Debates of June 10th, 2013

Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We are out of the time allocated for questions and comments.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, from the outset, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi.

The NDP is in favour of this bill. For once, the Conservatives cannot accuse us of always being against the government. We are in favour of this bill, essentially because it is purely technical. It implements bilateral tax treaties with a certain number of countries, including Namibia, Serbia, Poland and Hong Kong, and makes amendments to treaties with Luxembourg and Switzerland.

This bill is worthwhile. It will make things easier for people who want to pay their taxes, who are not trying to defraud the government. Why would we be against virtue? We are pro-virtue. We are totally in favour of making it as easy as possible for people to pay taxes. However, I want to mention something important. Under Canadian tax law, any taxes paid in a foreign country are deducted from our nation's revenue. So much for savings.

This new rule makes it easier to pay taxes. Nothing more. If the government suddenly decided to harmonize tax regulations to make it easier for people filling out their tax returns, we would very much support that.

We disagree when the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of State for Finance tell us that the bill is an important step in the fight against tax evasion. Nothing could be further from the truth, and that is dangerous. The head of our country's finances is telling us that this bill offers a way to combat tax evasion. That is not true. All this bill does is make it easier for people who want to pay taxes to file their tax returns.

I want to point out to the House that Luxemburg and Switzerland are tax havens. These countries allow financial institutions to have numbered accounts and to be protected by banking secrecy. This enables people to hide money and do so secretly. This will continue to be allowed. Switzerland will co-operate if we present a warrant and proof of criminal charges. However, it will not tell us whether the main people involved in trafficking cocaine in Canada have bank accounts there. Let us be realistic: we cannot expect any co-operation from them. It is quite sad.

The Auditor General already indicated that Canada's tax debt has significantly increased. It has jumped from $18 billion to $29 billion. These are people who openly declare that they owe money. Quite often, if they do not pay it is not because they are dangerous criminals but because they simply cannot.

When you are stretched to the limit because you have to pay your mortgage and car and grocery bills, and maybe buy clothes for your children from time to time, you might not be in a position to pay taxes. Self-employed workers are a good example of that. When they get a cheque, they do not set part of it aside to pay taxes. When they get that cheque, it is already spent on everything they owe. They do not want to cut their electricity or telephone. So that is what they pay. That is what accounts for the $29 billion. That amount is absolutely not owed by people who have made use of tax havens. These are our neighbours, our friends and our parents who had a hard time paying taxes because they had too many other bills to pay. Paying taxes is an expense, just like groceries or the electricity bill.

This is a problem. When people cannot pay taxes, they are not able to pay all their other bills either. The $29 billion represent a lot of people who will file for personal bankruptcy. That is quite often the problem.

The second problem with the $29 billion is that the greater the debt, the less likely it is to be repaid. This bill does not solve this problem, and that is truly unfortunate. The bill is being presented as a significant piece of legislation that will get results. In fact, I do not deny its positive effects for people who are willing to pay taxes. Rather, the problem I see concerns those people who are unable to pay taxes either because they do not earn income or because they have too many bills to pay. The household debt ratio is now at 163%. The bill will not mitigate this problem.

There are huge numbers of tax havens, and Canadians have put their money in well-known tax shelters. Indeed, $53 billion has been invested in Barbados, $25 billion in the Cayman Islands and $23 billion in Ireland. A total of $13.8 billion has been invested in Luxembourg, a country with which we have treaties. Bermuda has received $13.2 billion in Canadian investments. This represents 51% of Canada's foreign bank investments. This figure has doubled since 1987.

What was the government's response? It decided to cut the Canada Revenue Agency's budget by $250 million. Europe, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Greece are in a deep economic slump, largely because they did not collect the taxes owed to the government. Not paying taxes is a national sport in those countries.

The level of debt in those countries shows that these people are particularly adept at tax evasion. Why do they do it? Simply put, it is because tax equality is non-existent. Why ask someone to work 40 or 60 hours a week to make ends meet and pay taxes when he knows full well that a mafia member in Sicily, a crooked politician in Greece or a flashy real estate developer in Spain will not pay taxes?

Why ask someone to keep paying taxes for services when the rich are not paying those same taxes? The poor man is paying the rich man's share. That lack of tax fairness is the main reason people in certain European countries avoid taxes and shirk their responsibilities. This government is leading us down exactly the same path.

