Bill C-29 (Historical)

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) eliminating the eligible capital property rules and introducing a new class of depreciable property;
(b) introducing rules to prevent the avoidance of the shareholder loan rules using back-to-back arrangements;
(c) excluding derivatives from the application of the inventory valuation rules;
(d) ensuring that the return on a linked note retains the same character whether it is earned at maturity or reflected in a secondary market sale;
(e) clarifying the tax treatment of emissions allowances and eliminating the double taxation of certain free emissions allowances;
(f) introducing rules so that any accrued foreign exchange gains on a foreign currency debt will be realized when the debt becomes a parked obligation;
(g) ensuring that amounts are not inappropriately received tax-free by a policyholder as a result of a disposition of an interest in a life insurance policy;
(h) preventing the misuse of an exception in the anti-avoidance rules in the Income Tax Act for cross-border surplus-stripping transactions;
(i) indexing to inflation the maximum benefit amounts and the phase-out thresholds under the Canada child benefit, beginning in the 2020–21 benefit year;
(j) amending the anti-avoidance rules in the Income Tax Act that prevent the multiplication of access to the small business deduction and the avoidance of the business limit and the taxable capital limit;
(k) ensuring that an exchange of shares of a mutual fund corporation or investment corporation that results in the investor switching between funds will be considered for tax purposes to be a disposition at fair market value;
(l) implementing the country-by-country reporting standards recommended by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development;
(m) clarifying the application of anti-avoidance rules in the Income Tax Act for back-to-back loans to multiple intermediary structures and character substitution; and
(n) introducing rules to prevent the avoidance of withholding tax on rents, royalties and similar payments using back-to-back arrangements.
Part 1 implements other income tax measures confirmed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) allowing greater flexibility for recognizing charitable donations made by an individual’s former graduated rate estate;
(b) clarifying what types of investment funds are excluded from the loss restriction event rules that otherwise limit a trust’s use of certain tax attributes;
(c) ensuring that income arising in certain trusts on the death of the trust’s primary beneficiary is taxed in the trust and not in the hands of that beneficiary, subject to a joint election for certain testamentary trusts to report the income in that beneficiary’s final tax return;
(d) clarifying that the Canada Revenue Agency and the courts may increase or adjust an amount included in an assessment that is under objection or appeal at any time, provided the total amount of the assessment does not increase; and
(e) implementing the common reporting standard recommended by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for the automatic exchange of financial account information between tax authorities.
Part 1 also amends the Employment Insurance Act and various regulations to replace the term “child tax benefit” with “Canada child benefit”.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed or confirmed in the March 22, 2016 budget by
(a) adding certain exported call centre services to the list of GST/HST zero-rated exports;
(b) strengthening the test for determining whether two corporations, or a partnership and a corporation, can be considered closely related;
(c) ensuring that the application of the GST/HST is unaffected by income tax amendments that convert eligible capital property into a new class of depreciable property; and
(d) clarifying that the Canada Revenue Agency and the courts may increase or adjust an amount included in an assessment that is under objection or appeal at any time, provided the total amount of the assessment does not increase.
Part 3 implements an excise measure confirmed in the March 22, 2016 budget by clarifying that the Canada Revenue Agency and the courts may increase or adjust an amount included in an assessment that is under objection or appeal at any time, provided the total amount of the assessment does not increase.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Employment Insurance Act to specify what does not constitute suitable employment for the purposes of certain provisions of the Act.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Old Age Security Act to provide that, in the case of low-income couples who have to live apart for reasons not attributable to either of them, the amount of the allowance is to be based on the income of the allowance recipient only.
Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Canada Education Savings Act to replace the term “child tax benefit” with “Canada child benefit”. It also amends that Act to change the manner in which the eligibility for the Canada Learning Bond is established, including by eliminating the national child benefit supplement as an eligibility criterion and by adding an eligibility formula based on income and number of children.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Canada Disability Savings Act to replace the term “child tax benefit” with “Canada child benefit”. It also amends the definition “phase-out income”.
Division 5 of Part 4 amends the Royal Canadian Mint Act to enable the Royal Canadian Mint to anticipate profit with respect to the provision of goods or services, to clarify the powers of the Royal Canadian Mint, to confirm the current and legal tender status of all non-circulation $350 coins dated between 1999 and 2006 and to remove the requirement that the directors of the Royal Canadian Mint have experience in respect of metal fabrication or production, industrial relations or a related field.
Division 6 of Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act, the Bank of Canada Act and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act to clarify certain powers of the Minister of Finance in relation to the sound and efficient management of federal funds and the operation of Crown corporations. It amends the Financial Administration Act to provide that the Minister of Finance may lend, by way of auction, excess funds out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and, with the authorization of the Governor in Council, may enter into contracts and agreements of a financial nature for the purpose of managing risks related to the financial position of the Government of Canada. It also amends the Bank of Canada Act to provide that the Minister of Finance may delegate to the Bank of Canada the management of the lending of money to agent corporations. Finally, it amends the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act to provide that the Bank of Canada may act as a custodian of the financial assets of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, my Liberal colleague was quick to fine-tune the Liberal talking points in his speech today in the House.

