Debates of May 27th, 2013

Animal Welfare

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition that hundreds of constituents have signed. It calls on the Government of Canada to recognize that the use of shock collars on animals is barbaric and unnecessary. The petitioners also want the government to ban the sale and use of electric shock collars in Canada, as has been done in other countries. I have had many articulate and well-meaning constituents come into my office to talk to me about this. I would urge the government to take this petition seriously.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill C-48 — Time Allocation Motion

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Minister of National Revenue and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation, not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the Bill; and

that at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the third reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1), there will now be a 30-minute question period.

The hon. member for Gatineau.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of questions for the minister. This is ridiculous. Here we have another time allocation motion for the bill to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation.

We are all very aware, as are Canadians, that the government is up to the same old tricks. We have stopped counting, but the number keeps climbing. The government has used this same method 34 or 35 times now. That is likely what it will be known for in years to come. It has already earned the title of the most undemocratic government Canada has ever had. It is all the more astounding and ridiculous given that these people were elected in 2006 by making Canadians believe that they would be transparent, open and not like previous governments. They promised a change in culture. They essentially signed an agreement, a contract, with the Canadian people.

What are they doing? They insist on staying the course and what is even worse is that they are doing the same thing they criticized previous Liberal governments for doing. What is going on here boggles my mind. We have a total of five hours to discuss some extremely important issues. If that is not considered muzzling, I do not know what is.

I have a very simple question for the minister. Is she not embarrassed to rise in the House and tell Canadians that what she is doing is democratic? She is muzzling democratically elected members of Parliament more often than is necessary, which prevents them from representing Canadians. I would be embarrassed if I were her.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I am very proud of what our government has done for Canadian business and taxpayers.

It has been over a decade since Parliament last passed a comprehensive package of technical tax amendments. This particular bill has been in Parliament for nearly 200 days now. Surely 200 days is long enough. Let us show some respect for Canadian taxpayers and get moving on this bill.

Even before this bill was introduced, it was consulted on literally for years in advance, with repeated public consultations. We know that all sides support this bill. All sides recognize that it is a technical bill. All parties supported it at second reading at finance committee, without amendment.

We need to get on with it. We need to do this for Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, once again we are witness to the government House leader's inability to negotiate in good faith with the opposition parties. That is really what is lacking.

Typically what one would expect is the government House leader approaching opposition parties to give them some sort of an indication of what it is the government would like to be able to get through, in terms of a legislative agenda. Opposition parties would in turn try to work with the government to recognize those bills that the opposition is quite comfortable in passing, to make sure there is proper time given and ultimately bills would be passed.

The government should be going to time allocation as a last resort. In the past, political parties at the federal and provincial levels have resorted to time allocation. What makes this rather unique is the fact that never before in the history of the House of Commons, from what I understand, have we seen a government incorporate time allocation into the process of passing its legislation.

Time and time again, well over 30 times now since the last federal election, the government has stood in its place and moved time allocation, which restricts the ability of members of Parliament to represent their constituents. It restricts the ability of the opposition and the government backbenchers to afford comment on important pieces of legislation.

My question to the member is, why has the government made the decision to use time allocation as a part of a process, which is most inappropriate given the prestigious House in which we sit?

This is a majority Conservative Reform-type of government that has taken an attitude that has put democracy last in terms of processing legislation through this House.

My question is, why?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is, because we are the party and government that gets things done.

This bill has been in Parliament for seven months now. It has had nearly 200 days for debate and study. It is a bill that all parties support. It is a bill that has been a decade in the making. We need to move forward. This is something that non-partisan groups have been demanding of us, groups like the Real Property Association of Canada, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Tax Executives Institute and the Canadian Tax Foundation.

Listen to what the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, which is a professional organization representing over 75,000 tax professionals, had to say:

Some of the measures contained in today’s bill were initially proposed as early as 1999....With unlegislated tax measures, taxpayers and professional accountants must maintain their records and forms—sometimes for years—to be in a position to comply, even without knowing when and if these measures will be approved by Parliament and enacted. This uncertainty and unpredictability places an enormous compliance burden on taxpayers, businesses, professionals and their clients.

