Bill C-48 (Historical)

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

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

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

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

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

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

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques for his speech. I would also like to send him my greetings and say that I am eager to join him on the Standing Committee on Finance to help improve things.

In my experience on other committees, and particularly the Standing Committee on International Trade, I have had the opportunity to admire very close up what might almost be seen as candour, albeit relatively harmless. I am referring to the culpable naivety of the government when it comes to Canada’s ability to compete in the world. In relation to fiscal policy, we are talking about both individuals’ and corporations’ ability to compete.

Sometimes it is frightening to see the extent of the magical thinking that goes on. My colleague has observed this very accurately. Unfortunately, while we do support Bill C-48, the Income Tax Act will be a great deal more complex.

I would like to invite my colleague to share his vision of matters in relation to the problem of the ability of the various actors in Canada’s domestic economy to compete on the international market, in connection with the problems he has identified.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We are seeing an expert on this issue at work and he has given us a complete analysis of Bill C-48.

My colleague spoke about complexity in relation to this bill and the technical aspects that have been addressed. However, it is essential that we guarantee the integrity of our tax system.

Could my colleague say a little more about this issue of integrity and tell us how to facilitate the incorporation of the technical changes into the legislation?

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C-48. As you can see, it is rather thick. It is more than 950 pages long.

As my colleague from Parkdale—High Park mentioned, we will support this bill because it eliminates a number of tax loopholes and resolves several problems. Decisions about these issues have been made over time by agencies such as the Canada Revenue Agency, so this bill is needed. However, as I have mentioned in other speeches, this bill will amend the Income Tax Act as well as other acts: the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and other related legislation. It will make an already complicated system even more complicated.

I will give some background on this bill. In October 2012, we received a notice of ways and means from the Minister of Finance, which was more than 950 pages long and consolidated almost all of the outstanding tax measures. These measures date back to 2002 and even earlier. More than 400 decisions have been made by different agencies, including the Canada Revenue Agency, which receives inquiries from businesses and tax advisors asking whether they can interpret a specific condition in the Income Tax Act in a particular way. The Agency then sees that this was not foreseen by the legislator and proposes an amendment.

Over time, the Canada Revenue Agency has collected its interpretations of more than 400 issues. Now, over 10 years after the last tax bill was passed, we are discussing another bill.

Obviously, the department drafted this bill after consulting the private sector. The Standing Committee on Finance, on which I sit, has heard from private sector representatives. They spoke about several tax issues, including the technical issues we are discussing, as well as the complexity of the current legislation. I will get back to this a little later in my speech.

The impressive Bill C-48 has been before us since November 21, 2012. I doubt that more than a dozen of the 308 members of Parliament will read the whole thing before they have to vote on it. This is understandable, because these are of course extremely technical issues. It really is a shame, though, because it undermines our role as MPs, as representatives of our constituents. We cannot realistically vote with a full knowledge of all the elements in the bill. They just throw this at us in Parliament, at first reading. Yes, we will discuss it at Standing Committee on Finance meetings. It will eventually be passed at second and at third reading. However, for a matter as important as taxation, the Conservatives are being pretty casual by tabling this bill in the House of Commons and asking us to pass all of its recommendations, which will probably not be studied very carefully by the House. It is not that we are unwilling to do study the bill, but it will be really difficult to understand the scope of the measures being put forward because they are so complex and so highly technical. The Standing Committee on Finance will do the best it can, but still, the way the bill was introduced is a real concern.

Bill C-48 is an omnibus bill. We agree on this. However, unlike Bill C-38 and Bill C-45, otherwise known as mammoth bills or monster bills, this is a real omnibus bill. Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 contained a patchwork of measures and legislation. In those two bills, which are now law, more than 130 items were added, deleted or amended in two votes. Bill C-48 has a single basic principle that aims at amending the tax system consistently and making it fairer.