For the benefit of the House, could the hon. member point specifically to where it was suggested in the Liberal platform that our infrastructures would be privatized? The budget refers to asset recycling, where government-owned assets that were paid for by Canadian taxpayers are taken and sold to private interests. In addition, there was the recent announcement of the infrastructure bank, which will require that our infrastructure assets, in partnership with private investors, earn interest for investors and be profitable.

On these two points, can the hon. member tell us where in the Liberal platform is there any reference to privatization, and where it states that private interests can become owners of infrastructure assets that are now public?

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Sherbrooke for his question.

We have talked about it during the campaign. It is in our platform. The overarching thing here is the theme of the NDP. Those members hate the word “private”. They hate any involvement of the private sector.

We on this side of the House think, if private sector funds can be leveraged with government money to make life better for Canadians, then why would we as a government not leverage that potential? Why would we not take advantage of being able to deliver more services, more infrastructure, and a better life for all Canadians? I do not share the fear of the private sector, as the member opposite and his colleagues do. That is why we will always have to agree to disagree on this point.

I for one am proud that we are able to leverage private money, if the case is appropriate, to get things built for Canadians. That is what Canadians demand. That is what Canadians want. That is what Canadians deserve.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have wanted to ask this question throughout the debate, particularly of a Liberal government member.

Earlier the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance quoted at length comments made by the head of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, and her approval of spending. I would like to point to Christine Lagarde's other advice as head of the International Monetary Fund, that Canada keep its commitment to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, which are still in this budget. I am speaking of youth, as the hon. member just did. I would remind him of Christine Lagarde's words: if we do not act on climate change, “future generations will be roasted, toasted, fried and grilled”.

When will the Liberal government live up to its commitment to remove fossil fuel subsidies?

[Kyle Peterson, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands knows as well as well as everyone in this House that I do not have the authority to speak for the government, so I cannot give her a date or a time frame.

However, I will let the hon. member know that I am happy to be part of a government that believes climate change is real, that has real policies to affect climate change, to improve the situation, and we will continue to work hard together with the Department of Environment and Climate Change and all my colleagues on this side of the House and any colleagues who want to help us to make sure that we leave the planet in better shape than it was for our children.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-29, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016 and other measures, be read the third time and passed.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have no words to express my outrage. Bill C-29 is a scam perpetrated on Quebec consumers that benefits Toronto bankers. That is not all. Bill C-29 is a direct attack on Quebec, on segments of our legal system and on our ability to decide for ourselves how to run our own society.

Legally speaking, Bill C-29 is the biggest power grab since the patriation of the Constitution in 1982, but that is not all. Bill C-29 is a hypocritical bill, a gift for cigar smokers and champagne drinkers hidden in this massive bill. This bill is being rammed through without an opportunity for debate, defended by Bay Street hacks with bogus arguments. These arguments are categorically untrue. I will come back to that in a few moments.

