhaps because he is frustrated. If he had been listening this morning, he would have heard that I checked with the table and we have been debating this bill for nine and a half hours. Where I come from, nine and a half hours is a long way from a hundred days. I did not know there was that much of a time difference between British Columbia and northern Ontario.

He also said in his speech that the NDP was filibustering this bill. Until today, there has not been a single Conservative MP who has stood up to speak to the bill. All of a sudden, today the Conservatives are filibustering the bill. Why are they so frustrated, and why can they not tell Canadians the truth about debating the bill for nine hours?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

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.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the NDP do not have a good track record when it comes to supporting the financial initiatives of the government. I think of past budgets and the estimates process. Estimates have just moved through many committees, all of which were voted against by the NDP. Now we have some common sense tax amendments that build on other things we are doing.

I would ask my colleague why it is he thinks the NDP have voted against all of these measures. The fruit of these measures are seen in 50,000 new jobs created in the month of February and 950,000 new jobs since 2009.

I would ask my colleague for his thoughts on why the NDP absolutely refuse to support good common sense measures, such as these tax amendments that we have in front of Parliament today.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, I have the pleasure of sitting on the Standing Committee on Finance.

However, I see that my colleague knows what he is talking about more or less.

Given the scope of the bill, I had to focus on particular sections, such as clause 195, which provides a number of definitions including the one for restrictive covenants.

Tax experts have approached me and thanked me for tackling this matter because the definition seems to be inadequate. However, we will have to pass Bill C-48 in a rather haphazard manner.

Can my colleague assure me that we will find the time to address certain problems with C-48? The proposed measures are poorly defined or somewhat obsolete.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

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.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before we resume debate, I would remind all hon. members to address their comments to the chair rather than to their colleagues.

The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act of 2012. The bill proposes amendments to the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and related legislation. It would close tax loopholes and create a fairer tax system for all Canadians.

The bill also contains proposals that have been public for quite some time, some going back the late 1990s, as well as measures that have been previously released for public consultation.

The proposals in the bill reflect the feedback the government has received from Canadians and aim to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of tax and is treated equitably under our tax laws.

After all, there are few areas where the integration between governments and citizens is more direct than with respect to taxation.

Our governments collect taxes to fund health care, social programs and other vital services for Canadian citizens. The vast majority of Canadians pay their taxes willingly and they pay them honestly. In return, they expect the government to manage their tax dollars wisely and to take no more from each taxpayer than is their fair share. Canadians can count on this Conservative government to do both.

The efficiency and fairness of the tax system should be improved on an ongoing basis by closing tax loopholes as they are identified. The bill before us would go a long way to doing this in respect.

In the 2010 Speech from the Throne, the Conservative government committed to taking aggressive steps to close tax loopholes that allow a few businesses and individuals to take advantage of hard-working Canadians who pay their fair share of tax.

By broadening and protecting the tax base, we are helping to keep Canadian tax rates competitive and low, thereby improving incentives to work, save and invest here in Canada.

In keeping with this commitment, the legislation before us today proposes to strengthen Canada's tax system by closing tax loopholes and improving fairness for all Canadian taxpayers. The bill would also make the tax system easier to comply with, which is what Canadians have been asking for.

For example, it would make changes to the Income Tax Act to better target rules relating to non-resident trusts. The bill also includes amendments to rules dealing with foreign affiliates of Canadian multinational corporations. These changes would enhance the fairness and integrity of Canada's international tax system.

The bill before us today would also line up many loose ends already contained in the tax system. Indeed, it has been over a decade since Parliament last passed a comprehensive package of technical income tax amendments. This has created a significant backlog of outstanding measures that need to be addressed to provide certainty for Canadian taxpayers.

The Auditor General of Canada has identified the backlog of technical amendments as an issue requiring pressing attention by the government. The amendments proposed in the bill address the backlog through the inclusion of outstanding income tax and sales tax amendments, the vast majority of which have already been released for open and public consultation.

The bottom line is this: the legislation would provide certainty in the application of our tax system, making it easier to comply with and administer and improving fairness for Canadian taxpayers.

Our government has great successes in creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. The future of this country depends in no small part upon strengthening business competitiveness. Strong economic framework policies foster competition, attract new investment and help businesses thrive and create jobs.

In Canada's economic action plan, the government has taken action to strengthen business competitiveness by promoting an open investment framework and by making fundamental changes to reduce red tape for business. By providing a strong environment for investment and reducing red tape, our government is helping to ensure that Canadian businesses have increased access to the resources required to compete in the global economy and create high-value jobs. This plan is working.

Only today, Statistics Canada announced that employment has increased in our country by over 50,000 net new jobs created in February. Even better, the unemployment rate remains at a post-recession low of 7%, the lowest level in four years.