I would just like to quickly go back to the definition of an omnibus bill to confirm what I am saying. According to the Library of Parliament, an omnibus bill per se is a bill that, while it aims at creating or amending several different acts, has “one basic principle or purpose which ties together all the proposed enactments and thereby renders the Bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes”.

Bill C-48 is an omnibus bill. Bill C-38 and Bill C-45 were not really omnibus bills.

As I mentioned earlier, this bill is nearly 1,000 pages long. It updates the rules relating to many different tax measures that are still outstanding and brings them into harmony with the current system.

Regarding the tax changes, the implementation of the measures in this bill is unique. We have a majority government, and the rules in the bill will be adopted. As my colleague, the official opposition's finance critic, said in her speech, we are going to support this bill at second reading. In fact, the rules are practically in effect already, according to the International Financial Reporting Standards, as they have been ever since first reading when the bill was tabled on November 21, 2012.

They are also valid and in force according to the Canadian accounting standards for private businesses. Since November 21, our businesses have had a little more security and stability under Canadian and international standards, something that will be welcomed by these firms. The Standing Committee on Finance has heard this on a number of occasions.

For a number of years, in fact, there has been an effort to achieve some harmonization of accounting standards and tax rules at the international level. This is another set of issues that the government should at least look into. The reason is very simple: we see it as a way of facilitating the containment of tax evasion. Thanks to my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie, this is something that the Standing Committee on Finance will be addressing.

We are also facilitating trade and investment in a world that is increasingly integrated in economic terms, but in which standards still differ from country to country. Tax evasion is a major problem. It exists because of loopholes in the Income Tax Act and other tax legislation, including legislation on corporations.

With consistent rules and cohesive tax regulations, we can help companies to be much more competitive and to know what to expect. Regulatory predictability is a key factor in minimizing the risks our industries face. The OECD, in particular, has demonstrated leadership in arranging the coordination of rules internationally.

In Canada, it is the Accounting Standards Board that has handled the incorporation of international rules into the Canadian legal system and Canadian standards. According to the Canada Revenue Agency, the rules in this bill are currently in force for publicly accountable enterprises.

With the tabling of this bill today, we have an opportunity to discuss issues relating to Canada’s tax structure, given that action is already being taken by the various accounting bodies. Needless to say, most of the changes in Bill C-48 are in fact not only familiar to the main parties concerned, but more importantly, are already being applied in their operations. Hence, there should be no great surprises in the debate, or in the eventual passage of this bill.

There are no special innovations in Bill C-48, apart from two minor technical amendments that are included in the bill.

As I noted in my earlier questions to the parliamentary secretary and our official opposition finance critic, the Income Tax Act currently runs to 3,000 pages. The original act passed in 1917 had 10 or so pages. Now, it has 3,000. A bill like this one will add many more, in order once again to eliminate specific tax loopholes.

As the system grows in complexity, however, there are more and more opportunities to find loopholes in the legislation that companies and individuals, who in many cases have the resources to work with tax consultants, can use to try to introduce personal arrangements that will ultimately reduce the fairness of our tax system.

A well-known Quebec tax specialist, Brigitte Alepin, who testified last year before the Standing Committee on Finance, has written a book explaining that Canada’s tax system is headed for a brick wall and that the government should do something before it is too late. In her book, she explains that in order to be sustainable, taxation systems should generally follow three major principles: they should be simple, effective and equitable.

The Canadian system, unfortunately, is trying to distance itself to a dangerous degree from those principles, hence the urgency of reviewing the foundation on which it is built.

In her book, Ms. Alepin also points out that an ideal tax system should be cost-neutral; in other words, it should not be too expensive to administer.

She refers to a study conducted by the Fraser Institute, which I do not often quote here in the House. It is worth mentioning here today, however. The 2007 study evaluated the cost of administering the Canadian tax system.

