Debates of March 7th, 2013

Bill C-48—Time Allocation Motion

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have lost count of the number of times the government has muzzled the House. This is completely unacceptable. It is an affront to democracy.

As our finance critic said, we have been waiting for this bill for 11 years. Why are the Conservatives imposing a gag order and cutting debate short?

We heard nothing about this bill for months. We could see on the projected order of business that it was going to be introduced in the House. We wanted to debate it so that we could explain to Canadians just how complex the tax system is. I do not understand why they are cutting debate short again.

The House may be aware that in the 1950s the Speaker of the House of Commons was from my riding of Vaudreuil—Soulanges. At that time, there was a debate on pipelines. The government imposed time allocation on the debate, which wreaked havoc in the House.

Why is the government cutting debate short again?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we have had literally days and days of debate. The NDP is simply playing politics with this issue. We have heard many, many speeches, and they all say the same thing. The NDP has complained that the bill was too long in coming. It is here. Why are they holding it up?

The opposition members had the bill a week prior to the House. They were offered briefings by the Department of Finance. The committee has already started its work, so it is time for the opposition to stop playing partisan games and pass this very important bill.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely incredible what the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges just said about not knowing about this until it hit the paper and about bringing it forward for debate. In fact, we have heard from witnesses in the finance committee who have said repeatedly that this has been introduced nine different times. A witness said that just two days ago. It has been consulted on hundreds of times.

I am quite perplexed to understand why the NDP continues to delay for the sake of delay. In fact, I have heard from every single witness in finance committee that we need to get this through as quickly as possible. In fact, they have said that it is well supported. It is uncontroversial.

The NDP and the Liberals received early binders and unlimited access to briefings from officials. Why on earth they have not taken the opportunity to do that is beyond me. The truth of the matter is that the NDP wants to force this government to act on behalf of taxpayers by using time allocation, and we will continue to do that, because the taxpayers deserve better than the delay tactics of the NDP just for the sake of delay.

Could the minister tell us if she has ever heard from a stakeholder, an individual or a Canadian who has asked for a delay in the bill being passed?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that all sides support the bill, and all sides recognize that it is a technical bill.

Yes, the NDP does insist on filibustering. It has been a 100-day delay for some bizarre reason. Groups such as the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants were in Ottawa pleading with the House, especially with the NDP, to stop this ridiculous delay.

We need to show some respect for taxpayers and get moving on Bill C-48.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is rather amusing to see the government shedding crocodile tears because we are allegedly delaying passage of a nearly 1,000-page bill.

I would like to remind the House that a few years ago, the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism himself complained about a technical bill that was introduced in the House. It was about 500 pages long. He complained that it was complicated and cumbersome and that the process had been needlessly delayed.

The witnesses we are currently hearing from in the Standing Committee on Finance all agree that the current process is flawed because only half of the comfort letters will be passed into law. Bill C-48 will pass eventually, and that is a good thing. The problem is that the process is still seriously flawed.

What does the minister have to say to those witnesses?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there would be no need for letters of intent if the bill were passed. We have made a commitment, as a result of the Auditor General's report, to ensure that technical tax amendments are brought forward on a regular basis in the future.

We are taking steps to that end. It is time for the opposition to pass the bill and get it to the committee process.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I served on the finance committee for a time and the discussion we are having today is not about the bill; it is about the time allocation. This is about the thirtieth time that the government has chosen to end a debate process, a process that was put into place in the House to allow people to give the full assessment of a given bill, to report to Canadians, via the television cameras we see here, the pros and cons of any bill.

This is not about a filibuster by anyone. This is about the fact that there is a certain level of due diligence that has been repeatedly pushed aside in this place by time allocation. That is the issue here. There is a great deal of agreement on this particular bill. However, it is the fact that the time allocation is pushing aside the traditions of the House, and that is not a very healthy thing for our democracy.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that we need to move forward, which is something non-partisan groups have been demanding. Those are groups like the Real Property Association of Canada, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Tax Executives Institute, the Canadian Tax Foundation and many more.

The bill has been a long time coming to the House. It has been consulted on with Canadians on more than 10 separate occasions. We have heard many speeches from the opposition, all saying the same thing, that there is a need for the bill and the need to pass the bill. Why are they unnecessarily holding it up?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the minister had to say, and I agree with my NDP colleague who just spoke that the current debate is about another gag order, another guillotine motion imposed on the opposition parties, witnesses and members of the public who want to testify with regard to this important bill.

I have a very specific question to ask the minister, which is similar to the one I asked the Minister of Justice yesterday. When are we going to see the government introduce time allocation down to the day, hour, minute and second? We are practically there. To date, I have counted 33 gag orders imposed by the government.

Earlier, the minister was criticizing the fact that it took 11 years to come up with this massive bill, and with good reason. This bill contains positive measures.

However, the Conservative government has been in power for seven years now. How is it that the Conservatives did not move more quickly to introduce this bill so that it could be properly debated?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the bill has been before the House in different forms before this. However, it is before the House now and the opposition has said repeatedly that 11 years is too long.

We agree that 11 years is too long. Everyone in the House agrees that the bill has to be passed to support the Canadian economy. There is no need to hold the bill up. It has been through a lot of public consultation over the years. Everyone has said the same thing in their speeches, that we need to pass the bill, so let us get on with the business of passing the bill.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question before us right now, once again, is on muzzling debate in this House of Commons.

We know these technical tax code amendments have been 11 years coming. We know that the general practice within the department is to have comfort letters and move forward. Even though the government does not act, the bureaucrats move forward because the changes need to happen. We know that. However, the question before us today, right now, is that the Conservative government continues to move time allocation or, rather, stop debate. It muzzles parliamentarians who were elected to have debate on behalf of Canadians.

