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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of 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, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

(Motion agreed to)

When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

On debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin third and final reading at debate stage of this important piece of legislation for taxpayers and tax professionals, Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012.

I have to admit that it is certainly not the most riveting or the most exciting piece of legislation that has ever come before Parliament. However, it is a very important piece of legislation and it is going to go a long way and a significant way toward the goal of simplifying Canada's tax system.

As previous Parliaments' efforts to adopt these technical tax amendments were unsuccessful for a variety of reasons, we have seen a considerable backlog develop over the years, making it more important now to act and to finally pass these technical tax amendments.

We all recall even the Auditor General of Canada recently cautioning over a growing concern, and outlining that concern in a 2009 report. She said:

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.

Of course, I could not agree more with the comments from the Auditor General. Furthermore, I would also like to flag that the Auditor General also made some important observations about the impact of not dealing with this issue in a timely manner, an impact with far-reaching implications.

Among the many negative effects for taxpayers of the uncertainty over the backlog of outstanding income tax amendments, the Auditor General's report identified:

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”; ...and increased willingness to use aggressive tax plans.

Before continuing, let me pause here to thank my colleagues on the finance committee from all sides for their timely and swift consideration of the technical tax amendments, 2012, earlier this year. I also want to thank them for giving their unanimous support to the legislation. It is little wonder, as during the multiple hearings the finance committee held, we heard from dozens of witnesses ranging from the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada to the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants to the Canadian Tax Foundation, and many more. They were all calling for the timely implementation of today's legislation.

Permit me to share with the House and with all Canadians some snippets of what we heard at committee, all underlining the lengthy process to get this legislation to this stage and the importance of Parliament finally adopting it.

First, allow me to quote from the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, which said:

Bill C-48 marks the end of a very long road, one with many twists and turns over the years. The last technical bill on income tax received royal assent in 2001....

That speaks for itself. It was a long time ago. They continued to say:

...it is fair to say that we greet the technical tax amendments act of 2012 with a sense of relief. We support Bill C-48. The CICA understands how important it is for taxpayers to have greater certainty and a clearer understanding of Canada's federal income tax system.

We listened to the Canadian Tax Foundation, and again I will quote at length. The CTA said:

We live in a rapidly changing world, and this legislation must respond dynamically to changes in commercial transactions. Can you imagine how much work would be required if you made no repairs to your home or your car for more than 10 years? That is what has happened with these two statutes. The last bill addressing technical amendments was passed in 2001. ... [The Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012] represents 10 years of repairs and maintenance in updating 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. ... Delays in the passage of tax legislation leave taxpayers and their advisers in a no man's land of uncertainty. My message for the Standing Committee on Finance is that you should encourage passage of this legislation....

I will give the House another example. The Certified General Accountant's Association of Canada told finance committee:

...we encourage you to move swiftly to pass this important piece of legislation. The bill deals with a massive backlog of unlegislated tax measures. Its passage would, in our opinion, bring greater clarity to the tax system and strengthen the integrity of our laws.

We all know these delayed technical amendments cause serious difficulties for taxpayers, businesses, professional accountants and their clients, and of course, government. We heard some very vocal support for the technical tax amendments act, 2012 at finance committee from these and many other public interest organizations and tax professionals. The support was a big part of the reason the legislation received unanimous support from all members, from all parties, on the committee.

For those watching at home, and parliamentarians, I want to briefly recap the content of the technical tax amendments act, 2012. As I alluded to earlier, the vast majority of these amendments have already been publicly released in either a previous budget or a previous technical tax bill. In addition to that, the vast majority of it was previously and extensively released prior to introduction during the multiple public consultation phases. The ultimate legislation, in point of fact, incorporates a tremendous amount of the feedback provided by Canadians during those many public consultations.

Today's act, among other things, would further simplify Canada's tax system through numerous technical amendments to the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and related legislation. I would like to further add that today's legislation also takes key steps to close some tax loopholes to create a stronger and fairer tax system for all Canadians.

I want to quickly review the legislation, part by part, to highlight some key measures and what they hope to achieve. Even though today's act is obviously extremely technical in nature and includes seven different sections, I will keep my remarks brief.

I will commence with Part 1 of the bill, which would modify the Income Tax Act by taking into account comments we received during our extensive consultations and which would create simpler rules for non-resident trusts.

Parts 2 and 3 deal directly with the taxation of Canadian multinational corporations with foreign affiliates, implementing changes, some of which date all the way back to 2004, that would make Canada's tax system more fair and equitable, and of course, easier to administer. As is the case with the majority of measures contained in the bill, these changes, again, are the result of extensive public consultations.

Part 4 of the bill deals with the concept of bijuralism. More specifically, it contains amendments that will ensure that the bill will function effectively under both common and civil law. This means that amendments dealing with certain legal concepts, such as rights, interest, real and personal property, life estate and remainder interest, tangible and intangible property, and joint and several liability, will accurately capture common and civil law in both official languages.

Part 5 of the bill is designed with fairness for taxpayers in mind and sets out to close tax loopholes to ensure that Canadians would carry their fair share. The act would close tax loopholes related to specified leasing property, ensure that conversion as specified investment flow through trusts and partnerships into corporations are subject to the same rules as transactions through corporations—

Bill C-48 — Time Allocation Motion

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation 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, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and

that at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period.

The hon. member for Gatineau.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of questions for the minister. This is ridiculous. Here we have another time allocation motion for the bill 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.

We are all very aware, as are Canadians, that the government is up to the same old tricks. We have stopped counting, but the number keeps climbing. The government has used this same method 34 or 35 times now. That is likely what it will be known for in years to come. It has already earned the title of the most undemocratic government Canada has ever had. It is all the more astounding and ridiculous given that these people were elected in 2006 by making Canadians believe that they would be transparent, open and not like previous governments. They promised a change in culture. They essentially signed an agreement, a contract, with the Canadian people.

What are they doing? They insist on staying the course and what is even worse is that they are doing the same thing they criticized previous Liberal governments for doing. What is going on here boggles my mind. We have a total of five hours to discuss some extremely important issues. If that is not considered muzzling, I do not know what is.

I have a very simple question for the minister. Is she not embarrassed to rise in the House and tell Canadians that what she is doing is democratic? She is muzzling democratically elected members of Parliament more often than is necessary, which prevents them from representing Canadians. I would be embarrassed if I were her.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I am very proud of what our government has done for Canadian business and taxpayers.

It has been over a decade since Parliament last passed a comprehensive package of technical tax amendments. This particular bill has been in Parliament for nearly 200 days now. Surely 200 days is long enough. Let us show some respect for Canadian taxpayers and get moving on this bill.

Even before this bill was introduced, it was consulted on literally for years in advance, with repeated public consultations. We know that all sides support this bill. All sides recognize that it is a technical bill. All parties supported it at second reading at finance committee, without amendment.

We need to get on with it. We need to do this for Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, once again we are witness to the government House leader's inability to negotiate in good faith with the opposition parties. That is really what is lacking.

Typically what one would expect is the government House leader approaching opposition parties to give them some sort of an indication of what it is the government would like to be able to get through, in terms of a legislative agenda. Opposition parties would in turn try to work with the government to recognize those bills that the opposition is quite comfortable in passing, to make sure there is proper time given and ultimately bills would be passed.

The government should be going to time allocation as a last resort. In the past, political parties at the federal and provincial levels have resorted to time allocation. What makes this rather unique is the fact that never before in the history of the House of Commons, from what I understand, have we seen a government incorporate time allocation into the process of passing its legislation.

Time and time again, well over 30 times now since the last federal election, the government has stood in its place and moved time allocation, which restricts the ability of members of Parliament to represent their constituents. It restricts the ability of the opposition and the government backbenchers to afford comment on important pieces of legislation.

My question to the member is, why has the government made the decision to use time allocation as a part of a process, which is most inappropriate given the prestigious House in which we sit?

This is a majority Conservative Reform-type of government that has taken an attitude that has put democracy last in terms of processing legislation through this House.

My question is, why?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is, because we are the party and government that gets things done.

This bill has been in Parliament for seven months now. It has had nearly 200 days for debate and study. It is a bill that all parties support. It is a bill that has been a decade in the making. We need to move forward. This is something that non-partisan groups have been demanding of us, groups like the Real Property Association of Canada, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Tax Executives Institute and the Canadian Tax Foundation.

Listen to what the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, which is a professional organization representing over 75,000 tax professionals, had to say:

Some of the measures contained in today’s bill 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.

Our government wants to do the right thing by these groups.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the minister talk about the fact that the bill has been in the House for 200 days.

I wonder if the minister could be reminded that it is actually the government that determines what bills are coming forward. The government had ample time to bring it forward for fulsome debate. Instead, as usual, the government is invoking closure, invoking time allocation on a very complex piece of legislation. I want to reference Thorsteinssons, the tax lawyers who say:

My printed version of the changes and accompanying notes runs to well in excess of 900 pages. This Bill will also be passed without much in the way of informed debate in the House.

This seems to be a pattern in terms of the way the government is managing its business. We have seen it on the matrimonial real property bill, where there was time allocation in the House and there was time allocation in the committee. Now we have this complex piece of legislation, and the minister is quite correct, there have been changes out there since 1999 that two successive governments have failed to deal with.

I want to ask the minister if she feels, given the concerns that have been raised about the 900 pages, that parliamentarians have had sufficient time to study the 900 pages. Is the minister confident that the changes being proposed, all of the technical amendments being proposed, are actually going to do what they are purported to do?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as I did say, the bill has been before Parliament for 200 days. Even before the bill was introduced it was consulted on for literally years with repeated public consultations with professional groups.

I know that at finance committee all parties have supported the bill. They voted for it at second reading and at the finance committee stage. I should note that the all-party finance committee endorsed the bill without amendment after a detailed study. Indeed, witness after witness spoke in favour of the bill. Therefore, I want to share with the House what some of those witnesses said.

The vice-president of taxation at the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants stated:

We support Bill C-48. [We understand] how important it is for taxpayers to have greater certainty and a clearer understanding of Canada's federal income tax system....Bill C-48 helps improve clarity and certainty, and it mitigates the negative effects of uncertainty identified by the Auditor General.

Therefore, it is important that we ensure that this bill is passed as soon as possible.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, people are watching this and they wonder how the government lost $3.1 billion through sheer incompetence. What we are seeing today is a good example.

We have a major technical bill that should be debated in the House. However, the government is trying to push it through as fast as it can because it wants to go home early and not stay and do the work for the Canadian people. Therefore, it is not allowing for a proper debate on it.

The Conservatives say that it has been in the House for 200 days. What they are not saying to the Canadian people is that it has been sitting on the minister's desk for 200 days. Therefore, when we are now supposed to debate serious technical amendments they are suddenly concerned about getting down to business. Let us see what they will slough off without having proper parliamentary scrutiny.

These are hundreds of amendments that are technical in nature. It is a tax omnibus bill that includes the issues of anti-avoidance measures on specific leasing properties, ensuring that income trusts and partnerships are subject to the same loss utilization restrictions as between corporations, limits on the use of the foreign tax credit generated for international tax avoidance, clarifying rules on Canadian tax property for non-residents and migrants, and providing an information reporting regime for tax avoidance and transactions.

Those are only a small number of the issues to be debated in this House and the government is passing it off as quickly as it can.

I would ask the hon. member this. Given the incompetence of her government in losing $3.1 billion, why is she trying to allow this important tax bill to just slip through?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, that is some slip, 200 days.

I want to first point out in response to the hon. member that it was his party, the NDP, that moved to end debate last week because it wanted to go home from the House. We came here to work and we came here to work for Canadians. On this side of the House we know how important it is to pay our taxes and to collect our taxes. That is what we intend to do.

I could go on about the groups that support this bill and want to have it passed very quickly.

I will quote Larry Chapman, who is the executive director and CEO of the Canadian Tax Foundation. He stated:

Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act....represents 10 years of repairs and maintenance in updating the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act. Its passage is important to all Canadians. You heard that in the earlier presentation. I want to emphasize it again. Its passage is very important to all Canadians.

Further, he said:

Delays in the passage of tax legislation leave taxpayers and their advisers in a no man's land of uncertainty. My message for the Standing Committee on Finance is that you should encourage passage of this legislation....

That is what we intend to do.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. Before we continue with questions, 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 New Westminster—Coquitlam, Search and Rescue; the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, The Environment.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting to hear the government talk about time allocation and about what we could have done, when this is the 34th, 35th or 36th time we have seen time allocation.

This bill has 1,000 pages, which deal with very technical issues, and the government has decided that we should be able to determine the fate of the bill in less than five hours.

What is preventing the government, the committee and the opposition from identifying the problem, making suggestions and changing the legislation to ensure that it meets the expectations and needs of Canadians and the government?

I asked this question the last time that time allocation came up, but nothing has changed. What is the government so afraid of that it is forcing us to quickly study bills? What ends up happening is that the government has to ask the Senate to make corrections. They always regret having moved so quickly.

What are you so afraid of? Why are you pushing us to pass or refuse to pass a bill because it has not been studied?

It is almost June, and as my colleague pointed out, we have to wonder whether the Conservatives want to go home early and break for the summer. We are here to work until June 20.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the minister, I remind all hon. members to address their questions and comments to the Chair rather than directly to other members of the House.

The hon. Minister of National Revenue.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind this member that it was the NDP members who wanted to go home early last week. On this side of the House we come to work for Canadians.

On meeting the needs of Canadians, this bill has probably been more than 14 years in the making, so it is hardly rushing anything through. There has been a lot of public consultation on the bill, and it has been before Parliament for 200 days now.

Part of the bill would also close tax loopholes. What could the opposition possibly have against closing tax loopholes? When we collect tax owed by Canadians, we can fund the services that Canadians need to have, like schools, hospitals and other services that we provide for Canadians. Bill C-48 contains measures that would implement a more rigorous information reporting regime for certain transactions associated with schemes to avoid taxes. This, along with our budget this year, contains measures as well to crack down on tax evasion and tax avoidance. We certainly hope that the NDP will be supporting not just this bill, but our budget as well.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. minister, the government should have a level of confidence in the bills it puts forward, that they have been thoroughly discussed and that the government members are prepared to stand and debate them fully. Bringing in closure on something we have already indicated on this end of the House that we are supporting really makes it frustrating. Closure means to me that the Conservatives want to shut down debate because they do not believe in what they are trying to put through.

If the Conservatives had the confidence they should have in putting forth this legislation and knowing we are prepared to support it, they would want to encourage that rather than shut down debate to try to force it through, because probably they are more anxious to get out of here than anybody else in this House.

I ask the minister, does she have confidence in the bill that is before us, and if so, why is it necessary to bring in closure because she does not have the confidence to stand and debate it fully?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, if both opposition parties have said that they support the bill and have supported the bill, one can assume they have read the bill and they are fine with the bill.

Let me just quote a tax partner from KPMG, Paul Hickey. He said:

[I] ask Parliament to act decisively and to pass Bill C-48 to essentially clean the slate of this old pending legislation and to finally bring the Income Tax Act up to date. Taxpayers could then move on and focus on running their business, and the CRA could carry on administering and collecting tax in a more stable system.

I believe this is what all Canadians want. It is obviously what the professionals are asking for. I urge the opposition members to support the bill.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the minister try to rationalize why the government has to move closure for the 34th time in this very short Parliament and so far I have not found anything persuasive. Frankly, I am not sure whether she has been following the debate on this bill at all. On this side of the House, we are supporting the bill. We are not trying to hold it up unreasonably. We, like she purports to, believe in cracking down on both tax avoidance and tax evasion, but it is a 1,000-page bill.

Whatever happened to the way this place used to run? It is not that I have been here forever, but this is my third term and there were times when House leaders would come to the table, ask each other how much time they needed to debate the bill, what they thought due diligence would look like on a bill and they would negotiate. That is why we did not have these massive numbers of time allocation motions because Parliament worked like it was supposed to. There is a bit of give and take, some bills members pass very quickly, they agree to do that and other bills merit more debate.

Frankly, government members sometimes wanted more debate because they thought the content of their bills was so good, they wanted to ensure every Canadian knew about them. They wanted to have consultations in committee and extensive committee hearings so their supporters could tell everybody that the government was doing a bang-up job. I guess not very many Canadians think the current government is doing a bang-up job because it is sure afraid of hearing from Canadians.

There is nothing wrong with giving a bill good, detailed scrutiny. That is what our job is as parliamentarians. Could the minister explain to the House why her government is so afraid of detailed scrutiny of their bills? What it is trying to hide? What does it not want Canadians to know about?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this bill is more than 10 years in the making and throughout that time, extensive consultations have been had with industry and professional associations on many aspects of this bill.

I will quote Carole Presseault, who is the vice-president of Government Regulatory Affairs for the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada. In her remarks to the committee, she said:

—I wish to say that we support the tabling of the bill and that we encourage you to move swiftly to pass this important piece of legislation. The bill deals with a massive backlog of unlegislated tax measures. Its passage would, in our opinion, bring greater clarity to the tax system and strengthen the integrity of our laws.

We intend to support requests such as Carole Presseault's and pass this legislation swiftly.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a small business person, I have been aware for 60 some-odd years, though recently it has changed a bit, that nothing is certain but death, taxes and time allocation motions by the Conservatives. I hope we get that list back down to just two.

I want to go on record as saying that as a small business person representing other small business people, I do not know yet how I will vote on this legislation. I really need more information and debate on it. I want to hear the opinions of others and I really hope this is one that we decide not to put time allocation on.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the hon. member for being a small business owner because our government has done a lot to support small businesses since we became government, probably more than any other government in history.

One of the changes I am very proud of is that we have lowered taxes for small businesses a number of times to allow them to keep more of their own money and invest in their own businesses. Small business is the backbone of the Canadian economy.

As I said, this is a very technical bill. The hon. member wants to hear the opinions of others before he makes his decision. I have just shared the opinions of six or seven professional associations, which they shared in the finance committee. This represents a wide variety of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, who urge us to pass this bill swiftly to give them certainty in their professions.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify the record. I think there is quite a difference between the official opposition requesting to adjourn at 11:45 p.m. and the government trying to stop debate at four o'clock in the afternoon. I understand it is tea time in some parts of the world, but we are elected to debate and that is what the official opposition would like to do.

I would like to bring attention to the comments of Sheila Fraser, the former Auditor General of Canada, whom I think the whole House has a high degree of respect for. Her comment was, ”No income tax technical bill has been passed since 2001”.

One of my colleagues has quietly pointed something out, which is a bit surprising to us. Generally speaking, the Conservative government thumbs its nose at any bill passed by a previous government, particularly a Liberal previous government. Therefore, we are a little surprised that it is now enacting tax amendments that would have been brought forward by a previous Liberal government. So be it, but finally, to the Conservatives' credit, a non-partisan bill.

Sheila Fraser further said:

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...

Why is that important? Because, with the comfort letters, until legislated, one must assume what the law is, which is fine if one has an accounting firm doing one's taxes. However, many small businesses, individuals and seniors do not have high-paid chartered accountants advising on what the law is, including new rules not even enacted yet.

The final comment I would like to make, and would appreciate a response to, is the minister said that there were many experts that came to committee who were in support of it. This is one amendment that the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada called for because it was clearly fed up waiting for more than 10 years to finally get these amendments. It called upon the government to implement a sunset provision to prevent future legislative backlogs.

Will the minister tell us today that this will not happen again? Can we anticipate that we will have annual updates to the tax code so all Canadians have equality when they fill out their tax returns to submit?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why it is important that we pass this legislation and soon, because it does date back so long.