In 2007, the Fraser Institute estimated the cost of the system to be between $19 billion and $31 billion, that is, about $950 per Canadian. Thus, the cost of administering the system is incredible. It is a huge and complex system, but we should not have to pay nearly $1,000 a year for every Canadian in order to administer it.

We need to debate the complexity of the tax system. Indeed, Bill C-48 allows us to do just that. We need to have this debate because the issue of simplifying the system, much like the issue of simplifying the Canadian justice system, is important for every Canadian, including the people we represent here in the House.

I would remind the House that the Supreme Court of Canada stated that tax laws should be certain, predictable and fair so that taxpayers can order their affairs intelligently. It also described some consequences of complex tax laws, and these were reiterated in 2009 in the Auditor General's fall report. She stated:

Taxpayers’ ability to comply with tax legislation depends on their understanding of how the rules apply to their own circumstances. When the intent of the legislation is not clearly conveyed by the words, taxpayers may find it difficult to assess the income taxes they owe and this could foster tax avoidance. Uncertainty about how the law should be applied can also add to the time taken and costs incurred by tax audits and tax administration.

This issue is so fundamental and so important that it was one of the central topics of all the recent prebudget consultations that the finance committee was pleased to have the opportunity to hold regarding previous budgets. During the consultations, several witnesses talked about the problems and difficulties that Canada will encounter if we do not begin to recognize the situation we are in and do something about it.

One of the people I would like to quote is Denis Saint-Pierre, chair of the Tax and Fiscal Policy Advisory Group of the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada. The Government of Canada quoted this organization to support what it was saying about the benefits of Bill C-38, but the organization said something else that the government failed to mention. Mr. Saint-Pierre said that, when the Standing Committee on Finance invited Canadians to share their priorities for the 2013 federal budget, the committee asked him five questions to which he could provide only one answer again this year and that is that the simplification of the tax system is vital. He said:

Canada's tax system is unduly complex. Entrepreneurs will tell you that. My clients tell me that. There is a growing consensus that the complexity of Canada's tax system must be addressed if Canada is to remain competitive, able to attract business and investment, and create jobs and economic growth.

For example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce identifies Canada' s complex tax system as one of the top 10 barriers to competitiveness. Tax simplification is the number one public policy priority for CGA-Canada.

Robin Bobocel, vice-president of public affairs for the Edmonton Chamber of Commerce, said exactly the same thing:

One of the significant costs that business bears with such a complex tax code is compliance with it. There's a significant cost borne on simply filing tax returns and trying to ensure that you're taking full advantage of the tax code as it sits.

This was mentioned in the study conducted by the Fraser Institute. Quite frankly, Canada's global competitiveness will suffer the consequences if we do not conduct a comprehensive review of the tax code.

Here is one last quote from someone who testified before the Standing Committee on Finance on the very important issue of the complexity of the tax system. Michael Conway, chief executive and national president of Financial Executives International Canada, had this to say before the committee:

We again recommend that the Minister of Finance establish a task force to undertake a comprehensive review of the federal Income Tax Act, with the objective of reducing complexities, because—to be clear—compliance has become unmanageable, and the costs are killing everyone.

That act is too cumbersome for the government to administer and it creates an excessive burden on business, especially small business, which is one of the engines that drive our economy.

In its final report on the pre-budget consultations, the committee unanimously recommended that the federal government undertake a comprehensive review of the tax system and ensure its fairness as well as neutrality by continuing to close tax loopholes that allow select taxpayers to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

The tax system's complex and cumbersome nature, in addition to being costly for the taxpayers, undermines the concept of fairness that would allow taxpayers to see it as legitimate.

The Standing Committee on Finance has already done some work on this. For some people the tax system is an exciting issue, while for others it seems more technical. It affects one of the essential elements for Canadians, that is, to contribute fairly to this society and this country in which we live.