With this motion today, the Conservatives have shut down debate 35 times since the election; 19 times in the last 12 months alone. They have shut down debate on 19 different bills since their election. Of the 35 times they have shut down debate, time allocation was used 30 times, closure was used twice, and three time they used proceedings on a bill under Standing Order 56(1).

My question to the minister is not about what a witness may have said in committee about the need for these technical tax amendments. My question has to do with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance saying she is perplexed as to why we are trying to have this debate. It has to do with the Minister of National Revenue saying it is bizarre that the NDP wants to debate, and “we're having a hundred day delay...”

We have had seven hours of debate on this issue and we would like to be able to do our jobs. We would like to ensure due process and do the necessary due diligence. Our fiduciary responsibility to our constituents is to make sure we are representing their views in this Parliament.

Why will the Conservatives not let us do our jobs? Why do they continue to muzzle parliamentarians?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the opposition during the days of debate. We have heard hours of speeches. The speeches were all saying the same thing, which was the need for this legislation. The NDP is simply playing politics with this issue. The finance critic for the NDP as much as said in committee that this bill had to be passed and that it was important.

It is important that the bill get to committee, which has already started its work. We want to get the bill to committee, and if there are concerns and issues more debate would be brought forward. We have said repeatedly that we would be open to reasonable amendments at the committee stage.

It is a long process to bring a bill to the House and have it become law. We want to get the process moving because we respect Canadian taxpayers.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I think what we really need to talk about today is the difference between appropriate debate and the appropriate role of the opposition, versus obstruction.

Today we heard from a number of people saying that this bill would affect hundreds of thousands of taxpayers.

In committee today, Mr. Vineberg, Ms. Presseault, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Kingissepp, were saying that there is nothing controversial about this bill, to please pass this bill as quickly as possible, that it is very important and that it has been widely consulted on.

I would ask the minister what the tax loopholes are that would be closed in this bill.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the record, Bill C-48 proposes to strengthen Canada's tax system by closing a number loopholes and improving fairness for all Canadian taxpayers. For instance, Bill C-48 contains some measures that would implement a more rigorous information reporting regime for certain transactions associated with schemes to avoid taxes.

This tougher reporting machine would help the Canada Revenue Agency get earlier disclosure and detailed information on transactions that present a higher risk of abuse to the income tax system. It would assist the agency in challenging them if they are in fact found to be abusive.

I do not know what reason the NDP would have in opposing the timely implementation of some of these measures.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty unbelievable that the minister opposite is refusing to answer questions about the gag order since that is what we are dealing with here. It is really sad that we cannot debate this further.

I would like to cite an hon. member who said the following on December 9, 2002:

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This is a very important public policy question that is very complex and we have the arrogance of the government in invoking closure again.

Whose words are these? The current Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages said that on December 9, 2002. I think it is sad that the government has a double standard. The Conservatives impose gag orders when it suits them but complain about them when it does not.

Where does the minister stand? Will she finally explain why she is imposing a gag order? Why are they going back on their position?

I could ask more questions, but I am sure my colleagues also have questions that they would like to ask.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the bill has been in Parliament for five months now, and most reasonable people would agree that five months is a reasonable time to study any bill. I would suggest that the hon. member and the rest of the NDP listen to their finance critic, who said:

Obviously we support the goal of closing tax loopholes and making the tax system in Canada clearer and easier to understand for Canadians...it's important that these technical changes be adopted so that there is clarity and certainty in our tax legislation.

We need to get on with this legislation and send it to committee.

[Jean-François Larose, NDP, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, they are showing their arrogance once again.

When we form the government in 2015, once we have spent several years debating a number of issues, according to Conservative logic, we will gag the opposition, which will certainly be a small opposition.

Or will we live up to our convictions? I think we will. We have always shown that we live up to our convictions when the time comes to debate things, listen to new ideas and gather these ideas together. That is what we will do. I find it shameful that they are once again using time allocation. It is shameful. It is scandalous. It is arrogant, but it is okay, because it shows who they are.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was invited to make his concerns known to the Department of Finance during briefings. All opposition members were offered to do this, as well, by the Department of Finance. They had the bill a week in advance. The bill was tabled in the House of Commons in November. That is ample time to study a bill.

It is important that we get this process going, that we get the bill to committee, in the interests of Canadian taxpayers.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to speak today about the umpteenth gag order that this government is trying to impose on us and shove down the opposition's throat. This shows just how little the government listens to anyone: not to the experts, not to the municipalities, not to the provinces, not to the opposition. The government does not believe anyone.

Do my colleagues know where cynicism comes from? Public cynicism is created when governments like this come to power with a majority and do not listen to what the opposition has to say. I would have liked to have talked about what each of these bills might bring to my region and what changes might occur. It is through debate that we become better, we improve. And when people refuse to listen, things do not get better. And this government is not a good one. People feel it and see it, regardless of this cynicism the government is trying to stick us with.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians know that this government has been very good to Canadian taxpayers. As a matter of fact, we have taken 120 different tax measures to lower taxes for Canadians.

The NDP might find these gains amusing, but Canadian taxpayers do not. They are waiting for these technical tax amendments, which the NDP says it agrees with, so let us get on with passing the bill and moving it to committee stage.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am having some difficulty understanding how the minister can say on the one hand that the bill has been before Parliament for five months and then say that it was distributed a week ago. I understand it was tabled, but the reality is that we need time to look at it carefully, to debate it and to change it at committee where it needs to be changed. It took 11 years to get around to this. I think a little more scrutiny is appropriate.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, that is why the Standing Committee on Finance did offer the opposition members a full briefing on the bill, so that they could be up to speed and have any of their questions answered.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.