Bill C-82 (Historical)

Multilateral Instrument in Respect of Tax Conventions Act

An Act to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting

This enactment implements a multilateral instrument in respect of conventions for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.
The multilateral instrument is an international treaty developed as part of the G20 and OECD’s project to tackle base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS). The purpose of the multilateral instrument is to modify, in their application, tax conventions between two or more parties to the multilateral instrument so as to further the objectives of the tax convention. The multilateral instrument operates alongside tax conventions to modify them in their application; it does not directly modify the text of the tax conventions. The multilateral instrument will apply to a Canadian bilateral double tax convention only if both parties to the convention notify the depositary that the convention is intended to be covered by the multilateral instrument. The Secretary-General of the OECD is the depositary of the multilateral instrument. The implementation of the multilateral instrument requires the enactment of this Act.

Multilateral Instrument in Respect of Tax Conventions Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first commend my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly on his speech, which clearly supported progressive values. We definitely felt that.

In his speech, he reminded us that the Minister of National Revenue told the House that the government had spent $1 billion to recoup $25 billion lost to tax evasion and tax avoidance. However, according to the report signed by the minister, the government recovered hundreds of times less money than that.

Does my colleague believe that Bill C-82 will enable the minister to recoup the $25 billion she mentioned so many times in the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for all the work that he has done on this file.

The minister keeps repeating that, but the problem is that she did not actually recoup that money. She simply discovered it existed. The government needs to do a lot more. Obviously, Bill C-82 is a step in the right direction, but it just one step.

To come back to my colleague's question, I do not think that this bill is enough. The government needs to do more. By supporting this bill today, we are also making a plea to the government to make significant amendments to the act, and in doing so, finally implement our motion, which it supported a few short months ago, and actually collect that money.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand on behalf of the citizens of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. I will be sharing my time with the very capable member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, who in addition to his duties as member of Parliament, also stands as the shadow minister for national revenue. Even though this is a finance bill, ultimately it is the CRA and the Minister of National Revenue that will become accountable for this. I know he will have many things to say on that end of it.

The two are very important, because, for example, in 2013-14 and particularly in the 2014 budget, the former minister of finance, the hon. Jim Flaherty, had opened consultations on the subject of base erosion and profit sharing. He did this specifically so he could go to the G20 and be able to make proposals and participate fully in those discussions on base erosion and profit sharing, which we are the beneficiaries of today.

I must give the government a little credit for taking its ideological blinders off. It does not seem to say that this is a Harper initiative. It has not blamed the former prime minister yet. I certainly hope that as we go through my speech today it will recognize sometimes there is much need for a new government to carry on the very good work of a previous government. We should not always judge something simply because of who had started an initiative.

During my time as the parliamentary secretary to the president of the Treasury Board in the previous Parliament, we worked on some pretty technical legislation from time to time. I will admit to having a certain affection for regulatory related bills that could provide benefits to Canadians and Canadian industry, particularly if they are done in such a way that is harmonized to reduce red tape. We recognize that Canada is increasingly becoming a competitor on the world stage, and we are likely to see more international trade, not less.

We must also recognize that with that come challenges. As one example, we have a situation where over this past summer the Liberal government was forced to modify its national carbon policy. Basically, it provided more carbon tax relief to some of Canada's biggest polluters. This is not unlike what happened in my home province of British Columbia, where greenhouse growers and cement manufacturers, to name a few, have been given so much in subsidies, exemptions or other kinds of carbon tax relief there is actually a word for it. It is called “carbon leakage”. It is defined in the 2018 B.C. NDP provincial budget as “...industries that compete with industry in countries that may have low or no carbon price. If BC loses market share to more polluting competitors, known as carbon leakage, it affects our economy and does not reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.” This is the same reason this Liberal government provided increased carbon tax relief to big polluters, because, ultimately, they compete with industry in the United States and elsewhere that do not have a nationally imposed carbon tax.

We are not here to debate the carbon tax. I am using it as an example because it illustrates the importance of being competitive. As we all know, being competitive in the corporate world often comes down to the bottom line, and we know how much the bottom line bears on our businesses, at least on this side of the House, as the Conservative Party has a very strong understanding. This creates a situation where, ultimately through creative, and some would argue dubious accounting practices, some companies can find creative ways to transfer wealth created in one country into another country with a much lower tax regime. Some countries even make a point of creating a regulatory and financial environment that actively encourages this sort of behaviour.