Since 2011, when we became the official opposition, and even since the current government took office in 2006, the government has shrugged off all taxation issues in a most disingenuous way. During debates, the government regularly mentions the phantom carbon tax the NDP wants to impose, although there is no such thing. Moreover, in all their speeches, the Conservatives say that the NDP wants to tax and spend, which is also not the case.

If we look at the records of all the NDP governments in the country—provincial ones, since we have not governed the whole country—we find that NDP governments have achieved more balanced budgets than the other parties that have governed the provinces, territories and the country since 1987, or even 1982, if we want to go back that far.

Now we need to debate tax policy like grown-ups. The NDP is ready to do that and the other opposition parties are probably ready as well. We must stop treating the taxation system as a purely political issue and listen to the voters who are stuck in a system so complex that they cannot tell the true facts from the illusions the government has created.

When people talk about the complexity of the taxation system, the tax brackets are not the problem. The tax brackets are very simple for the individuals or businesses filing their tax returns.

We must consider three key elements, two of which are easy to analyze.

First, there are loopholes. Bill C-48 is supposed to deal with this problem. We certainly hope that some of these loopholes can be eliminated.

Then there are tax expenditures, and especially boutique tax credits, that is, a choose-your-own list of tax credits for various parts of Canadian society. They include tax credits to assist volunteer firefighters and those for families that want their children to have more training in the arts or sports activities. These are non-refundable tax credits. The people who use them are paying taxes. Thus, the people who need them most are not able to use these tax credits.

Finally, there is a lack of concerted effort and coordination internationally. This has to be addressed at the most basic level. It is necessary for Parliament as a whole and every member of Parliament to participate in seeking more fairness and exploring ways our tax system can adapt to the new reality, because the Income Tax Act has been around since 1917, and making sure than Canada remains competitive.

Adding the complexity of Bill C-48 to the already complex Income Tax Act is not the way to resolve this fundamental issue that will soon have to be addressed.

We will support Bill C-48 at second reading.

We hope to have a good debate on it in the Standing Committee on Finance. I will be pleased to take questions from the hon. members.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012.

Bill C-48 is 955 pages in length with 428 amendments. I am going to use my time in the House today to examine how we got to this point, and where we are now examining such a mammoth bill, looking at the recent history of technical tax bills, including the Auditor General's report from November 2009 on income tax legislation, as well as the study by the public accounts committee on that report.

I intend to talk about the need for Parliament to regularly adopt technical tax legislation in a timely manner, as well as the overwhelming need to thoroughly examine and, yes, simplify the Income Tax Act.

Finally, I would like to use my remaining time to briefly discuss Bill C-48 itself.

With respect to the recent history of technical tax bills, if Bill C-48 receives royal assent, it will be the first technical tax bill to do so since Bill C-22, the Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, which received royal assent in June 2001, almost 12 years ago.

With such a massive bill before us now, it begs the question as to why Parliament has not approved any technical tax bills since 2001.

The previous Liberal government did publish technical amendments for public comment on three separate occasions: December 2002, February 2004, and July 2005. Those amendments were introduced in Parliament in 2006 as Bill C-33, the Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006. Bill C-33 received third reading and made it to the other house, but it died on the order paper when the Prime Minister asked the Governor General to prorogue Parliament in 2007. Later in 2007 an identical version of this legislation was tabled as Bill C-10. Once again the legislation made it to the other house and died on the order paper when the Prime Minister again asked the Governor General to prorogue Parliament in 2008.

Since then there has been nothing. For four years the Conservatives failed to introduce a technical tax bill in Parliament. Clearing up the growing backlog of technical tax amendments was nowhere to be found on the Conservatives' list of priorities.

Next week the Conservatives will pass the seventh year mark in government, but they have yet to pass a single technical tax bill. It is a failure of public administration. It is not good public administration that it has taken this long, particularly when at the time the Conservative government was elected in 2006 there was legislation ready to be introduced and twice prorogation killed legislative attempts to deal with this.

