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.

Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a novel sensation to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-14, for several reasons. First, it is always a tremendous privilege to rise in the House, even though it is not as populated as it has been in the past, to represent the constituents of Provencher and speak to the issues of the day regarding this great country of Canada. Second, it is novel to speak to an economic statement that does not typically lead to legislation. This is an unusual speech in that respect.

Third, this marks the very first meaningful budget-like document that the Liberals have produced since 2019, almost 650 days ago. To be sure, this is not a budget. However, I am grateful to have the opportunity to address Bill C-14 given the fact that the Liberals have flat out refused to present a budget since 2018.

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, which is just now concluding its pre-budget consultations and entering the drafting stage of the report. It is now time for the committee to review the recommendations from Canadians, and to consolidate into the report all the needs that have been identified by Canadians from coast to coast to coast to present to the finance minister. My hope is that the Minister of Finance will take this process seriously, that her response will be thoughtful and that she will come up with a realistic plan for our nation's finances.

Conservatives have been clear right from the beginning that we want to make sure that Canadians struggling as a result of COVID-19 have the support they need. We recognize the challenges that so many are facing, including those of us living under stringent public health restrictions that have dramatically impacted our well-being. The government has a duty not only to help Canadians get through the crisis, but to develop a plan to help us get out of it. I said earlier today in the House that it seems as though the government has no plan, and failing to plan is planning to fail.

It is perfectly fair for governments to react quickly when faced with a crisis. One cannot get everything right when trying to sort out something new and unexpected on the fly. However, a year has now passed since COVID-19 came on Canada's radar in a real way. By now, the government has had plenty of time to prepare a solid, long-term plan for Canada's economy. By now, we know where the damage is most significant. We know who is hurting, and with this knowledge comes the power to plan for the future: to show Canadians a way out and a plan for things to return to normal.

One tangible way that the Liberals could do this immediately is by setting a fiscal anchor. A fiscal anchor is driven by rock-solid foundation principles and will be an anchor or reference point to hold things together and provide stability on which we can establish policies. The principles of financial anchors are missing from the Liberal government.

The Business Council of Canada defines fiscal anchors as follows:

...notional ceilings or caps to the levels of public spending, deficits, and debt that governments are prepared to reach in their fiscal policy. They serve many purposes including:

1 Retaining the confidence of lenders and global markets...;

2 Establishing a positive investment climate for businesses;

3 Providing a measure of fiscal discipline inside government...; and

4 Ensuring that the government has the ability to respond to future economic shocks and unforeseen crises.

In practical terms, this is about creating good jobs for Canadians. It is about creating the conditions for local small businesses to succeed and thrive. It is about moms and dads being able to put food on the table for their families. However, it is also about governments being able to sustainably fund the social services that many rely on: health care, education and the social safety net. Fiscal responsibility, or a fiscal anchor, signals to Canadians that the government is not merely acting for its own immediate interests today, but for the good of the country and its future.

Former parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page told the National Post in October, “There’s a cost to having effectively no fiscal plan. And right now it’s fair to say we have no fiscal strategy.” He added, “This is about where the government’s rudder is. Where is the policy strategy that guides us through the pandemic, and to the post COVID-19 recovery? We’re missing that.”

In a November piece for The Globe and Mail, Mostafa Askari, Sahir Khan and Mr. Page write:

All governments need constraints. Politicians do not like to raise taxes. There is a bias toward deficits. Higher debt can create the risk of future economic instability. It can reduce fiscal room to address the next economic downturn. Constraints also signal future policy intentions of governments and are essential to promote accountability.

The Liberals' refusal to adopt a fiscal anchor is such that they continue to avoid accountability for their spending. We are facing a historic deficit of almost $400 billion. The total federal debt will reach $1.1 trillion this year, and the federal debt, as a percentage of GDP, has risen dramatically. If ever Canadians deserved transparency and accountability, now is the time.

With this in mind, I want to speak about part 7 of the bill. In this section of the legislation, the Liberals propose to amend the Borrowing Authority Act and the Financial Administration Act by increasing maximum borrowing authority for the federal government of Canada from $1.1 trillion to $1.8 trillion. Even as someone with years of experience in the financial sector, those figures seem very daunting to me. This increase is considerably more than the government needs to get through this next fiscal year. Moreover, it authorizes a massive expansion of the national debt all while the government refuses to identify a fiscal anchor and refuses transparency.