How do we fix that? Obviously, one approach would be an attempt to lower taxes to a level on par with some of these countries to stop the outflow of revenue. Many refer to this as the “race to the bottom” approach.

There is possibly another solution, which brings us to Bill C-82, which we are debating here today. What if we could get as many countries as possible to sign on to a common regulatory fiscal taxation approach that would better protect countries from this problem? Having similar fiscal language with respect to taxation would help reduce the regulatory red tape burden more than if we went at it piecemeal.

Not to mention there are greater efficiencies in adopting the kind of universal standard with OECD countries which sign on as opposed to having the same individual countries try to collect and negotiate separate tax treaty agreements among themselves.

To be fair, this multilateral instrument allows for Canada to quickly and efficiently update its agreements so that both the CRA and the tax authority in the adjoining country will immediately start to proceed, as the multilateral instrument has said, through the existing tax treaty. It is a very efficient way.

This is called, obviously, the multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting. Because that is a mouthful, we will simply refer to it as the MLI agreement. This work was started with the former Conservative government and I am pleased that the current government is continuing to work on this to the point we are here today debating the ratification agreement. Again, the agreement covers 75 jurisdictions worldwide and it is expected in the near future it will be over 100. That is a good thing.

While there are many benefits to the agreement, I should say it is not without some criticism. Some have suggested adopting the OECD MLI would result in the loss of tax autonomy for the country in question; however, I would point out there are provisions in the MLI agreement that allow countries to opt out of certain parts of the MLI at their discretion. This, by extension, can allow countries to still enable a specific tax structure but ultimately might provide unique tax benefits in certain areas. While some may consider that to be a bad thing, I also believe having a framework that allows some competitive incentive that keeps overall taxation levels in check is an important tool for countries to have.

Ultimately, this agreement is more targeted toward those who transfer money between countries for the sole purpose of avoiding taxation. Some people might say that some of this might be borderline tax evasion and in certain cases there may be, but let us be clear that Canada already has existing laws on tax evasion. That is not legal and the CRA should pursue those people who push the envelope much too far and know they are past the envelope.

I believe this agreement is more targeted toward specially transferred money between countries for the sole purpose of evading. In balance, I believe that is positive. Some have said that these types of agreements have not been successfully implemented in Canada before, but I would disagree with that. In the previous Parliament, we passed Bill S-12, An Act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act and to make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Regulations. That bill proposed the ability to import standardized regulations from other jurisdictions so we have parity here in Canada. That makes it much more convenient for Canadian manufacturers as it can be extremely costly in addition to meeting a plethora of different standards in other jurisdictions.

Getting back to the MLI, time will tell the overall effect of this. The challenge right now is that some of these tax avoidance schemes are entirely legal, so this agreement creates a taxation environment that would provide common tax measures that will help to eliminate abusive taxation policy.

Before I close, I would like to take a moment and relay one concern I do have. As we know, the United States is not a signatory partner to this agreement. Given the close relationship in industry between our two countries, with many companies having U.S.A. and Canadian ties, there could be long-term impacts down the road. Obviously we also see concern over NAFTA where we will need to be vigilant in monitoring our competitiveness with our neighbours to the south.

Overall, I believe the bill is an important one and moves Canada in the right direction in parity with the majority of our G20 partners. I will be voting for the bill and believe that added scrutiny at committee stage, particularly on some of these thorny points, will be beneficial. I appreciate the House hearing my thoughts on the bill today.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Youth Economic Opportunity), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his support of this legislation.

Would the member opposite agree that this legislation is a piece of the puzzle to the larger issue of tax evasion and tax avoidance, and that it actually works in conjunction with other policies, treaties or legislation that the government will bring forward? The government is not only doing the minimum standards, but is opting into enhancement of the MLI. Would the member agree that this is good for Canadians on the issue of tax fairness?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say more generally that this is a multilateral instrument and that this is actually good for developed countries, particularly the OECD countries, which do have a problem of, basically, jurisdiction shopping for the best tax-related policies. Again, there is some shifting of profits to areas that we do not have tax agreements with. Again, this is part of the developed world's attempt to modernize language in an efficient way and to also counter where some companies will simply shift profits outside the developed world and take them to places that have very low or no tax areas. Particularly if those monies were made in the developed world and consumed in the developed world, there should be taxes paid on them.