I want to speak to the Auditor General's report. In the fall of 2009, Auditor General Sheila Fraser reported on the government's inability to take action on this. She emphasized the need for the government to introduce technical tax legislation in order to bring clarity to the Income Tax Act. When she released her report, she said:

The Income Tax Act is one of the longest and most complex pieces of federal legislation. Taxpayers have the right to expect clear guidance on how to interpret the Act so they can determine how much income tax they owe.

That makes sense. In her report she argued that by failing to provide clarity through technical tax amendments, the government was increasing the costs for everyone involved. The report states:

For taxpayers, the negative effects of uncertainty may include

--higher costs of obtaining professional advice to comply with tax law; less efficiency in doing business transactions;

--inability of publicly traded corporations to use proposed tax changes in their financial reporting, because they have not been “substantively enacted”;

--greater cynicism about the fairness of the tax system; and increased willingness to use aggressive tax plans.

For the tax administrator, the negative effects may include

--higher costs for providing additional guidance and interpretations to taxpayers and tax auditors; and

--higher administrative costs for reprocessing the tax returns after an outstanding legislative amendment is enacted and for obtaining waivers to extend the limitation period for reassessment.

The result may be uncertainty in the amount of tax revenues to be collected by the government and possible loss of tax revenues.

What the Auditor General is saying is that this is not some esoteric, arcane discussion as to whether or not it is a failure of the government to provide in a timely manner these technical tax amendments to the House and to pass them. It does result in higher transaction costs for companies. It results in confusion for Canadian taxpayers, not knowing how these will affect them, and higher costs from professionals like accountants and auditors in dealing with these.

The Auditor General's report said that the result may be uncertainty in the amount of tax revenues to be collected by the government and the possible loss of tax revenues. It actually affects the amount of revenue that the government is collecting or can collect.

The Auditor General went on to warn parliamentarians that we must not wait to pass a technical tax bill, that we must clear the backlog immediately and then regularly adopt technical tax amendments. In her report she said:

If proposed technical changes are not tabled regularly, the volume of amendments becomes difficult for taxpayers, tax practitioners, and parliamentarians to absorb when they are grouped into a large package.

Finally, she pleaded with the Department of Finance to fix the situation.

Auditor General Sheila Fraser said:

The Department of Finance needs to do more to bring the urgency of the problem to the attention of the government and Parliament. It ought to review the way it manages this process.

Beyond the Auditor General's report, we also have a report from the public accounts committee. In early 2010, the public accounts committee studied the Auditor General's report. The committee was then chaired by my former colleague from Charlottetown, the hon. Sean Murphy. The committee shared her concerns about the waste and mismanagement that resulted from the Conservatives doing nothing to introduce these technical amendments. Quite naturally, the committee wanted to know when the problem would be fixed, so it called the deputy minister of finance and the commissioner of the national revenue agency before the committee. These officials assured committee members that the problem was under control and the solution was forthcoming. The committee's April, 2010 report stated:

Officials from the Department told the Committee that they are hoping to have a technical bill ready for the government's review within the next couple of months. They are also considering releasing smaller packages of technical amendments on a regular basis.... Although, officials told the Committee that they would not be in a position to propose annual technical bills until the end of 2011.

If senior officials were telling a parliamentary committee back in 2010 that a technical tax bill would be ready in a few months, we have to ask ourselves as parliamentarians what happened. What we really need, broadly, is tax reform and tax simplification. The fact is that over a long period of time, not just under this government, the Income Tax Act has grown too large and unwieldy. However, it is notable that under this Conservative government, the Income Tax Act has actually grown by almost one-sixth in size. We have arrived at the point where accountants—the very profession that bases its livelihood on interpreting on behalf of clients the complexity of tax laws—are now regularly lobbying Parliament and the finance committee for tax simplification. Even the accountants are saying the tax code is too complex.

The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants stated in its most recent prebudget submission:

Reducing complexity in Canada's domestic tax regime is crucial to easing the regulatory burden placed on Canadian businesses and attracting investment. Simplifying our tax system would make the country more competitive and allow both individuals and businesses to prosper.