If the Liberals were swiping their own personal credit cards during these transactions, it would be one thing, but they are swiping the nation's credit card, knowing full well that hard-working Canadians will ultimately be stuck with a bill that will likely have to be paid through tax increases and will be passed on to future generations. This is money out of the pockets of real people, real families, and not just this generation.

Young parents trying to set aside money for their children's education, small business owners trying to meet payroll for employees and seniors on fixed incomes will all be affected by this increase to our national debt.

In the real world, when Canadians want to obtain a line of credit they have to show the lender that they are good for it. They have to show they will be able to make payments. They have to show that they are responsible stewards of the money that is being lent to them. That is how the three Cs of credit work: character, collateral and capacity. I, for one, do not see why the House should authorize such a significant increase of the government's maximum borrowing authority when it cannot even establish a baseline for its spending. Liberals have not demonstrated the ability to be responsible for increased debt.

This is about taking care of Canadians today and tomorrow. We owe it to future Canadians to ensure our public finances are sustainable. Debt is a moral issue: It is something that is owed to one by another with the understanding that what is owed must be paid back. This is a basic principle, and one that is almost universally understood within the context of business, finance and even personal relationships. If we borrow money from the bank to finance the purchase of a home or vehicle, there is an understanding and a binding agreement as to how and when that loan will be paid back. The borrower is taking on that debt, and with it the responsibility to repay the amount borrowed from the lender. A commitment has been made to restore the financial situation of the lender. The refusal or failure to do so will result in penalties, or at the very least adverse effects to the credit and financial well-being of the borrower.

To borrow without the ability or a clear plan to repay is foolish. While in our culture some debt is usually unavoidable, it is a reality that most of us try to avoid it. We do not want to be in debt. We do not want to be enslaved to interest payments. We want to be free. The government does not have its own money, it only has the money that it receives from the taxation of its citizens. When it needs more money, the government only has three choices: raise taxes, cut spending or borrow.

As my colleague, the member for Carleton, has so succinctly put it, paycheques are the solution. Canadians need opportunities to work. This puts food on their tables and produces tax revenue governments need to provide important services. It is time that the Liberals focus on creating opportunities for Canadians. There are many ways to achieve that objective. Stop raising taxes such as the carbon tax and the CPP payroll tax. Accelerate project permit application processing for infrastructure. Repeal Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. Ideas like these create space for a real recovery.

Let us pursue sustainability and fiscally responsible policies that get Canadians not just through this economic slump, but actually out of it.

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

I have had the honour of sitting on the Standing Committee on Finance since the beginning of the year. I was also a member in 2013. At that time, the committee was studying a huge bill, Bill C-48. It was a very technical bill amending some parts of the Income Tax Act. That bill also created problems in terms of the disclosure of tax information. Have you dealt with that bill? Can you tell us about it?

It seems there is a trend in wanting to make lawyers breach their duty of confidentiality or to no longer honour it, in order to fight against tax evasion, crime or terrorism. I would like to hear what you have to say. Are you concerned about that approach?

[Carole Presseault]

I think the main challenge is around uncertainty. Our tax system resides on a retroactivity aspect. With retroactivity to 12 years, one major problem that we identified when we came forward on Bill C-48 was the fact that taxpayers lose the right to appeal if the measure has not been legislated, yet they still had to conform to the measure. That's the kind of legislative uncertainty that we need to eliminate from the system.

[Carole Presseault]

Thank you.

When we saw clause 31 of Bill C-31, we had some concerns around the timelines, and we worked out a table. With the committee's patience, I'll walk you through it.

In June 2013, we had Bill C-48, which removed that considerable backlog. Sometime this year, subject to parliamentary approval, Bill C-31 would be published, and then in October this year, we'd have a report covering the fiscal year 2012-13. That's what it would do. That's what this bill does.

October 31, 2015, presumably will be right after an election. There will be no list, no table. In October 2016 there would be no report. So the earliest we would have the next report would be 2017, covering that period since the writ was dropped.