Instead of saying that they will do things differently since Spain's and Italy's economies have tanked, the Conservatives are following the worst examples. Then they say that they are doing well, that they are among the best. They should not be following the worst examples then. This problem will not go away overnight. Tax evasion requires two things. First, it requires the means to do it without getting caught. Second, it requires motivation, which exists when tax fairness does not.

The NDP has proven its good faith by supporting technical measures such as this bill. However, do not try to tell us that this law will solve the problem of tax evasion. That is untrue.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, for his very persuasive speech. Clearly the numbers are no longer a mystery to him.

Speaking of numbers, there is one that grabbed my attention. According to Statistics Canada, $146 billion—one-quarter of our direct foreign investment—is hidden away in tax havens. That is money the government should be collecting, money that is not being spent here on infrastructure and services to improve our social safety net.

I would like my colleague to comment on the following two observations: people who do not have the means to use tax havens are the ones footing the bill, and people who are not paying their fair share are often the very same ones telling us that we have to cut spending.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a similar observation was made in the United States.

For example, multi-billionaire Warren Buffett said it does not make sense for him to make millions while being taxed at a significantly lower rate than his secretary. That man pays his taxes. He does not try to evade taxes. When the government tries to get people to pay their taxes, it does not have much credibility.

Those who pay their taxes are the very ones whose services are being cut. That is a problem. The government is constantly asking people to pay. They are not getting the services they need, but they still have to foot the bill. If the Auditor General proved anything, it is that they, not the very rich, are the ones targeted by the CRA.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin on his excellent speech. As usual, he brings a wealth of experience as a lawyer and financial expert every time he speaks in the House.

Outstanding taxes are a real problem. As we know, the Conservatives have been completely incompetent when it comes to this issue. When they came to power in 2006, there was $18 billion in outstanding taxes. Now there is $29 billion, because they are not even capable of managing the issue of outstanding taxes.

What does my colleague think of the Conservative government's competence when it comes to managing issues such as outstanding tax accounts, which should be pretty easy to manage?

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is particularly interesting, and I thank the hon. member for his question. This shows that he read the Auditor General's report carefully.

The Auditor General made an observation. He said that the CRA is targeting individuals and has put a system in place to collect taxes. However, this system does not apply to businesses. Oops.

The other problem has to do with people who have a lot of taxes to pay. I am talking about tax bills over $10 million. The government's batting average is practically a big, fat zero. As for the little old lady who owes $800, I guarantee she will be taken to the cleaners. The government has the resources to collect from her and it has no problem doing so.

The Conservatives call this double standard, which is an integral part of their economic policies, tax fairness. However, this is not tax fairness. The Conservatives are betraying the people who elected them. That is serious.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will use Bill S-17 to talk about tax evasion.

People take advantage of our excellent economy, our extraordinary education system and our infrastructure to make money, but some refuse to pay their fair share. They keep their profits in offshore bank accounts in order to avoid paying taxes in Canada. According to the OECD, an estimated $10 trillion is hidden in tax havens around the world.

Every year, this scourge deprives Canada of $5 billion to $8 billion in revenues. According to Statistics Canada, between 2003 and 2008, Canadian investment in tax havens went from $94 billion to $146 billion. This is a quarter of our direct foreign investment.

As I already said, this is money that is owed to Canada. It is money that is not being spent here to renovate infrastructure or pay for services that would allow Canada to have a better social safety net. In the meantime, those who do not have the means to use tax havens are the only ones paying the bills. That is what my colleague calls tax fairness. Those who do not pay their fair share are often those who say we need to reduce spending. It is a great injustice that undermines the very foundation of our society. Tax evasion is one of the greatest challenges the federal government must face. Bill S-17 is a step in the right direction, but the step is far too small. Even though we will vote in favour of the bill, it is woefully inadequate.

Bill S-17 implements four tax treaties with Namibia, Serbia, Poland and Hong Kong. It also implements amendments to the treaties between Canada and Luxembourg and Canada and Switzerland. The purpose of the tax treaties is to avoid double taxation and prevent tax evasion. We support harmonizing tax laws and complying with OECD standards, and that is why we will support the bill. However, the government could do more.

Bill S-17 does not make any changes to Canada's policy. It is considered standard legislation of a routine nature.

To hear the Minister of Finance tell it, this bill is a major step forward in the fight against tax evasion. While it does contain provisions that will be useful to the government, it does not make up for the government's failure to take the major tax haven problem seriously.