We have applauded the Office of the Auditor General for its report on this issue and its success in highlighting the need for action both from government and from Parliament. The Auditor General made a series of recommendations to help deal with this issue going forward, and we agree with each of those recommendations.

For instance, the Auditor General recommended that the Department of Finance use an integrated and consistent process for reporting, tracking and prioritizing all technical issues for possible legislative amendment. We agreed and moved to consolidate the Department of Finance's system to ensure technical issues would be documented and catalogued consistently and that the system would be maintained and kept up to date.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of National Revenue herself has said, this legislation has been 10 years in the making.

The NDP has not been opposing this legislation for 10 years. This delay is where the whole problem of the backlog comes from. The government has obviously not been very serious about following up on the implementation of tax legislation and drafting and passing new legislation. We are not the only ones saying so. For 10 years now, all stakeholders have been calling for more rigorous management of tax legislation.

Therefore I would like to ask the government representative and Minister of National Revenue how combining all this in one bill and hastily voting on it is going to protect us from the mistakes that have been plaguing this legislation for 10 years.

Rather than breaking up this bill, taking the time to consider it more thoroughly and ensuring that we will never again have to deal with a 10-year delay, the government is going full steam ahead with a single bill.

How can all these problems possibly be addressed by this—please excuse my language—last-minute bullshit?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, all these amendments are currently being used in our tax system and that is why it is important they be enshrined in legislation as soon as possible. Most of what is in this technical tax bill has been discussed at length with the professional organizations.

I also want to add that in the Auditor General's report, he also recommended the Department of Finance regularly develop and release draft technical amendments, including those that arose from comfort letters, so taxpayers and tax practitioners would know what change would be made and could provide input. Again, we have agreed with that and we are formally committed to bringing technical amendments packages forward for consideration where appropriate, notwithstanding the fact that the prior technical amendments had not yet been adopted by Parliament.

In fact, this past December, the Department of Finance released a package of draft legislative proposals for public comment relating to a number of technical tax changes.

We know we have to do a better job going forward and a more consistent job so that we do not end up with very large bills like this, which has been a backlog for the last 10 years.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion 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, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #696

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I declare the motion carried.

[For continuation of proceedings see part B]

[Continuation of proceedings from part A]

The House resumed from May 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 third time and passed.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking at third reading on Bill C-48. It is largely a housekeeping bill that implements technical matters that have been introduced previously. Most of the measures that are contained in this bill were recommended by the Auditor General.

The Liberal Party supports Bill C-48 and we would like to see it passed quickly. The overarching theme of the bill is the need for clarity and certainty in the administration of Canadian law. That is certainly something that the Liberals support and we see it as an important function of the government in its service to Canadians.

I would like to spend a bit of time speaking about how this bill and taxes, since the bill is about tax changes, are serving Canadians' needs. I would like to make some comments from my perspective, not only as the member of Parliament for Vancouver Quadra, but also as a former businesswoman from a business that became international in its scope.

As a business person for 25 years, my understanding of one of the key imperatives of service is to continually improve the quality of service to those we wish to serve. In business shorthand, we could say that people are looking for faster, cheaper and better service. Who would not want that? Who would not want the goods and services that are provided to them to be provided more quickly, in a less costly manner and at a higher standard of quality?

Faster, cheaper and better are what people expect. Are we getting that from the Conservative government with respect to taxes and tax changes? Certainly, this bill is not an example of faster service. In fact, this is the third time that some elements of this technical tax bill have been introduced since 2001. It has taken far too long to bring this bill to the House. Some of these tax measures have languished in draft form for nearly a decade. For example, the provisions in part 3 of this bill, which deal primarily with reorganizations of and distributions from foreign affiliates, were first released on February 27, 2004 and we are now in May 2013.

What happens when tax measures take such a long time? Many of these measures were introduced by the Conservative government a number of years ago. These measures were introduced with a great deal of fanfare and then never actually brought into force because of delays. It does bring the question: Why wait so many years and then lump everything together in this 955-page bill, rather than give the kind of certainty that citizens of this country deserve and expect?

In fact, in meeting with the small business community as the critic for small business, I have heard feedback about the kinds of frustrations and costs that are incurred through not having had this bill earlier. There is a great deal of confusion when the government announces a certain tax change but does not actually take the steps to put forward the bill to make those changes law. The kinds of costs that small businesses will incur in having accounting and professional and legal consultations to help them understand the implications of these measures that have not actually been made into law are preventable. The bill could prevent confusion and expense for the business community. It has actually been a form of red tape on our small businesses that it has taken so long for the bill to be put forward.

Now that the bill has been put forward, I want to comment on the government's ability to apply its laws regarding taxes and to serve the needs of Canadians and small businesses with respect to the vast complexity of the tax regime in our country.

The Conservative government tends to put forward literally dozens of boutique tax measures that are not supported as part of a clear, simple and effective tax system but more as tax measures that are clearly designed to attract votes from one segment of the population or another. As a result, we have a much more complex tax system than we had before.

Does the Canada Revenue Agency have the resources to assist people in finding their way back to the quality improvement mantra of having faster, cheaper and better service? Is the government providing that to Canadians who are struggling with tax complexities? My answer would be no.

The overarching theme of the debate on Bill C-48 is the need for clarity and certainty in the administration of Canadian tax laws. However, the government's ability to respond to this major need is threatened by the Conservatives' cuts to the Canada Revenue Agency.

The Conservatives targeted the CRA in budget 2012 by reducing the agency's funding by $253 million per year. In addition, budget 2013 provides for further cuts to the agency, amounting to $61 million per year. The cumulative cuts to the CRA therefore total $314 million annually.

Even before the cuts were implemented, the CRA had trouble issuing advance tax rulings in a timely manner. The government's goal is to inform taxpayers of advance tax rulings within 60 days. This may be an acceptable timeframe, but the agency now needs 106 days, on average, to provide such rulings to taxpayers.

We are seeing that the cuts to the Canada Revenue Agency are making its service far slower and certainly not faster, as we would expect in the business community. The business community expects an organization to continue to improve its service, so its service could be faster, cheaper and better. If the government had been providing service in private enterprise, it would have failed and gone out of business long ago because of these unfortunate reversals in the speed and effectiveness of service. We have now gone from 60 days to 106 days for serving customers' information needs with respect to changes in tax laws.

I had meetings with former Yukon member of Parliament Larry Bagnell, who has been advocating for many years for services to citizens in Yukon. The one and only CRA office for Yukon used to be in Whitehorse, but that has been closed, so people living in Yukon no longer have a single agent to talk to in person when filing or asking questions about their taxes. How frustrating for people. That certainly is not better service; it is in fact far worse service.

People can go online to try to connect with this huge agency and get service, but many people in Yukon do not have access to the equipment or the high broadband Internet to do that. Many would have to drive for many hours to get to a place where they could engage the CRA to help serve their information needs.

I appreciate the work that our former colleague and MP, Larry Bagnell, has done on behalf of constituents in the Yukon. Even now that he is no longer a member of Parliament, he has become a voice for their needs.

I am not sure where the current member for Yukon stands with respect to the closure of the CRA office in Whitehorse. I will not comment further on that. However, this does have huge implications for people, especially for low-income, less educated people living in remote communities and for seniors, all of whom used to use this business office on a regular basis.

We have a pattern here of service not being faster but slower, and it certainly is not better. Is it cheaper?

Taxes are important as part of a sustainable society. Canadians by and large accept that taxes are positive because they help to purchase public goods that we need for our society, whether those goods are environmental safeguards, programs that create equality of opportunity for Canadians, or tax regimes that reduce income inequality. “Taxes” is not a four-letter word to most Canadians.

However, what Canadians expect and deserve is honesty from their government about their tax regime. They expect competence, transparency and honesty, but since 2010 there have been new, hidden tax increases that exceed the new reductions each and every year.

That is not what the current government has been promoting in terms of its image to Canadians. The Conservatives have not been honest and forthcoming and transparent about the fact that they have been increasing taxes on Canadians each and every year since 2010, and these are not minor tax increases. In fact, if I go back to an analysis of these tax increases, we would see that in budget 2010 there was a set of tax increases. There was a set of tax decreases, of course, but the net impact would be to increase taxes by $729 million over five years from the measures announced in budget 2010. That is almost $1 billion in tax increases.

Did the Prime Minister go forward and say this is how they are going to pay for goods and services, by increasing our taxes? I did not hear that from the Prime Minister, nor did I hear that in the budget speech from the Minister of Finance.

As well, there are impacts on small businesses in each and every one of these years in terms of increased taxes, meaning less money in the pockets of the men and women in small business who are the engines of job creation in our economy.

Let us look at budget 2011. In budget 2011, again there are hits on small business. In fact, the individual pension plan program is seeing, over five years, $75 million in reduced funds in the pockets of people who are utilizing that tax-planning tool. However, the key here is that the bottom line in budget 2011 is $2.168 billion in net tax increases over five years. It is over $2 billion.

What about budget 2012? Here we saw a huge undermining of the well-being of the small-business community in terms of extra taxes on employees' profit-sharing plans and over $1 billion less in support for the research and investment tax credit, the SR and ED tax credit regime in this country. That is more than $1 billion taken out of the support that the government was providing for good public policy reasons.

Why should government support scientific research and development? It is because scientific research and development provides, by and large, a public good. People in small business cannot afford to invest in research that soon becomes available to all of their competitors without having some support through this tax credit. That is how it is for the public good. The government supports something that becomes a benefit for all of society, and that is much of what happens with small business research and development.

However, that tax credit was reduced by over $1 billion for a net increase in taxes, as announced in the budget, of $3.547 billion. It is over $3 billion more out of the pockets of Canadians and small businesses, thanks to budget 2012.

In budget 2013, once again we have tax increases that exceed the tax reductions, this time to the tune of $3.3 billion. This is a big-tax government.

The challenge Canadians have in even understanding what the government is doing is that there is no transparency and no honesty here. There are hidden tax increases that now have a cumulative impact of almost $10 billion over the period covered by these announcements. It is cumulatively $10 billion dollars out of the pockets of Canadians and small businesses.

Who knew that? This is something the government has kept hidden. Is that cheaper service? No, government is actually costing taxpayers almost $10 billion more cumulatively, without actually revealing that it is doing that.

Why has the Conservative government felt a need to increase taxes with these incremental net increases of $10 billion, as I have laid out and as expressed in budgets 2010 to 2013? Could it be that since the Conservatives took office, annual federal spending under the Conservative government has risen to $280 billion, which is an increase of more than 30%? That is certainly not providing faster, cheaper and better service. It is very much more expensive service.

This is a government that inherited a $13 billion budget surplus in early 2006, but within a matter of a few years we were running deficits, and the government continues to run an annual deficit this year of $26 billion. There may be a change when the budget is balanced, but it may take a long time.

These tax increases hurt middle-class Canadians and small businesses. We have spoken at large and at length about the impact of the increase in tariffs on Canadians, which is driving them across the border to get goods cheaper. We have talked about how tax increases are hurting our tourism industry, an industry that used to be rated seventh among countries for international visits but that has dropped to 18th in international visits. This is hurting our tourism industry. We now have a $14 billion tourism deficit.

There are many comments I could make about how these hidden tax increases have hurt our economy and our small businesses, but I will give one last indication of the impact this government has had on small business.

In the last five years of the previous Liberal government, small and medium-sized businesses created over 460,000 jobs, but in the first five years under the Conservatives, the overall net number of jobs created by small and medium enterprises was negative. The number actually fell by 10,000 jobs.

Therefore, we do not have faster, we do not have cheaper, and we certainly do not have better service from the Conservative government. In fact, the spending choices the government is making with these tax increases are not supported by Canadians. Economic action plan advertising alone has cost $113 million, and I know that Canadians would rather that money were used for student summer jobs. Every second these ads for the economic action plan air during Hockey Night in Canada is another second that another young Canadian does not get the support that he or she previously enjoyed to have a summer job. Every second we are losing a job for youth.

I am happy to answer questions on how I see the government's spending choices as being part of this failure to provide faster, cheaper and better service to those the government was elected to serve, the Canadian people.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I take my role in the House very seriously. Earlier today, in discussion of the concurrence motion, I attempted to make humorous comments about the very serious situation facing the Ford administration in Toronto. That is simply not acceptable.

I would like to retract those comments and apologize for making any unsubstantiated comments or potentially leaving a false impression regarding the very serious issues that are facing the City of Toronto and the Ford administration.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the member's comments on how the government's tax regime is affecting tourism.

We have dropped from seventh or eighth place in the world as most visited by international visitors to 18th. We understand the cutbacks to the Canadian Tourism Commission have forced it to cut advertising for tourism in the United States, which is a major drawing market for us in Atlantic Canada. It will impact our tourism industry, our seasonal workers and our economy.

Could the member elaborate further on how some of those hidden taxes by the government have impacted tourism? I know airport fees is one. What others might the member elaborate on?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly an example of worse service by the government.

Tourism employees and owners across the country, including in my riding of Vancouver Quadra, are suffering from mismanagement by the government. As the member mentioned, there are high taxes on airports that are driving consumers to shop for flights in the United States, including from Vancouver Quadra. In Vancouver, Bellingham and Seattle are seen as frequent choices of where to fly from, rather than Vancouver airport.

This has cost the Canadian economy 8,900 local jobs, $500 million in wages, over $1 billion in GDP and more than $2 billion in economic output. That is just the high taxes on airports.

Surprisingly, we no longer provide a GST rebate to tourist visitors to Canada. Therefore, that makes us a higher-cost destination in another way. That is also deterring international visitors from coming to Canada.

Why is the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism not defending this industry, which has been so mismanaged by the Conservative government?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that one of the driving forces in job creation is small businesses. Small businesses have the greatest potential in the generation of jobs and new employment.

My question for my colleague is in regard to performance. We need to recognize that the Conservatives have failed in supporting small business, especially if we contrast that to the days of Paul Martin or Jean Chrétien when small business was a priority and its growth was encouraged, which led to the creation of tens of thousands of jobs.

Things have changed under the Conservative-Reform government. Could my colleague provide some comment on just how things have changed?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's advocacy on behalf of small businesses in his community. Small businesses are a huge driver of the economy and the success of new Canadians who have come to Canada.

I want to go back to my comments about taxes and if taxes are competently applied to the public good. Canadians, by and large, support contributing their share. At the same time, there are occasions when taxes need to be reduced.

The small business tax rate, for example, under the Conservative government, has been reduced by only 1%, and a huge part of that 1% reduction is being clawed back through a small dividend tax credit change in the 2013 budget. Some $2.34 billion will come out of small business pockets due to this dividend tax credit change over the course of five years.

How does that help small business owners reinvest in their companies, grow their companies and bring them up to technological advances? They will have $2.34 billion less to do that. This is in the context of a decrease in the large corporate tax rate from 22% down to 15%, at the cost of $60 billion, yet small business owners saw only a 1% reduction, which was then pretty much clawed back.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her contribution to this debate and ask her a very simple question.

As members of Parliament, should we not be focusing on promoting a more regular process for this kind of modernization of the income tax laws? Indeed, perhaps we should reduce the scope of such bills by making more regular updates. Instead of waiting 10 or 13 years to modernize our laws, should we have a more regular process to ensure that parliamentarians do not always have to consider 950-page bills, as we are doing today?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

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

Clearly the current process is not working. I mentioned that in my comments.

It has taken over 10 years to make a few changes to the Income Tax Act. There is indeed a need for a formal process, but what is at stake here is the government's competence. Usually, governments are more competent than this Conservative government. It is normal procedure to introduce a bill like this more often, say every two or three years, yet that has not happened for many years. This is not acceptable and has to improve.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on a few comments my colleague has made about the question of choices a government makes.

In my riding of Ottawa South, there are 3,250 small businesses. They could have one, five or 50 employees, but they are the backbone of our local economy and the Canadian economy.

I want to ask the member about the choice the government is making about advertising. One of the things I hear from small business owners is how offended they are when they see hundreds of millions of dollars of advertising on TV about some kind of economic action plan, yet their small business taxes are increasing.

Could the member comment on that in terms juxtaposing the government's priorities, self-promotion versus helping to strengthen small businesses?

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I concur 100% with my colleague's comment. Every day in my role as a small business advocate, I hear that these hundreds of millions of dollars of self-promotion are a grievous insult to the small business community. At the same time, we had the minister looking to put major new taxes and fees on small businesses in the historic Rideau Canal zone in the Ottawa area, which has since been reversed thanks to members such as that member, who spoke up on behalf of his constituents. That is just one example.

Another example of the government taking money out of the pockets of small businesses while spending it on self-promoting ads is the increase in tariffs. This is a government that has set a priority that apparently does not include small business, which is the heart of our economy and our communities. It is difficult to understand why it does not get it.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this very important discussion today. I want to speak to the matter of taxes generally and why both tax legislation and a well-functioning tax system are so important to Canadians. Well-functioning is key, and I am very happy to hear my colleague across the way say a mere few minutes ago that it is not working the way it is, so I will appreciate her support of the bill when it comes to a vote.

All of this is underlined in today's legislation, the technical tax amendments act, 2012. As most Canadians appreciate, creating jobs and growing our economy is top priority for our government and the main objective of Canada's economic action plan. Since being elected in 2006, our government has been working on a number of important fronts to create optimal conditions for sustained growth. Indeed, we are making it easier for Canadian employers and entrepreneurs to successfully compete in the global economy and to make it more attractive for others to invest in this country.

The end goals here obviously are more jobs for Canadians and a healthy and thriving economy, and that “low tax in Canada” brand is getting noticed around the world. Indeed, here is what John Chambers, CEO of Cisco Systems, a major global technology company, recently had to say about Canada's economic leadership on an American television program entitled Charlie Rose:

The number one country in the world to do business is which one? It's Canada and that was a surprise to me when I first started seeing this occurring several years ago, but they have a government that partners with business to solve issues.... They are willing to work together to create an environment to say, “What does it take you to keep your jobs here or bring more jobs here?”

Key among those strategies that we are employing is our government's low-tax plan for jobs and growth that has made Canada a great place to invest. It began in 2007, when our Conservative government passed a bold tax reduction plan that started us down the road to branding Canada as a low-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 low combined federal-provincial corporate income tax rates.

Today, we have made substantial progress toward that objective, which has lowered the federal business tax rate to 15%. Also, in 2012, the last of the provincial general capital taxes was eliminated. This follows the elimination 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.

There are other key measures that we have taken since 2006 to fuel job creation and spur our economic growth. They include implementing a temporary hiring credit for small business to encourage additional hiring by this vital sector; reducing the small business tax rate to 11% and increasing the amount of income eligible for this rate to $500,000; supporting manufacturers by introducing a temporary accelerated capital cost allowance rate for investment in manufacturing or processing machinery and equipment, and extending it; eliminating tariffs on imported machinery and equipment and manufacturing inputs, to make Canada a tariff-free zone for industrial manufacturers by 2015; improving the ability 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; and much, much more.

The fact is that our government's low-tax plan is working, and the world is increasingly noticing, as the quote from John Chambers clearly indicated. 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 the member countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. That is both an incredible achievement and a draw for investment. It has proven invaluable in helping Canada skirt the worst of the global recession.

Let me quote at length what the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters had to say about Canada's low-tax advantage and our Conservative government's business tax cuts, and I am quoting directly:

If federal tax rates had not been reduced, Canada's unemployment rate would have exceeded nine per cent in 2009 during the recession. Today, our unemployment rate would be higher than that of the United States, with about 200,000 fewer Canadians working....