Our government wants to do the right thing by these groups.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the minister talk about the fact that the bill has been in the House for 200 days.

I wonder if the minister could be reminded that it is actually the government that determines what bills are coming forward. The government had ample time to bring it forward for fulsome debate. Instead, as usual, the government is invoking closure, invoking time allocation on a very complex piece of legislation. I want to reference Thorsteinssons, the tax lawyers who say:

My printed version of the changes and accompanying notes runs to well in excess of 900 pages. This Bill will also be passed without much in the way of informed debate in the House.

This seems to be a pattern in terms of the way the government is managing its business. We have seen it on the matrimonial real property bill, where there was time allocation in the House and there was time allocation in the committee. Now we have this complex piece of legislation, and the minister is quite correct, there have been changes out there since 1999 that two successive governments have failed to deal with.

I want to ask the minister if she feels, given the concerns that have been raised about the 900 pages, that parliamentarians have had sufficient time to study the 900 pages. Is the minister confident that the changes being proposed, all of the technical amendments being proposed, are actually going to do what they are purported to do?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as I did say, the bill has been before Parliament for 200 days. Even before the bill was introduced it was consulted on for literally years with repeated public consultations with professional groups.

I know that at finance committee all parties have supported the bill. They voted for it at second reading and at the finance committee stage. I should note that the all-party finance committee endorsed the bill without amendment after a detailed study. Indeed, witness after witness spoke in favour of the bill. Therefore, I want to share with the House what some of those witnesses said.

The vice-president of taxation at the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants stated:

We support Bill C-48. [We understand] how important it is for taxpayers to have greater certainty and a clearer understanding of Canada's federal income tax system....Bill C-48 helps improve clarity and certainty, and it mitigates the negative effects of uncertainty identified by the Auditor General.

Therefore, it is important that we ensure that this bill is passed as soon as possible.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, people are watching this and they wonder how the government lost $3.1 billion through sheer incompetence. What we are seeing today is a good example.

We have a major technical bill that should be debated in the House. However, the government is trying to push it through as fast as it can because it wants to go home early and not stay and do the work for the Canadian people. Therefore, it is not allowing for a proper debate on it.

The Conservatives say that it has been in the House for 200 days. What they are not saying to the Canadian people is that it has been sitting on the minister's desk for 200 days. Therefore, when we are now supposed to debate serious technical amendments they are suddenly concerned about getting down to business. Let us see what they will slough off without having proper parliamentary scrutiny.

These are hundreds of amendments that are technical in nature. It is a tax omnibus bill that includes the issues of anti-avoidance measures on specific leasing properties, ensuring that income trusts and partnerships are subject to the same loss utilization restrictions as between corporations, limits on the use of the foreign tax credit generated for international tax avoidance, clarifying rules on Canadian tax property for non-residents and migrants, and providing an information reporting regime for tax avoidance and transactions.

Those are only a small number of the issues to be debated in this House and the government is passing it off as quickly as it can.

I would ask the hon. member this. Given the incompetence of her government in losing $3.1 billion, why is she trying to allow this important tax bill to just slip through?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, that is some slip, 200 days.

I want to first point out in response to the hon. member that it was his party, the NDP, that moved to end debate last week because it wanted to go home from the House. We came here to work and we came here to work for Canadians. On this side of the House we know how important it is to pay our taxes and to collect our taxes. That is what we intend to do.

I could go on about the groups that support this bill and want to have it passed very quickly.

I will quote Larry Chapman, who is the executive director and CEO of the Canadian Tax Foundation. He stated:

Bill C-48, the Technical Tax Amendments Act....represents 10 years of repairs and maintenance in updating the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act. Its passage is important to all Canadians. You heard that in the earlier presentation. I want to emphasize it again. Its passage is very important to all Canadians.

Further, he said:

Delays in the passage of tax legislation leave taxpayers and their advisers in a no man's land of uncertainty. My message for the Standing Committee on Finance is that you should encourage passage of this legislation....