According to the Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011, issued by the World Economic Forum, tax regulations are among the top four most problematic factors cited by business executives for doing business in Canada. Many aspects of Canada's tax system have become too complex. We recommend that the government establish a national consultation process to examine tax simplification measures.

That quote was from the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants' pre-budget submission to the House of Commons finance committee.

The most recent pre-budget submission from the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada includes the following recommendations:

Modernize Canada's tax system—make it simple, transparent and more efficient

Introduce and pass a technical tax bill to deal with unlegislated tax proposals

Implement a “sunset provision” to prevent further legislative backlogs

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

It is important to realize that we have not had a comprehensive review of Canada's tax laws and our tax code since the Royal Commission on Taxation in the 1960s. The Carter commission published its report in 1966, and the changes were implemented in 1972. That is more than 40 years ago. If we were asked to sum up in one word what has changed in the Canadian and global economy since 1972, it would be “everything”.

The reality is that there have been so many fundamental structural changes to the global and Canadian economies since 1972 that we desperately need a thorough study, review and perhaps royal commission to deal with the tax changes we need as a country, with the objective of building a fairer and, in terms of economic growth, a potentially more competitive capacity to attract investment, as well as a simpler tax system.

In the House we have talked about the issue of income inequality. That has to be a consideration when we are talking about tax reform.

We have talked about issues of competitiveness and what kinds of taxes render an economy less competitive. We have to look at those. We have to study to what extent we can use the tax system to incentivize greater investment in research development and commercialization of technologies, and potentially clean technologies to green our production of energy in Canada, including cleaner conventional energy and the oil sands, as well as what kinds of tax incentives we can offer to make it more attractive to invest in and develop those technologies as we move forward.

When the Carter commission came in, among other things, it got rid of inheritance tax in Canada and replaced it with a capital gains tax. That was a significant change at the time. Today, we may look at that differently and consider some of the advice being given by tax experts both within Canada and globally.

Clearly, not to have had any thorough study of our tax system since 1972 indicates how woefully out of date our current tax code is. The reality is that the tax code under the Conservative government has since increased by one-sixth of its size. It is more complicated and less fair because of what some people refer to as the boutique tax credits the government has brought in for children in hockey and studying music, family caregivers and volunteer firefighters. We all believe it is laudable to support volunteer firefighters, family caregivers and families putting their children in activities, and we support that.

However, first, the reality is that it does complicate the tax code. Second, the fact that these tax credits are non-refundable means that the lowest income Canadian families do not qualify, those people who need the help the most, whether with respect to the family caregiver tax credit or to families with children in activities.

Not only have the Conservatives complicated our tax system, but by making these tax credits non-refundable, they have actually rendered our tax system less fair and contributed to income inequality and income disparity by not helping the people who need the help the most. Those are low-income families who, perversely, do not qualify for these tax credits.

I would like to speak about the Canada Revenue Agency. When the tax code grows in size and complexity, so do the requests to CRA for clarification. Governments have the power to compel residents to pay taxes, and that is a huge power, but with that power comes the responsibility to provide taxpayers with clarity around the law and to recognize that not every Canadian taxpayer can—in fact the vast majority cannot—really afford professional help to deal with these complexities.

One of the ways the government can provide clarity around tax law is with advanced income tax rulings. That is an area the Auditor General examined in her 2009 report. It is also an area where the CRA is failing and the record is getting worse. The CRA has set a target for itself to issue advanced income tax rulings within 60 days, and in 2004 it met this target. Three years ago the average ruling took the CRA 98 days. Two years ago it was 102 days. Last year it was 106 days, close to double the target CRA set for itself. These delays lead to increased costs both for the taxpayer and for the government.