Investment meanwhile has also increased. Canada's business sector invested $25 billion more in capital assets last year than in 2007, and $50 billion more than at the depth of the recession in 2009. Investment in industrial machinery and equipment, which has been given an additional boost by the rapid depreciation that the federal government has made available to manufacturers, has risen 12 per cent since 2007, and has jumped by 37 per cent since the end of the economic downturn....

It's time we get the facts on the table. Business investment has been a key driver of economic and job growth over the past five years, and lower taxes have contributed significantly to that growth.

This is a significant advantage for Canada in the global economy and will be a key contributor to Canada's long-term economic prosperity, and we are not going to stop there.

Canada's economic action plan is continuing 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. Canada weathered the global economic and financial crisis well compared to a lot of countries, particularly when we compare it to most other developed nations.

As the Toronto Sun noted in a March 2013 article:

Since the Tories took over, no other G-7 country has surpassed Canada in per capita job growth. Canada has added 1.5 million net jobs since 2006.

...Canada is in good shape compared to all the other industrialized countries of the West.

Nevertheless, Canada is not immune to the global challenges that emanate from beyond our borders, especially in Europe and the United States.

That is why I was extremely pleased to note that our government has stated clearly that this is not the time for dangerous new spending that would increase deficits or raise taxes, like those proposed by the NDP with its dangerous carbon tax proposal.

We have heard time and time again in uncertain global economic times such as these that the most important contribution the government can make to bolster confidence and growth 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 and also make the tax system predictable for taxpayers. That is exactly what we would do through today's legislation, the technical tax amendments act, 2012.

As members know, the Auditor General released her study in the fall of 2009 on the existing backlog of outstanding income tax legislation, a backlog that this legislation seeks to address. While outlining the delay in addressing the current backlog of outstanding income tax amendments, the Auditor General also made some important observations about the impact of not dealing with this issue in a timely manner, an impact with far-reaching implications.

Among the many negative effects for taxpayers caused by the uncertainty of the backlog of outstanding income tax amendments, the Auditor General's report identified 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, as they have not been substantively enacted; and increased willingness to engage in aggressive tax planning.

Therefore, we will applaud this government for taking action to finally end this more than a decade-long backlog and the Office of the Auditor General for its report that really helped crystallize this issue for parliamentarians.

Furthermore, the Auditor General made a series of recommendations to help deal with this issue going forward, and as we stated at the outset, we agree with each of her recommendations.

For instance, the Auditor General recommended that the Department of Finance use an integrated and consistent process for recording, tracking and prioritizing all technical issues for possible legislative amendment. We agreed, and we moved to consolidate the system of the Department of Finance for ensuring that technical issues are documented and catalogued consistently, and that this system is maintained and kept up to date.

The Auditor General also recommended that the Department of Finance regularly develop and release draft technical amendments, including those that arise from comfort letters, so that taxpayers and tax practitioners know what changes will be made and can provide input. Again, we agreed, and we formally committed to bring technical amendment packages forward for consideration where appropriate, notwithstanding the fact that the prior technical amendments had not yet been adopted by Parliament.

In fact, this past December, the Department of Finance released a package of draft legislative proposals for public comment relating to a number of technical changes to the Income Tax Act and the income tax regulations.

Since there is only one level of taxpayer, we must work together to ensure Canada's taxpayers are treated with respect and taxes are kept low. An important way to keep taxes low is by returning to balanced budgets. We must recognize that balanced budgets are important for what they make possible and 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, including lower taxes. Reducing debt keeps interest rates low, encouraging businesses to create jobs and invest in the future. It preserves the gains made in Canada's low-tax plan, fostering the long-term growth that 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 operations. Such investments boost efficiency and productivity. It is this productivity growth that allows businesses to hire additional workers or offer higher wages in order to expand production and earn more profits.

Our government is committed to lower taxes for all Canadians. That is why we have introduced broad-based tax relief, with more than 150 tax reductions such as lowering the GST from 7% to 6% to 5% and introducing the landmark tax-free savings account.

Our strong record of tax relief is saving the typical Canadian family of four more than $3,200 each year. That is great news for Canada and great news for taxpayers. When we make these cuts, not every taxpayer benefits, but when we get an overall average savings of $3,200 per year, that means a lot to young families especially, and I have a lot of those in my riding, as many members do.

What is more—as is demonstrated in today's legislation, the technical tax amendments act, 2012—our government has been aggressive in closing tax loopholes used by a small group of taxpayers to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. I even hear there are some people in this House who have been using those loopholes. We will close them.

Ensuring tax fairness helps keep taxes low for all Canadians and their families, not only a select few. This is very important and reflects the feedback we have received from Canadians, who have consistently told us that they want a tax system that is both simpler to understand and comply with and ensures everyone pays their fair share of the national tax bill.

That is exactly what our government would deliver with this legislation. Put simply, this legislation would help ensure everyone is treated equitably under our tax laws.

Among the measures in the bill are enhancements to the Income Tax Act to better target and simplify rules relating to non-resident trusts. There are also modifications to rules to simplify and make more equitable the taxation of Canadian multinational corporations that have foreign affiliates.

In short, this legislation would close tax loopholes, crack down on tax avoidance and create greater fairness for all taxpayers.

I want to reiterate and stress in no uncertain terms tax fairness is a basic principle that our government is committed to upholding. We are proud to build upon it here today. I hope my friends across the way share our commitment. Who among us could oppose action to improve the integrity and fairness of the tax system? Who among us would oppose closing loopholes that allow a few businesses and individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax? No one on this side of the House.

In all fairness, no one likes to pay taxes, but anyone who looks at it with a dose of reality at all realizes that without taxes we could not enjoy our standard of living, health care and all the things that sometimes we all take for granted.

Since 2006, our government has introduced more than 75 measures to close tax loopholes and ensure that taxes are fair for all. By ensuring this integrity, we help make our tax system even more attractive for new business investment, which is a key goal of our government. The fact is that we want to make sure the world knows that Canada is open for business and is the best place to invest.

In closing, tax reductions brought in by our government are allowing individuals and families to keep more of their hard-earned money and are improving incentives to work, to save and to invest, while also contributing to the government's long-term economic agenda. What is more, once the federal budget returns to balance, we have committed to building on our record with additional broad-based tax relief.

Ensuring tax fairness through today's legislation helps keep taxes low for all Canadians and their families. This will help keep our economy strong and lead to a better quality of life for every Canadian. I encourage all members to support the legislation before us today and to help create a better tax system and greater fairness for all Canadians.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the floor talked about creating jobs here in Canada. Jobs for whom? Are they jobs for temporary foreign workers? How many jobs were created for temporary foreign workers last year?

I know my colleague is not going to answer that, so I will answer that for him. There were 300,000 temporary workers allowed into country. We believe that, yes, we need skilled workers. We need highly skilled workers for jobs when we cannot find the workers here. However, last year, as we have seen through scandals throughout the last year, 300,000 temporary foreign workers were allowed into the country. My question for my hon. colleague is this: how is the government going to fix that broken immigration system that allows for unskilled workers to be imported into Canada?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that many members from across the way, and I am not sure if my colleague who just asked the question was one of them, did ask for favours under this program because it benefited jobs and businesses in their ridings. At the same time, we know that with every program, from time to time there are people who literally lie awake at night trying to figure out ways to abuse a program that is there for good reasons. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and the Prime Minister have committed to fixing that program, and we will.

The member who asked the question may have come in halfway through my speech, but I did use a quote in my remarks from an organization that talked about the number of real jobs that we have created in our country. We will stand second to no one when it comes to job creation.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound's remarks with interest. I know that he himself is a small business person and certainly has the interests of his businesses in his community at heart.

However, despite the PMO talking points behind his speech, the fact of the matter is that the Conservative government is doing a poor job. Growth has flatlined. We are lagging behind a number of our important competitors. Youth employment is stuck at high rates that are double that of other Canadians. The number of people out of work is still more than 200,000 persons higher than it was when the government first came in. Additionally, 25% of graduates are underemployed.

It is not working. I pointed out some of those of factors, as did the member for Ottawa South, who talked about taxes on businesses in his community.

My question is this: which economists would have advised the government that reducing the GST and then increasing EI payroll taxes by almost $10 billion, as well as adding other tax burdens around dividends and R and D credits to compensate for the GST reduction was the right trade-off for the economy? My understanding is that the GST was not supported by the economists, and these taxes on small businesses are definitely having a dampening impact on our economy, growth and jobs.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member brings up the GST, because it was her former leader who declared back in 1993 that he was going to get rid of the GST, in order to get on the good side of the public, I guess we would say. Of course, we all waited for 10 long years, and that never happened. Almost immediately when this government came to power in 2006, we moved the GST from 7% to 6% and not too long after to 5%. I am glad to hear that she supports the direction in which we are going on that.

It has been over a decade since Parliament last passed a comprehensive package of technical income tax amendments. The member who just asked the question declared in her remarks half an hour or so ago that the system is not working. We all know that. The government knows that, and that is why we are all here today debating this bill. We will certainly appreciate her support on it at the end of the day.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for his comments on the technical tax amendments act. Indeed, my colleague is very wise. Everyone would be better served if we could just get rid of this backlog of technical amendments.

I wanted to ask him today about something really important to me as the member of Parliament for Oshawa. He talked about Canadian manufacturers and exporters and their support for us and our government. There have been so many challenges facing manufacturers, especially in Ontario.

I wonder if I could get his comments on the different approaches. We have a Liberal government in Ontario that put in a green energy program with feed-in tariffs and we have seen recently how horribly this has affected our economy. It has driven up costs for manufacturers, small businesses and everyone in the province. They have lost at the WTO. It has just been a horrible disaster.

I would like to ask my colleague in his wisdom if he could contrast our plan as a government to lower taxes to continue investing in manufacturers and exporters versus the opposition's plan. He mentioned the topic of taxes. We see from the opposition consistently that they just want to raise taxes and bring new ones in. He talked about the carbon tax and also the $50 billion in unfunded promises from the opposition.

If he could comment on how that is going to affect manufacturers, and contrast the two approaches, it would be beneficial to us here in the House.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Oshawa is the best member that Oshawa has ever had, and I thank him for the great question.

I do not have enough time here today to talk about the amount of taxes or the will to add taxes that the opposition members would like to see. As we all know, the New Democrats have never seen or heard of a tax they would not like to put in, and the Liberals, when they are in, have never seen a tax that they have not put in, and we all know what that does to young families.

I have three young sons trying to get started out, and I can tell members that lower taxes help them to raise their families and get a better start in life, not the opposite. It is the same with small businesses.

In my riding, agriculture and tourism are probably the two biggest industries, but small businesses and small manufacturing businesses are what we have there. That is our trademark and what makes our riding. Although we had some problems through the recession, the same as most ridings did, our small business owners were able to cope, with the lower taxes and tax rates that this government has put in. It is the only way, long-term, that businesses can do it. If we do not create a climate where government can let businesses compete and be profitable on their own, we are not doing our job.

We have had nothing but praise from small business owners on this, and that is why we are going to continue in that direction.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inject some numbers into this debate.

The hon. member said that reducing debt keeps interest rates low, yet when the Conservative government took office, the debt was $480 billion and it is now $605 billion. The Conservatives have added $125 billion of debt to Canada.

He said that reducing corporate tax rates is important so that there is money to invest in the corporate sector, yet Mark Carney, the outgoing Bank of Canada governor, said it has $500 billion sitting on the sidelines. Unemployment is higher today than when the Conservatives took office.

The hon. member said the number one focus is on economic growth. I wonder if he can tell us what Canada's economic growth has been over the last six years, in percentage terms. That is what I really wanted to know. Does the member know the answer to that question?

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the amount of feedback that I talked about in my opening remarks, from representatives of different organizations who certainly support the cuts to business taxes, and the number of net jobs that we have created over recent years, say it all. My hon. colleague can ignore those comments and numbers all he wants, but the reality is that they are out there. We have had great support for a lot of things we have done in our budget, and that is why we are going to continue in that direction.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Sherbrooke.

Contrary to what we just heard, while the government is trying to make up stories about a non-existent carbon tax, Bill C-48 has to do with actual tax-related issues.

This is not a platform for Conservative members to invent stories. No, this is a very important process. We are looking at how the system will change, as well as at the implementation of certain procedures and recommendations that came out of letters sent by the Minister of Finance, communications with accountants, for example, and pre-budget consultations.

We certainly support the various measures in the bill. As a result, we will be supporting the bill today at third reading.

However, a number of aspects of the overall process are problematic, and some issues have to be given due consideration. We were given 1,000 pages all at once. People will wonder how we can support what is basically a 1,000-page omnibus bill after we opposed the omnibus budget bills introduced in the past year. The answer is simple. The difference today is that we are discussing a bill that deals with the same subject, namely, various related acts. This is not like what happened last year. For example, Bill C-38 covered employment insurance reform, environmental protection and so on. For that reason, we do not have a problem with this bill.

What does bother us about the omnibus nature of this bill is that many of these measures have been dragging on for over a decade. We are not the only ones saying so. The former Auditor General also commented on the situation in her 2009 report. At that time, she pointed out that there were 400 measures that had not yet been enacted. These measures were proposed in comfort letters from the Minister of Finance or previous finance ministers in recent years, but none of them had been legislated.

I will explain how this works for the benefit of our viewers. Unlike with other bills, tax-related measures such as these are initially implemented through comfort letters in order to expedite their application. However, the House of Commons must later pass a bill to truly finalize these measures.

What the former Auditor General meant was that 400 measures had been proposed but that the House had not yet passed legislation on them. Bill C-48 contains only 200 of these 400 measures, so there is still a great deal of work to be done.

I mention this because the former Auditor General is not the only one who raised this problem. Various members of the business and accounting communities have also done so. They have testified before the Standing Committee on Finance and written letters to the Minister of Finance and the various MPs who have held that position in the past 10, 12 or 13 years, while these measures have sat on the shelf.

These people have said that it is not good for the business community, small businesses or people who have to deal with the tax code or the tax system. There is a great deal of uncertainty. The finance minister tells them that certain measures are going to be implemented but then the government waits 5, 10, 13 or 15 years before it passes legislation on these measures.

This creates a certain amount of uncertainty, which is not good for the economy, or for business people and individuals who are trying their best to understand issues that are already quite complex. Very few people outside the accounting community can really stand up and say that they truly understand the entire tax code. It is extremely complex. Fortunately, we have accountants who can help us to understand it. However, they are the ones who are saying that this somewhat haphazard approach is causing them problems.

Although we support these measures and therefore the bill, I believe that this process and this debate highlight the fact that the process needs to be reviewed and made faster.

If the minister is going to promise measures to business people, accountants and everyone concerned, those measures need to be passed in a timely manner, which has not happened in the past. Another issue that was raised is the fact that a number of measures are being passed at the same time. We need to avoid that.

As I explained, this omnibus bill is less problematic than the budget implementation bills. However, to wake up one morning to all these measures and so many related tasks will create a lot of work for accountants, business people and the public, who want to understand how the government manages the taxes they pay. It is important to make the process easier, and that is what the government should be focusing on.

As I already mentioned, we need to look at how the world is currently evolving. Tax season brings with it television ads encouraging people to buy tax software. People are making money off that, which is fine. I am not out to attack or criticize them. However, let us put ourselves in the shoes of someone who is not a tax expert. In my opinion, if the government simplified the process and made it more efficient and easier to comprehend, the public would be in a better position to understand how the system works. People would be more inclined to trust the government and how it spends taxpayers' money.

Just look at the current climate: people do not have a lot of faith in how their elected representatives are spending their tax dollars. This would be a step in the right direction and a good way to regain the public trust. Of course, this is not the ultimate solution. However, the government should have a closer look at this issue, and that is what the bill before us proposes.

I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, but I had a chance to read the testimony given at that committee. It is quite interesting, because it shows just how out of touch past Liberal governments and the current Conservative government have been with reality as expressed by various accountants' associations during pre-budget consultations. They stated repeatedly that the government really needs to re-evaluate the situation.

The bill contains measures that have been under discussion since 1998. The time frame is completely absurd. If I were a small business owner who had to pay taxes and was trying to understand these measures, I would see that some of these measures were supposed to have been incorporated into our tax law in 1998 or 2001. It is 2013, and they have not yet been incorporated.

These measures are not yet part of the legislation. I see that as a serious problem. The process really needs to be re-evaluated. Every political party in the House would agree to that. Furthermore, members of the Standing Committee on Finance could examine it.

I will close on that point, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak to the process, because although we support the bill, this has really highlighted some of its flaws. I think we need to use this debate as an opportunity to address these flaws and find ways to improve the system. We should not have to do this every 15 years, nor should we have to add hundreds of tax measures at the same time. A more appropriate approach would be better for taxpayers, entrepreneurs and accountants, to name a few.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I now invite questions and comments from my colleagues.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague, who obviously has done a great deal of study on the bill.

The issue we are talking about here, in terms of this massive omnibus tax legislation that would bring the code up from many years, going back, as my colleague pointed, to 1999, is the fact that it is being done in an atmosphere in which the government is actually shutting down debate. The bill has been sitting there, but we have not done our job in the House of Commons of fully debating it.

When people back home wonder how we could possibly lose $3.1 billion, I would say to them that when we have a government that has numerous pieces of very technical information pushed through the House so that it cannot be debated, that is how we end up making mistakes.

I would like to quote Thomas McDonnell, one of the tax lawyers who spoke on the bill. He said that the changes run to well in excess of 900 pages. Further, he said:

[I]t will be passed without...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. 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.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks of the failure of the Conservatives, particularly the Conservative backbenchers. They tell us that they want to stand up when its on a woman's right to choose, but when it is about the obligation of Parliament to vet bills on raising revenue from taxpayers, nobody on that government side is interested in looking at the issue fully and having a full debate so that we understand what the issues are and protect the taxpayer.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for the quote he just shared. That is precisely the problem.

When they move a time allocation motion to shut down debate, they sometimes accuse us of wasting time on bills that we support.

This bill is a perfect example. We support it, but as my colleague said so well, this is a good opportunity to study something that is very complex and important for taxpayers in every one of our ridings. We have an opportunity to debate the bill and I must admit that I am no expert on the subject matter. Nevertheless, having the opportunity to share my point of view on this bill allowed me to study the issue and understand the concerns that have been raised.

Even though we support the bill, we must point out any major flaws on behalf of our constituents, the people we represent. Missing out on this opportunity is simply unacceptable, but that has happened to us some 30-odd times since the 2011 election. It is unacceptable, shameful and unfortunate and we are seeing it more and more from this government.

As my colleague said so well, when it comes to the taxpayers' money and complex tax issues, losing this opportunity to study and debate this issue is truly unfortunate. It is too bad that there are not more people across the way who share this opinion.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

He spent a few minutes briefly going over the economic consequences of having a very complex tax system. Adding measures that are hard even for experts to understand and making frequent changes to the system can make it even more complex.

How detrimental is it to the economy when businesses and individuals have a hard time navigating our laws and our tax system?

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question, which is exactly what we are asking ourselves here today.

If we look at the measures themselves, some of them will work for the people and for businesses, for the very people we represent. However, the problem is the impact they have on the economy. That is what people told the Standing Committee on Finance during pre-budget consultations. They pointed out that waiting 10, 12, 13 or 15 years for the government to incorporate promised measures creates a climate of uncertainty that is not good for the economy.