The last budget was proof that the government is not taking the problem seriously. On March 20, 2013, 900 Canada Revenue Agency employees, including 400 tax auditors, received notices that they were in danger of losing their jobs because of budget cuts.

The Canada Revenue Agency's budget will be cut by about $460 million by 2015. How is the agency supposed to fight tax evasion with fewer employees and resources?

My NDP colleagues on the Standing Committee on Finance proposed several recommendations to combat tax evasion. I would like to share some of those recommendations.

First, the Canada Revenue Agency should require Canadian corporations and all of their subsidiaries to disclose all taxes paid in other countries. This measure would result in greater transparency concerning their activities in offshore tax shelters.

Second, the auditor general should evaluate, on a regular basis, the success of the Canada Revenue Agency in prosecuting and settling cases of tax evasion.

Third, the federal government should create an efficient system to identify tax evasion enablers including accountants, lawyers and other professionals.

Last, the federal government should to move towards a system of automatic tax information exchange with other countries. This would be a much more effective way to fight tax havens than the bilateral agreements covered in this bill.

We made clear recommendations to ensure tax fairness for all Canadians. They deserve to know how much tax evasion is going on.

Despite our repeated requests, the Conservatives are refusing to measure how much tax fraud costs us. The Conservatives' failure to collect lost revenue means that Canadians who do pay their taxes are on the hook for a larger share of the cost of government programs.

Why do the Conservatives insist on doing the bare minimum with respect to the serious problem of tax evasion and tax havens?

We hope that the government will introduce major changes to solve this serious problem instead of giving us routine measures like Bill S-17. This bill will not solve the problem. As I illustrated earlier, tax evasion is serious. The government must act now. I urge the government to consider our recommendations.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really liked my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi's speech. He takes a very smart approach to this file, and it is always interesting to hear him speak in the House.

Under the Conservatives, Canadian investments in tax havens have nearly tripled. This is another Conservative failure. Before the Conservatives came to power, very few Canadians parked their money in tax havens. Now, under the Conservatives, these types of investments have soared. The Conservatives seem to want to encourage investments in tax havens.

Does my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi think that this is intentional on the part of the Conservatives or is it simply a result of their incompetence in managing this file?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question, which is excellent, as always.

I would not go so far as to say that this situation is a result of the Conservatives' incompetence, but it is a result of their interference and gross mismanagement. They are protecting their interests, big oil companies and big banks, as usual. The working poor are left out in the cold, as always. That is why we are standing up for workers.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but notice government members' enthusiasm for talking and asking questions about a bill that will clearly not get the results that they want and that they promised to Canadians.

I could very well be reading out a muffin recipe and they would not even notice. That is how much they care about listening when we are talking about the tax and economic issues that affect our constituents.

My constituents are honest. They pay their taxes. When people do not pay, it is often because they are bankrupt, they are unable to pay or they are unemployed and so poor that they do not owe any taxes.

My question for my colleague is about the exact nature of bank transfers and how Canadian institutions are complicit but nothing ever happens to them.

Could he expand on that and tell us what an NDP government would do to prevent Canadian financial institutions from being complicit in making our country poorer?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin for his excellent question.

The NDP wants everyone to pay their fair share, whether we are talking about big or medium-sized companies, but especially the big companies that have the means. The big oil companies must pay their fair share and contribute to Canada's growth. We want SMEs and employees to pay their fair share. We want everyone to do their part. That is the only way we can achieve social justice and equity within our current economic system.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to add my voice in support of today's important debate on the 2013 income tax convention implementation bill, Bill S-17, another step toward lower taxes for all Canadians.

Today, on tax freedom day, I would like to place Bill S-17 into the larger context. Over the years, our Conservative government has really devoted considerable effort to keeping taxes low for Canadian families and small business. Indeed, since 2006, we have cut taxes over 150 times, reducing the overall tax burden to its lowest level in 50 years. We have cut taxes in every way government collects them—personal taxes, consumption taxes, business taxes, excise taxes and much more. We cut the lowest personal income tax rate to 15%, increased the amount Canadians can earn without paying tax, introduced pension income splitting for seniors, which was certainly well received by seniors in this country, and reduced the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, putting an estimated $1,000 back in the pockets of an average family.

Clearly, we believe that Canadian families should keep their hard-earned money. They know better what to do with it than does government.