February's strong employment gains, along with the over 950,000 net new jobs created since the depth of the global recession in July 2009—and of these, 90% are full time and 80% are in the private sector—are very positive signs that we are on the right track with Canada's economy.

What is more, unlike what others would have us believe, Canada has the strongest job growth record among every single one of the G7 countries in recent years.

Furthermore, lower Canadian tax rates play a particularly important role in supporting economic growth by enabling businesses to invest more of their revenues back into their operations. These business investments in machinery, equipment, information technology and other physical capital will boost Canada's productivity. Additional capital boosts businesses' competitiveness, encouraging firms to grow and create more better-paying jobs for Canadians, thereby raising everybody's living standard. As a result of the bold tax reduction plan passed by Parliament in 2007, Canada's tax advantage has continually improved.

The final stage of our step-by-step reduction in the federal business tax rate came into force at the beginning of 2012. It is the accumulation of a process that has seen the federal corporate income tax rate fall from over 22% in 2007 to just 15% today. This has allowed Canadian businesses and Canadians who work for those businesses to drive Canada's economic recovery and future growth.

We eliminated the capital tax at the federal level and encouraged provinces to do the same with their general capital taxes, and the provinces have agreed to do that.

These and other tax changes have allowed Canada to achieve an overall tax rate on new business investment that is lower than any other country in the G7. Indeed, the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters had this to say only this week about what our low-tax plan has meant for them. They said:

...lower corporate income taxes attract more investments and therefore have a positive result on government revenues, at all levels of government. This is good news for our economy, and I am confident our tax environment will attract more investments in the years to come.

There is great support for this government's tax plan. Nevertheless, Canada faces a fast-changing global environment with increasing competition from emerging market countries and a global economy that remains fragile and uncertain.

I assure members that our government remains committed to keeping Canada strong and prosperous by creating the right conditions to enable Canadians and Canadian businesses to feel confident and to invest, create jobs and grow our economy.

Canada's performance has been one of the most resilient amidst considerable global uncertainty. Compared to most advanced economies in the world, we are in a relatively good position. Since our government introduced Canada's economic action plan to respond to the global recession, Canada has recovered more than all the output and all the jobs lost during the recession.

We will continue to treat Canadians with the utmost fairness and respect with regard to Canada's taxation system. Canadians deserve nothing less, and that is why I call upon all parliamentarians to support Bill C-48.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I have a very simple question. I listened to my esteemed colleague and he did not mention comfort letters. He did not talk about the very essence of Bill C-48, the 200 comfort letters that are being incorporated into the Income Tax Act or the 1,000 pages of text accompanying these 200 amendments.

Did my esteemed colleague bother to read these 1,000 pages? Does he understand the legislative path an Income Tax Act comfort letter takes?

His speech clearly shows that he understood nothing and that he did not read a single one of the 1,000 pages.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell members what I do understand. I understand that on our side of the House we believe in jobs, growth and long-term prosperity and on that side of the House they believe in raising taxes. Raising the carbon tax, raising the iPod tax, raising corporate tax rates, raising the GST are all part of the NDP plan for the future of Canada. That is not our plan, that is their plan. We believe in low taxes. We believe in creating jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I emphasize a need for the passage of the legislation in the sense that for many years now Canadians have been waiting for legislation of this nature to pass, because if we look at our tax books, we find that there are many asterisks and I made reference to the greyed-out areas that highlight changes that are pending legislative law being passed. This has been going on for a number of years now.

To what degree does the member believe changes to the Income Tax Act should be made on more of a regular basis? And going forward, how often do you feel that there is a need to bring in legislation of this nature to implement the changes that are going to be taking place into the future? Every two years or three years, do you take in a combination of a number of changes?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the member, I want to remind all hon. members for the third time in less than an hour to direct their questions to the Chair rather than to their colleagues.

I appreciate that members slip into a bad habit, but the rule is there for a reason. If members continue to address their comments and questions to each other rather than the Chair, the Chair will intervene and terminate the exchange.

The hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General indicated that there are several different aspects of this particular piece of legislation that need to be changed very quickly because we have left this situation in place for several years. We need to continue to make changes as we find loopholes and find ways to lower taxes for Canadians. We also have to find ways to make the tax system easier to understand and deal with.

The hon. member is getting at the fact that governments across North America and the G7 have to make sure all their tax systems meet today's technology and needs. I think we will see tax measures like this coming on a much more regular basis, based on the Auditor General's comments.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-48 as well. Before doing so, I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking today on International Women's Day. I would like particularly to salute the contributions of the remarkable women in my community of Victoria.

The official opposition will support the bill at second reading stage. This legislation is called the technical tax amendment bill, and for a very good reason. However, we should not forget the enormity of its importance.

One of the witnesses appearing before finance committee, of which I am honoured to be a member, noted that 80% of the government's revenue is collected from income tax and excise taxes. Therefore, this is an important bill, although it is masquerading as a very technical, and some would say, dry subject.

