Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to Bill C-48 as well. Before doing so, I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking today on International Women's Day. I would like particularly to salute the contributions of the remarkable women in my community of Victoria.
The official opposition will support the bill at second reading stage. This legislation is called the technical tax amendment bill, and for a very good reason. However, we should not forget the enormity of its importance.
One of the witnesses appearing before finance committee, of which I am honoured to be a member, noted that 80% of the government's revenue is collected from income tax and excise taxes. Therefore, this is an important bill, although it is masquerading as a very technical, and some would say, dry subject.
We heard many witnesses. Many speakers today have remarked that over 1,000 pages of legislation is at issue, but that needs to be put into context. That is on top of the 2,882 pages of the Income Tax Act.
This is important but convoluted legislation. A lot of it has to do with comfort letters that need to be turned into real legislation so that Canadians have the certainty to know what the law on taxes would be.
In her 2009 report, the Auditor General noted serious problems, and I quote:
Taxpayers' ability to comply with tax legislation depends on their understanding of how the rules apply to their own circumstances.... Uncertainty about how the law should be applied can also add to the time taken and costs incurred by tax audits and tax administration.
It is inexcusable that this legislation, 1,000 pages in length, has taken 11 years, since the last technical amendment bill. I want to talk today about the content of the bill very briefly, why we say the delay has occurred, the consequences of that delay, some process questions and suggestions. That is where I would like to go in the time available to me.
There is much in this bill to like. Several provisions close tax loopholes, and some are of great interest to the opposition, because we are studying tax havens and tax evasion at committee stage. I am honoured to be part of that study.
These rules are also going to frustrate those who are involved in aggressive tax planning and tax avoidance transactions, rules to deal with foreign tax credit generators and specified leasing rules. There is some important legislation here to close loopholes. This could not in any way, shape or form be construed as a partisan piece of legislation. Going after tax havens, getting more money for the Canadian fisc, is obviously something people on all sides of the House would agree with.
Why has there been the delay? We believe the reason is simply that this has not been a priority for the government. The Conservatives had a number of excuses they trotted out during the committee stage. The first reason was that there have been a lot of minority governments. However, the bill has been in Parliament at least twice, and there was unanimous agreement from all MPs to proceed with the predecessor bills. That excuse does not wash.
The Conservatives then said that it was likely that all parties would support this version. Therefore, what was the problem? What was the excuse for such a delay? In committee, the Minister of State (Finance) went so far as to blame the recession, although it is hard for me to understand what that had to do with anything here.
Last, and sadly, we were told in committee by Conservative members that the NDP was responsible for the delay, as if we were somehow trying to slow it down.
The facts are that rather than the 100 days the Conservatives claim this has taken, and that somehow there was a filibuster, this legislation has only been three days before the House. The government then invoked time allocation.
To me, there is no excuse except for a lack of prioritization, which, for reasons I have explained, is critical. These delays have consequences. It has been costly for Canadians. It is a lot of work for people who are tax professionals. That is true, but we know who pays the bills when tax professionals are involved.
The head of the Canadian Tax Foundation, Mr.Chapman, a very wise speaker, appeared before our committee, and he used a useful analogy. He said that like a home or a car, these statutes need to be repaired and maintained to properly serve their purpose. He asked us to imagine how much work would be required if no repairs had been made to a home or a car for more than 10 years. That is exactly what has happened with this legislation.
The process is what I would particularly like to focus on. A tax lawyer in my jurisdiction, Mr. Thomas McDonnell, referred to this 1,000-page technical tax bill, and wrote “This Bill will also be passed”, and he is right, “without much in the way of informed debate in the House”. We have certainly seen that. Further:
Most parliamentarians voting on it will admit that they have not read it, let alone tried to fully understand the consequences of voting for (or against) it. This is not how Parliament is supposed to deal with one of its essential functions—the raising of revenue. It's sad to say it, but I don't think most of our parliamentarians understand this aspect of the role of Parliament, or, if they do, have the courage to go to the wall in defending it.
We have a massive bill, 11 years in the making, 11 years since the last one came along, and here we are.
Going forward, how can we avoid this kind of mammoth bill being debated a decade later? This is likely the last chance we will have to talk about this kind of process question for technical tax bills. We do not know when the next one will be coming. I understand that there are still scores of changes to be addressed and comfort letters that are still outstanding and the like. We know that we are going to have another one of these bills. How can we avoid the debacle this has constituted?
At the committee stage, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance moved the following motion:
That the Finance Department provide an annual update to the Finance Committee on the status of all outstanding technical tax changes.
However, as my learned colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques pointed out to her, this proposed annual update actually applies only until prorogation. It will not survive until the next prorogation.
We need to make a real effort on tax simplification. Ideas such as the office of tax simplification in the U.K. have been suggested by the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. I think that is an excellent suggestion.
Second is the idea of establishing an expert panel, or indeed, even a royal commission to look at tax reform going forward. A sunset clause was suggested by the Certified General Accountants. That needs study as well.
The bottom line is that we need to do something. We need to address this in terms of process, because it is just not acceptable that we would be faced with a 1,000-page bill to scrutinize in the way in which this has occurred and then have time allocation imposed upon us.
