This bill was last introduced in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2019.
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
This enactment implements the Convention between Canada and the Republic of Madagascar for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income and a related protocol.
The convention is generally patterned on the Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
The convention has two main objectives: the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion. Once implemented, it will provide relief from taxation rules set out in, or related to, the Income Tax Act. That implementation requires the enactment of this Act.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
Could you make a connection between your statement and Bill S-6? Let's hear it.
Francesco Sorbara Liberal Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON
Mr. Chair, today we're discussing Bill S-6 and details of that. We're not discussing prior BIA legislation, which contained the backstop to pricing pollution across Canada.
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Hopefully we can find out what the other meetings were about, and hopefully maybe the Prime Minister will choose to follow the example of the member who just gave an answer, because he certainly seems to want to avoid answering all the questions about what his dealings have been in regard to the former attorney general, so that's interesting.
Let's move on, though, because we don't seem to be getting any answers there.
In order to be able to discuss tax harmonization between Canada and Madagascar, I think it's important to be able to understand the unique tax policies of each country, and I don't think we'll be able to understand the impact of Bill S-6 on Canadian businesses without being able to understand what we're getting into, of course.
Yesterday the unfair Trudeau carbon tax took effect in New Brunswick, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, and I believe it was increased in other provinces.
Kim Rudd Liberal Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON
It was November 24. I apologize.
This is not within the scope of Bill S-6, and I would appreciate it if the member of the opposition who is going down this line of questioning would respect the officials and the position they're in and get back to the discussion of the bill.
Thank you.
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I think we've strayed dramatically from the substance of Bill S-6.
Trevor McGowan Director General, Tax Legislation Division, Tax Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Thank you, Chair.
We're appearing before the committee today to speak about Bill S-6, an act to implement the convention between Canada and the Republic of Madagascar for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income. This bill is intended to enact into law the Canada-Madagascar tax convention, or simply, the convention.
The substantive provisions of the convention are largely based upon the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Model Tax Convention on Income and on Capital. The OECD model represents the collaborative efforts of the member states of the OECD, including Canada, and is intended to provide a uniform basis on which to conclude tax treaties.
Bill S-6 would build on Canada's extensive network of tax treaties which includes 93 comprehensive tax treaties currently in force.
These tax treaties, including the convention, are intended to benefit Canadians by encouraging cross-border trade and investment. As a trading nation, Canada has implemented tax policies that are designed to assist individual Canadians and Canadian businesses in taking advantage of the opportunities that international trade and investment can offer.
The convention contains a number of specific provisions that support the overall objective of encouraging trade and investment. ln particular, it provides greater certainty to taxpayers regarding their liability to tax in the other country. It prescribes a method for the elimination of double taxation. It ensures that taxpayers will not be subject to discriminatory taxation in either country. It contains a mechanism to resolve disputes involving cases where a taxpayer may have been subjected to taxation not in accordance with the convention. Finally, it reduces the risk of burdensome taxation that may arise because of high withholding taxes.
With respect to withholding taxes, payments originating in one country and paid to a resident of the other country of certain passive forms of income, such as dividends, interest and royalties, may be subject to withholding taxes as high as 25% of the gross amount paid. Because the withholding tax does not take into account the expenses incurred in generating the income, the recipient of the payment may be subject to an effective rate of tax that is higher than the rate that would be applicable if such expenses were taken into consideration.
The convention alleviates this potentially burdensome taxation by setting maximum levels of withholding tax that each country may impose. For example, the convention limits the rate of withholding on direct intercorporate dividends to 5% if the recipient controls 25% or more of the voting power of the payer. It limits the rate of withholding on interest to 10% and eliminates withholding entirely in respect of interest paid to certain pension, retirement, and employee benefit plans. It also limits the rate of withholding on certain copyright royalties and royalties paid in respect of computer software to 5%.
ln addition to encouraging cross-border trade and investment, tax treaties such as the convention play an important role in preventing tax evasion by facilitating the exchange of information for tax purposes between the tax authorities of the two contracting states.
ln this respect, the convention allows the respective tax authorities of Canada and Madagascar to exchange information relevant to the administration of each country's tax laws, in conformity with the standards developed by the OECD for the effective exchange of information for tax purposes.