Basically, over the next three years, you have a report covering 2012-13, and a report covering the period up to March 31, 2016, which you'll have only in 2017. I'm sorry, this is just the way that we worked through the dates.

The report that Parliament will get in October 31, 2017, will be for up to March 31, 2016, but will not cover the period before the writ was dropped. That's where our major challenge is with that. We've called it cumulative

for lack of a better word.

That's the word we've used. The problems that were identified by the Auditor General, the former Auditor General previously, was this issue that we're not able to pinpoint the backlog.

[Carole Presseault, Vice-President, Government and Regulatory Affairs, Certified General Accountants Association of Canada]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to speak to Bill C-31 concerning the government's Economic Action Plan 2014. We appreciate this opportunity.

You have come to know us well through our many appearances before this committee. CGA-Canada is currently working with the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada—CPA Canada—to integrate operations under the CPA banner.

Unification will enhance the influence, relevance and contribution of the Canadian accounting profession, both at home and internationally.

In the midst of global economic uncertainty, CGA Canada recognizes the federal government's strong economic leadership to balance the budget and achieve a surplus in 2015. While this bill is deep and wide in its scope, includes a vast array of measures, and affects several federal acts, our comments today will focus on one measure.

We support the proposal in clause 31, part 1 of Bill C-31, on outstanding tax measures. I initially thought that was a typo, but it is clause 31, part 1 of Bill C-31, which amends the Financial Administration Act.

The purpose of this clause is to require the Minister of Finance to table annually in Parliament a list of legislative proposals, but this is not just any list. This list will include publicly announced proposals that have not been enacted by Parliament since the last federal election.

While this measure is definitely a step in the right direction to better manage changes to the Income Tax Act, you have the ability today to further improve clause 31. In its current form, this measure requires the minister to report only the outstanding tax measures from the current Parliament. As a consequence, the list will not include, potentially, the outstanding tax measures that date beyond that Parliament.

Committee members may want to follow the example of Bill C-549, introduced by one of your colleagues, the member of Parliament Mike Allen. Similar to clause 31, Bill C-549 amends the Financial Administration Act to require the Minister of Finance to table a report listing tax measures, which the government publicly announced its intention to legislate.

However, Bill C-549 goes further by requesting cumulative reports as opposed to reports that only start from the last election. Bill C-549 also requires a parliamentary committee to review the report tabled by the minister and submit its findings to Parliament.

We believe it would be preferable for the Minister of Finance to report all outstanding measures without making a distinction between past and present Parliaments. A cumulative list of proposals would greatly improve transparency.

As some of you will remember, it took 12 years for Parliament to pass the latest income tax technical bill. I'm of course referring to Bill C-48. It was almost 1,000 pages in length and enacted hundreds of outstanding tax measures.

To this, we heard very loudly from many parliamentarians, “Never again.” We agree. Canadian taxpayers deserve a more effective and efficient process to manage introduced and legislated outstanding tax measures. In this spirit, we recommend you consider making a minor technical amendment to strengthen the intent of clause 31 to ensure cumulative reporting of unlegislated measures.

CGA-Canada thanks the committee for recommending that the federal government explore ways to simplify Canada's Income Tax Act to reduce complexities and inefficiencies.

We urge you to continue to champion this important issue. Whether it is through the creation of an independent expert panel or an office of tax simplification, or through a parliamentary committee study, we need a national dialogue. Taxation affects every single Canadian, yet there hasn't been any meaningful discussion on Canada's income tax system since the Carter Commission in the 1960s. It is time for parliamentarians, stakeholders, academics and Canadian taxpayers to talk about tax reform.

Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee, thank you for your time. We look forward to participating in the ensuing discussion.

Bill C-4—Time Allocation Motion

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here we are again.

The government is using this procedure for the 58th time. That is unbelievable. This is the 58th time since the last election alone. The government is shattering all the records and the worst records at that. This government is obsessed with shutting down all debate.

Something to notice about this particular one, which I think makes the point as to why the Conservatives are so offline and so contrary to parliamentary rules and procedure, is that the bill they are rushing through under time allocation this time, which they had to rush through in the last stage of debate to get it to committee, was not looked at by the committee for three weeks.