No matter how we slice or dice it, this bill stinks. It reeks of cronyism and moral turpitude. In fact, the only good thing I see about the bill is that it takes the masks off. Now we know who Ali Baba’s 40 thieves are. We can see how two-faced they are, with their fake smiles, which, when we look closely, look more like snarls.

When it comes to consumer protection, Quebec is nothing short of the most advanced society in North America. Back home is where the average citizen has the most rights to confront big money. That is what Bill C-29 is jeopardizing. Everyone knows that Toronto banks are no fans of Quebec's legal system. They would not be disappointed if Quebec were more like Canada. Then they could have a standard practice from coast to coast to coast, as the government says, without having to worry about some original and distinct society somewhere on this continent.

Indeed, Quebec is unlike any other nation in North America. The Supreme Court got it right two years ago when it asked the banks to respect Quebec's laws. It got it right when it ruled that Quebec's different approach was not a major threat to the banking system.

Even the Supreme Court, the court that almost always rules the same way, sentenced the banks to respecting Quebec and its laws. Outside Quebec, Bill C-29 will not have many adverse effects, but back home it will. Back home, our government sets the strictest safeguards to ensure that consumers are not swindled.

Bill C-29 eliminates all of the safeguards that protect ordinary people but that bother rich Bay Street bankers, including those that ban misleading advertising and hidden fees, those that prevent unilateral changes to contracts, and those that prohibit banks from increasing the maximum liability for unauthorized credit card charges to more than $50.

In order to ensure that banks obey the law, there is a simple, yet legally binding, recourse mechanism available, and it is the Office de la protection du consommateur, a Quebec government institution. This organization defends ordinary people rather than profiteers, and has the ability to initiate class action suits so that David does not have to go up against Goliath alone. Bill C-29 has just replaced all that with a few provisions that do not protect anyone.

These provisions are written in the conditional tense. Banks should not gouge people and should not charge hidden fees. If they do, the banking ombudsman, who is appointed by the banks themselves, will not be happy with them. That is it. There are no sanctions, no fines, no reimbursements, nothing. This is a joke, and Quebec consumers are the butt of it. They are the ones who are losing out.

The Consumer Protection Act stems from the Civil Code. Quebec's powers in civil law are at the heart of the society we have built. All of the Government of Quebec's economic powers are derived from our autonomy with respect to property and civil rights. These powers are just one reason why Quebec has become the most egalitarian society in North America. The Consumer Protection Act is another. The federal government has always respected that, even if it was not happy about it.

During the British military dictatorship, which began in 1763, the Civil Code was enforced. When Quebec ceased to exist under the Act of Union, the Civil Code applied. Since 1867, even the federal government has respected the Civil Code in its relations with the people of Quebec.

The federal government is not above the Civil Code, but with this measure the banks will be. This is an incredible blow. What is more, not only is Bill C-29 appalling, but so is the manner in which this measure is being introduced. It is hidden among a multitude of clauses in a mammoth bill, and is being rammed through by gagging members to ensure that there is no debate. We have no way of knowing why this is being done.

The only argument cited by the government is the Supreme Court ruling. Apparently the Supreme Court required action on the government's part, which responded with Bill C-29. I have read the Supreme Court ruling several times. In Marcotte, the court does not cite the federal government, but requires the banks to respect Quebec and Quebec laws. In fact, the only time that the court refers to the federal government, it tells the government to do nothing.

This is what the court had to say about Quebec's consumer protection act:

It is hard to imagine how these provisions would force Parliament to pass legislation to countermand them...

The government is therefore not responding to the court ruling; it is going against it. That is not the same, and it does not bode well. I can understand why Liberals outside Quebec support Bill C-29. It does not take away any rights from Canadians outside Quebec. It is in Quebec, and nowhere else, where ordinary folk are being taken to the cleaners.

The Liberal MPs from Quebec are beneath contempt on this issue. They are hacks being used by Bay Street to work against their own people. It is not surprising to see them all by themselves. The National Assembly has denounced them. Their own friends, the Quebec Liberals, are asking them to backtrack. The usually quiet Chambre des notaires du Québec is alarmed by this direct attack on our legal system. There is not a single consumer rights or constitutional law expert on their side. There is absolutely no one standing by them. What is happening is serious.