These standards provide that the exchange of tax information between the two countries is not impeded by bank secrecy laws or domestic interest requirements—that is, a country's need to have a domestic interest in the information requested by the other country before providing the information.
ln summary, the convention contained in Bill S-6 is intended to improve the economic links between Canada and Madagascar. lt is intended to promote certainty, stability and a better business climate for residents and businesses in both Canada and Madagascar and to assist both countries in addressing potential cases of tax evasion.
This concludes our introductory remarks. My colleague, Stephanie, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair Liberal Wayne Easter
We'll come to order.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 27, 2019, we are considering Bill S-6, an act to implement the convention between Canada and the Republic of Madagascar for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income. We have Department of Finance officials with us to start. Mr. McGowan is the director general, tax legislation division, tax policy branch, and Ms. Smith is senior director, tax treaties, tax legislation division, tax policy branch.
Mr. McGowan, I believe you have an opening statement, and then we'll go to questions from there.
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Speaker, this goes to what I am speaking about regarding Bill S-6 and why it is important for this committee to travel.
We are talking about the value of canola and how it has dropped for Canadian producers by $1 billion on the product they are trying to sell now. Where is our agriculture minister when all this is going on? She is travelling around Canada doing photo ops. She should be in China resolving this issue as quickly as possible.
Our Canadian producers can no longer be paying the price for the Liberals' failures on economic policy and certainly on foreign affairs. Over and over again, it is Canadian agriculture that is paying the price, whether it is the carbon tax, trade issues with India, durum wheat to Italy, and now China no longer taking our canola, wheat, peas and who knows what is next.
In fact, I am so frustrated with what has been going on with the Liberal government that I would like to move:
That the House do now adjourn.
John Barlow Conservative Foothills, AB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your clarification on the debate today. I feel it is very important for me and my colleagues to get up and speak to Bill S-6, which is the Canada–Madagascar double taxation legislation.
Today we are talking specifically about allowing the Standing Committee on Finance to travel as part of that study. I feel that it is a very important element for this legislation.
I am not usually in support of committees travelling for unnecessary reasons. However, in this case, I believe it is absolutely vital that the Standing Committee on Finance have the ability to travel. The reason I say that is that it seems to me that on some of these issues we have faced over the last few months, we have seen a real lack of presence when it comes to some very important foreign affairs issues.
For example, right now we do not have an ambassador in China. That means that we do not have the right representation from Canada in China. We are already seeing the consequences of that. Late last night, as we were going through our 30th hour of debate, it broke that China has now refused to purchase any canola from Canadian producers. Initially it was from just one supplier, Richardson, but that has now been expanded to include canola from every Canadian producer.
It ties it back to Bill S-6 and the importance of having representation from the House of Commons and from parliamentarians reaching out to some of our trading partners around the world and some of our allies around the world, including Madagascar. Had we had that relationship with China, we may have been able to address this crisis before it started.
Not only was the announcement late last night about canola very disconcerting to the 45,000 canola producers across Canada, but this morning we also heard that it has been expanded to include peas, wheat and possibly other Canadian commodities.
I want to expand on the consequences of not having representation from Canada and Canadian parliamentarians with our trusted trading partners. Let us go back in time a little, when one of our number one importers of Canadian lentils and peas was India. Under our government, we expanded that market to more than $5 billion in Canadian lentils and peas being exported to India.
After our Prime Minister's ill-fated trip to India, India has refused to give us an exemption to their fumigation rules. It has also put extremely high tariffs, up to 50%, on some of our lentils and peas. As a result, our exports of these products to India have gone from $5 billion, a high under a previous Conservative government, to as low as $500 million now. That is a massive market for our pea and lentil producers we have lost because of the inept foreign affairs positions and strategies of the Liberal government.
Sometimes good can come out of bad. Because we lost that significant market in India, many of our producers were able to look to other markets. They had to. We cannot sell that much of that product here in Canada. Ninety per cent of the agricultural products we produce here in his country are exported.
Our producers were able to find other markets, including China. With this morning's announcement, we have now lost that secondary market. Within one calendar year, our pea and lentil producers have lost their first and now their second major markets in the world. A big part of that is because of the failures of the Liberal government when it comes to our foreign relations.
That goes directly back to Bill S-6 and why I think it is so important for the Standing Committee on Finance to have the opportunity to travel as part of this study to rebuild some of those foreign relations we had with some of our trading partners.