For good public servants in the CRA who work in places like Charlottetown, P.E.I., those cuts to CRA are actually, perversely, going to lead to the government ultimately contributing not only to ambiguity and confusion around interpretation of these tax changes but also to actually collecting less money.

One of the things we discovered in our study around offshore accounts and the offshoring of personal wealth by many Canadians is that investments by the previous Liberal government to CRA to specifically target offshore accounts led to a huge level of success in terms of return on investment, in terms of collecting this money. The Conservatives have cut back funding to CRA, which will in time reduce governance and the capacity to target, identify and collect from offshore accounts and in other areas where we could collect more in terms of taxes.

The Auditor General said in her report, speaking about the CRA:

If the Agency's guidance is not timely or correct, taxpayers may inadvertently fail to comply with the law or they may become frustrated because the information they need is not available. Either may lead to a loss of tax revenue or an overpayment that later must be adjusted.

She made the following recommendation:

(4) The CRA “should develop more concrete plans to meet its own target times for issuing advance income tax rulings, given the significance of the rulings to proposed business transactions.”

Again, this is another report where the Auditor General is being extremely clear with some specific corrective measures that the government could take.

In 2009, the government said it agreed with this recommendation, but the dismal results suggest that nothing has been done about it.

Last week the Canadian Federation of Independent Business issued a press release entitled, “CRA Call Centre Business Helpline gets C- grade from CFIB”. According to the CFIB, only 61% of callers received full and accurate information “service standards and agent professionalism have declined”. Again, I am not blaming the CRA employees, but the government is making it very difficult for them to do their jobs.

The Liberals are concerned. We support the idea of Bill C-48 being presented now, finally dealing with some of these issues, but we do not support the tax direction of the government, which is ultimately creating a less fair, less competitive and more complicated Canadian tax system. We believe we need more than tax tinkering; we need real tax reform aimed at building a more competitive, fairer and simpler Canadian tax code.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—the government must introduce a technical tax amendments bill. The last time a technical tax bill was passed by Parliament was over 11 years ago. Literally hundreds of unlegislated tax amendments to the Income Tax Act...have been proposed, but not yet enacted, which brings uncertainty and unpredictability to the process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the former Auditor General noted:

If proposed technical changes are not tabled regularly, the volume of amendments becomes difficult for taxpayers, tax practitioners, and parliamentarians to absorb when they are grouped into a large package.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Until now, the choice has probably been more in favour of combining measures so as to put forward fewer bills. I think the lesson that we learned from this experience is that it may be preferable to change the balance somewhat.

She is speaking of the omnibus bills. She continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

moved that Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking everyone involved in supporting us as members of Parliament in Tuesday’s voting. Despite all of the amendments at committee and in the House, the balance of the government’s 2012 economic action plan will become law shortly.

This afternoon, the House will resume consideration of second reading of Bill C-15, the Strengthening Military Justice in the Defence of Canada Act. Once that has concluded, we will turn to report stage of Bill C-37, the Increasing Offenders' Accountability for Victims Act, Bill C-42, the Enhancing Royal Canadian Mounted Police Accountability Act, and Bill C-43, the Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act.

We will continue working on these bills tomorrow.

Monday shall be the seventh allotted day, which goes to the New Democrats. This gives the official opposition one last opportunity before the new year to lay out its plans and schemes for a $21.5 billion job-killing carbon tax that will raise the price of everything.

For the rest of the week, I hope to advance a lot of legislation that continues to sit on the order paper. In addition to the bills I mentioned already, we will also consider Bill C-48, the technical tax amendments act, 2012; Bill S-8, the safe drinking water for first nations act; Bill S-2, the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act; Bill S-6, the first nations elections act; Bill S-10, the prohibiting cluster munitions act; Bill C-49, the Canadian museum of history act; Bill C-17, the Air Canada and its associates act; and Bill S-7, the combating terrorism act, once that bill has been reported back from committee next week, which I anticipate.

Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

moved for leave to introduce 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.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)