That is what we intend to do.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. Before we continue with questions, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for New Westminster—Coquitlam, Search and Rescue; the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Employment Insurance; the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, The Environment.

[Nycole Turmel, NDP, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it interesting to hear the government talk about time allocation and about what we could have done, when this is the 34th, 35th or 36th time we have seen time allocation.

This bill has 1,000 pages, which deal with very technical issues, and the government has decided that we should be able to determine the fate of the bill in less than five hours.

What is preventing the government, the committee and the opposition from identifying the problem, making suggestions and changing the legislation to ensure that it meets the expectations and needs of Canadians and the government?

I asked this question the last time that time allocation came up, but nothing has changed. What is the government so afraid of that it is forcing us to quickly study bills? What ends up happening is that the government has to ask the Senate to make corrections. They always regret having moved so quickly.

What is the government so afraid of? Why are they pushing us to pass or refuse to pass a bill because it has not been studied?

It is almost June, and as my colleague pointed out, we have to wonder whether the Conservatives want to go home early and break for the summer. We are here to work until June 20.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Before I go to the minister, I remind all hon. members to address their questions and comments to the chair rather than directly to other members of the House.

The hon. Minister of National Revenue.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind this member that it was the NDP members who wanted to go home early last week. On this side of the House we come to work for Canadians.

On meeting the needs of Canadians, this bill has probably been more than 14 years in the making, so it is hardly rushing anything through. There has been a lot of public consultation on the bill, and it has been before Parliament for 200 days now.

Part of the bill would also close tax loopholes. What could the opposition possibly have against closing tax loopholes? When we collect tax owed by Canadians, we can fund the services that Canadians need to have, like schools, hospitals and other services that we provide for Canadians. Bill C-48 contains measures that would implement a more rigorous information reporting regime for certain transactions associated with schemes to avoid taxes. This, along with our budget this year, contains measures as well to crack down on tax evasion and tax avoidance. We certainly hope that the NDP will be supporting not just this bill, but our budget as well.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. minister, the government should have a level of confidence in the bills it puts forward, that they have been thoroughly discussed and that the government members are prepared to stand and debate them fully. Bringing in closure on something we have already indicated on this end of the House that we are supporting really makes it frustrating. Closure means to me that the Conservatives want to shut down debate because they do not believe in what they are trying to put through.

If the Conservatives had the confidence they should have in putting forth this legislation and knowing we are prepared to support it, they would want to encourage that rather than shut down debate to try to force it through, because probably they are more anxious to get out of here than anybody else in this House.

I ask the minister, does she have confidence in the bill that is before us, and if so, why is it necessary to bring in closure because she does not have the confidence to stand and debate it fully?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, if both opposition parties have said that they support the bill and have supported the bill, one can assume they have read the bill and they are fine with the bill.

Let me just quote a tax partner from KPMG, Paul Hickey. He said:

[I] ask Parliament to act decisively and to pass Bill C-48 to essentially clean the slate of this old pending legislation and to finally bring the Income Tax Act up to date. Taxpayers could then move on and focus on running their business, and the CRA could carry on administering and collecting tax in a more stable system.

I believe this is what all Canadians want. It is obviously what the professionals are asking for. I urge the opposition members to support the bill.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the minister try to rationalize why the government has to move closure for the 34th time in this very short Parliament and so far I have not found anything persuasive. Frankly, I am not sure whether she has been following the debate on this bill at all. On this side of the House, we are supporting the bill. We are not trying to hold it up unreasonably. We, like she purports to, believe in cracking down on both tax avoidance and tax evasion, but it is a 1,000-page bill.

Whatever happened to the way this place used to run? It is not that I have been here forever, but this is my third term and there were times when House leaders would come to the table, ask each other how much time they needed to debate the bill, what they thought due diligence would look like on a bill and they would negotiate. That is why we did not have these massive numbers of time allocation motions because Parliament worked like it was supposed to. There is a bit of give and take, some bills members pass very quickly, they agree to do that and other bills merit more debate.