I talked about canola at the beginning of my intervention. I want to stress the fact that it is clear that the Liberal government does not understand the urgency of this decision by the Chinese government to block Canadian canola imports. This is a $26-billion market with economic impacts on Canada's economy. There are 250,000 jobs. These are decisions that are going to impact our producers, not in the fall, when they harvest next year's canola crop, but now. This is impacting the decisions they make right now.
The cost of a bushel of Canadian canola has gone down by more than a dollar a bushel. The value of the canola that farmers have in their bins from last year's harvest has reduced by more than half a billion dollars and is probably getting close to a billion. Every single day, the price a bushel—
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
We are going to resume debate. However, I want to bring to members' attention that the issue of relevance was brought up in the last exchange. Members are reminded that we are in debate on a matter that was proposed by the member for Carleton in respect to the Standing Committee on Finance during its consideration of Bill S-6. This is just to remind hon. members with respect to the rule of relevance that these things do come up on a regular basis.
I am quoting from the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which states:
Notwithstanding their importance, these rules remain difficult to define and enforce, not least because such enforcement must respect the freedom of debate enjoyed by all Members. The rule against repetition can be invoked by the Speaker to prevent the repetition of arguments already made.... The rule of relevance enables the Chair to counter any tendency to stray from the question before the House or committee. It is not always possible to judge the relevance...of a Member’s remarks until he or she has spoken at some length or even completed his or her remarks....
The Speaker must exercise his or her discretion:
...if the rules are applied too rigidly, they have the potential for severely curtailing debate; if they are neglected, the resultant loss of debating time may prevent other Members from participating in debate. Particular circumstances, the mood of the House and the relative importance of the matter under debate will influence the strictness with which the Speaker interprets these rules.
I say that just as a reminder to hon. members, since the time of the House is limited when a matter is before it. This is why we encourage members, who have great liberties to phrase their arguments in the way they wish, to ensure at the very least that the arguments they make have relevance and can be tied to the question the House has been presented with.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Foothills.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, one of the most tangible examples I could give my colleague is the Canada child benefit program. Just over $9 million a month goes into Winnipeg North to support children. That same principle applies in all 338 constituencies across Canada. We are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. It is policy initiatives like this that have lifted thousands of children out of poverty.
To me, that is why we are here. We are here to help and assist and boost our fellow citizens while at the same time bringing in policies that are going to make a difference, things like the Madagascar trade agreement, Bill S-6, and expanding trade, having better tax laws, fighting tax evasion and making sure that there is a higher sense of tax fairness.
That is what this government is all about. That is what this government is going to continue to advocate day in and day out, no matter what kind of political rhetoric and criticism comes from the other side.
Those members want to make it personal; we want to make it all about Canadians.
Canada–Madagascar Tax Convention Implementation Act, 2018Government Orders
February 27th, 2019 / 4:35 p.m.
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting debate. I was here the other day when we were talking about Bill S-6. It goes to show that members on both sides of the House really want to have that discussion about taxation and Canada's economy. There is a lot of contrast between the Conservatives, New Democrats and the Liberals on those types of issues. What I thought I would do is provide what I think is a fairly accurate snapshot in terms of the types of things that we have seen, and Bill S-6 is a good example of that.
Bill S-6 is about Madagascar and Canada achieving a tax agreement. However, tax agreements are not new. There are tax agreements between Canada and many other countries, but when we look at the bigger picture, we see that Canada is in fact a trading nation. In order to sustain ourselves going forward, trade is critical and of the upmost importance for all Canadians, whether they are directly, indirectly or not at all engaged in trade, particularly with the exports of services, goods, technology and so forth.
Over the last few years, we have seen the government, on a number of fronts, focus its attention on Canada's middle class, and one of the ways was by dealing with the issue of tax fairness between Canada and other countries. One of things we have to look at is the OECD and the tax conventions. We have to take a look at the individual tax agreements that we have been able to achieve, and Canada has seen dozens of tax agreements achieved over the last number of years. All of this assists us in facilitating trade and investment. We are very much dependent on that.
I have stood in my place on numerous occasions talking about the importance of the middle class. When we talk about how we support the middle class, we address it directly by saying that, as a government, the first thing we did was bring in legislation to cut the taxes for Canada's middle class, which was a very popular piece of legislation, at least on this side of the House. It was very well received by Canadians throughout the country, because it literally put hundreds of millions of dollars directly into the pockets of Canadians. However, less direct but just as supportive for Canada's middle class is our aggressive trade agenda, which takes place in different forms, such as in legislation, budgetary announcements and discussions among different levels of government, with ministers and internationally with governments around the world.