However, there are only a few multinational companies that probably have the sophistication to be able to do this kind of forum shopping. Whether that happens completely in Canada, I would argue probably, considering we hear so many concerns in the United States that multinationals are seeing their monies shifted outside the United States.

I also would simply suggest for the member that if we look at the tax reform proposals put forward by the American administration, that is lighting the U.S. economy on fire. It is not BEPS that is bringing the money home; it is the fact that they are competing and they have changed their laws to reflect the fact that they must remain competitive. That is the most important thing, and I hope the member and the government keep that in mind.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to work with my colleague. I have previously worked with him on committees.

It is important that, as a member of the OECD , we take seriously the work that is done in that forum. For example, the OECD recently did a report on all the countries living up to their commitment to deliver 0.7% of their GNI on international assistance, and chastised Canada for delivering just a third of that. Also, there have been calls for Canada to make sure that our standards for controlling toxins are on par with other OECD nations.

Clearly, the work of the OECD is important, but I wonder if the member could speak to this issue. A number of concerns have been raised that, yes, it is good that we will be modernizing the mechanism whereby we enter into these agreements, but will it not also be important to be revisiting some of the tax treaties we have with some nations, which simply could end up with corporations in Canada not paying their fair share of taxes in Canada?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that if the member has information about companies that are doing that, she should deliver that to the CRA personally. It is simply just saying that tax evasion happens. Yes, it does probably in many cases happen, but without specifics, it is very difficult for the CRA to track down. Therefore, if the member has information, that would be important to have.

I would just point out that it is easier for Canada as a country to renegotiate certain agreements with countries where there are concerns, but to do that, we need to have a partner that is willing and we also need to have the capacity and resources available to do that. By supporting this BEPS multilateral instrument, we will actually free up a lot of resources because we are dealing with like-minded economies, like-minded areas where we can quickly and efficiently modernize those agreements. That is a big part of this. This is just a faster way for us to keep our agreements up to do date to be able to keep up with the newest base erosion and profit shifting activities.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to read the Minister of National Revenue's mandate letter, dated November 12, 2015. It says that the Prime Minister wants the minister to invest “additional resources to help the CRA crack down on tax evaders and work with international partners to adopt strategies to combat tax avoidance.” That was three years ago, and we are seeing this bill coming forward but the member knows that under our previous government, Mr. Flaherty really got this initiative going. Does the member think the Liberals are actually serious about doing anything?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the member of Parliament for Oshawa could say what he really wants, he would probably want to direct that question to the member for Calgary Rocky Ridge because he is that capable of a member.

I would simply say results, results, results. Let us bear in mind that this particular multilateral instrument is about the use of highly sophisticated techniques to shift income so that, ultimately, states such as Canada will not receive full taxation, which is all done by Canadian law. It may be where it pushes the envelope, but that is because we have allowed these things when our regulatory environment and tax agreements are just not up to date. This would allow that to be sped up.

Making sure there are proper resources is important. I would also say that it is far easier for the CRA to go after existing businesses, and that is why I hear from so many small business owners who are continually audited for really little things. That needs to end. The focus needs to be on the big money.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to this legislation. It is my pleasure to follow my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola and his excellent discussion on a topic that he is interested in and knows a great deal about.

Bill C-82 is a welcome step forward. It is the natural conclusion to work that was first undertaken by the previous government in 2013. This is a good, positive step forward by two governments now to help address the serious problem of base erosion and profit shifting.

This legislation seeks to address a global problem that Canada is a part of, namely tax evasion, whereby corporations, through a corporate domicile or clever accounting, can shift profits between different jurisdictions or shop for the most desirable tax treatment from any of a variety of different jurisdictions.

For years we have heard in the news criticism of many global giants, including Starbucks, Apple and a number of other familiar global brands, that will seek to minimize their taxes by shopping for the most favourable jurisdiction. This is a problem that confronts western governments.

If the bill passes, Canada would be able to participate in a protocol that the OECD has in place.

We heard a bit about the scale and scope of this problem at the finance committee, and we welcome the bill.

The bill is an effective and efficient means by which we could deal with a wide variety of different tax jurisdictions through the same instrument. We would not have to separately renegotiate dozens of different existing tax treaties. As a result, we could co-operate much more efficiently with our global trading partners and combat what has been described by some as a “race to the bottom”.