The government hit the panic button in the House of Commons and shut down debate because it is such an urgent bill. We had to get to it right away. It was so vital to the economy, but of course, the finance committee did not look at it for the next 21 days.

A second piece of this time allocation, which is fascinating, is that the Conservatives make so many mistakes when they do this, when they shut down debate in Parliament. Bill C-4, which they are shutting down today, is there to make corrections to a previous bill that they rushed through Parliament, Bill C-60, which was making corrections to a previous bill that they rushed through Parliament, Bill C-48.

This is what the government does time and again. It keeps making these mistakes because it is in such a panic, yet it calls it good government and good order. It is not. It is bad legislation. It is bad process.

When is the government going to learn? This is no way to run a country.

[Carole Presseault, Vice-President, Government and Regulatory Affairs, Certified General Accountants Association of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Honourable members, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the pre-budget consultations leading up to Budget 2014.

I am pleased to be here today to deliver remarks and recommendations on behalf of the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada. CGA-Canada is currently working with the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada to integrate operations under the CPA banner. My colleague to my left will go into this unification initiative in a little more detail. We think unification will enhance the influence, relevance and contribution of the Canadian accounting profession, both at home and internationally.

I'm very pleased to present to you today alongside my colleagues from CPA Canada. You will note that this is the first time that the accounting profession, comprising the three legacy bodies of CGA, CMA, and CA, has joined forces to deliver a coordinated message on the making of the federal budget. We really wanted to make your life easier, didn't we?

My comments will be brief and will be focused on two specific issues, taxation and internal trade, both of which are important to Canada's fiscal sustainability and economic growth. We support, as part of our co-branded brief with CPA Canada, the recommendations regarding standard business reporting and the patent box.

Let me talk about tax simplification. As a committee, you've acknowledged that the tax system needs to be simplified by recommending in your last two pre-budget reports that an expert panel or a royal commission be established to undertake a comprehensive review of the income tax.

Tax reform is like the weather. Everyone talks about it, but we can't do very much about it, or nothing very much is done about it. But in this case, we think a lot could be done.

We know that Canadians want a simpler, fairer, and more efficient tax system. We've asked them. These are some of the data that we have in a recent survey: 62% say that having a simple tax system is important; 81% of people surveyed ranked having a fair system a top priority; and 68% of Canadians favour eliminating some special tax credits to have their overall personal income tax lowered.

Canadians want tax reform, and we need to start the process. What a better place to start building consensus, we think, than here in Parliament and in this committee. We submit today that the Commons finance committee ought to consider setting the stage by undertaking a study that could examine how tax reform could be moved forward.

We know the benefits of tax simplification: lower compliance costs, higher compliance rates, less admin costs for the government, and a strong tax system with a more secure tax base and predictable revenue. The cost of a complex tax system? It's a barrier to jobs, growth, and long-term prosperity.

One last comment I want to make on tax is that we were very pleased with the passage of Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, because it helped clear a backlog of unlegislated tax measures that had accumulated over 12 years. But we know that more work can be done in this respect. Going forward, we need to prevent legislative backlogs from developing. We very strongly feel that a process needs to be established to deal with these technical tax amendments in a timely manner, such as incorporating them in legislation on an annual basis, and parliamentarians have the ability to improve the process.

Last, but not least, permit me to say a few words about internal trade.

CGA-Canada is pleased a comprehensive economic trade agreement with the European Union has been signed in principle. But we caution that, here at home, unfinished business remains. The federal government must work with its provincial and territorial partners to eliminate internal trade barriers to ensure that Canadian companies have the same access to local markets as our European competitors.

This means removing unnecessary and duplicative regulations that overlap from one jurisdiction to another, inhibiting trade. And it means establishing an effective dispute resolution mechanism that is more accessible to Canadians.

Governments must make progress on this issue. Persistent internal trade barriers and the ongoing perception of a fragmented economic union continue to hurt consumers, discourage investment and damage Canada's reputation as a place to do business.