I must say that it is a bit ironic for a government that claims to manage the economy so well to foster this climate of uncertainty. That is why we are raising this issue today. The government may not be so great at managing the economy after all. This issue is proof of that.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Chambly—Borduas for agreeing to share his time with me. I am very grateful.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-48, which is a step any government would need to take in order to update our Income Tax Act. It is a relatively complex law. To begin, I would like to point out that I am not a tax expert or an accountant. I did study the bill, which is about 950 pages long. I did not read the whole thing because, unfortunately, I ran out of time this morning. I do understand the broad strokes of the bill, however.

As a parliamentarian, I must say that it is always disappointing to be faced with bills of such scope. I would be surprised if a single one of my colleagues has read the entire 950 pages, one by one, and knows exactly what is in this bill, unless they happen to be one of the public servants who wrote it. It is always disappointing to see such massive bills, which no average person has the time to read or reflect on. We are asked to vote on these kinds of bills, as was the case for budget implementation Bills C-38 and C-45, which were 400 pages each.

They were mammoth bills, like today's. I must say that these are important and useful measures. They have their purpose, but it is important to mention that more frequent updating could have at least made things easier for MPs. We would not have had to read 950 pages today if tax laws had been updated more frequently over the past 10 years.

The most recent technical bill of this nature dates back to 2001, and it is now 2013. As a result, some things have been dragging on for over a decade and need to be changed for the better. This bill is not flawed, but before going into details, I wanted to point out that a bill of this size is problematic for MPs and prevents them from doing their job properly.

With a 950-page bill, we need to wonder whether the government has done a good job. Why did the government wait so many years to introduce it? Why not introduce it earlier? More frequent updates would have helped. That point was raised several times in committee. I did not have the opportunity to be there, but I read the transcript.

As the member for Sherbrooke, I agree with the principle of having a clearer system and more frequent updates to allow for more effective management, particularly for businesses and individuals who do their taxes each year and must comply with fairly complicated legislation. The Income Tax Act must be one of Canada's largest pieces of legislation at hundreds of pages long.

Of course, the NDP believes that we must fight tax avoidance and tax evasion while preserving the integrity of our tax system. That is why we support the changes proposed in this bill, for they are meant to address issues that allow tax avoidance. This is not a mammoth bill like the budget implementation bills, Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, but still, it is nearly 1,000 pages long. There is a difference though. This time, these are very technical measures that we supported and that we will support again at third reading.

These changes are important. I would like to talk about the major changes, so that the viewing public can understand what they mean.

Part 1 of the bill deals with offshore investment fund property and non-resident trusts in accordance with proposals announced in budget 2010 and August 2010. These measures will ensure the taxation of Canadian residents' worldwide income from all sources.

Part 1 will therefore update the legislation in order to guarantee the integrity of the tax system and prevent tax avoidance. Of course, the NDP supports this change in order to try to keep our tax system as clear as possible. The NDP also wants to make tax avoidance impossible in any way, shape or form.

We realize that the existing legislation has some loopholes that people can use to avoid paying part of their taxes or to evade taxes in other countries. This fight will never end. People will always try to find ways to get around the law. Unfortunately, that is just how society is; some people will always try to abuse the system. As legislators, we must ensure that these people are punished or amend the legislation so that these things never happen again.

Parts 2 and 3 of the bill deal with taxation of corporations with foreign affiliates.

Part 4 deals with something important that I wanted to address as well, and that is bijuralism, an important aspect of our Canadian legal system. In Quebec we have civil law and the rest of Canada has common law. These are two different types of law. Part 4 deals with this situation that can sometimes be unclear and cause confusion.

It is therefore important in the Canadian context that these legal systems be respected in our federal laws, laws that apply to the entire country. There are differences between civil law and common law when it comes to real property, personal property and joint and several liability. The bill addresses these issues and clarifies them for individuals and businesses that have to deal with these differences.

Most of the changes are based on the specific circumstances of people in industry. In their testimony, they made their case to the legislators and the government to have the changes made. As the member for Sherbrooke, I pay taxes every year like everyone else, but I cannot put myself in the shoes of those whose tax circumstances are different or who are part of a business, for example. It is therefore important to have their comments so that we, as legislators, can change things that are flawed. Obviously, nothing is perfect.

In closing, I take issue with the size of the bill and the fact that the government waited so long to introduce such a technical bill. I am in favour of having a clearer, more precise process that is used more frequently so that the necessary changes can be made more quickly with smaller bills that are easier for parliamentarians to understand.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend who just spoke talked about the length of time it took to get to this piece of legislation. In 2009, the Auditor General identified 400 technical changes that should have been completed at that point. She commented that this went back to 2001, when the Liberals were in government. Questions were raised about why the Liberal government failed to pass regular technical changes at that time.

Obviously, we have 1,000 pages before us today addressing only 200 of the 400 technical changes required. Oftentimes these changes slide into the system, even though they are not law yet, which makes things complicated. They are complicated for citizens and tax lawyers who are trying to deal with it.

Is the member aware of any plans on the government's part to start putting in these technical changes with a certain regularity?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

I hope that in the future there will be a plan and that the government will be more alert and focused on making significant technical changes to the tax system on a regular basis.

As the hon. member stated, 400 changes were proposed by the Auditor General of the time, but only 200 of them were included in the bill. There is still work to do. That said, if all of these changes had been included, the bill would have been 2,000 pages long. This is how the Conservatives do things.

I would prefer that these changes be made more often. They should also be shorter and more understandable to the average person, who expects to be able to understand tax law in order to properly obey it.

Of course the ultimate goal is to make all this clear to Canadians and to businesses, who have to file their tax returns every year and understand why they pay taxes, why they have such and such a credit or why they are in such and such a position.

In my view, these changes should be introduced as often as possible for the sake of clarity, to enable Canadians to be better informed.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, do you see quorum in the House? I do not.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I believe that there is quorum in the House.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it was just like watching ants come out of an ant hill as we asked for a quorum. Members are almost like the Prime Minister; they are in hiding over there today.

In any event, we are talking about the bill and various areas of tax relief. I wonder what the hon. member thinks of the fact that the government continues to reduce taxes to the corporate sector to the point that companies are sitting on about $560 billion of cash. They are not using that money to increase productivity, to create jobs or to develop new investments in technology. Is that not an area the government should be looking at to bring in revenues? The fact is that the tax system is out of balance, and the corporate sector is not pulling its weight.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question, but I will not comment on who is or is not present in the House, since we are not allowed to do so.

However, I will respond to his very important question about corporate taxes. Our corporate taxes are among the lowest in the world, and businesses are sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars.

The NDP's position has always been very clear. We believe in encouraging businesses to create jobs. Even though we may give them hundreds of millions of dollars in tax credits, these businesses sometimes do not create a single job. For example, a business in Ontario moved to another country after receiving millions of dollars and completely abandoned the jobs created in Canada.

When we give corporate tax credits, especially to multinational corporations, we should demand that they create jobs. If they do not create jobs, they should not be entitled to this money.

I think that is a rule of thumb for the government: businesses that receive tax credits from this government must create jobs, or else they are not entitled to that money.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to our government's low-tax plan for jobs and growth and how this important tax legislation, Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, would fit into that plan.

Through Canada's economic action plan, our Conservative government is continuing to create jobs and grow our economy. We are doing this while keeping taxes low and sticking with our prudent and responsible plan to return to balanced budgets in 2015.

I would like to remind all members of the House that our fiscal responsibility and aggressive debt reduction has placed Canada in an enviable fiscal position. While other countries continue to struggle with debt that has spiralled out of control, Canada is in the best fiscal position in the G7. In fact, Canada's net debt to GDP ratio is the lowest level among G7 countries by far.

While the NDP and Liberals want to engage in reckless spending, our Conservative government is on track to return to balanced budgets in 2015. Our plan to get back to balanced budgets is working. In the past two years we have already cut the deficit by more than half. Economic action plan 2013 builds on these efforts to reduce government spending by announcing an additional $1.7 billion in ongoing savings. Overall, measures taken by our government since budget 2010 will result in total ongoing savings of roughly $14 billion.

Unlike the NDP and Liberals, our Conservative government will not raise taxes on Canadian families and businesses to balance the budget.

Today we have legislation before us that, while technical, will help our government achieve this objective and help make the tax system more predictable. The bill would amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and related legislation to close tax loopholes and create a stronger and fairer tax system for all Canadians.

The bill contains proposals that have been previously released for public consultation on numerous occasions for many years. In fact, many of the proposals in the bill reflect the feedback that government received from Canadians and aim to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of tax and is treated equitably under our tax laws. Simply put, when everyone pays their fair share, tax rates can be kept low, something that benefits all Canadians.

I would like to take a moment and speak to some of the very important measures in the bill and their purpose. Although the legislation is quite technical in nature, I will be brief in my overview of the bill.

I will commence with part 1 of the act, which would modify the provisions of the Income Tax Act dealing with the taxation of non-residence trusts. These changes reflect the proposals initially publicly announced back in the winter of 2010, as well as from the feedback received from public consultations held the following summer.

Part 2 and 3 deal directly with the taxation of Canadian multinational corporations with foreign affiliates, implementing changes, some of which date all the way back to 2004, that will make Canada's tax system more fair and equitable, not to mention easier to administer.

As is the case with the majority of measures contained in the bill, these changes are again the result of extensive public consultations.

Part 4 of the bill deals with the concept of bijuralism. More specifically, it contains amendments that would ensure that the bill will function effectively in both the common law and the civil law. This means that amendments dealing with certain private law concepts, such as right and interest, real and personal property, life estate and remainder interest, tangible and intangible property and joint and severable liability, will accurately capture both common and civil law in both official languages.

Part 5 of the bill focuses on fairness for taxpayers by setting out a number of measures to close tax loopholes, ensuring that all Canadians pay their fair share. Specifically, the bill would close tax loopholes related to specific leasing property, ensure that conversion of specified investment flow-through trusts and partnerships into corporations are subject to the same rules as transactions between corporations, prevent schemes designed to shelter tax by artificially increasing foreign tax credits and, finally, implement a regime for information reporting of tax avoidance transactions. Taken together, these measures would help crack down on tax avoidance and ensure that everyone paid their fair share.

These measures, taken in conjunction with our government's recent action to curb tax avoidance in economic action plan 2013, affirm our continued commitment to making the tax system more fair and equitable for all Canadians, a subject that I will expand on in a moment.

At the same time, part 5 also includes a number of important but technical changes that are designed to ensure that the income tax system functions in accordance with its underlying policy intent. Many of these changes are relieving in nature and would address issues identified by taxpayers in the course of working through the application of the income tax rules to their own situations.

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

Part 6 of the bill would implement technical improvements to the GST-HST, including relieving the GST-HST on the administrative service of collecting and distributing the levy on blank tape imposed under the Copyright Act.

Part 7 provides for administrative changes to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.

Finally, part 8 contains some housekeeping amendments to ensure coordination between provisions of the Income Tax Act, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012 and the Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act.

All of these parts have been examined in great detail at the finance committee, where they received the support of all parties.

In my time remaining, I will just highlight that the underlying goal of all the measures in this legislation is to simplify the tax system, make it easier to comply with and administer and to create more fairness for all Canadian taxpayers.

The overwhelming majority of hard-working Canadians and business owners pay their taxes. They do so willingly and honestly. Others, shamefully, try to skip out on their taxes and avoid their fair share and, eventually, suffer embarrassing and costly legal ramifications when they are caught.

However, honest Canadians expect their government to manage their tax dollars with respect and that they be asked to pay their fair share and not a penny more. Our government fully understands that sustaining a voluntary tax system rests on the foundation of tax fairness. It is a simple concept and one that we on this side of the House grasp and support.

The fact is that we cannot expect taxpayers to continue to pay their share if they see that others are not. Tax fairness is a basic principle that our government is committed to upholding and we make no apologies for doing so. We are proud of our record and we are building upon it. In fact, that is precisely what this technical tax amendments act, 2012, would do.

Indeed, several witnesses who appeared at the finance committee as part of its study earlier this year noted how today's legislation would improve tax fairness for all taxpayers. For example, Mr. Greg Boehmer of Ernst & Young remarked, “It's very clear that this legislation is aimed at fairness”. Mr. Lorne Shillinger of KPMG echoed this sentiment in regard to Bill C-48, saying, “It's preserving the integrity of the tax system and it's time to get this bill passed”.

Ensuring everyone pays their fair share means tax rates can remain low and our government can ensure that Canada's fiscal house stays in order. Balancing the budget and reducing debt means that tax dollars that would have otherwise been absorbed by interest costs are freed up. These dollars can then be reinvested in the things that matter most to Canadians, like lower taxes. This is what Canadians expect and deserve.

As I mentioned earlier, our government is committed to improving the integrity and fairness of Canada's tax system by closing loopholes that allow few businesses and individuals to avoid paying their fair share of tax. Consistent with global efforts to close tax loopholes in their respective tax systems, measures introduced by this government will protect hard-working families that play by the rules, reaffirming the government's ongoing commitment to tax fairness.

Indeed, since 2006, and including the measures announced in economic action plan 2013, our government has introduced over 75 measures to improve the integrity of the tax system.

If I might take a moment, I would like to highlight some of the many measures in economic action plan 2013 that will work to close these tax loopholes, address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules and combat international tax evasion.

First and foremost, economic action plan 2013 announced the stop international tax evasion program. This new program would allow the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, to pay individuals with knowledge of major international tax non-compliance a percentage of the tax collected as a result of information provided.

Other measures would include requiring Canadian taxpayers with foreign income or properties to report more information and extending the amount of time CRA had to reassess those who had not properly reported this income, as well as streamlining the process for the CRA to obtain information concerning unnamed persons from third parties, such as banks, and requiring certain financial intermediaries, including banks, to report their clients' international electronic funds transfers of $10,000 or more to CRA.

Our Conservative government's record on strengthening tax fairness is clear. I am sure all members agree on closing loopholes. Permitting a select few businesses and individuals to skip out on paying their fair share of tax is simply unacceptable. Most Canadians would be shocked and disappointed if any elected member would tolerate tax evasion. For this reason alone, I hope I could count on the support of the members opposite in passing this very important legislation.

That is not all. In addition to ensuring the integrity of our tax system, our government continues to work hard to ensure that the tax system remains competitive so we can continue to attract new business investment into the Canadian economy. Canadian tax reductions that play a particularly important role in supporting economic growth are those that enable businesses to invest more of their revenues back into their operations. Indeed, our government has reduced the small business tax rate to 11% and lowered the federal business income tax rate to 15%.

Over all, since 2006, our low-tax plan has resulted in $28,600 in savings for a typical small business, or almost 35%. Savings like this allow small businesses to make investments in their local communities, be it through new machinery, new equipment, a new location or, even better, hiring more people.

Not only that, it is this productivity growth that allows businesses to allow more workers and offer higher wages to Canadians in order to expand production and become more successful. In fact, the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters agrees with this assessment. It said:

Reducing business taxes creates jobs, boosts investment, makes Canada more competitive and puts more money in the pockets of the Canadians...business tax cuts are critical drivers of the Canadian economy...

Moreover, since July 2009, over 900,000 net new jobs have been created, the strongest job creation record in the G7. What better indication than this to show that our low-tax plan is working?

Clearly, our government is committed to lower taxes for all Canadians. These are just some of the examples of our government's commitment to keeping taxes low for Canadians. Indeed, since 2006, we have cut taxes over 150 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. We cut taxes in every way government collects them, from personal taxes, consumption taxes, business taxes, excise taxes and much more. In fact, our strong record of tax relief has meant savings for a typical family of four of over $3,200 in 2013. Furthermore, we have removed over one million low-income Canadians from the tax rolls altogether.

Unfortunately, the NDP and Liberals continue to vote against these tax savings measures that help Canadian families and Canadian businesses. The tax legislation before us today would help to further our government's objective of keeping taxes low and the tax system predictable.

One wonders if the NDP and Liberals would support a piece of legislation that supports that plan. As I hear hon. members speaking today, it sounds as though the official opposition is going to, for which I thank them. I hope they will support it and not fight closing tax loopholes that only benefit a select few.

Why would anyone oppose ensuring that everyone pays their fair share of tax? I hope that all the members opposite will see the merits of this legislation and show their support for it by giving it swift passage.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been a small business person myself. As a business person, some certainty is required.

The Conservatives have waited nine years to bring this bill forward to bring certainty to businesses and individuals and Canadians. What have the Conservatives been doing over the last seven years that prevented them from bringing this legislation forward? They certainly have not been fixing the Senate; we know that from the scandals in the other House.

The member talks about the government lowering the tax rate over the last six years. The tax rate for corporations, their friends, has been lowered. There is no denying that. However, if we look at the other side, the government has had the largest deficit in the history of this country during the last couple of years. Not only that, the debt has grown by billions of dollars.

My question is for the member. The Conservatives have lowered taxes, but who is going to pay the debt they have created? Who is going to pay the deficit the government has created?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member was listening to my remarks, but we have made 150 changes in recent years for tax fairness in budgets, et cetera, and there has been some great work done on regulations by the scrutiny of regulations committee, but some of these proposals have been around for a long time, so I would like to make a proposal to the member today.

I will go to my House leader, and perhaps he will go to his House leader, and ask that in every Parliament, perhaps every quarter of the year or every six months, we bring in a technical tax amendment bill. I am sure the members on this side of House will agree to sit until midnight in a periodic fashion to get that done.

We have been sitting until midnight the last couple of weeks and we are prepared to do it the next couple of weeks to get bills through this House. That is important to us.

The deficit has been cut in half, and the deficit will disappear by 2015. That deficit was created purposely, as the member may remember. I do not know if the member was in the House in 2008, but we faced a worldwide crisis, the worldwide recession, which was the worst recession since the 1930s.

That deficit was created purposely to fight that recession. It worked, with 900,000 net new jobs created, 90% of them full time. Now it is time to balance the budget again and get back to paying down the debt as the government did in 2006 and 2007, when it paid down $30 billion of debt.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it was an interesting proposal when the member suggested that he go to his House leader and that member could go to his House leader and maybe they would come to some sort of an agreement.

It would wonderful if the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons felt it was somewhat important to negotiate in good faith. I suspect that if he made that leap of faith, we would probably see bills being debated and passed in a more orderly fashion. Time allocation would not be necessary.

I want to pose a question. The Liberal Party supports the bill and has indicated its support for the bill for some of the very reasons the member talks about, issues such as tax evasion and tax avoidance. I suspect more than 98% of members of Parliament would be voting in favour of the legislation, because we see the merits of it.

Where I take a little exception is when the member, in his presentation on the bill, talked as if the Conservatives were not increasing taxes. In reality, in the last number of budgets there have been net tax increases to Canadians of tens of millions of dollars. A good example is the most recent one in regard to the number of tariffs. A tax is a tax.

Would the member not agree that an increase in a tariff is in fact a tax increase to our middle class and to all Canadians?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member's point is well taken. When we change bills and bring forward sections in the budget for tax fairness, there will be situations in which some people will pay more taxes. Those would perhaps occur when a business operator had created a corporation or by aggressive tax planning was not paying as much as a competitor in a similar business was, simply by changing the paperwork and how they file their taxes.

That is what this bill is designed to address. It is designed to address people who are not paying their fair share. Yes, there would be new revenues from this bill, although that is not the purpose of the bill—the purpose of the bill is tax fairness—but there would be new revenues.

The amendments proposed in the bill have been discussed over years of repeated consultations. The bill has been before Parliament since last November, so any member who wanted to examine it or examine the issues has had many months to do so. The opposition members have had over 200 days to examine and debate this bill.

We have had days of debate at the finance committee. On the government side we can all sub into committees, and any member can attend any committee at any time. If members have specific concerns, they can sit in on the finance committee and examine the bills closely. That is what committees are for. They do a clause-by-clause examination of the bills.