Perhaps close to $25 billion in taxes is not being collected from economic activity that takes place in Canada. During its first two years in office, the Liberal government claimed it was going to recoup this $25 billion. The Prime Minister in late 2017 said in the House that the government looked forward to collecting this money.

While I do support the bill and acknowledge that it is an important step forward, it is certainly not a panacea or a solution to deal with all of the problems. I do hope colleagues from all parties will support it.

With respect to this $25 billion, the government has yet to really tackle the issue at all and it is now three years into its mandate. That number has been debunked. It would seem that most of the money the government planned to collect, money from tax evasion and tax avoidance, through the steps it would take, would be on the domestic side, the majority of which is believed, even by the department, to be uncollectible.

The CRA, almost three years into the government's mandate, has failed to make significant progress on foreign tax evasion, but during that time period it has floated a number of, in some cases, strange ideas on how it would plug its gaps in revenue. These ideas do not involve foreign tax evasion and do not involve corporate profit shifting.

They involve ideas that arose when the CRA first floated the idea of taxing employer benefits, like health and dental benefits; taxing retail discounts to service industry employees; and the war that was being waged this time last year on disabled Canadians, including the rejection of the disability tax credit for type 1 diabetics and a number of people who suffer from other health ailments.

In my riding, I have spoken to people who suffer from different types of chronic fatigue, who had been receiving the disability tax credit for years and suddenly were denied it. In one case, someone had been receiving it for 10 years and was suddenly denied it while her medical evidence had not changed. We have also heard the parents of autistic children losing their disability tax credit at the hands of the CRA under the Liberal government.

None of these seemingly small and petty attempts to raise additional revenues address the issue at hand and fulfill the promise of the government to crack down on foreign tax evasion and tax avoidance. These are nickel-and-dime measures targeting low-hanging fruit. The CBC reported again last night how the Liberal government makes it very difficult for single parents, with its onerous requirements on their proving they are indeed separated. We have seen quite a number of cases of this, and it has been raised in the House.

The other side of this and what this bill does not address is a different type of base erosion. Base erosion from profit shifting is an important global phenomenon that must be addressed. However, perhaps a bigger threat to the Canadian economy and a bigger drain on the tax revenue of the government than base erosion from profit shifting is base erosion from capital flight taking place right now.

Since the Liberal government took office, we have seen the imposition of a carbon tax. My colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola spoke about carbon leakage, how chasing economic activity with emissions into a different jurisdiction does not change global emissions, but does change the tax revenue base of the Canada Revenue Agency and costs jobs. We have seen the carbon tax and have seen Bill C-69, which should be titled, “an act to ensure no pipeline is ever built in Canada again”. We have also seen tax increases, which the government had indeed promised to impose on the wealthiest Canadians, actually result in a reduction in tax revenues from the wealthiest Canadians. That is a different type of base erosion that would not be addressed by this bill.

We have seen the debacle over the Trans Mountain expansion. That will also result in an erosion of the tax base, as that economic activity is curtailed. We also all know what is happening with the NAFTA negotiations, and we know how many hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Canadians who fear for their jobs as this unfolds.

To conclude, this bill is an excellent step forward to address a serious global problem that Canada must play a part in solving for our own tax base and in participation with our economic partners. I look forward to its coming to committee, where it may be improved and where I could address some of the issues that have been raised by my colleagues.

I will be supporting this bill, and I commend the government for moving ahead with this initiative.

[John Oliver, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I know that residents of Oakville, particularly taxpayers there, want to make sure they have the same opportunities to succeed and benefit in a growing economy. That also means making sure that the tax system is fair to everyone, so I am delighted to see that we are taking steps in the fight against aggressive international tax avoidance and countering strategies that allow business and wealthy individuals to avoid paying their fair share.

It seems to me that this legislation would allow for a much quicker and more efficient updating of multilateral conventions and bilateral tax treaties. Could my colleague say a few words about his impression of that in this bill?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I was clear in my remarks. That is exactly what the bill may accomplish in creating a more efficient and effective way to deal with the multitude of tax treaties that we have.

However, I will return to the broader point that an erosion of the tax base is happening as capital is fleeing Canada under the anti-business, anti-energy policies of the current government. That has to be addressed, but it cannot be dealt with solely by closing loopholes that allow sophisticated multinational businesses to avoid taxes.