In a relatively short period of time, we have seen a good number of agreements reached between Canada and other countries. The previous speaker made reference to Stephen Harper and 50-plus trade agreements, but that is not necessarily accurate. However, I will give credit where it is mostly due, and that is with some incredible civil servants who have been at the table negotiating on Canadians' behalf. They recognize the importance of international two-way trade and the potential for agreements with many different countries.
Within a few months of our taking office, our Prime Minister was in Ukraine, signing off on a trade agreement. We were all very proud of that. There is a valid argument to be made that a good portion of that work was in fact done by the previous administration, but let there be no doubt that it was actually finalized through this government.
The significant trade agreement that has so much opportunity for firms and companies across Canada has to be the European Union trade agreement. This agreement was off the rails. It was because we were aggressive on that trade agreement that we were able to get it back on track and ultimately bring it across the line. We still have to see other countries sign off on it and so forth, but that was an agreement that was achieved under this administration.
We can also talk about the trans-Pacific partners that we have, and the trade agreements that have been achieved there. Earlier today, I was talking to one of our ministers, and he was mentioning that because Canada was one of the original six who actually passed it off, we were able to deal with some other issues that allowed us to benefit more than other trading partners within the trans-Pacific agreement, which has enhanced our export sales of industries dealing with pork, cattle and more.
Whenever I hear of pork being sold outside of Canada, I think of the fabulous, fantastic pork industry that we have in the province of Manitoba. We actually have more pigs in Manitoba on an annual basis than we have people. We are a great exporter of the best pigs, I would argue, in the world. We have a product that is in high demand, and it is creating thousands of jobs in my home province. In Brandon, Winnipeg or Neepawa, three beautiful communities in Manitoba, we get a sense of the size of the pork industry, not to mention the many farmers and other individuals within our agricultural community. There are many success stories as a result of that one industry.
There are many different industries out there that have benefited directly as a result of the aggressive trade agenda of this government. That is something that has assisted in the generation of hundreds of thousands of jobs in the last three years. That is something that should be recognized, at least in part.
When we talk about the tax agreements with other nations, we should be reflecting on how important it is, as much as possible, to get that level playing field. Having these tax agreements allows us to move that much further ahead in serving Canadians, because it is about trade and investments.
We understand how important it is to watch and be very diligent about tax avoidance and tax evasion, and we know they are very different. I would like to think that as a government we have been very progressive in our thinking and actions to ensure we are minimizing the amount of evasion and avoidance out there.
A couple of years ago, the Minister of National Revenue, the minister responsible for the CRA, announced well over $400 million to deal with individuals trying not to pay what we would argue is their fair share of taxes, through tax avoidance.
When we think of the money that is lost as a direct result of both avoidance and evasion, we are going into the hundreds of millions, into billions of dollars on an annual basis. It is hard to believe that for 10 years, while Stephen Harper was our prime minister, very little was done on that file. It took our government to say we need to put additional resources in the budget in order to ensure that the CRA is better equipped to go after those who are avoiding paying taxes, or those who are evading paying their fair share.
It is not like it was a commitment of just one budget. The following year, once again, we saw hundreds of millions of dollars invested in the CRA in order to again deal with the issue of tax avoidance and evasion. In total, we are probably looking at somewhere in the neighbourhood of close to a billion dollars of additional resources that have been allocated in order for us to deal with those two very important issues.
As a government, we see these tax agreements. Today, it is about Madagascar. We have seen other tax agreements achieved that allow the Canada Revenue Agency and the many different departments involved to continue to build relationships with other countries through tax agreements.
Most countries around the world recognize that in order for us to move forward where there is more world wealth, we need to do what we can to enhance trade. There is a sense of competition, and we have to be in a position to compete.
I differ from my colleague across the way, when he said that all we have to do is lower taxes and the jobs will come. Arguably, that is the formula Stephen Harper attempted with the boutique taxes. He reduced the GST. I will give him that. However, we need to recognize the economic performance of the 10 years of Stephen Harper's governance. We will find that in many ways the economy moved ever so slowly forward. We have created more jobs in three years than the Conservatives did in over 10 years.