Frankly, government members sometimes wanted more debate because they thought the content of their bills was so good, they wanted to ensure every Canadian knew about them. They wanted to have consultations in committee and extensive committee hearings so their supporters could tell everybody that the government was doing a bang-up job. I guess not very many Canadians think the current government is doing a bang-up job because it is sure afraid of hearing from Canadians.

There is nothing wrong with giving a bill good, detailed scrutiny. That is what our job is as parliamentarians. Could the minister explain to the House why her government is so afraid of detailed scrutiny of their bills? What it is trying to hide? What does it not want Canadians to know about?

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, this bill is more than 10 years in the making and throughout that time, extensive consultations have been had with industry and professional associations on many aspects of this bill.

I will quote Carole Presseault, who is the vice-president of Government Regulatory Affairs for the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada. In her remarks to the committee, she said:

—I wish to say that we support the tabling of the bill and that we encourage you to move swiftly to pass this important piece of legislation. The bill deals with a massive backlog of unlegislated tax measures. Its passage would, in our opinion, bring greater clarity to the tax system and strengthen the integrity of our laws.

We intend to support requests such as Carole Presseault's and pass this legislation swiftly.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a small business person, I have been aware for 60 some-odd years, though recently it has changed a bit, that nothing is certain but death, taxes and time allocation motions by the Conservatives. I hope we get that list back down to just two.

I want to go on record as saying that as a small business person representing other small business people, I do not know yet how I will vote on this legislation. I really need more information and debate on it. I want to hear the opinions of others and I really hope this is one that we decide not to put time allocation on.

[Gail Shea, Conservative, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud the hon. member for being a small business owner because our government has done a lot to support small businesses since we became government, probably more than any other government in history.

One of the changes I am very proud of is that we have lowered taxes for small businesses a number of times to allow them to keep more of their own money and invest in their own businesses. Small business is the backbone of the Canadian economy.

As I said, this is a very technical bill. The hon. member wants to hear the opinions of others before he makes his decision. I have just shared the opinions of six or seven professional associations, which they shared in the finance committee. This represents a wide variety of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, who urge us to pass this bill swiftly to give them certainty in their professions.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify the record. I think there is quite a difference between the official opposition requesting to adjourn at 11:45 p.m. and the government trying to stop debate at four o'clock in the afternoon. I understand it is tea time in some parts of the world, but we are elected to debate and that is what the official opposition would like to do.

I would like to bring attention to the comments of Sheila Fraser, the former Auditor General of Canada, whom I think the whole House has a high degree of respect for. Her comment was, ”No income tax technical bill has been passed since 2001”.

One of my colleagues has quietly pointed something out, which is a bit surprising to us. Generally speaking, the Conservative government thumbs its nose at any bill passed by a previous government, particularly a Liberal previous government. Therefore, we are a little surprised that it is now enacting tax amendments that would have been brought forward by a previous Liberal government. So be it, but finally, to the Conservatives' credit, a non-partisan bill.

Sheila Fraser further said:

Although the government has said that an annual technical bill of routine housekeeping amendments to the Act is desirable, this has not happened. As a result, the Department of Finance Canada has a backlog of at least 400 technical amendments that have not been enacted, including 250 “comfort letters” dating back to 1998...

Why is that important? Because, with the comfort letters, until legislated, one must assume what the law is, which is fine if one has an accounting firm doing one's taxes. However, many small businesses, individuals and seniors do not have high-paid chartered accountants advising on what the law is, including new rules not even enacted yet.

The final comment I would like to make, and would appreciate a response to, is the minister said that there were many experts that came to committee who were in support of it. This is one amendment that the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada called for because it was clearly fed up waiting for more than 10 years to finally get these amendments. It called upon the government to implement a sunset provision to prevent future legislative backlogs.

Will the minister tell us today that this will not happen again? Can we anticipate that we will have annual updates to the tax code so all Canadians have equality when they fill out their tax returns to submit?