This debate reminds me of one thing: my people, whom I love, are a minority in this country. The boss is not us, and this country is not ours. In my anger, a quote from Léon Dion comes to mind. Yes, I am talking about Léon Dion, political scientist and father of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who said this:

Since 1763, we no longer have a history, except one, by refraction, that our conquerors would have us experience, as a way to pacify us. Their task has been made all the easier because we produce our own worst enemies.

There is no need for me to name these executioners. There are 40 of them and they know who they are.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments, which I find a bit far-fetched.

He decided to quote Léon Dion, who has said many remarkable things throughout his academic career in Quebec. However, in which context did Dr. Dion say this? How can my hon. colleague bring up what Dr. Dion said in the final chapter of his life, when he had other things to say about Quebec’s place in Canada?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will stick to Bill C-29 and the impasse put before us. Never have the rights of consumers in Quebec been so diminished than they will be by this bill.

In the drafting of the government’s Bill C-29, just like in the answers that the Minister of Finance gave to Senator Pratte earlier, the solution of “opting out”—which would maintain the Quebec Consumer Protection Act and strengthen consumer protection in the other provinces—was never proposed.

This is not the case, and the masks have come off. This does not strengthen protection for Quebec consumers, but instead weakens it to the benefit of the banks and shields them against the people. This is despicable, and those words were not far-fetched at all. What is far-fetched is the government’s attitude, and this is why I am angry. We need to protect the people, not the banks.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech and for focusing on what this really means for Quebeckers.

I think the government is exhibiting gross misunderstanding, or perhaps even unadulterated bad faith, in choosing to ignore the provisions already in place in Quebec.

Does my colleague agree that this is also a wasted opportunity to convince the banks to treat their clients like civilized people and not to charge ridiculous credit card interest rates as they are doing now? This would have been a perfect opportunity to do that. Not only is the government encroaching on Quebec's jurisdiction, it is also not even doing its job.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. It is awful.

For example, in Quebec, if someone's credit card is stolen, the law says that banks cannot charge fees in excess of $50. Bill C-29 encourages credit card thieves because it does away with both law and limits. The bank can claim the entire $2,000, say, that the thief spends. This is a major, serious, and appalling step backward. The government is helping itself to a huge power.

Earlier, my colleague from Hull—Aylmer talked about the patriation of the Constitution when he was talking about Mr. Dion's remarks. In this case, the government is patriating power. It is stealing the Quebec Civil Code. This is unprecedented, outrageous, and an appalling attack. The government is exempting banks from the Quebec Civil Code.

In conclusion, I want to mention that Minister Fournier of the Quebec National Assembly announced a few minutes ago that he is considering taking legal action against the federal government if it goes ahead with Bill C-29.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very thoughtful and passionate remarks in this debate. I think he may have raised people's awareness of certain things, and I sincerely thank him for it.

The only point in his speech that I really take exception to is the same point that always bugs me about the Bloc Québécois, namely when they try to say that they are the only ones defending the interests of Quebec. Of course I strongly disagree with that.

Professors of constitutional law have issued an opinion. I would like him to name the professors who are saying that the Consumer Protection Act could not be supplemental to what Bill C-29 provides. Could he give us some examples?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleague to read an article published in today's La Presse+ penned by Vincent Brousseau-Pouliot, in which he cites two professors, including one professor from Université Laval, which, I believe, is his alma mater.

In addition, clause 131 of Bill C-29 clearly states in black and white that this federal statute is intended to be paramount to any provision of a law or regulation of a province. My colleague need not check with any constitutional experts; he just has to read that clause. It is written in black and white.

The experts cited by Mr. Brousseau-Pouliot, among others, remind us of this, and so does the open letter from the representative of the Chambre des notaires du Québec. These are experts in contract and civil law. They have no interest in defending a client as litigators would. Rather, they defend the common good, the clarity of contracts. They agree with us on this.