[Wayne Stetski, NDP, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP will be supporting the bill. Of course, we want to make sure that we recover as much tax money as we possibly can. However, the bill does not go far enough. We really do think that tax havens need to be a part of this whole discussion and that a much better job needs to be done in closing loopholes.

Also, I do not know if other members have tried phoning CRA over the last couple of years, but I gave it a shot and got caught in its loop after about 10 minutes. At the end of it, a voice told me that there was really nothing they could do for me and to call again some other time. I had received a notice that I owed CRA some money, which was incorrect. In fact, it owed me money. We contacted the department, which said that I would continue to get threatening notices about owing money even though they knew I did not, and that it would be least six months before I would get my cheque.

The CRA is in a mess, and from the perspective of my constituents in Kootenay—Columbia, there is a lot of work that needs to be done in that regard. I have to say that I know the cuts started with the previous Conservative government, but would my colleague not agree that the government should be doing something about tax havens and the general state of the Canada Revenue Agency and its lack of responsiveness to Canadians?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will deal with the first part of the member's question quickly by saying, yes, we support the bill and that it is important that the loopholes be closed.

To the second part of the question, the personal experience the member relayed is so familiar to people I have spoken to across Canada. Everything he addressed, from the inability to reach someone on the phone to being given incorrect and conflicting information when getting through to a person, to being told that it would take months to get a cheque even when there is no information in dispute, is so painfully typical of the experiences I have heard from taxpayers across Canada. I have heard tax preparers from across Canada say that the service and the level of competence have never been worse. Quite specifically, I have been told by tax professionals that even in the last couple of years, it has gotten worse. Therefore, it is certainly going to take more than the passage of the bill before us to address the comprehensive problems with tax collection in Canada.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address the subject of tax fairness.

In the last federal election, the Prime Minister barnstormed across the country, promising billions of dollars of new spending. A chicken in every pot, he said. When Canadians inevitably asked how he would pay for it all, he said not to worry for a moment, that he would just raises taxes on the so-called wealthiest 1%, the rich guy living up on the hill.

Today, as we debate the subject of tax fairness, it is appropriate to ask if he has, in fact, kept his promise to fund his spending through those means. He certainly has kept the promise to spend vast new sums. Spending has grown, at around 7% per year, which is three times the combined rate of inflation and population growth. In other words, the government is spending three times faster than is the need among Canadians.

The result has been that the deficit this year is three times the size the Liberal Party promised in its most recent election platform and the budget will not be balanced next year, as the Prime Minister promised it would. According to Finance Canada, that will only happen in the year 2045, a quarter century from now, during which time Finance Canada admits the government will add a half a trillion dollars in additional debt. In other words, the budget will not balance itself.

What has become of the rich? The Prime Minister claimed he was going to raise taxes on those people. The results are in. CRA data released two weeks ago demonstrated that in the first year after the tax increase took effect, the government actually collected $4.6 billion less from the wealthiest 1%. Finance Canada released documents almost exactly a year ago today in its annual financial report, on September 19, 2017, in which it revealed almost exactly the same phenomenon. Revenues went down from the wealthiest 1%.

The government said that this was all due to one-time factors. People were playing games to avoid the higher taxes, said the government and that phenomenon would disappear in future years. The government is right. There were some wealthy individuals who moved money around to avoid paying their fair share.

One of them is the Minister of Finance. He announced a tax increase to take effect on January 1, 2016, and he sold his shares in his own company, Morneau Shepell, just 30 days before that in order to ensure his capital gain would be taxed at the lower earlier rate so he would not have to pay the same higher taxes he imposed on everyone else. Is that not nice? He knew the tax increases were coming, but being a multi-millionaire who had worked hard his entire life to avoid paying taxes, he was not going to pay a penny more on that capital gain. He was going to ensure he was taxed under a lower rate than everyone else.

He says, and his department has said, that many people did that. However, now that phenomenon is behind us, they say that in the future more revenue will come in. There is no question that in the 2017 tax year there will be probably be a one-time windfall of revenues from certain entrepreneurs and other Canadians as a result of reactions to government policies.

For example, the anecdotes by accounting firms and the reports in our business media are so common now that it is hard to be skeptical of their truth that people are moving money out of Canada. They are moving money out because the tax burden and the regulatory burden is so high that it is better for some people to do business outside of the country rather than keep their money here. Therefore, they will pay exit taxes. As that money goes out the door, it will be taxed one time.