My friend across the way talked about investment and said investment is leaving the country. The Conservatives have to take some responsibility for that loss of investment. The example the speaker before me gave was in reference to our oil industry. He talked about investments leaving the country because of pipelines not being built. I would challenge members across the way to reflect on that. On these tax agreements and trade agreements, we believe Canada has the competitive edge. If we are on a level playing field, we will do exceptionally well.
I think of what we could have been doing as a government, because we need to recognize that there is a role for the government. Far too often, the previous administration would step aside and not take action. Let me use the very same example that the previous speaker used, the issue of pipelines.
Over 99% of the oil that comes out of our ground goes first to the U.S. through the lines that are currently in place. That was the case when Stephen Harper became the prime minister of Canada. When Stephen Harper lost the election in 2015, that was still the case. The Conservatives were completely reliant on the U.S. market, and that is one of the reasons that sector is hurting today.
When the Conservatives talk about taxation fairness and the importance of tax agreements and so forth, yes, that is really important. However, when my colleague from across the way tries to give the impression that it is the only thing the government needs to do, he is wrong in that assertion.
We have a government that was prepared to move forward to get that commodity to new markets. We were able to acknowledge that by setting up a process that takes into consideration indigenous issues, environmental issues and others. It might not be happening as fast as the opposition members would like, but they had 10 years and it did not change.
If we go back to the issue of trade and commerce, and how we attract investments, I would suggest that in the future we will see many of those oil or commodity dollars continue to be invested in Canada, because we are in many ways giving attention to issues of our environment, with green technology as an example.
When we look at the future of exportation, we are going to be at an advantage or have a competitive edge because we have a government that recognizes that. We have a government that not only goes out to secure trade agreements and tax agreements but also recognizes that there are other ways in which it can contribute.
That is why having Canada's investment bank, having investment hubs and supporting our economic diversification funds have all become very important to this government. If we can build on taxation fairness and trade and investment, we will have a healthier economy. On many occasions I have indicated that if we have a healthy economy, we will have a healthier middle class. Those aspiring to be a part of it, those individuals who are in need and in fact all Canadians will benefit.
It is taking a holistic approach at developing Canada's economy and being sensitive to the areas and stakeholders that we need to be listening to. At the same time, I know that these tax agreements and trade agreements are not something that have happened overnight. They have taken years to develop. I recognize that the two major parties in the House can share some of the credit in terms of the trade we have seen.
I am running out of time. To conclude my remarks, I would like to thank members for the opportunity to speak on a very important issue.
Canada–Madagascar Tax Convention Implementation Act, 2018Government Orders
February 27th, 2019 / 4:25 p.m.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
I just want to remind hon. members that we are debating Bill S-6, a treaty between Madagascar and Canada.
The hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock.
Canada–Madagascar Tax Convention Implementation Act, 2018Government Orders
February 27th, 2019 / 4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Mr. Speaker, I was just paying attention to the testimony going on at the justice committee. If people are watching at home, I suggest they turn to that and watch the testimony by the former attorney general. It is quite rivetting. I will not take offence if my words get missed.
It is my pleasure to speak to Bill S-6, an act to implement the convention between Canada and the Republic of Madagascar for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income. In November of 2016, the convention was signed between the governments of Canada and Madagascar. While reviewing the bill, I was surprised to learn that we have had diplomatic relations with Madagascar for nearly 55 years.
In terms of economic activity between our two countries, Canada imported $100 million in goods last year. The bulk of these imports were mineral and vegetable products. Madagascar imported $16 million of Canadian goods last year. Global Affairs Canada reports that Canadian direct investment to Madagascar was $28 million in 2017. Canada has mining companies there. We do business with Madagascar.
Since 1976, Canada has entered into similar tax agreements with countries all around the globe. In fact, we currently have 93 such agreements in place. The main purpose of the convention is to eliminate double taxation and prevent international tax evasion.
I want to support Bill S-6 and the international efforts coordinated by the organization for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development aimed to reduce treaty shopping for tax havens. However, the bill reminds us that the government's overall approach to addressing international tax evasion is inadequate and more needs to be done.
I had the pleasure of rising in the House on September 28 of last year to speak to Bill C-82, an act to implement a multilateral convention to implement tax treaty related measures to prevent base erosion and profit shifting. For the benefit of those at home and as a reminder to my colleagues in the House, Bill C-82 aims to make it more difficult for corporations to hide money in offshore tax havens.
What is double taxation? It is a taxation principle referring to income taxes paid twice on the same amount of earned income. It could occur when income is taxed at both the corporate level and the personal level. It also occurs in international trade when the same income is taxed in two different jurisdictions.