The next meeting of the Committee on Internal Trade, which is comprised of the federal/provincial/territorial ministers, is fast approaching. CGA-Canada urges all governments to use this opportunity to work together to strengthen Canada's economic union.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your time. I would be pleased to respond, of course, to any questions the committee may have.

[Brian Ernewein]

Thank you.

If I may just take one second to make the comment about the reference to the OECD Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, Canada has not ratified that. Canada has not ratified that, because it requires a technical amendment found in Bill C-48, which, fingers crossed, will be passed very soon, after which we will be able to ratify that. We have signed it and indeed we have signed the protocol to it as well.

Very quickly, in response to your question, treaties are important for their own sake to regularize the tax rules that apply between two countries and the investors between those countries, and that's our primary objective. But they certainly have broader effects economically in terms of increasing investment, hopefully, between the two jurisdictions and in having a stronger relationship economically as well as politically between the two countries involved.

Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to reply to the comments that have been made in the House over the last two hours of debate. I want to thank those members who have spoken out in favour of my bill and the importance of it and how it stands up for victims and the re-victimization that they face every time they have to attend an unnecessary parole board hearing.

I have to take a great deal of exception with some of the statements that were made by members across the way, that this is a government bill. That is an insult to my staff, who have worked on this bill so diligently. It is an insult to the Library of Parliament researchers and drafters, who helped in the drafting process. I can tell members that those types of comments are not at all helpful to the overall decorum of this place when it is trying to minimize us as private members in bringing forward business.

As I said in my opening comments, the catalyst for going forward with this bill goes back to 2009, when I first started thinking about what was happening with the Tori Stafford case, with the capture of Michael Rafferty and Terri-Lynne McClintic and the overall result of having them sentenced to life imprisonment.

While that was taking place, we were listening to the Clifford Olson saga as he was dying in prison from cancer and all the stories about how he re-victimized the families of his victims over and over again by making them appear at these unnecessary parole board hearings.

It is important that we respect one another in this place. Making those types of comments that minimize our role in this chamber as being puppets for the government is deeply disturbing. At some point in time, I may be requesting an apology from the members who made those statements.

Some of the comments revolved around the constitutionality of Bill C-478. I can tell members that is a concern that I had. I wanted to ensure that if we were going to draft a bill, it was not going to be struck down by the courts under a charter challenge. It would give full power and discretion to the judges, to the judiciary, to make the decision whether or not they wanted to increase parole ineligibility from 25 years up to a maximum of 40 years. They would have the power, either through a jury process or on their own, to make a decision whether or not parole ineligibility could be anywhere between 25 and 40 years.

It is important to know that these are the most depraved and sadistic murderers in Canadian society. These are the people who go to jail and are never again released. I think that is something that we have to take special note of. This is not about stiffer penalties and more punishment, because these murderers never ever are given parole ineligibility. Also, to ensure that this bill was constitutional, I wanted to fashion it after Bill C-48, which passed in 2011 just before the last election. That bill was proven to be constitutional and charter-compliant and so I fashioned our bill after that process.

Now, as was pointed by some members here, that maybe it is not perfect in its terms because it was a private members' bill, it was drafted by Library of Parliament and my staff working together. We are willing to accept any amendments that would improve the technical aspects and the legality of Bill C-478.

I have also taken note that some people said that victims' rights groups are not supporting this bill. I can tell members that Victims of Violence, led by Sharon Rosenfeldt, supports this bill; that Yvonne Harvey and the Canadian Parents of Murdered Children support this bill; the Association of Families of Persons Assassinated or Disappeared supports this bill; and the Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime supports this bill.

Also, I heard from the NDP members in the first hour of debate that this bill would violate international law. They kept talking about the Rome Statute. However, I can tell members that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court applies only to genocides, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.

This is a domestic bill, domestic law, and the power completely lies with the country and Parliament can make these decisions.

To point out the hypocrisy of the NDP, it supported Bill C-48 in the last Parliament. Why would it not support this bill, which is fashioned in the same format as Bill C-48 and would even go further in addressing the most depraved, sadistic murderers who go out and abduct children, abduct individuals, sexually assault them and then violently murder them? Those are the people we want to ensure we address. We want to ensure that the families of those victims would not have to be re-terrorized by these horrific individuals.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, now that we have been sitting for a week under our Conservative government's plans for a harder-working, productive and orderly House of Commons, I would remind all hon. members of what we have been able to achieve since just Victoria Day.

Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012, was passed at report stage and third reading. Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-51, the safer witnesses act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate, which we will finish tonight. Bill C-52, the fair rail freight service act was passed at report stage and, just moments ago, at third reading. Bill C-54, the not criminally responsible reform act, was passed at second reading. Bill C-60, the economic action plan 2013 act, No. 1, was reported back from committee yesterday.

Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act, was passed at report stage and we started third reading debate. Bill S-6, the first nations elections act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act, which was reported back to the House this morning by the hard-working and fast running member for Peace River, has completed committee. Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-12, the incorporation by reference in regulations act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-13, the port state measures agreement implementation act, was debated at second reading. Bill S-14, the fighting foreign corruption act, was debated at second reading.

We will build on this record of accomplishment over the coming week.

This afternoon, as I mentioned, we will finish the second reading debate on Bill C-51. After that, we will start the second reading debate on Bill C-56, Combating Counterfeit Products Act.

Tomorrow morning, we will start report stage on Bill C-60, now that the hard-working Standing Committee on Finance has brought the bill back to us. After I conclude this statement, Mr. Speaker, I will have additional submissions for your consideration on yesterday's point of order.

After question period tomorrow, we will get a start on the second reading debate on Bill S-15, Expansion and Conservation of Canada’s National Parks Act. I am optimistic that we would not need much more time, at a future sitting, to finish that debate.

On Monday, before question period, we will debate Bill S-17, Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013, at second reading. In the afternoon, we will hopefully finish report stage consideration of Bill C-60, followed by Bill S-2 at third reading.

On Tuesday, we will return to Bill S-2 if necessary. After that, I hope we could use the time to pass a few of the other bills that I mentioned earlier, as well as the forthcoming bill on the Yale First Nation Final Agreement.

Wednesday, June 5 shall be the eighth allotted day of the supply cycle. That means we will discuss an NDP motion up until about 6:30 p.m. This will be followed by a debate on the main estimates. Then we will pass to two appropriations acts.

Next Thursday, I would like to return back to Bill C-60, our budget implementation legislation, so we can quickly pass that important bill for the Canadian economy.

Bill C-52—Time Allocation Motion

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to hear that the minister is unblocked, finally.

That said, I think this is the fourth time in four days that I have risen to criticize this process, something that now seems to be standard practice for this government. They bring in a gag order to end debate.

What the Minister is not saying is that in 2006, the Prime Minister prorogued the House because he was about to be clobbered by the opposition parties. Such actions tend to derail bills. There were elections after that in 2008 and 2011.

Today, all of a sudden, on this beautiful May 29, we are told there is great urgency—in fact, we hear this every day. This is the fourth bill of its kind, and they are not trivial bills either.

There was Bill C-48, which dealt with all kinds of tax amendments, Bill C-49, meant to change the name and mandate of a museum, and Bill C-54, the Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act. These are not inconsequential bills.

Now we have Bill C-52 before us. I believe the cat was let out of the bag yesterday when a colleague of the minister rose to say that they were ultimately not interested in what people from the various ridings had to tell them. What interested them was what they, the Conservatives, had to say on those matters.

In their view, once we agree on a bill, we should be quiet, stay politely seated and not say another word because, in any case, they are not interested in what the people of Gatineau have to say, through their member, on the merits of the issue.

Only three hours were allotted for debate at third reading. That is appalling. It is a hijacking, not of a train, but of debate. It is shameful. For reasons unbeknownst to us, this is now part of this government's normal procedure.

I do not want to know whether the bill is good, since we are going to vote for it. I want to know why we are being compelled to do it this way. To date, the minister does not appear to want to give us an answer that is sensible and acceptable, at least for the people of Gatineau.

Canadian Museum of History Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment defeated.

There is a correction on the third reading vote at Bill C-48. The final result was yeas: 276; nays: 1.

The next question is on the main motion.

The hon. Chief Government Whip is rising on a point of order.

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[The Speaker, Conservative, 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 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.

[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—