The Prime Minister, who is only concerned about the here and now, who wants to spend more money today, might celebrate that one-time burst of cash as he shovels it out the door as quickly as possible.

What he forgets is that the problem with one-time cash is that a person only gets it one time and in the future it is gone. That money, once it leaves the country, will be taxed by other governments. When a wealthy CEO moves his fortune to London, England, the government today gets a one-time tax benefit for that as he pays an exit tax. However, in years subsequent, his tax burden in Canada is zero. He pays taxes to another government and funds services for another non-Canadian population. In 2017, I have no doubt that many people will pay one-time exit taxes as they took their money out of our country.

Furthermore, in the fall of 2017, the government announced small business tax changes that would have punished families for selling their businesses to their children. If a farmer sold his farm to his kids, he would pay a dividend tax rate of nearly 45% instead of a capital gains tax rate of 25%. If he sold that same farm to a foreign multinational, he could pay the lower tax rate.

In other words, there is a massive penalty for farmers selling their farms to their own kids, but a tax break for selling those same farms to a foreign multinational and having that multinational turn those children into tenants on their ancestral lands.

Because of the ferocious backlash led by the Conservatives and spontaneously ignited on the ground by Canadian taxpayers, the government has decided to put that change on hold until after the next election when it will surely be back. However, small businesses and farmers are not stupid. They know what bullet they dodged and are not going to risk having that change brought forward again.

What have many of them done? According to some of the most respected accounting firms in the country, many of them did their farm sales immediately upon learning that the government had put the change on ice. Therefore, those people will pay a one-time tax on that transaction in the 2017 year. After that year is gone, so too will future revenues, because those transactions will not repeat themselves every single year.

Finally, the government proposed to punish families that shared the work and earnings of a company. It calls that “sprinkling”. I can understand why it calls that sprinkling. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister did have their wealth sprinkled upon them as if by an angel from above. Would it not be wonderful if we could all have trust funds and if we could all be trust fund babies like those two trust fund twins? They did have money sprinkled upon them from above, so it is not surprising that they would use the term “sprinkling” to describe small family businesses that own a local restaurant and therefore share the earnings of that restaurant with the kids who show up everyday and help run it.

The change proposed by the government took effect on January 1. Businesses knew that so they had to pay out higher levels of dividends to their children and their family members in 2017 before the tax change took effect. There is no question that the government will tax those dividends in the 2017 year. In other words, the government will get a burst of revenue from that phenomenon of forcing businesses to pay out to their family members before the punitive new rules take effect. There is no question the government will get more money in the 2017 year as a result of that.

Any day now, though, we can expect that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister will march triumphantly into this room, as if they were Caesar at a Roman triumph, saying,“Aha! Look at all the money we took from all these people”. They will say that their high-tax plan actually worked in raising cash for them to spend. However, all of these phenomena I just described are one-time cash, in and out. Then it is no longer available to future governments to spend. For that reason the burden will inevitably fall upon the working and middle class that always suffer the most as the government gets big and expensive.

Why is that? Because higher earners and capital are far more mobile than lower earning people and workers. Labour has a harder time moving. Why? Because labour is carried out by a person and therefore he or she would have to move physically to another jurisdiction to have his or her labour tax at a lower rate. However, capital can flee or travel just like the air. Anyone can open their laptop computer and purchase equities, foreign stocks in companies around the world, literally in a matter of five minutes, moving their money out of the country just like that.

However, a working family who lives in Oshawa or Windsor on the assembly line floor cannot just get up and move because the government has hit it with a higher tax burden. That is why workers and labour cannot move around to avoid taxes the way capital and wealth can move around.

The end result is that when government gets big, capital flees and the burden gets more and more punitive on the working class Canadian. That is exactly what has happened. The average Canadian middle-class family is paying $800 higher income tax today than when the government took office. That is before the carbon tax and before payroll taxes that the government plans to institute the year after the next election. In other words, it is only going to get worse.

It is also before the increased cost of servicing our national debt, which is growing at a spectacular rate. In fact, last year, our government spent $23 billion on servicing the national debt. Within three years, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that amount will rise to $40 billion, a two-thirds increase in just a few years, as debt rises and interest rates rise simultaneously to have a compounding effect of transferring more and more wealth, again, from the working class taxpayer to the wealthy bankers and bondholders who own our debt.