Canadian taxpayers have been waiting for these technical amendments. They are overdue, and we should pass this bill quickly.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech in the House this morning talking about tax fairness. It is a very important issue right now. It is particularly important that we as a government recognize that tax evasion and tax cheats have to be clamped down on, and as a former businessperson, I also recognize that tax loopholes have to be closed.

I agree with my colleague as he discusses tax fairness. I wonder if he could address the balance between tax fairness and tax reductions and the benefit that these bring to the economy of Canada.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, regarding tax reductions, we do have 900,000 net new jobs in Canada since the summer of 2009, when we were starting to come out of that terrible recession, but we have a lot more than that. Businesses are actually holding on to a lot of capital right now; they are ready to explode in investment.

However, we have a slowdown in our largest trading partner, which is the United States of America. Americans buy basically 70% of everything we produce in Canada. To deal with that slowdown, we are proposing free trade agreements. We are pursuing free trade with 50 countries, and the deal that is closest to fruition is the European free trade deal, which would mean about 80,000 jobs in Canada. Where would those jobs come from? It would mean Canadian businesses investing to expand into foreign markets, so it would mean about 80,000 jobs and about $1,000 of net income to the average family in Canada from free trade. That is just one free trade deal, and there are many more.

We are well positioned for growth, and if the American economy continues to grow as it has been, our growth is going to accelerate as well. The tax picture has created an environment where we are ready for growth, and an explosion of growth is due.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, people on different sides of the House can have philosophical differences on what the best policies are to stimulate the economy, but I want to look at some numbers.

The Conservatives' philosophy starting in 2006 was to cut taxes, particularly on corporations. Their theory was that these tax cuts would stimulate growth, but in those six years under the Conservative watch, the debt of Canada has gone from $480 billion to $605 billion. That is $125 billion of additional debt added to Canada, a 25% increase in debt.

In terms of corporate taxes, the idea was that if they cut taxes to corporations, it would leave more money in the hands of corporations and the corporations would then invest it. The outgoing Bank of Canada governor, Mark Carney, has recently stated that there is $500 billion of dead corporate money sitting on the sidelines that has not been invested in Canada because those tax cuts were broad-based and they were not tied to creating jobs in this country.

Finally, I want to talk about unemployment, which is higher today. If we talk to people in communities across this country, they will tell us that there are more temporary jobs and more part-time jobs, but there are not the kinds of good-quality career jobs that used to typify jobs created in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s.

Based on the numbers for the debt and the deficit, which is the highest deficit in Canadian history and is run by the current government, does my hon. friend consider those to be signs of the economic success of the Conservatives' philosophy?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the $500 billion that businesses are sitting on. We cannot legislate businesses to start spending money. We have to create a climate in which they want to spend money, and that is exactly what we have done. As we pursue free trade agreements and open markets across the world, these businesses are going to start investing more and more.

However, creating 900,000 new jobs is not something to play down. These are 900,000 people who went home to their families and said, “I got the job”. Jobs relieve financial pressures in those homes and people are then able to pay their mortgages. Some of these people also start businesses.

We are poised for tremendous growth in Canada. We have had growth and we will have more growth, but the reality is that we are dependent on trade. We are a trading nation and we always have been. The economy of our largest customer is in trouble; it is starting to come back, but the best way to avoid being in that position in the future is to pursue free trade with many other countries, such as those on the Pacific Rim, which is what we are doing. I believe our future is very bright.

With regard to Canada's debt, if the member looks forward in the financial documents in the budget, he would see that the debt will start to go down in a few years, which is exactly what we were doing from—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. The hon. member's time has expired.

The hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Québec.

Unfortunately, Bill C-48 is a story of failure. It is the story of our tax laws that have never been updated. This bill is currently over 1,000 pages long, which is a significant number. Although the previous member's speech was excellent, if I were to ask him to quickly summarize the content of these 1,000 pages, he would be hard pressed to do so. It would not be easy. I will not ask him to do so, but I tip my hat to anyone in the House who can tell me that he has a perfect understanding of Bill C-48, the bill on which we are going to vote. Understanding a 1,000-page legal document about taxes is quite a feat.

There is a backlog of 400 technical amendments. Bill C-48 will address 200 of them. The other 200 will not be resolved, mainly because they are outdated and no longer necessary. The law is so old that the regulations are no longer relevant. In 2006, we wanted to close a tax loophole affecting airlines. The airlines took advantage of that loophole and are now increasingly making use of tax havens. What was proposed in 2005 and 2006 has therefore lost its relevance because the law is too old. For five or six years, there was a tax loophole that was not closed. That is unfortunate.

This situation dates back to 2001. I understand that our Liberal colleagues are not always present, but I hope that they will wake up. They were in power in 2001. The boom in tax loopholes occurred under the Liberal government. It was actually quite embarrassing. With regard to shipping companies, the finance minister at the time had the House pass a bill that allowed him to avoid paying taxes. His shipping company no longer had to pay very much in taxes to Canada.

[An hon. member]

That was when the Liberals were in office.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Yes. The Liberals were in office.

The Conservatives have not done much better. They were in power in 2007. They have had six years to introduce a bill to make technical amendments to the tax law. For a government that claims to be tough on crime, that is pretty bad from the perspective of regulation-making, red tape and bureaucracy. What is more, it is never-ending.

We will support this bill because we no longer have any choice. We have to do so. We also believe that the government should amend the tax law every year in order to update it so that everyone can understand it.

This is a complex 1,000-page bill that tries to reduce a backlog of 400 technical amendments. This means that as soon as a problem comes up, the accounting bills start piling up. An accountant does not come cheap.

It can also be expensive for a company that is teetering on the brink and wondering whether or not this law applies to it. In theory, ignorance of the law is no excuse; however, the law is unintelligible to the average person, and unfortunately, Canadian tax laws are no exception.

In 1917, Canada's first tax law, the Income Tax Act, was 50 pages in length. Those 50 pages covered everything.

Now, there are tens of thousands of pages of jurisprudence and as many doctrines. We can get a sense of our tax situation. It is clear why many business owners are telling us that their businesses are overburdened with accounting bills.

Taking over 10 years to make formal changes to the law opens the door to risky operations and aggressive tax planning. It opens the door to tax risk. A company may be able to pay a tax expert $500 an hour to solve tax problems, but the average person cannot. That is a problem.

The more complex tax laws are, the more they benefit the rich. People who do not have the means to hire a tax expert do not have the means to open a foreign bank account, build a family trust or incorporate in order to evade taxes. That is a problem.

We are talking about tax fairness. Obviously, this is still not the case. Unfortunately, I think we will have to wait until 2015 for a change like this.

However, I need to hammer home three main points and mention that the NDP by no means disagrees with this bill. In spite of everything, we feel that we need to fight tax avoidance and tax evasion, while preserving the integrity of our tax system. In short, our tax system needs to fulfill its main function, which is to enable the Canadian government to have the revenue it needs to cover its expenses.

At close to 1,000 pages, this document is a perfect example of an omnibus bill. If the government had done an act-by-act study, for example, of the GST act, the Income Tax Act and the legislation on certain trusts, it could have reduced the number of pages and members could have had a clearer idea of what is involved.

However, with this 1,000-page document, as I have said, I challenge any Conservative member to rise and say that he or she will vote entirely in favour of this bill because he or she understands it completely, has read it in full and knows it inside and out.

As we can see, a great many volunteers from the Conservative Party are rising and saying enthusiastically that they understand the bill. Actually, that number is a big, fat zero.

The business community is being penalized with similar changes. Our economy is also being penalized. Not only does this let people avoid paying tax, meaning that those who do pay have to pay even more, but those who pay more tax have to pay for an accountant and a tax lawyer on top of that. What joy, what luck. To think that this government claims to be effective.

There are some important parts to this bill. Part 1 covers non-resident trusts. That is very important because it is a significant tax loophole. Parts 2 and 3 deal with the taxation of foreign corporations. Globalization has enabled companies to transfer their profits to tax havens. We need to put an end to that practice. Part 4 is essential. Canada has common law, but Quebec has the civil code. This type of bijuralism requires us to correct the situation.

Clearly, this bill had to be drafted and, to be effective, this exercise should be carried out every year. An NDP government will commit to that.

I will yield the floor to my hon. colleague after questions.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech in which he framed some of these issues around justice and fairness in the tax system and then extrapolated beyond that to discuss a more fair and balanced Canada.

Today is World Hunger Day. Scanning some of the media attention, I note that in Ontario, post-secondary schools, universities and colleges have food banks on campus. This, to me, is an indictment of whatever the government has to say about its economic progress.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on that in the context of the debate today.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what economic progress is he talking about?

There are more unemployed workers today than there were before the recession and even during the recession. There has been absolutely no progress made. They say they created 900,000 jobs, but they are forgetting about the 600,000 jobs lost during the recession. That leaves 300,000 jobs. What is more, jobs that paid $25 to $30 an hour have been replaced with jobs that pay $12 or $13 an hour. Is that economic progress?

Average Quebeckers have been impoverished. They have too much debt and now have to rely on food banks. With much of the Canadian population living so precariously, we cannot talk about economic growth.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague’s excellent speech.

I still cannot fathom what Auditor General Sheila Fraser wrote in her fall 2009 report. She said that no income tax technical bill had been passed since 2001. I would point out to the House that it is now 2013.

Can my colleague explain why no income tax technical bill has been passed since 2001 even though it is now 2013? Quite frankly, that is unacceptable.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple and most unfortunate.

Tax fairness has never been a priority for the Liberal government or the Conservative government. Tax unfairness does not bother them in the least. That is why it took them more than 12 years to introduce tax legislation. Everyone knew it, there were red flags, and yet they did nothing. It is not because they did not know or could not do anything about it, but simply because they did not want tax fairness.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

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

He quickly mentioned that very complex tax laws benefit the wealthiest, who can afford to pay tax experts and accountants. The middle class cannot necessarily afford to pay such experts, and therefore they pay their taxes. There is no getting around it, since they cannot afford to pay a tax expert.

My colleague is an expert who has studied taxation and law. Could he talk about how complex laws often benefit the wealthiest?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, American multi-billionaire Warren Buffet said that it makes no sense that his tax rate is lower than that of an entry-level secretary at his company.

That is tax inequity. That is the problem with our tax laws. People say that when the rich get richer, they reinvest their riches. Well, unfortunately, under the George W. Bush regime in the U.S. and the Conservative regime in Canada, the idiotic application of this theory does not work.

The investments are just not there, since wealthy people do not reinvest in their own country simply because it is good to them; instead, they invest their money wherever they will make the most money. Clearly, in this case, they decided that that place was not Canada.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in the House in support of Bill C-48 at third reading.

This is a rather large bill that is more than 1,000 pages long. I just want to point out that Bill C-48 looks like a mammoth omnibus bill. It is a two- or three-inch-thick brick with more than 1,000 pages.

Last year, we had the mammoth Bill C-38. Then we had the mammoth Bill C-45. Now we have Bill C-48, which is extremely large and complex. What is more, the font is quite small. It is very hard to read and very complicated.

It makes many technical changes to the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, and other legislation. This topic may seem very technical and unappealing to many people, but these changes are often necessary and can have a significant impact on the Canadian economy. The majority of the measures proposed in this bill have already been in place for many years, but the bill makes them law.

Unfortunately, the massive size of this bill shows that there is still work to be done to convert similar technical changes into legislative measures in a timely fashion. Failure to update our tax code on a regular basis makes it hard for Canadians, business people in particular, to find any clarity in our tax system. We must also look at the growing complexity of tax law and focus on the need to simplify it over time.

The more complicated the system, the more flaws it contains, and the more room there is for loopholes. When that happens, then there are bound to people who will take advantage. That is why it is important to simplify everything.

On that subject, I would like to quote the 2012 pre-budget submission from the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada:

[We] strongly believe that the key to sustained economic recovery and enhanced economic growth lies in the government’s commitment to tax reform and red tape reduction.

CGA-Canada went on to make two recommendations. First, it recommended modernizing Canada's tax system to make it simple, transparent and more efficient. Second, it proposed implementing a “sunset provision” to prevent future legislative backlogs.

The government has been very slow to legislate technical amendments. In a report tabled about four years ago, in 2009, the Auditor General at the time, Sheila Fraser, pointed out that the Department of Finance Canada had a backlog of at least 400 technical amendments that had not been enacted. Here is what her report said:

No income tax technical bill has been passed since 2001.

It is now 2013. That means that two previous governments have been asleep at the switch, and for a considerable amount of time. Today's majority government has been in power for nearly a decade, yet an income tax technical bill has not been passed. What is it doing? We do not know.

Sheila Fraser's report goes on to say:

...the government has said that an annual technical bill of routine housekeeping amendments to the Act is desirable...

Yet we know that nothing has been introduced since 2001. They are not doing what the Auditor General suggested:

...an annual technical bill of routine housekeeping amendments...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.... 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.

At one point, people said that Beta videocassettes were the future. We no longer use videocassettes. We are making technological advances. The same thing applies to taxes. It is time for us to get up to date.

Obviously, the size of this bill and the long period of time that passed between the introduction of the previous technical bill and this one show that this process still needs improvement.

On another topic, the NDP thinks that we need to combat tax avoidance and tax evasion, while preserving the integrity of our tax system. That is why we support the changes that this bill makes, particularly those aimed at reducing tax avoidance.

However, we also believe that much more needs to be done to truly address the problem of tax evasion.

According to some estimates, the Canadian tax system is losing between $5.3 billion and $7.8 billion in revenue a year to tax evasion alone. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists recently acquired a long list of individuals from all over the world who are holding billions of dollars in tax havens. According to the consortium, approximately 450 Canadians are on that list. We are not just making this up. We need to find out where all of this money is going.

What is more, according to the information that was recently published by Statistics Canada on foreign direct investments, Canadian investments in the top 12 tax havens worldwide exceeded $170 billion, which is equivalent to 10% of Canada's GDP.

It is true that the majority Conservative government is capable of losing track of $3 billion earmarked for public safety. As a result, it may have difficulty understanding what I am saying about tax evasion. I understand since the government has trouble implementing its own budget.

One of the main reasons why wealthy Canadians and large corporations want to put their money in tax havens is to simply avoid paying their fair share of taxes. That means billions of dollars in lost tax revenue for the federal government and fewer new jobs in Canada.

The government boasts that it has announced new investments to combat tax evasion, but unfortunately, this new money totals just one-quarter of the $113 million that this government has spent since 2009 to advertise its budgets.

Furthermore, the government has made some $250 million in cuts to the Canada Revenue Agency. These cuts led to the loss of about 3,000 jobs within that department.

The government is cutting the jobs of the people who are supposed to be working on combatting tax evasion. The Conservatives want to reduce the size of government—cut the red tape, as they say—but at what cost? They do not realize that sometimes we have to rely on the people who are able to help us. I do not think the Conservatives truly understand how important it is to combat tax evasion.

In spite of the government's lack of conviction, we believe that Bill C-48 will have a positive impact and will help discourage tax evasion.

In conclusion, the sheer size of this bill shows that the government must be more responsible in managing the tax system. More specifically, the government must ensure that it periodically passes legislation on proposed tax measures. Failure to do so creates uncertainty for business people, jurists and tax experts, and makes it nearly impossible for parliamentarians to do their jobs when they are faced with bills as big as the one we have today.

I must point out how important it is to focus on compliance to guarantee the integrity of the tax system.

The NDP believes that we must eliminate tax loopholes and work harder to combat tax havens. This government is tired and it is time for a change.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my hon. colleague on her speech on a topic that is certainly not easy for everyone to understand.

My question is one that might be asked by anyone who, like me, is following events by watching the headlines and who sees that, on the one hand, the bill encompasses tax notices of the past 10 or 11 years and, on the other hand, the government is still looking for $3.1 billion.

Will this reassure the general public?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his intervention.

I do not think this will be reassuring. In fact, nothing this government does is reassuring. I have said it before and I will keep repeating it: nothing has been done since 2001. Come on. That is embarrassing. This is a shameful time for the Parliament of Canada. Here we are and nothing has been done since 2001. Successive Liberal and Conservative governments have done nothing.

All parliamentarians should be ashamed to face Canadians and say that unfortunately we did not understand that this needed to be updated. We did not understand that tax measures needed to be introduced, that we needed to walk the talk and that we really had to tackle these issues. That is what the members opposite do not seem to understand.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her passion and the conviction she always brings to debate.

She was talking about fiscal responsibility and the lack of proper economic management on the government's side. We have a situation, for example, in my city in Toronto, where about 50% of all workers cannot find stable full-time jobs. That is an economic failure on the part of the federal government.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on that and on whether she sees similar situations like that in her city of Québec.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for my entire region, the Quebec City area, which has experienced devastating job losses. I am particularly thinking of the Canadian Coast Guard, Parks Canada, Veterans Affairs Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

Staff cuts have been made everywhere. Then the government tried to claim that services would remain the same and nothing would change. This is simply not true.

For example, the Canada Revenue Agency, which is also in my riding, lost 3,000 employees specializing in the fight against tax evasion. These are people with a particular skill, who do this particular job for the government and for all Canadians. In a few years, the government will be greatly surprised that these measures have not worked out.

Are the Conservatives wondering why? Because government jobs were cut, that is why. We know it; everyone knows it. Now the Conservatives must understand it too. This is how we will be able to act for all Canadians.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker,when I started as a young tax specialist, I was told—funnily enough—to interpret the law my way, namely in the manner most favourable to my client. I was told I should then contact various Revenue officials and send the file to the one who was most likely to agree with me. That is how it was, and how it still is, unfortunately.

The law is so complex that if you talk to different officials, you will get different answers. Will this bill change that?

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it will change anything because the necessary investments are not being made.

I do not know how many times I have seen a minister rise in the House and deny that there is a problem. They say that they invested a little money and that the problem will work itself out. I am sorry, but that is not the case. That is not how it works.

I do not know a lot about taxation, but I know enough to say that investing a little money will not make the system work. It takes competent people, such as legal and tax experts, people who specialize in their field. We have to trust them and believe in the work they do, not eliminate their jobs. It is important to understand that. It is fundamental.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to contribute to this very important discussion on Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, and on our government's low-tax plan for jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

Our government, through Canada's economic action plan, is creating the winning conditions for all businesses, and the people they employ, to compete in the global economy and to continue to create jobs. We are always looking to improve on this record while, at the same time, controlling spending by federal bureaucrats and maintaining the government's commitment not to raise taxes or cut transfers to Canadians and other levels of government.

Canadians understand the importance of living within their means, and taxpayers expect the government to do the same. That is why our Conservative government is committed to managing public finances in a sustainable and responsible manner, a commitment that underpins our plan to return to budgetary balance by 2015. It is this responsible financial management that put Canada in a position of strength when it came time to combat the global recession.

From 2006 to 2008, our government paid down over $37 billion in debt, thus enabling our government to implement the stimulus phase of Canada's economic action plan without leaving our country, like many other countries, in a vulnerable fiscal position. As a result, Canada weathered the global economic and financial crisis well, particularly when compared to all other G7 countries. In the words of the noted economist Don Drummond, there is not a single developed country in the world that would not kill to have our position.

To this day, the global economic environment remains fragile. The euro area is still in recession, and uncertainty regarding U.S. fiscal policy continues to weigh on growth prospects.

While Canada's economy is expected to continue growing at a modest pace, we are not immune to external developments. In these uncertain times, we all know that the absolutely most important thing any government could do is bolster confidence and growth and maintain a strong fiscal position.