I had a number of concerns with Bill C-82. I will not repeat them all here, but one of my major concerns, which is an underlying problem with these agreements, is this. I really have no problem with the agreements that inevitably make other jurisdictions more attractive to Canadian investment. Promoting investment in Canada should be a priority for the federal government, but in truth we live in a global community with economic opportunities for Canadians outside the country, whether through direct investment or indirectly through mutual or pension funds.
What I see as a problem is when the government fails to support competitively lower taxes for Canadians and businesses domestically. With respect to businesses, we need to lower corporate taxes, reduce red tape and create an investor-friendly climate. This is something we must do in concert with bills like Bill C-82 and Bill S-6.
We have companies moving from Canada to the United States because of a lower corporate tax regime. If we want to stop the use of tax havens, we need to make it attractive to invest at home and make tax rates competitive with other jurisdictions. The more investment dollars we can attract and retain in Canada, the less taxes we need to spend in pursuit of those who exploit loopholes in tax rules.
Let me be clear. The Conservatives support measures to crack down on tax evasion. Aggressive tax avoidance is a major source of lost tax revenue for high tax jurisdictions like Canada. The vast majority of citizens and businesses in Canada pay their taxes and follow the rules. We need a competitive and fair tax system for all Canadians and corporations that do business in Canada. That is fundamental to a healthy and equitable economy.
During the fall economic statement, the Minister of Finance confirmed that the Liberals were borrowing about $18 billion this year and almost $20 billion next year to pay for their spending, and they have no plan to balance the federal budget. This year's deficit is more than three times what the Prime Minister said it would be. He has added $60 billion in debt.
We are giving the impression to Canadians, through bills like Bill S-6, that the Liberal government is more interested in hunting down tax evaders in Madagascar, although I am not aware of an outbreak of tax evaders in Madagascar, than creating a fair and equitable system here in Canada.
Canadians know that one does not need to be an economist to understand that more debt today means higher taxes tomorrow. Tax treaties might be important, but something that is far more important is the halting of the ongoing plundering of our children's economic futures.
Canadians are going to pay higher taxes once the government's Canada pension plan tax increases are fully implemented by 2025. That is up to $2,200 per household. The Prime Minister's national carbon price, the carbon tax, will cost up to $1,100 per household. Canadians are going to pay more in future taxes to service the interest on the government's ballooning deficit fuelled by out-of-control spending.
The Liberals' previously proposed tax grab would have forced business owners in Canada to pay 73% on savings income, penalized family businesses for sharing earnings and work with family members and doubled the tax on the sale of a farm from parents to children, forcing them to sell to multinational corporations instead.
This is not how we create a friendly investment climate in Canada. This is not how we create wealth and lift people out of poverty. This is not how we safeguard our children's future.
The previous Conservative government signed tax agreement's like Bill S-6, but we did this in concert with reducing taxes for Canadian families and businesses. The average Canadian middle-class family is paying $800 more income tax today than it did before the Liberal government took office in 2015.
The Conservatives implemented family tax cuts, arts and fitness tax credits and education and textbook credits, all of which were cancelled by the government.
Bill S-6 is more than just about cracking down on tax evaders. Trade and commerce between two countries are supported by these agreements. That is why our previous Conservative government signed a record number of them.
Under the previous Conservative government, Canadian workers and businesses won free trade access to more than 50 countries around the world, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and opportunities for everyone. In just three years, the Prime Minister has failed to secure a trade deal with China and delayed and nearly derailed plans for Canada to join the CPTPP trade agreement.
Worst of all, the Prime Minister made massive concessions to the United States at the NAFTA negotiation table. He backed down on cars, giving the U.S. limits on how many cars we could export. He even backed down on pharmaceuticals, giving the U.S. higher profits at the expense of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Canadians cannot bid on American government contracts and we still have tariffs on steel, aluminum and softwood lumber, with no timeline to end them.
Bills like Bill S-6 are important and need to be supported. Tax evasion is a real issue. We need to crack down on tax evasion, but we also need to support lower taxes for Canadian businesses. We have lost out on tens of billions of dollars' worth of investment because of the government's misguided fiscal policies.
Investment is fleeing, we are losing jobs, families are worse off than they were before and we are going in the opposite direction with respect to what most countries are doing by lowering taxes and making themselves investment magnets.