We introduced and enhanced the working income tax benefit. We introduced the tax-free savings account, the most important personal savings vehicle since RRSPs. We increased the age credit amount by $2,000. We doubled the pension income credit to $2,000. We increased the amount recipients of the guaranteed income supplement, the GIS, can earn through employment, without any reduction in GIS benefits, from $500 to $3,500. Finally, we increased the age limit for RRSP to RRIF conversion to 71 years of age from 69.

Our strong record of tax relief has meant savings for a typical family of four of over $3,200 annually. Not only that, but this action has resulted in over one million low-income Canadians being removed from the tax rolls.

However, the good news does not end there. Our government has introduced a number of tax relieving measures for small business. After all, our Conservative government recognizes the vital role small business plays in the economy and job creation. That is why we are committed to helping them grow and succeed. Over 90% of business in Canada is small business.

Indeed, since 2006, our government has taken significant action to support small businesses, including reducing the small business tax rate from 12% to 11%; increasing the small business limit to $500,000; and eliminating the corporate surtax for all corporations in 2008, which was particularly beneficial to small business corporations, as the surtax represented a larger portion of their overall payable tax. There was much more.

Overall, our Conservative government low tax plan has resulted in savings of $28,600 for a typical small business since 2006. That is about a 34% cut in their total tax bills.

There is another part of this low tax plan, and that includes establishing tax treaties to help improve our system of international taxation, and this is precisely what Bill S-17 will do.

Bilateral income tax treaties, such as the one before us today, are utilized to eliminate tax barriers to trade and investment. Such treaties achieve that purpose in a number of ways. Allow me to explain how. First, they provide greater certainty to taxpayers regarding their potential liability to tax in foreign jurisdictions. Second, they allocate taxing rights between the two jurisdictions so that the taxpayer is not subject to double taxation. Third, they reduce the risk of burdensome taxation that may arise because of high withholding taxes. Finally, they ensure that taxpayers are not subject to discriminatory taxation in the foreign jurisdiction.

These are the great benefits Bill S-17 would bring to the market. It would provide benefits to both taxpayers and governments by setting out clear rules that would govern tax matters relating to cross-border trade and investment.

This is extremely technical legislation, and I apologize in advance. Nevertheless, it is important for the flow of predictable global commerce. For instance, tax treaties permit a multinational business based in one country to be taxed in another country if that business has a substantial presence in that other country. In general terms, if the branch operations in a foreign country are well established and significant, the country where those activities occur will, in most cases, have primary jurisdiction for that taxation. In other cases, where the operations in the foreign country are relatively minor, tax treaties provide that the home country retains the exclusive right to tax its residents. Tax treaties also allocate taxing rights between the two countries as a means of protecting taxpayers from potential double taxation.

This takes several forms, and again, this is all very technical. First, treaties generally include a mechanism for resolving the issue of dual residency of an individual or company, where the individual or company would otherwise be considered to be a resident of both countries. Second, treaties assign the primary right to tax to one country, usually the country in which the income arises, and the residual right to tax to the other country, usually the country of residence of the taxpayer. Third, treaties provide rules for determining which country will be treated as the source country for each category of income. Fourth, and finally, treaties provide rules limiting the rate of tax the source country can impose on each category of income and establishes the obligation of the residence country to eliminate double taxation that otherwise would arise from the exercise of concurrent taxing jurisdiction by the two countries.

In addition to these substantive rules regarding allocation of taxing rights, tax treaties also provide a mechanism for dealing with disputes or questions of application that arise after the treaty enters into force. In such cases, designated tax authorities of the two governments consult with a view to reaching a satisfactory solution under which the taxpayer's income is allocated between the two taxing jurisdictions on a consistent basis, thereby preventing the double taxation that might otherwise result.

In addition to reducing potential double taxation, treaties also reduce burdensome taxation by reducing withholding taxes that are imposed at source. Under Canadian domestic law, payments to non-resident persons of certain passive forms of income, such as dividends, interest and royalties, are subject to withholding tax equal to 25% of the gross amount paid. Many of Canada's trading partners also impose, under their domestic tax laws, similar levels of withholding tax on these types of income. Because the withholding tax does not take into account expenses incurred in generating the income, a taxpayer frequently will be subject to an effective rate of tax that is significantly higher than the rate that would be applicable to net income in either the source or residence country. The taxpayer may be viewed, therefore, as having suffered burdensome taxation. Tax treaties alleviate this burden by setting maximum levels for the withholding tax the treaty partners may impose on these types of income or by providing for exclusive residence-country taxation of such income through the elimination of source-country withholding tax.