This brings me to the subject of my address today, Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act. This is a broad and complex topic, so I will keep my remarks focused on three basic points.

I will begin by describing the highlights of Bill C-48. I will explain how it bolsters tax fairness for Canadian taxpayers. Finally, I will discuss how it maintains the competitive nature of the Canadian legal jurisdiction.

We have legislation before us today that takes further action to strengthen Canada's tax system. We must ensure its swift passage. I urge all my colleagues on the other side of the House to get on board and help us ensure tax fairness for all Canadians, just as members of the finance committee did earlier this year.

As Mr. Lorne Shillinger of KPMG said, “Whatever the process is of getting this bill enacted, stick to it, full speed ahead”.

I could not agree more. Let us pass this legislation so that all Canadians benefit.

As an overview, let me note that this bill will amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and related legislation to close tax loopholes and create a stronger and fairer tax system for all Canadians. The bill contains proposals that have been public for many years and was the subject of numerous, wide public consultations. Therefore, the bill is not new to the House. I want to note that the proposals in the bill represent the feedback from those numerous public consultations. Even better, they all aim to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of tax and is treated equitably under our tax laws.

As the legislation is quite technical in nature, I will be brief in my summary of its highlights.

In part 1 of Bill C-48, our government proposes enhancements to the Income Tax Act to better target and simplify those rules relating to non-resident trusts, taking into account comments received during those public consultations I was speaking of.

Parts 2 and 3 relate to the taxation of Canadian multinational corporations in respect of their foreign affiliates. Once again, our government consulted extensively with the public and stakeholders on these proposals with the objective being the creation of a fair and more equitable international tax system.

Part 4 of Bill C-48 would ensure that the tax rules work well under both common and civil law.

Part 5 of the bill would close tax loopholes and create greater fairness for taxpayers. Indeed, this portion of the bill would implement a number of integrity tax measures from 2010, on which we have consulted widely, to address any issues that may exist.

These particular measures would, first of all, close tax loopholes relating to a specified leasing property. We have heard that before in this House. Second, they would ensure that conversion of specified investment flow-through trusts and partnerships into corporations would be subject to rules similar to those for transactions between corporations. Third, they would prevent schemes designed to artificially increase foreign tax credits in order to reduce tax. Finally, they would implement a regime for information reporting of tax avoidance transactions. These are very important. Taken together, these measures would help crack down on tax avoidance and ensure that everyone pays their fair share of tax.

Part 5 also includes a number of technical changes that are designed to ensure that the income tax system functions in accordance with its underlying policy intent. Many of these changes would address issues identified by taxpayers themselves in the course of working through the application of the income tax rules to their own situations.

I cannot stress enough how important it is that this legislation be passed. Implementing these technical changes responds to both the 2009 Auditor General's report and the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

The Auditor General's report highlighted the importance of implementing technical amendments to give certainty to taxpayers and to the Canada Revenue Agency. The report recommended that technical measures be released on a regular basis. Indeed, Ms. Vicky Plant, Principal in the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, said this to the finance committee: “Mr. Chair, when the Department of Finance determines that some changes have to be made to the Income Tax Act, it is important that legislative changes be tabled in the House of Commons promptly”.

With this legislation, our government had done so. The report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts I just mentioned that once technical bills have been tabled, it is up to Parliament to ensure that they are passed.

It is not only the standing committee that feels that it is important for Parliament to pass this legislation. I will read a few quotes from tax experts who appeared at the finance committee earlier this year and pleaded for the swift passage of Bill C-48.

Kim Moody, of Moodys LLP Tax Advisors, said: “[O]ur firm supports the passage of Bill C-48.... [I]t is important to get it passed”.

Greg Boehmer, of Ernst and Young, said: “[W]e greet Bill C-48 with a sense of relief and hope to see its speedy passage”.

Andrew Kingissepp, of Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt LLP, said: “I would encourage all parties to enact this proposed legislation into law at the earlier opportunity”.

I again implore my colleagues across the way to ensure that Bill C-48 passes swiftly. It is critical to the integrity of the tax system that we do just that as parliamentarians in this House.

Not only does Bill C-48 respond to the above-mentioned reports, but it achieves other goals as well. Part 5 implements an income tax amendment relating to the enactment of the fairness for the self-employed act. It provides a tax credit in respect of employment insurance premiums paid by self-employed individuals. Part 6 of Bill C-48 implements technical amendments to the GST-HST, including relieving the GST-HST on the administrative service of collecting and distributing the levy on blank media imposed under the Copyright Act. This is very important.

Part 7 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act to provide for technical changes concerning tax administration agreements. Finally, part 8 coordinates amendments that ensure that the tax amendments in Bill C-48 interact properly with all other legislation. As all of the measures in the legislation have been examined in greater detail by the finance committee, I wish to emphasize that the underlying goal of this legislation is to simplify the tax system, make it easier to comply and administer, and create more fairness for all Canadian taxpayers.

Ensuring that everyone pays their fair share helps to keep taxes low for everyone and it improves incentives to work, save and invest. It attracts companies to our country. It attracts business in Canada. This is very important. Allow me to quote Mr. Larry F. Chapman, executive director and chief executive officer of the Canadian Tax Foundation, who stated to the Standing Committee on Finance earlier this year:

Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, the so-called tech bill, is a massive piece of legislation....but it represents 10 years of repairs and maintenance in updating the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act.

When members opposite stood in the House and showed the massive tax act bill, this is what this gentleman was referring to. It is a massive piece of legislation and represents 10 years of repairs and maintenance in updating the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act.

He further stated:

Its passage is important to all Canadians... I want to emphasize it again. Its passage is very important to all Canadians.

They are awaiting its passage in Parliament, waiting for parliamentarians to do the right thing.

All of us as taxpayers are obligated to provide a portion of our hard-earned incomes to fund health care, social programs and other vital services to Canadians. We do so willingly and honestly, asking only in return that governments both manage our tax dollars wisely and ask no more from us than our fair share. Canadians can count on our government to do both.

I hope all members in the House who were elected would commit to that basic fundamental principle of paying their fair share of taxes. It is troublesome when we hear of members who have not done that. Broadening and protecting the tax base supports the government's efforts to return to balanced budgets, responds to provincial governments' concerns about protecting provincial revenues on a shared tax basis and helps give Canadians confidence that our tax system is fair.

As part of the government's continuing commitment to keep taxes low for Canadian families and to ensure the integrity of the tax system, I am happy to report that economic action plan 2013 proposes a number of measures to close tax loopholes, address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules and reduce international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. Members on all sides of the House have mentioned this. The government is committed to closing tax loopholes that allow a select few businesses and individuals to avoid paying their fair share. Ensuring that everyone pays their fair share also helps to keep taxes low for Canadian families and businesses, thereby improving incentives to work, save and invest in Canada.

Since 2006, including measures proposed in economic action plan 2013, the government has introduced over 75 measures to improve the integrity of the tax system. The government is taking steps in economic action plan 2013 to improve the integrity of the tax system in several ways, such as further extending the application of Canada's thin capitalization rules to Canadian resident trusts and non-resident entities; ensuring that the lost pools of trust cannot be inappropriately traded among arm's-length persons; enhancing corporate anti-loss trading rules to address planning that avoids these rules; ensuring that derivative transactions cannot be used to convert fully taxable ordinary income into capital gains taxed at a lower rate; eliminating unintended tax benefits relating to leveraged, insured annuities; and eliminating unintended tax benefits relating to leveraged life insurance arrangements, commonly known as the 10/8 arrangements.

These are but a few of the improvements that are being proposed here today. In addition, economic action plan 2013 will provide the Canada Revenue Agency with new tools to enforce the tax rules to reduce international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance such as extending the normal reassessment period by three years for taxpayers who have failed to report income from a specified foreign property on their annual income tax return and failed to properly file the foreign income verification statement known as form T1135. This does happen quite legitimately sometimes, but it has to be addressed. Other tools include revising of form T1135 to require reporting of more detailed information; streamlining the process for the CRA to obtain information containing unnamed persons from third parties such as banks; requiring certain financial intermediaries, including banks, to report to the CRA their clients' international electronic funds transfers of $10,000 or more; and announcing the CRA's new stop international tax evasion program that will pay rewards to individuals with knowledge of major international tax non-compliance.

While ensuring its integrity and fairness, our government continues to work hard to ensure that the tax system remains competitive so that we attract new business investment in the Canadian economy that creates jobs that Canadian families depend on. Lower taxes 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 and help Canadian businesses grow and create more jobs.

As we all know, our government's tax changes have greatly improved Canada's business environment and tax competitiveness. Canada now has the lowest overall tax rate on new business investment in the G7. Our government recognizes that low taxes increase the productive capacity of the Canada economy as well as Canadian living standards. It is this productivity growth that allows businesses to hire additional workers or offer higher wages to expand production and earn more profits.

Our government is committed to lower taxes for all Canadians. That is why, since coming to office in 2006, we have introduced broad-based tax relief such as lowering the GST rate from 7% to 5% and introducing the tax-free savings account. In total, we have introduced more than 150 tax relief measures. Canadians at all income levels are benefiting from tax relief introduced by our government, with low-income and middle-income Canadians receiving proportionately greater relief. Indeed, more than one million low-income Canadians have been removed from the tax rolls. Our strong record of tax relief is saving the typical Canadian family of four more than $3,200 a year.

The legislation before us today takes us even further toward this tax fairness objective. Once again, I encourage the NDP and Liberals to support this important legislation and to help create greater tax fairness for all Canadians.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about how having the lowest business taxes in the G7 allows businesses to hire. Could she explain this to all the young people in Toronto and across the country who cannot find any kind of permanent job? In fact they are relegated to an endless cycle of unpaid internships and short-term contract employment. In Toronto right now the official unemployment rate for young people is above 15%, but we know that the unofficial rate is well above that. It is over 20%. What can the member say to young people about the government's abysmal record on job creation for young people? It is in the statistics. It is not in the speaking notes, but the stats are there.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is obviously very concerned about his riding. Therefore, I would hope that he would give new hope to those young people who are looking for jobs and tell them that now, in spite of the economic climate globally, our country is the most sought after country in terms of economic climate in the world. There are 900,000 net new jobs that have been created.

I think it is a really good idea not to say to our youth that our country is no good and nothing is going right in our country when actually it is the envy of the world. Those 900,000 new jobs are very important for these young people and they can get out and get them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is going to be supporting the passage of this bill, and we indicated that at second reading.

Average Canadians look at tax avoidance or tax evasion as a serious issue that needs to be addressed. The bill, in principle, by its passage would go a long way in dealing with that issue. Our constituents want to ensure that there is a sense of fairness to our taxation policy and it is one of the reasons that we feel it is important to pass the bill in a timely fashion.

My question to the member is regarding the frequency of having legislation of this nature come before the House. There is concern about the length of time since it was amended in the past. We would like to think that we would not see that kind of gap in the future. Does she have some thoughts about what would be an appropriate time for passage of future changes to legislation of this nature?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, this started in 2001 when the tax fairness plan and loopholes were first looked at. As I said in my speech earlier, the fact of the matter is it has taken years to work with this. We were not actually in government in 2001. There was another government here. It takes a long time for governments to close all these loopholes that have been long-standing.

When we do a piece of legislation like this we want to do broad consultation. Broad consultation was done on this and there were things found that had to be addressed that no one had ever thought of. Therefore, with the finance committee and others culminating with this examination, this big bill has arrived now in Parliament, and it is very important that we get it passed very quickly.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if anyone is watching, they are wondering why it has taken so long for this to happen. The fact that this bill is 1,000 pages long proves just how negligent this government is and how negligent previous governments were.

That brings me to two other questions. Who benefits from this being so complicated and that we need experts to figure it out? Who would benefit from it being simple and clear? Obviously, their negligence was not an accident.

This government, and perhaps the one before it, wanted this to remain complex and wanted to foster confusion for as long as possible, so that those who can afford to make use of tax experts would have an advantage.

What does my colleague think?

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

Mr. Speaker, as the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada said, as they welcomed the passage of Bill C-48:

As the last technical income tax bill was passed by Parliament in 2001, a significant backlog has accumulated that must be addressed. The Government has consulted on the majority of these measures in recent years and now is the time for action.

The fact of the matter is that our government has consulted widely. It did start in 2001 before we were in government, but the ball was picked up because it had to be picked up. These tax loopholes had to be addressed.

As the member says, the bill is 1,000 pages long and it has now taken 200 days in this Parliament to pass it. When members opposite are talking about the speedy passage of this bill, one way that would be helpful is for all members opposite to support this bill and get it passed.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech on Bill C-48 which, as she said, is quite long.

I would like to know if, as a parliamentarian, she thinks it is a good idea to have a bill that is about 1,000 pages. I would also like to know if she has read it. If she has, that means that when she votes on it, she will be voting with a full understanding of the situation, and she will know what she is voting on.

If she has actually read it and fully understands the content, I would like to know which measure in this bill she prefers.

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

Mr. Speaker, to be perfectly honest, I will not begin to say that I have read the 1,000 pages thoroughly, but I can say that I have gone through it and studied the parts that are very relevant to me.

I know I have been kept abreast of the consultations that have been going on. I have also been kept abreast of the issues that have popped up when companies and individuals have not paid their fair share of Canadian taxes.

I also know how important this bill is. Simply because we are coming out of a recession is one very important aspect. Every single honest Canadian is paying taxes, as we all are in this Parliament. Everybody, whether they are very wealthy or very poor, must be honest Canadians as well, or honest people who pay Canadian taxes.

Having said this, it has been a long consultation, a long process. It has been 200 days in this Parliament. I think as parliamentarians we can sit back and say it is a big thick book and we cannot get into it until sometime next year, but Canada is waiting. Canadians are waiting for the results. Canadian taxpayers are waiting to ensure everybody is paying their fair share of taxes. We need to do that.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if any of my law faculty colleagues from long ago are watching right now, they will probably be sniggering because they will remember that tax law was not my favourite field. I would add that it was not the favourite field of many law students.

However, it is probably the subject that affects people's everyday lives the most. People always talk about the long arm of the government and how it finds all kinds of ways, each more imaginative than the next, to reach in and take what we earn with the sweat of our brow. Sometimes it does that under what is called the Income Tax Act. At other times it does so by means of hidden taxes, which are highly valued by the Conservatives, with charges levied on all kinds of things.

We pay our share every day and our money flows in many ways into the government's coffers. Many people will obviously wonder why I am rising to discuss Bill C-48. I am doing so because it has an impact on everyone's life. It has an impact on the lives of the people in my riding, Gatineau. That is as true for small businesses as it is for big businesses, but it is also true for individuals. They pay every day through the GST, and barely a month ago they did through their income tax returns, so this is not the easiest subject.

Earlier I flipped through the act and thought back on marvellous memories of my time at the law faculty and on the Income Tax Act, just from looking at a few sections of the act. I wondered why legislators were incapable of coming up with anything simpler.

I was listening to the member on the other side of the House who spoke before me. Several questions were put to her, all asking the same thing: why are we making technical amendments in 2013 that should have been in place since 2001? Let us get something straight. This is technical, but Bill C-48 is already in force by means of comfort letters.

People must understand that, from the moment the mean taxman decides that something must be done, it is done, even if it is not yet included in the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act or related legislation. From the moment a comfort letter is signed, the government takes that money from our pockets. This will therefore make little change to people's lives, but it will be much easier to access because it will finally be in the act. Comfort letters are all well and good, and they say what they say, but they are not always clear.

For individuals, our tax system is based on voluntary assessment. In other words, we rely on average Canadians to file their tax return by April 30. If they are lucky, and Revenue Canada does not ask them to produce various documents, they can use the short form. In fact, it is not over yet. Even for people with some training in taxation, it is not very straightforward.

As the Auditor General said, this is not like other bills, where we have seen three versions die on the order paper as a result of an election or prorogation forced by the Conservative government, whose agenda disappeared as if by magic. In this case, the work just was not done. The work was also not done by the Liberals, since the previous legislation dates back to 2001. Auditors general have been calling on the legislators of the House for ages to do something about this more quickly.

In this way, the public could immediately see the changes to the legislation.

In my opinion, the Conservative response to this matter does not stand up. The legislation has not had previous incarnations, nor has it taken a great deal of time, nor is it the opposition’s fault. That is absolutely not the case.

It has taken them this long to produce Bill C-48 and finally listen to what the Auditor General was telling them. What she was telling them was rather serious and blunt. She noted that there were more than 400 technical amendments, and there are barely 200 in Bill C-48.

In her fall 2009 report she said:

No income tax technical bill has been passed since 2001. Although the government has said [as quick as the devil] 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.

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.

This is true, whether you are a New Democrat, a Liberal, the sole member of the Green Party or one of the few from the Bloc Québécois. This is true for everyone, including the Conservatives.

In the 1991 Report of the Auditor General, chapter 2, the Auditor General expressed some concerns that income tax comfort letters were not announced publicly. We are talking about chapter 2 of the Auditor General's report from 1991. 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. However, in the past 18 years, very few technical bills have been introduced and passed. Only four of the bills relating to income tax have been passed.

A few sentences in my colleague's speech caught my attention. I found them surprising because it seemed to me that I had heard them yesterday as well. It is important to understand that all these bills are subject to a time allocation motion, be it Bill C-48 today, Bill C-54 last night or Bill C-49, which is to come and will not be spared either.

Introducing a time allocation motion for Bill C-48 seems particularly outrageous, especially when the members opposite do it ad nauseam, parroting the lines written and produced for them by the office on the third floor.

They are trying to tell us that this has been before the House for 200 days, yet Bill C-54 was also in the House for 200 days, as was Bill C-48, and Bill C-49 probably will be, as well.

With its majority, the government can advance its agenda as it pleases. Perhaps we are moving at a snail's pace because the government does not really know where it is going. It improvises a little and all of a sudden it realizes that the session may end and that it will leave a lot of things unfinished. That is why it is speeding everything up.

I hear people say we are repeating ourselves, but that is not the case. The message the people of Gatineau want me to send the Conservative government, particularly on Bill C-48, is that they are fed up with provisions so inaccessible and incomprehensible to the average person that everyone would like us to change those aspects.

When I got to page 13 of the Income Tax Act, I had covered only three sections, and I was already getting fed up.

Yet I was a lawyer for 30 years. I studied tax law. I was elected as a member in 2004. I have analyzed many budgets, and I have seen the Income Tax Act in all its forms, as a member of both the government and the official opposition. I was not born yesterday, but this can be hard to grasp even for someone like me.

Small businesses also point out a problem I regularly hear about in my riding of Gatineau. For a small business required to complete all the forms, the disproportionate amount of red tape is good only for the numbers expert industry.

When members of the middle class or less privileged individuals want to do the right thing and pay their taxes, but do not really know how the system works, they have to go see an expert to be sure they make no mistakes. Few people like to make mistakes when it comes to taxes. However, some people manage to divert a large portion of what they owe in taxes even though they make millions of dollars. Authorities often go after lower-income individuals and treat them like criminals even though some people are forced to make arrangements with the Canada Revenue Agency, Revenu Québec or other organizations simply because everyday life is hard for them.

We get these kinds of messages in our ridings. True, we will vote for the bill, but the Conservatives tell us to shut our traps the moment we agree with them. We are no longer entitled to speak. I do not have the right to tell the House what the people of my riding would like to get from their politicians, and I was elected by 62% of the electorate, not 39% like the Conservative government. There are lessons to be learned from each of our ridings. That is what democracy means. It means electing 308 members of different political philosophies. Gatineau may not have the same problem as certain ridings in Alberta, British Columbia or the Atlantic provinces. That is what makes it possible for us to improve the situation together.