I urge my colleague to defend the interest of Quebec, and I urge him to vote against Bill C-29, which was put under time allocation.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member from the beautiful area of Edmonton Riverbend.

I am honoured to represent the hard-working people of Elgin—Middlesex—London, and today I stand to discuss Bill C-29 with many of their concerns in mind.

Just one year ago, the Liberals promised modest deficits, and made many more promises. We have seen media reports that show the cost of food will go up 5% in the new year. Not one new full-time job has been created. With the new measurements put in place by the government, it is harder for Canadians to purchase homes under the new mortgage laws. Instead, we see huge deficits, high taxes, and low economic growth.

We have heard about the carbon tax that will be introduced by all provincial and territorial governments, and enforced by the federal government. We have an infrastructure bank that will not be supporting rural Canada at all. We have infrastructure projects that the government suggests have been approved, but where is the actual work being done? The tax cuts that were scheduled for small businesses have been reversed. The tax credits that helped families offset the costs of children's arts and fitness programs have been cancelled. We have seen extravagant spending on programs, but nothing to show for the expenditure of these dollars.

Canadians are growing concerned. Just yesterday in the House, the government did not deny its plans for new taxes on health and dental benefits.

With every middle-class tax cut, there is a new tax introduced for all Canadians, young and old, rich and poor.

Let us stop kidding ourselves. The economy is stagnant, and the Liberals' promise to spend their way to prosperity is failing. Although there is a lot of talk, I am honestly worried not only for the next generation and the large debt load that the government is burdening it with, but also for our current generation, where people find it difficult to pay for their hydro and cannot find a job.

Students are graduating from universities with no chance of permanent full-time positions, and they are not getting the chance to use their higher education because the government is not creating the necessary environment for job creation.

Is the sky falling? No, but it is pretty gloomy out there.

Back in July, I did a lot of media interviews regarding the new Canada child benefit. As the critic for families, children and social development, I was asked my thoughts on this new program. I will not deny that it does help families. However, we are talking about a very unsustainable program. According to the parliamentary budget officer, it will cost $42.6 billion over the next five years. The parliamentary secretary said that these plans would be going forward regardless of the strain on public finances. I wonder where this money will come from? If we have a government that does not create a single job and spends out of control, where do we get the revenue to pay for these programs? I hope the government is listening to this speech and keeping that in mind.

The answer to this question, as we see it, is more taxes. More and more taxes will continue to be introduced by the Liberal government with no concern for the average taxpayer.

In an open letter received at my office on December 1, which was sent to the members of the Canadian Parliament, the author discusses the impacts of Bill C-29, and, “the complicated, administratively burdensome, and compliance challenged income tax provision” that will be placed on businesses. Who would want, and why would we want, this to be the case? We see a lot of things coming down from the Liberal government that do not seem to be looked at and do not seem to be the appropriate measures for an average Canadian and for Canadian businesses.

We have heard many quotes in the House from executives and analysts, but I would like to share with the House five quotes from people who I think are experts, taxpayers who pay their bills, and the bills of the government. These are from householders, and I will quote the fantastic people and constituents from Elgin—Middlesex—London.

Wayne Johnston from St. Thomas wrote, “I believe that policies such as the carbon tax and so-called cap and trade initiatives are environmentally useless and serve only to increase the tax burden on Canadians who are already over taxed.”

Karl Crocker from my hometown of Sparta wrote, “I don't think our present government gives a...about the average rural tax payer. With the carbon tax, hydro rates and now natural gas going up. We are mad.”

Gary and Vickie Gould from St. Thomas wrote, “The carbon tax is going to chase us out of our home....We have already two medium size businesses going to the United States if the carbon tax goes through. They do not want to move, but we have to because of the cost of their utilities.”

James Manning from Dorchester, “1. Good paying jobs need to be secured and new investment in Canada in job sectors is needed. 2. Follow up on government work projects to be completed as stated.”

These parties have concerns also for the 2017 budget. People are getting on track and voicing their opinions now because they are concerned with what they are seeing in their Canada today.