We heard many witnesses. Many speakers today have remarked that over 1,000 pages of legislation is at issue, but that needs to be put into context. That is on top of the 2,882 pages of the Income Tax Act.

This is important but convoluted legislation. A lot of it has to do with comfort letters that need to be turned into real legislation so that Canadians have the certainty to know what the law on taxes would be.

In her 2009 report, the Auditor General noted serious problems, and I quote:

Taxpayers' ability to comply with tax legislation depends on their understanding of how the rules apply to their own circumstances.... Uncertainty about how the law should be applied can also add to the time taken and costs incurred by tax audits and tax administration.

It is inexcusable that this legislation, 1,000 pages in length, has taken 11 years, since the last technical amendment bill. I want to talk today about the content of the bill very briefly, why we say the delay has occurred, the consequences of that delay, some process questions and suggestions. That is where I would like to go in the time available to me.

There is much in this bill to like. Several provisions close tax loopholes, and some are of great interest to the opposition, because we are studying tax havens and tax evasion at committee stage. I am honoured to be part of that study.

These rules are also going to frustrate those who are involved in aggressive tax planning and tax avoidance transactions, rules to deal with foreign tax credit generators and specified leasing rules. There is some important legislation here to close loopholes. This could not in any way, shape or form be construed as a partisan piece of legislation. Going after tax havens, getting more money for the Canadian fisc, is obviously something people on all sides of the House would agree with.

Why has there been the delay? We believe the reason is simply that this has not been a priority for the government. The Conservatives had a number of excuses they trotted out during the committee stage. The first reason was that there have been a lot of minority governments. However, the bill has been in Parliament at least twice, and there was unanimous agreement from all MPs to proceed with the predecessor bills. That excuse does not wash.

The Conservatives then said that it was likely that all parties would support this version. Therefore, what was the problem? What was the excuse for such a delay? In committee, the Minister of State (Finance) went so far as to blame the recession, although it is hard for me to understand what that had to do with anything here.

Last, and sadly, we were told in committee by Conservative members that the NDP was responsible for the delay, as if we were somehow trying to slow it down.

The facts are that rather than the 100 days the Conservatives claim this has taken, and that somehow there was a filibuster, this legislation has only been three days before the House. The government then invoked time allocation.

To me, there is no excuse except for a lack of prioritization, which, for reasons I have explained, is critical. These delays have consequences. It has been costly for Canadians. It is a lot of work for people who are tax professionals. That is true, but we know who pays the bills when tax professionals are involved.

The head of the Canadian Tax Foundation, Mr.Chapman, a very wise speaker, appeared before our committee, and he used a useful analogy. He said that like a home or a car, these statutes need to be repaired and maintained to properly serve their purpose. He asked us to imagine how much work would be required if no repairs had been made to a home or a car for more than 10 years. That is exactly what has happened with this legislation.

The process is what I would particularly like to focus on. A tax lawyer in my jurisdiction, Mr. Thomas McDonnell, referred to this 1,000-page technical tax bill, and wrote “This Bill will also be passed”, and he is right, “without much in the way of informed debate in the House”. We have certainly seen that. Further:

Most parliamentarians voting on it will admit that they have not read it, let alone tried to fully understand the consequences of voting for (or against) it. This is not how Parliament is supposed to deal with one of its essential functions—the raising of revenue. It's sad to say it, but I don't think most of our parliamentarians understand this aspect of the role of Parliament, or, if they do, have the courage to go to the wall in defending it.

We have a massive bill, 11 years in the making, 11 years since the last one came along, and here we are.

Going forward, how can we avoid this kind of mammoth bill being debated a decade later? This is likely the last chance we will have to talk about this kind of process question for technical tax bills. We do not know when the next one will be coming. I understand that there are still scores of changes to be addressed and comfort letters that are still outstanding and the like. We know that we are going to have another one of these bills. How can we avoid the debacle this has constituted?

At the committee stage, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance moved the following motion:

That the Finance Department provide an annual update to the Finance Committee on the status of all outstanding technical tax changes.

However, as my learned colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques pointed out to her, this proposed annual update actually applies only until prorogation. It will not survive until the next prorogation.

We need to make a real effort on tax simplification. Ideas such as the office of tax simplification in the U.K. have been suggested by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. I think that is an excellent suggestion.

Second is the idea of establishing an expert panel, or indeed, even a royal commission to look at tax reform going forward. A sunset clause was suggested by the Certified General Accountants. That needs study as well.

The bottom line is that we need to do something. We need to address this in terms of process, because it is just not acceptable that we would be faced with a 1,000-page bill to scrutinize in the way in which this has occurred and then have time allocation imposed upon us.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 1:15 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, March 7, 2013, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you see the clock at 1:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.