Voting in favour of a bill is not necessarily the same thing as giving the government carte blanche or saying that overall the bill is amazing. Sometimes, the government would do well to listen to us and follow the interpretation, which it does not often do. This is unfortunate, but there is a reason why it sticks to the script, like a racehorse running straight for the finish line. The Conservatives’ problem is that they often hit a wall because they fail to listen to what people were saying along the way. That is regrettable, but the message they are sending to all of our constituents is that their opinion does not matter in the least.

Yet if there is one issue that affects all Canadians, regardless of where they live, surely it is taxation. My grandmother always said that in certain areas of life, things should be the same for everyone. I am sure that she would qualify that statement, since some people are good at avoiding certain things. She used to say that some things were unavoidable, like death and taxes. She was right up to a point, although she would surely be turning in her grave at all of the tax avoidance measures that abound today.

While I am very pleased to see that Bill C-48 attempts to address certain problems, I am not fooled either. The Minister of Justice argues that by amending and toughening up certain laws, the problems of all crime victims will be resolved. That is not true. If the government fails to put more police officers on the highways and to increase funding for psychological support services, then it will not accomplish anything. The same holds true for tax avoidance.

If there are not enough agents to properly investigate cases of tax avoidance, or better still, of tax evasion, we will hit another wall.

Again, this is a problem that the Conservatives have. They have an extremely narrow vision of how to get from point A to point B. They are incapable of appreciating that in order to get to point B and the desired outcome, they might have to make a small detour. The Conservatives just do not do certain things, like admitting they were wrong or that they made a mistake. According to an old saying, a fault confessed is half redressed. They have a hard time with that and again, that is unfortunate.

Bill C-48 is a sound piece of legislation, but it does resolve everything. Had we not had to contend with this time allocation motion, we would have been able to hear a lot more from my colleagues, and maybe even from the Conservatives.

I listened to some of the speeches, and it was interesting to see what it is about this bill that makes some Conservatives react. Once they had dispensed with “we are the best, the nicest, the cleverest” or what have you, in the final 30 seconds, they tied it to what was happening in their riding. It was beneficial for all members of the House.

We can all learn from one another. I learn something from my colleagues who represent more rural regions. They in turn learn about what makes people in urban areas tick. Of course, there are different kinds of urban areas. There are large cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver and cities like Gatineau, which is the fourth-largest municipality in Quebec. Gatineau’s problems are different because it is located right on the Ontario border. By talking to one another, it is possible to find real solutions.

When I served in Parliament from 2004 to 2006, I chaired the women’s caucus. Back then, my favourite expression was gender-based analysis, or GBA.

I would tell my male colleagues that GBA stood for gender-based analysis, not Game Boy Advance. When a bill was being drafted, we ensured that all of the facts were taken into account. We were not just concerned about women.

The best example I can give you is young people who drop out of school. If the facts show that young boys are the ones who drop out of school and a policy is needed to address that situation, then young boys will be the focus of that policy. That logic will dictate our actions.

We accomplish things by talking to one another, by discussing matters and especially by listening and by being willing to admit that sometimes ours is not the absolute truth. However, this government is absolutely incapable of understanding that someone other than the PMO may have some sound ideas or be right. Just imagine having to admit that the NDP had a sound idea. The government thinks the sky would fall and something terrible would happen if it admitted that. How utterly ridiculous and how out of touch with the public.

When I weigh everything, I tell myself that maybe this is what the Conservatives really want in the final analysis. All this really does is leave the public fed up, and what happens when people are fed up? The Conservatives are gambling on two possible outcomes: either that people will come out in force and vote them out of office, which I am hoping will be the case because people no longer want to have anything to do with them, or that people will stay home because they are sick and tired of the whole process. The Conservatives are gambling that the second scenario will play out.

I think people have to realize that while they may not be interested in politics, something like Bill C-48 affects their day-to-day lives, starting with taxation.

Just think about the tax people pay every day on all kinds of things. If they were to calculate how much tax they pay throughout the year, not just income tax, but tax on items purchased at the corner store, at the grocery store, at the drugstore or elsewhere, they would realize that the government is truly omnipresent and that perhaps they should pay attention to politics.

I will be voting in favour of the bill, but it is not an end in itself.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a number of New Democrats referred to the time and said that 2001 was the last time that technical changes were made. One can imagine that changes are not made on an annual basis per se, but depend on the changes that are required.

My question is related to just that. How often does the member believe it is necessary to make changes? Would she not agree that bringing out a new piece of legislation would depend on the nature and the number of changes that are being requested?

For example, 2002 would not have been a good year to bring additional legislation forward, given that changes were made in 2001. Would the member suggest that we go on an annual basis with legislation?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question.

I think that the Auditor General has actually provided part of the answer. In my view, once there are comfort letters, a corresponding bill should be drafted to make adjustments immediately.

From 2001 to 2006, there was no temporary gap in tax rules because there were comfort letters. The Conservatives came to power afterwards.

The Auditor General told us to stop using comfort letters for the sake of those reading the legislation. Luckily, I was able to do my 20 minutes without reading part of the Income Tax Act. That would have been a real treat. Sections 1 to 5 alone take the reader through subparagraph after subparagraph. Do you think that the individuals concerned can make sense of this? No way. This is why the Auditor General wants us to put an end to comfort letters and amend legislation quickly.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired. The hon. member for Gatineau will have eight minutes remaining in questions and comments when this matter returns before the House.

Statements by members, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.

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 third time and passed.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-48 and participate in this debate.

While this legislation is indeed a technical bill, as its name suggests, it is nevertheless important. The bill before us today has been over a decade in the making and represents over 10 years of miscellaneous tax announcements.

While Canadians have been repeatedly and broadly consulted on these measures, because they have not yet been formally enacted by Parliament, the tax system has become overwhelmingly backlogged. Previous attempts to pass technical tax legislation by governments of all stripes have been unsuccessful for a variety of reasons. Not only have governments attempted to address this backlog, the Auditor General has identified it as a matter of significant concern as far back as 2009.

All members can agree the time has come to formally legislate these technical amendments into our tax system. We all know that a sound tax system is one of the cornerstones of a strong economy and a strong economy is a top priority for our Conservative government. Through Canada's economic action plan, we are helping to ensure that all entrepreneurs and businesses have the opportunity to succeed in the global economy and continue to create jobs. That means keeping taxes low and the tax system predictable, as we are doing through today's legislation.

It also means we should have a tax system that is simple and fair for all. Indeed, our government is firmly and strongly aware of the importance of tax fairness, truly a concept that all members should understand and support. It is a basic principle that our government is committed to upholding, something that everyone, especially members, needs to remember if they try to skip out on their own taxes.

I will address that and other important tax issues in my time today as I discuss Bill C-48 in great detail. As members know, this technical bill would amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and other related legislation to simplify the tax system and make it more predictable, while also closing tax loopholes and creating a stronger and fairer tax system for all Canadians.

I should note that this bill and its measures were previously released for a repeated public consultation before its introduction in late 2012. To highlight the importance of that consultation, especially with tax professionals, the Office of the Auditor General at a recent meeting of the finance committee stated:

It was certainly part of our recommendation that the draft legislation be released for comment so that practitioners could provide input. That's an important part of the process. This means that before it actually gets tabled in the House, it's had input and it's not going to be a surprise to the practitioners. If there are any glitches, they can be straightened out.

As members can see, the proposals in this bill reflect the feedback our government has received from all Canadians, especially those tax professionals. Indeed, Bill C-48 has received its due diligence and our Conservative government is ready to move forward with ensuring tax fairness for all Canadians.

I should note that even the all-party finance committee endorsed this bill, without amendment, after a very detailed study. Witness after witness spoke in favour of the bill. This is what some of those witnesses had to say.

I will first quote from Gabe Hayos, Vice-President of Taxation, Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, who stated:

We support Bill C-48. The CICA understands how important it is for taxpayers to have greater certainty and a clearer understanding of Canada's federal income tax system.... Bill C-48 helps improve clarity and certainty, and it mitigates the negative effects of uncertainty identified by the Auditor General.

Second, Larry Chapman, executive director and chief executive officer of the Canadian Tax Foundation said at committee:

Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012...represents 10 years of repairs and maintenance in updating the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act. Its passage is important to all Canadians. You heard that in the earlier presentation. I want to emphasize it again. Its passage is very important to all Canadians....Delays in the passage of tax legislation leave taxpayers and their advisers in a no man's land of uncertainty. My message for the Standing Committee on Finance is that you should encourage passage of this legislation...

Paul Hickey, a tax partner of KPMG, added in his testimony at committee:

[I] ask Parliament to act decisively and to pass Bill C-48 to essentially clean the slate of this old pending legislation and to finally bring the Income Tax Act up to date. Taxpayers could then move on and focus on running their business, and the CRA could carry on administering and collecting tax in a more stable system.

Finally, we heard from Carole Presseault, vice-president of government and regulatory affairs, Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, who said at committee:

—I wish to say that we support the tabling of the bill and that we encourage you to move swiftly to pass this important piece of legislation. The bill deals with a massive backlog of unlegislated tax measures. Its passage would, in our opinion, bring greater clarity to the tax system and strengthen the integrity of our laws.

That is just a very small sampling of the support that the committee heard for the bill.

Let me highlight a number of points in the bill. I will do my best to recap it succinctly and as briefly as possible, especially in light of its technical nature.

Part 1 of the bill proposes enhancements to the Income Tax Act to better target and simplify rules relating to the non-residents trust, taking into account comments received during public conversation.

Parts 2 and 3 relate to the taxation of Canadian multinational corporations in respect to their foreign affiliates, the result of which would be a more fair and equitable international tax system.

Part 4 deals with ensuring that the tax rules work well under both common and civil law, while part 5 would close tax loopholes and create greater fairness for taxpayers.

This part of the bill would implement a number of integrity tax measures that were first publicly released in 2010, on which we have consulted extensively since then.

These particular measures would close loopholes relating to specific leasing of properties and ensure that conversion of specific investments flow-through trusts and partnerships into corporations would be subject to rules similar to those governing transactions between corporations.

It would deal with schemes designed to artificially increase foreign tax credits in order to reduce taxes. In fact, it would prevent that from happening.

Finally, it would implement a regime for information reporting on tax avoidance and of transactions.

As an overall package of items, these key initiatives would help crack down on tax avoidance and ensure that every Canadian paid their fair share of tax.

At the same time, part 5 also includes a number of very technical changes essentially designed to ensure that the income tax system functions in accordance to policy that it is intended to operate under.

Most of these technical changes would address issues identified by everyday Canadian taxpayers working through the application of the income tax rules in their own personal or working studies.

Part 5 would also implement an income tax amendment relating to the enactment of the Fairness of Self-Employment Act. It would provide a tax credit in respect of employment insurance premiums paid by self-employed individuals, a change that this government has made.

Part 6 of the bill would implement the technical amendments to the GST and HST, including relieving the GST and HST on the administrative services of collecting and distributing the levy on blank media imposed under the Copyright Act, which we updated.

Part 7 would amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act to provide for technical changes concerning tax administration agreements.

Finally, Part 8 consists of coordinating amendments that would ensure that the tax amendments in this legislation interact properly with other legislation.

While these measures may seem technical, they are crucial to the fair and efficient functioning of our tax system and they have been consulted on a repeated basis. Now is the time to pass the bill.

Tax professional Carole Presseault again, who was one of the many expert witnesses who appeared before finance committee to speak to the importance of the bill and its passage, said:

—this bill needs to get passed. My concern doesn't result in the study of this bill. This bill has been studied; it's been consulted. My colleagues here, the witnesses, have also expressed that it's been extensively studied. Stakeholders have had an opportunity over the last decade to comment on the various provisions of this bill, and, yes, please, what's required is for it to be passed expeditiously.

Tax fairness and a competitive tax system are important to this government. As taxpayers, we are all forced to give up a part of our hard-earned income to fund government programs like health care, policing and other services for Canadians. We do so willingly and honestly and under the understanding that everyone is paying their fair share. Canadians who play by the rules do not like tax cheats and neither does this Conservative government. That is exactly why today's legislation would help fight tax cheats.

To quote noted tax practitioner Greg Boehmer of Ernst & Young, who also appeared in front of finance committee:

It's very clear that this legislation is aimed at fairness, that it does close a number of loopholes, and that it does broaden the base in certain circumstances.

Additionally, as part of our government's broader efforts to keep taxes low for Canadian families and ensure integrity in our tax system, economic action plan 2013 included a number of measures to close tax loopholes, address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules and reduce international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance.

As everyone knows, our government is very committed to closing tax loopholes that allowed a select few businesses and individuals to avoid paying their fair share. Ensuring that everyone pays their fair share also helps to keep taxes low for Canadian families and businesses, thereby improving incentives to work, save and invest in Canada.

Since 2006, as has been said before, our Conservative government has introduced a whopping 75-plus measures to improve the integrity of the tax system. Bill C-48 would work in partnership with other governments, improving efforts to promote tax fairness, a fact which did not go unnoticed during finance committee's careful consideration of this legislation.

When it comes to our Conservative government's priorities, the witnesses were absolutely correct. However, in addition to ensuring its integrity and fairness, our government remains dedicated to ensuring the tax system remains competitive so we can attract vital new business investment to Canada and to grow the economy and create jobs.

Lower Canadian taxes are critical in supporting economic growth by enabling Canadian business to invest more of their revenues back into their operations and into their workers. These businesses invest in machinery, equipment, information technology and other physical capital that are components of an improving Canadian productivity.

Taken as a whole, there is no question that our government's actions have made a noticeable difference. Canada now has the lowest overall tax rate on a new business investment in the G7, a policy proven to increase productivity and to contribute to a higher standard of living for all of us.

In conclusion, our government strongly believes that Canadians deserve lower taxes, not just a select few. That is why, since coming into office in 2006, Canadians from every walk of life are benefiting from the tax relief introduced by our government, such as the lowering of the GST and the landmark TFSA.

I would like to add that I have a 22-year-old daughter who is just starting out in the world. One of her questions to me recently was whether she should invest in a TFSA and whether that would that help her in the long run.

Our message is getting out there. I did not give her that message. She came to me about it. There are opportunities and the need for Canadians to invest and save.

Also, one million low-income Canadians have been removed from our tax rolls. This is a fact.

Our strong record of tax relief is saving the typical Canadian family of four more than $3,200 each year.

Also, our government has shut down tax loopholes in the system in order to stop people avoiding to pay their fair share of tax. Ensuring tax fairness is just another way that our Conservative government will keep taxes low for Canadians and their families. I am proud that the bill before us today will help us go even further in meeting that objective.

I encourage all my colleagues to vote in favour of tax fairness and to support this important legislation here this evening.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, my question is on tax fairness and equity in the system.

There is something missing in the bill, and would be some method of determining the inflation rate within the north for the northern residents tax deduction.

In 2007, after constant lobbying on my part and on the part of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the territorial governments, which were asking for a 50% increase in this northern residents tax deduction that had not been changed since 1989, the government gave us 10%.

Over the last six years, that 10% has been taken up by inflation. We are back to square one. We have not had the increases that would make the system fairer.

Why did the Conservative government not put something into this legislation that would identify an inflation increase to the northern residents tax deduction, something that is absolutely required in the north? We are losing workers. The cost of living has gone up so high in the north that people are not staying there anymore. They are flying in and out to their jobs. What has happened in northern Canada in terms of the cost of living is a disgrace.

Why did the Conservative government ignore the important requirements of tax equity and fairness for northern people?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the passion the hon. member across has for his constituency. He is from the north. However, I do have to bring him back to the purpose of this bill we are debating this evening.

His question was with regard to a policy issue in the tax system. However, the bill we are dealing with today, Bill C-48, deals with legislation that has already been passed, that has had regulations and some changes to the Tax Act, or a number of other acts such as the Excise Tax Act. The purpose of the bill is to catch up on the tax changes that happened to the Tax Act. There is a legislative requirement that the House pass those minor changes to bring them into law.

The fact is that the CRA puts a note out with respect to the changes that are made. They go into effect virtually immediately and the industry, mostly the tax professionals, accepts those as being in place. However, this bill would actually put them into law.

It has been 10 years, and that is a long time. I do agree with the auditor's report that we need to be doing these minor catch-up tax amendments more often than every decade.

However, the question he asked has absolutely nothing to do with the bill.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Burlington gave a fine speech. He is also a legendary member of the finance committee, and I have the privilege of serving on the finance committee as well. We have studied the bill at length.

It is somewhat puzzling. This is something that I understand has been in the works since 2003 or possibly even longer. I understand, too, that this legislation has been given to us by the bureaucrats, those people who try to correct the tax law. As it states, these problems have cropped up through the years. These are things with which nobody disagrees. The tax lawyers, the people who make money on preparing people's taxes, said that they needed clarity, that they needed the bill to pass.

Why did it take so long to get this bill passed?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just this bill; it is a number of bills that this government has faced.

We came to office as the Conservative government with a plan to take action and do things for Canadians: to move the economy, to create jobs. In its foresight, the public decided we would have a minority government for a number of years, which made it difficult to get things done and move things forward.

Now that we have a majority government, we are able to move quickly, efficiently and effectively to put things in place that Canadians need to move forward, to create jobs, create work, create wealth and improve the quality of life we have here as Canadians.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, it is a rare privilege to have an opportunity to ask my colleague a couple of question.

He talked a lot about tax fairness and equity in his speech. I remember when the Conservatives thought they needed to fix the capital gains exemption for small businesses. They said it had fallen behind inflation, so they upped it by 50%. That was fair, and we did not argue about that.

When does the member think we should deal with fairness in the tax system? The tinkering by the government that the member is talking about with these various components in this technical tax act are simply that. Where do we see the fairness in the system? Where do we see that the actual needs of Canadians are being taken into account when we look at the tax system, how it is set up and how it delivers for Canadians?

When the member and his government talk about the $3,000 per average family, that is not the average family. The $3,000 is quite a bit larger for the more wealthy families and quite a bit smaller for the less wealthy families. Where is the money going in the system? Where is the fairness?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite for Western Arctic because it is a question about fairness in the tax system. This bill deals with closing the tax loopholes that people are using to avoid paying taxes, whether they be illegal or very aggressive tax plans. When we talk about fairness, we are talking about fairness with respect to those changes we have made to the tax code, so that the legislative piece ensures everyone is paying their fair share.

On a more broad approach to this question, I am glad the member for Western Arctic is interested in tax fairness because that would mean I can look for that member to stand in favour of our budget implementation bills that move forward on closing tax loopholes. If the member is serious about closing tax loopholes and being fair to all taxpayers, I believe he should be supporting our implementation bills, including Bill C-60 when it comes back to the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the question was posed and the member was trying to say it was the opposition who was holding up these bills.

The government and the member know very well that a similar bill was tabled and moved very quickly prior to the last election. It has taken from November 21, 2012 until now, 2013, to table this bill, and now there is a rush to get it through.

I wonder if the member can answer this honestly. Why did it take the government so long to pass such an important bill forward? In 2009, when it was also the government of the day, Sheila Fraser, the then Auditor General, indicated we were lagging in ensuring this type of legislation was in place to deal with this technical aspect. Why did it take it so long? It was not because we were not supporting it.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at a bit of the history of the bill.

The hon. member mentioned that it was in front of the House before and was moving forward. It was the opposition that forced the election and put an end to that. It was not our party that did that. I think our friends in the third party were active in forcing the election, and it probably did not work out so well for them.