Edwin Zavitz from Dorchester said, “The Liberal Goo will do the same as always and tax and spend and steal from the people. The Prime Minister is the same as his father. Looks down his nose at Canadians.”

The government needs to start listening to taxpayers who are the people burdened by the government's debt. Without proper employment and precarious employment, revenue to the government is going to be precarious.

Despite the big spending being done by the government, the Bank of Canada, the International Monetary Fund and the OECD have all downgraded their forecasts for Canada for both 2016 and 2017.

Jobs are in short supply, and I have not seen the job creation that the government has promised. The cost of living continues to rise and the government is making it harder for Canadians. The government needs to refocus its plans for growing the economy. Instead of meeting at Liberal fundraisers with billionaires, the government needs to start meeting with small business owners and ordinary everyday Canadians.

The philosophy that actions speak louder than words needs to be front of mind for the government. We hear so much about the government's plans to raise more families into the middle class, but we do not see programs that actually do it.

We hear time and time again about reducing taxes for the middle-class on the one hand, but on the other hand, all we see are tax increases for every Canadian.

The carbon tax is something extremely concerning to me. During the month of November, I held an agricultural round table with local producers. The carbon tax was discussed and it was a great concern to many of these farmers. I would like to note that during this discussion, it was not I who brought up the carbon tax. It was just in a regular round table where people could speak their mind.

We know it will increase the costs of doing business. In Elgin—Middlesex—London, over 20% of people are connected to the agricultural sector. What type of negative impact will we see? We hear that the price of gas will be going up 11¢ per litre. What happens to rural Canadians who have to drive to work every day?

Public transportation is not an option, therefore the growth with their strategy does not have any impact on farmers or rural people from Rodney to Thorndale in my riding. Because of this new tax, they will see increased expenses.

We know that the cost of shipping goods will be increased. At the end of the day, this cost will be passed on to the consumer. The same people will be paying more for gas, taxed on their dental and health benefits, and taxed to pay for this huge debt. They will continue to pay more money out of their pockets.

The government needs to find a solution to help put people back to work. It needs to find a way of getting those who are looking for jobs back into the labour force. People cannot continue to be unemployed.

That takes me to the changes to the employment insurance, changes that were made to the program in 2013 and were focused on helping get people back to work. We recognize that employment insurance is a temporary solution, and a huge majority of Canadians believe so as well. The best option is to improve employment insurance to assist people to find jobs and create jobs.

Instead, the government is taking anything done in the past 10 years, good or bad, and reversing it. We see that with so many of its bills that have been introduced in the past year. The government has indicated that Canadians voted for change. I am not sure that Canadians who voted for change expected to see what they do today.

I hear all the time that we can do better, and I definitely agree. When is the government going to start?

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Intergovernmental Affairs)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to a list of taxes, which do not exist, about which the member is concerned.

I guess she can be concerned about taxes that do not exist, but it seems odd to be concerned about those taxes that do not exist when what does exist is a legacy from the previous government, which is an additional $150 billion on the debt, a debt delivered by mismanagement of the economy by the party opposite.

Before we even start to talk about the challenges this government faces, could the member please give us some ideas on how she would repay that $150 billion, where those resources would come from, and what that party was thinking, if it cared so much about taxpayers, when it failed to provide any leadership on debt reduction? It went into deficit before the meltdown of 2008, through tax cuts, and stayed in that position because of the inability of the Conservatives to manage an economy.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I will remind the member what a tax is. It is when people pay money back to the government. We are going to see the government taking money for the carbon tax. The member may not call it a carbon tax; he may want to call it something fluffier, but that is exactly what it is. It is money that is going to be coming out of everyday Canadians' pockets, and it is going to be put into the coffers of the Liberal government. That is a tax. We are also going to see an increase in CPP premiums. That is a tax.

I do not care personally if people shake their heads. That is fine. The member and I may have different ideas on what we would call a tax, but even in the last couple of days, our official critic for health has been asking about health and dental tax benefits, and the members opposite have not denied it. We see time and time again: tax, tax, tax.

I think one of the biggest things we see in this bill is the small business tax not being reduced. The bill is hurting the small businesses and employment environment.