Here we are with these social justice warriors bringing in deficits and debts that have the effect of transferring wealth from low-income people who pay tax to wealthy bondholders and bankers who own the debt, in exchange for which we will get nothing. Interest on debt does not pave roads, does not build hospitals, does not hire nurses, does not pay soldiers, none of those things. It simply fattens the wallet of the wealthy people who have enough means to lend to the government.

If people ever wanted proof that these people are wealthy, the government cancelled the Canada savings bonds. It used to be that modest income people would buy Canada savings bonds and lend to the government. The government does not do that. It borrows all of its money from wealthy private equity fund managers, investment bankers and others of vast fortune.

Therefore, it always is that when the government gets big, the wealthy and well-connected and powerful are better off. It is ironic. Jeremy Corbyn, who calls himself a socialist, the socialist leader of the Labour Party in Great Britain, says that he wants to end greed is good capitalism. He is going to ban greed. The Prime Minister has made similar comments. The plan to end greed is to make the government so big that there is no room left for greed. It will be removed from human DNA. People will become altruistic and generous. No one will have more than anyone else, so they say. These socialists are actually going to transform human nature because they are so powerful they can do even that.

Can they really transform human nature? Apparently they did not read Macaulay, who wrote:

Where'er ye shed the honey, the buzzing flies will crowd;
Where'er ye fling the carrion, the raven's croak is loud;
Where'er down Tiber garbage floats, the greedy pike ye see;
And wheresoe'er such lord is found, such client still will be.

The point is that wherever there is money, there will be people trying to get it. If all the money is in the government, there will be greedy people trying to make money off the government. We see it all the time.

There are corporations coming to Ottawa saying they need a corporate handout, and they have had a very generous benefactor in the Liberal government, such as the $400 million for Bombardier, which went on to immediately give big bonuses to its executives. There is the infrastructure bank, for example, which will provide loan guarantees to powerful construction companies so that if ever their projects lose cash, the taxpayer and not the business owner will pay the price.

In Ontario, the Liberals brought in something called the Green Energy Act, which simply did not create any green energy, but it did put a lot of green in the pockets of the wealthy lobbyists who were able to get the so-called green energy contracts, double the cost of electricity and cause what the Ontario Association of Food Banks call “energy poverty”. People literally walked in with their power bills and said that they could not afford to keep their lights on and eat and asked for food so that they could pay their power bill. So, yes, it was great for the wealthy one percenters who got tens of billions of dollars in subsidies for their phony electricity, but it was not so great for the working-class people who could barely afford to turn the lights on and live a normal life.

So, yes, wherever we fling the honey, the buzzing flies will crowd. My colleague did not say “bees”. He said “flies”, and flies do not make honey but will happily consume it. They are parasitical. Bees create honey through the process of pollination, which is the free exchange between a vegetative life and a creature, which is the essence of the free market economy, right? That is the free market economy, the voluntary exchange of capital for interest, product for payment, work for wages.

Every single transaction in a free market economy happens through voluntary exchange. Do members know why? It is because every single transaction must improve the lives of both people or they would not engage in it. It is why we have something called the “double thank you”. We go to a coffee shop, buy a cup of coffee, pay for our coffee and say “thank you”. What do they say back? It is not “your welcome”, but “thank you”. Why? It is because our payment is worth more to them than their coffee, and their coffee is worth to us than our payment. In other words, we both have something worth more to us than we had before. If I have an apple and want an orange, and someone else has an orange and wants an apple, we trade. We still have an apple and orange between us, but we are both richer because we each have something worth more to us than we had before. That is the genius of voluntary exchange.

Why does no one write “thank you” on their tax forms? It is supposed to be a voluntary exchange. It is supposed to be an exchange. We are paying for something. We are supposed to get something in return. The answer is, because we have no choice. It is not a voluntary exchange. It is mandatory. We are forced to engage in it, and that is the rule of the government economy. Every single transaction in the government economy is done by force. Every single transaction in the free market is done by voluntary will of every single participant.

We on this side of the House of Commons believe in a bottom-up free market where businesses obsess over customers rather than over politicians. It is where one gets ahead not by having the best lobbyist but by having the best product. That is the free market economy. It is a bottom-up economy and not a trickle-down, government-directed economy, like the government on the other side of the aisle believes.

Therefore, we will continue to champion the free market system, a system based on meritocracy, not heiritocracy, where we do not have to have a trust fund to have hope for a better future. We just have to have big dreams and hard work. That is our plan for tax fairness.