I do agree with the Auditor General's position on this. One point I would like to make, and I am glad the member opposite brought it up, is my personal view that the Auditor General's reports are an opportunity for government and the opposition. They are performance audits, not financial audits. They show where we are doing well and where we are not doing well. They give us, as a government, an opportunity to improve.

This is exactly what we are doing through this bill. We agree 100% with the Auditor General's report on where we should be going with these technical amendments. In the future that will happen, as long as we have a Conservative majority government.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

The Liberal Party is very happy to support this legislation. It is a very important thing that we have to do here, to legislate some of the changes in the tax code. I do know that these are technical changes.

I would like to talk about something that I was told by someone who worked in the Department of Finance. If we look at how big the tax code was, going back several decades, we can see that it has gotten thicker. To some extent that should be expected because the economy is getting more complicated and there are always new ideas about how to improve the tax system. Sometimes it means that the tax system becomes a bit more complicated, but sometimes we figure out ways to make it easier to comply with the tax code by streamlining the rules.

I know this is an ongoing process. It is somewhat unfortunate that it has been a long time, 2001, since changes were made in legislation. It has been some time in coming, and as my hon. colleague from Burlington mentioned, it is about time. There was a bit of debate at the end of his speech about whether the changes should have occurred earlier, but, such as it is, now is the time that we have on the legislative calendar to make these changes.

It should be an ongoing process to look at the tax code, and to keep thinking about ways we can improve it, streamline it, and decrease the cost of compliance, the time it takes, the resources, and the people who have to be hired to comply with the tax code. As economists know, the payment of taxes, as well as the cost of compliance with potentially complex tax codes, is a dead-weight loss to the economy. It is a loss to our productivity.

If we can avoid it, all of these ways of streamlining our tax system can improve the performance of the economy and result in more wealth for the things we really need, such as health care, pensions, preparing for the future, protecting our natural environment, training our youth, and preparing our economy to compete against the rest of the world so that Canada can remain prosperous.

My hon. colleague from Burlington also mentioned a couple of things that I would like to refer to. He mentioned something I hear quite often from the government members, about tax savings to the typical family of $3,000 a year. However, what they fail to mention is that if we look a little more closely, these tax savings correspond to a family of four with two working parents and an income of $100,000 a year. Unfortunately, that is not the average family in a lot of places. In my riding, the median household income is only $60,000 per year.

My hon. colleague from Burlington raised a misleading figure in his speech. I know that it is not relevant to the topic of this bill, but I think that since my hon. colleague spent some time praising the government's tax policy, I should rebut what he is saying.

The problem is not only that the typical family does not make $100,000 a year and will not have received the $3,000 in tax cuts the government claims. Let us say that a family makes $100,000 a year. The family might have saved $3,000 a year in taxes. Multiply that by five years and it is about $15,000 in tax savings, but at the same time, this family of four's per capita share of the national debt has increased by $16,000. It turns out that it happens to be a little bit more than the tax savings. Even this family of four that is not typical that the Conservative government likes to use as a point of illustration is actually worse off once we take into account the fact that their share of the national debt has increased by more than the claimed tax savings. It is important to take the time in the House to rebut some of the myths propagated by the Conservative government. I appreciate this opportunity to have the time to do that.

I would like to address another issue in response to the speech by my hon. colleague from Burlington, and I must say that it was a good speech. It did not sound like a lot of speeches in the House, when people are reading and it sounds very mechanical and like words somebody else wrote. The member's speech was not one of those speeches. He follows the fine tradition in the House of speaking one's mind and speaking one's own words. I want to commend my colleague from Burlington for that.

I want to get back to another one of my colleague's claims, because he talked a lot about tax fairness. Tax fairness can be difficult to define. We heard from the member for Western Arctic, who asked questions of my hon. colleague from Burlington about the northern residence income tax deduction.

Depending on one's point of view, one can disagree about what is fair, what is not fair and what changes need to be made to make the tax code fairer.

One of the problems with the income tax changes the Conservative government has proposed and that the Conservative Party proposed in a past election campaign is the non-refundable tax credits for things such as art lessons, physical activity camps for kids, certain kinds of lessons for adults and tax-free savings accounts. I am very happy for my hon. colleague from Burlington's daughter who is now thinking about a tax-free savings account, which means that she is gainfully employed, which means that my hon. colleague is undoubtedly very proud and in many respects has done a good job as a father. However, the tax-free savings account is essentially a tax cut for people who have an income, and it is a bigger tax cut for people who have a larger income. It is debatable, and I would argue that it does not quite move in the direction of fairness. With many of the tax cuts the government has given to Canadians, people with higher incomes have benefited more than they really needed to if we were only thinking of fairness.

I had to take that time to respond to the speech by my hon. colleague from Burlington to say that it is not obvious to say what is fair and what is not. There is an argument to be made that what the government has done is not quite fair.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Kingston and the Islands for his speech and for opening the door for me to ask a question that does not actually relate to the bill in front of us. It is based on the member's speech.

There is an important distinction between refundable tax credits and non-refundable tax credits. Before we took office, I looked at how many tax credits were fully refundable, and there were very few refundable tax credits. I would say that there were three. A non-refundable tax credit means that people have to actually pay tax to get the credit. Is it fair that if people do not pay tax, they get a tax credit? Is that not the purpose of a tax credit?

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in many ways, this is a very profound question about what tax fairness is. I think many people of the Conservative persuasion would say that what people deserve to have is whatever income they have. It is because they did the work, and they earned the income, so they really should be keeping all of it and the government should not have any of it. That is sort of the starting point for a lot of Conservative thought.

What I would say about a different way of approaching things, and I should say that it is a characteristically Liberal Party way of thinking about it, is that people's success in life and in society, in particular their economic and financial success and well-being, is half luck and half hard work.

The income I earn is half hard work, because I worked hard in school, followed my parents' advice, worked hard when I got a job and earned it, and I deserve something. However, when I look back at my own life, I have to say that I was lucky in many respects. I was lucky to live in Canada, where there is a good education system, good infrastructure and a lot of opportunity.

It is a very rich country. I was fortunate to grow up in Canada and to benefit from the institutions and traditions that have been set up here in Canada. I have been very fortunate to grow up in a certain part of Canada that offered me a lot of opportunity.

I do not deserve to keep all of what I earn. I have a responsibility to pay back something. That is another way of looking at taxes. That is why it makes sense that tax fairness might mean taxing people with higher incomes a little bit more, and taxing—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. I know the hon. member for Davenport would like to ask a question of the member for Kingston and the Islands, so I will stop him there. The hon. member for Davenport.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during this debate we have heard the government side consistently trumpet their supposed handling, in a good way, of the economy.

In light of current scandals, some of the other scandals have sort of gone down the list, making way for bigger scandals. One is the missing $3.1 billion. There is a responsibility to disclose and reveal where that $3.1 billion is. We are not even talking about $50 million for gazebos.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would like to comment on some of the fiscal mismanagement of the government in light of the comments the government has made during this debate about their so-called prowess in the field of fiscal management.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Davenport brings up a very important point, which is that we are somehow unable to account for $3.1 billion the government has spent.

My hon. colleague is right that the government, or any of us, should not brag too much about all the great things we have done when there are problems we need to solve. It is important to advocate for the things we try to do and that we believe in, so we have to cut a little slack to anybody who stands up and speaks and tries to advocate for a certain position.

On the subject of the $3.1 billion, I think it will be very important to sit down and try to find out why it is we have $3.1 billion missing and to make sure that Parliament has a really good picture of what spending it is approving on exactly what programs. That is the recommendation the experts at committee and in this House have given to avoid this happening in the future.

We really need to know exactly what programs we are approving when we vote. Many people who study Parliament believe that we should reform the approval process for spending.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I am lucky, again, to rise today to speak to such an important bill before the House. Last week, I had the opportunity to speak to Bill S-12, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act, which was, of course, another very important piece of legislation we had before the House. That bill, like this one, was about red tape. It was about modernizing our system.

When I talked about that last week, I talked about how the opposition was not in favour of our reducing red tape. It did not like to talk about red tape, because when there is red tape, it confuses people and it makes government even more confusing and out of the reach of Canadians. Whenever a government brings forward a motion or a piece of legislation that would make it easier for Canadians to work, that would make it easier for Canadians to access their government, we know that the opposition will not be in favour of it.

I want to reference something the member for Kingston and the Islands talked about, in response to the member for Davenport, on the $3 billion this government and the previous Liberal government spent on anti-terrorism, safety and security in the country following the tragic events of 9/11.

We know that the opposition members often do not read legislation that is tabled in the House. Sometimes they make their decisions with respect to legislation before it is even tabled. We are seeing that with the current debate on the museum of history bill. Before the legislation was even tabled, they decided that they were going to vote against it. The same goes for our budgets, our economic action plans. Each and every year, before the budget is even tabled in the House of Commons, they make the decision that they are not going to read it and will just vote against it. No matter how many good things are in those plans for Canadians, no matter how many investments we are making for the Canadian economy and the people of Canada, they always make their decision, before it is even tabled, to vote against.

Specifically, when we talk about that $3.1 billion, again, what opposition members are saying is that they do not have the time or the desire or perhaps even the knowledge to go back and look at the Public Accounts of Canada and see what was tabled in the House. If they would do that, they would be able to find an account for all of those monies we put on the table, and the previous Liberal government put on the table, with respect to preserving and protecting Canadians. That is, ultimately, one of the most fundamental activities of government. It is to ensure the safety and security of its people. We are not going to do the job for the NDP members. I am sure that they can do it on their own.

Why are technical tax amendments important? This has been something we have been faced with for many years. We have not updated or amended our technical tax amendments since 2001, if I am not mistaken. I know that the hard-working Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has been doing some exceptional work on this.

The member for Kingston and the Islands talked about how great a speech the member for Burlington gave. However, even more important than the speech he gave is the work he has been doing for his community and for all members of Parliament with respect to getting us out of this global economic downturn we have faced. He has shown tremendous leadership, and I want to thank him for that and congratulate him as well. The member from Kingston referenced what a great father he is, and he truly is. He should be very proud of his family. I know there are great things ahead for them.

This is something Parliament has had before it for a number of years. It was never done. I do not know why the previous Liberal government never brought this forward. I will give the Liberals the benefit of the doubt and assume that they care about small business. I will assume that they care about Canadian families. I guess it just was not a priority for them. They were busy doing other things, so they never got around to looking at the things that would actually protect and enhance our economy. They were busy. They had the sponsorship scandal and were looking for $40 million that they have yet to find. They never got around to it.

When we came into office, we knew that we had to consult with Canadians. We knew that it was important. We sat down with big businesses, small businesses and medium businesses. These are the people who actually generate wealth, create jobs and help make our economy strong so that Canadians can be proud of their economy and so we can create jobs and investments for communities. We sat down with them.

Quite honestly, we do not take enough time in this place to recognize the hard work of those members of Parliament who sacrifice so much, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance does. It goes without saying that Canadians all over and people the world over know that we have the best Minister of Finance and Minister of State for Finance globally. They have been recognized as such, but there are also the parliamentary secretary and the entire finance committee.

When the global economic downtown occurred back in 2008, we had to take bold, decisive action. I remember that time, because in the 2007 year-end interviews, the Prime Minister at the time said there were going to be difficult times ahead and that we had to make sure to position the Canadian economy for what could be difficult times in the global economy. I remember the debate at that time.

I remember the opposition parties clamouring. They were upset because we had decided at that time that we were going to pay down debt. They said we should not be paying down debt but spending.

They did not say that we should spending by investing in tax cuts for Canadians; they said we should find programs and just spend, but we took a different track. We said that we had to pay down debt, because we knew that something could be coming in the global economy.

I recall how the opposition parties said we were crazy. However, when the global economic downturn hit, we were prepared, because we had made investments.

What are the types of investments that we made? We said it is not a bad thing to put more money in the pockets of Canadians. It is not a bad thing to invest in tax cuts for families. It is not a bad thing to invest in tax cuts for businesses, the people who create and generate wealth in this country. Therefore, we reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. What did that do? It put more money in the pockets of Canadians, and what did Canadians do? They went out into their communities and shopped and spent money and supported all of these small businesses across the country that actually create wealth, opportunity and jobs.

Let us talk about people like Frank from Frank's & Son Barber Shop in my riding. Here are two guys who work extraordinarily hard. Last week I had the extraordinary pleasure to be able to talk about my mother and father, who owned a pizza store, and how hard they worked. I know you will recall that, Mr. Speaker, because I was up speaking literally moments after the NDP once again tried to adjourn debate on important pieces of legislation. It was nine o'clock and they were starting to get sleepy, so they made the decision that they wanted to close down Parliament because they were tired.

I went back to my riding that weekend and I just could not understand how it could be. I thought how the member for Oshawa represents a lot of union members. I know that the member for Oakville represents a lot of union members. I know that all of Brampton, where there are a lot of union members, is represented by hard-working Conservative members of Parliament. I know that in those areas, and even in my own riding, there are lots of union members. I also know that in those ridings, they do not think about going home early. They work hard, as all Canadians do, and they want to succeed.

I asked myself how it was possible that the NDP could get tired by nine o'clock every night and want to adjourn debate. I could not figure it out.

It then dawned on me that what we have in the NDP caucus are not the actual hard-working men and women who work the lines, such as the people at Ford, Chrysler or GM in the member for Oakville's riding. These are not the people who actually work on the assembly lines; these are the big union bosses over there, so they are actually not used to working past five o'clock. They are used to telling other people how they should think and what they should do, but they do not have a clue about hard work. Then it dawned on me that, yes, that is why they have to go home at 9:30 every night: they are tired because they have never worked past five o'clock. Then I started to get it.

Then I started to read some of the things that they were talking about, some of the things that they were—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member for Davenport is rising on a point of order.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always find the member opposite incredibly entertaining, both in camera and in public. I am looking forward to his winding up the soliloquy and preamble and meandering speech and getting back to the issue at hand.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I think the hon. member is making a point of relevance.

I would remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that at third reading the House tries to stay a little bit closer to the subject matter of the bill than at other stages of the bill, so I hope he will get his remarks back around to the bill before the House.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have actually been on target all the time. I was talking about families; they get taxed. They pay taxes and they want an easier tax system. I talked about small business; the owners pay taxes, they want an easier tax code and they want us to eliminate red tape. Those are all important to Canadians. When I talk about the hard-working men and women who work on the assembly line at Ford, GM or Chrysler, they pay taxes.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

They pay a lot.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Yes, exactly, Mr. Speaker. As the member for Oakville says, they pay a lot. They work hard, they pay a lot and they expect their members of Parliament to do the exact same thing.

I get why the member for Davenport is so upset. It is because we are calling those members out on the fact that they want to go home at nine o'clock and that working late is tough for them. That speaks volumes to the attitude of the New Democrats. They do not want to talk about taxes. Unless it is about increasing taxes, they do not want to hear about it.

That is why they have lost 16 straight elections in this country. Since their party was founded in 1961, they have lost 16 straight elections. Why is that? It is because nothing they talk about ever resonates with Canadians, because Canadians know that in order to actually govern this country, we have to work with Canadians, listen to Canadians, and listen to small-business owners, medium-business owners, and even big business, the people who create wealth, and see what it is that they need to make the economy succeed.

They need to sit down with families. They need to invest in infrastructure. They need to invest in quality health care, as we do. After decades of Liberal cuts and NDP cuts in the Province of Ontario, we started to turn the tables and to make those important investments.

They talk about closure. The New Democrats have commented that we were bringing in closure again. Why are we bringing in closure? It is because we have to govern. This is a party whose members, when presented with it, actually support this bill. In committee, the New Democrats did not offer any amendments; they support it. However, they are filibustering it because they do not want it to pass.

The members of this party, when presented with a philanthropy bill to say thanks to those Canadians who give their time and money in support of their community, said they cannot give support to pass it because they have to filibuster it. They cannot even pass the simplest pieces of legislation.

Perhaps they want to continue to obstruct because they are so embarrassed by how great this country is doing, by how we are leading the global tide to prosperity, and it does not fit their political agenda. The New Democrats are an angry caucus over there, an angry group of people, because what they would rather do—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member for Davenport is rising again.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to rise on that one because, quite frankly, I am a little concerned that the member is going to explode over there with anger and rage. We are here until midnight and we are here for a respectful debate, and that member should wind it back to that way of talking in this House.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I will again remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that there are opportunities to debate some of the issues that he has been bringing up. We are on third reading stage of Bill C-48. He has about five minutes left, and I trust that the remainder of his time will be spent addressing the actual substance of the bill.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, he is right: I am going to explode. I am going to explode with pride in how well this country has been doing under the Conservative government, led by our Prime Minister, and under the policies that our Minister of Finance and our Minister of State for Finance have brought and under all of the good work that Conservatives on both sides of the House have been doing during this time of global economic downturn. Am I going to burst with excitement and pride? Absolutely, I am going to. I thank the hon. member for pointing out how proud I am of this country and everything that we have done.

Once again, because I know the NDP does not understand the relevance of families, it does not understand the relevance of businesses and how they pay taxes, it does not understand—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard on a point of order.

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

Again, Mr. Speaker, I have to raise a concern. The gentleman is not talking about Bill C-48. He is characterizing and not speaking to the importance of this bill and its different measures. We are in third reading, as the Speaker rightly pointed out. I would like the member to talk specifically about the different measures that are in this bill and to make sure Canadians understand the actions of the government regarding Bill C-48.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I appreciate the member for LaSalle—Émard raising this point.

I have asked the parliamentary secretary a couple of times to come back to the debate. We will move on to questions and comments. We were going to be interrupted very soon anyway, and this will at least allow a question that will perhaps bring us back to the substance of the bill.

The hon. member for Davenport.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague's speech. First, he referenced Frank's & Son Barber Shop, and I am wondering if Frank and his son have extended benefits at their place of employment—a workplace pension, in fact, and job security. These are all important measures that any government that cared about working people would be focused on.

I want to draw the member's attention to a comment made by the Minister of Finance on March 1, 2008, when he stated:

If you're going to make a new business investment in Canada...the last place you will go is the province of Ontario.

That is your province. How can you go back to your riding in Ontario and defend your government when it trash talks—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am going to stop the member for Davenport. Saskatchewan is actually my province. The member should remember to address his comments through the Chair and not directly to other members.

The parliamentary secretary has about a minute or two to respond, and then we will have to put the question.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to this government, Frank's & Son Barber Shop actually has access to the pooled registered pension plan. It has access to reduced taxes. It is busier than it has ever been.

While other economies in other places of the world have unemployment of 20%, in Canada it is reduced constantly. In fact, in my area, York region, unemployment is at 6%. The region is on fire because of the policies of the Minister of State for Science and Technology. He has done some extraordinary things and made the quality investments that have helped lead our regions out of this global economic downturn.

When we talk about the city of Toronto itself, where the member comes from, we are seeing massive investments through the Pan American Games. We are seeing the city of Toronto turn the tide. When we talk about Ontario, I guess I would have to agree that the fact that there is a Liberal government in Ontario is a disadvantage.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Is he reading us a political leaflet or is it Bill C-48? I would point out that this bill has been in the making for 12 years—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

That is 12 years of tax evasion, 12 years of aggressive tax planning. After 12 years, they are fixing the situation. You must be kidding—

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, order. The member needs to come to order.

Order. The member does not have the floor.

Fortunately, it being 7:32 p.m., pursuant to an order made Monday, May 27, 2013, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third 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 Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, May 29, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.

The House resumed from May 28, 2013, 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 third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made Wednesday, May 22, 2013, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-48.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #702

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)