Our government's goal is simple, to establish tax treaties that substantially reduce or, in the case of certain types of income, eliminate withholding taxes by the source country. In addition, we must include provisions that ensure that cross-border investors do not suffer discrimination in the application of the tax laws of the other country.

By delivering a favourable tax environment for Canadian businesses, we help them to compete and win internationally, increase investment and create jobs for Canadians.

Tax treaties like those in Bill S-17 would directly support cross-border global trade in both goods and services, which in turn would help Canada's domestic economic performance. The more foreign direct investment that flows into our country, the more investment in capital and in technology. This, in turn, results in more high-quality jobs for Canadians.

In fact, during the committee's examination, Nick Pantaleo, of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, remarked that:

...a key objective of the Canadian government is to pursue new and deeper international trade and investment relationships. This is not surprising given that more than 60 per cent of the Canadian economy and one in five jobs in Canada are generated by trade. In my view, tax treaties contribute toward the success of such global trading agreements.

He went on to add that:

It is important that Canadian businesses be provided with greater unfettered access to foreign markets, foreign investment protection and fair tax treatments in foreign nations.... These factors are critical to Canadian business decision making and competitiveness. Access to more and bigger markets will help Canadian companies simply to be more productive.

It would seem clear that the tax treaties contained in Bill S-17 are a critical tool in strengthening Canada's trade and investment relationships and in helping Canadian businesses stay competitive and successful.

However, there is another critical part to these tax treaties. I have already mentioned that keeping taxes low is an important objective for our government and an important part of these tax treaties. However, keeping taxes low also means that all taxpayers should pay their fair share of taxes owing and not be able to hide their income offshore.

Better transparency and the effective exchange of information for tax purposes between taxation authorities are key to ensuring that Canadian taxpayers report their foreign income and pay the right amount of tax in Canada.

We are absolutely committed to combatting tax evasion through the negotiation of tax treaties, as well as tax information exchange agreements or TIEAs. Under the tax treaties and the TIEAs, the competent authority of one country may request from the competent authority of the other country such information as may be necessary for the proper administration of the country's tax laws.

The requested information will be provided, subject to strict protections on the confidentiality of taxpayer information. Because access to information from other countries is critically important to the full and fair enforcement of Canada's tax laws in order to combat tax evasion, the inclusion of an information exchange provision that is consistent with the standards set out in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, is an important component of Canada's tax treaty policy.

While TIEAs and tax treaties are critical tools in combatting tax evasion, our government has a number of other tools in its arsenal and a proven record. Overall, since 2006, and including the measures announced in economic action plan 2013, our government will have introduced more than 75 measures to improve the integrity of the tax system.

These measures will help close tax loopholes, address aggressive tax planning, clarify tax rules and combat international tax evasion. In fact, this action will result in closing $2.5 billion in tax loopholes.

Additionally, economic action plan 2013 announced the stop international tax evasion program. This new program would allow the CRA to pay individuals with knowledge of major international tax non-compliance a percentage of the tax collected as a result of information provided. Other measures include, one, requiring Canadian taxpayers with foreign income or properties to report more information and extending the amount of time the CRA has to reassess those who have not properly reported this income; two, streamlining the process for the CRA to obtain information concerning unnamed persons from third parties, such as banks; and third, requiring certain financial intermediaries, including banks, to report their clients' international electronic funds transfers of $10,000 or more to the CRA.

It is measures like these that would help to maintain the integrity of Canada's income tax system. This is important because, when everyone pays their fair share, Canada's tax rates can remain competitive and low. This means that Canadian families and businesses would pay less tax overall, keeping more of their hard-earned money.

To conclude, in an increasingly globalized economy where investment capital is highly mobile, a competitive business tax system is crucial. While Canada has performed relatively well in today's uncertain global economy, we cannot afford to become complacent. The treaties covered in this proposed legislation would promote certainty, stability and a better business climate for taxpayers and businesses in Canada and in the treaty countries. More importantly, these treaties would help to secure Canada's position in today's increasingly competitive world of international trade and investment.

For the reasons I have highlighted today and many others, Bill S-17 would increase our ability to compete and harness the opportunities of a vibrant modern economy. For these reasons, I urge hon. members opposite to support this bill.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When I rise in this House to give notice of a motion under Standing Order 78(3), I have to advise that an agreement could not be otherwise reached. These are not empty words. This reflects the state of discussions among the parties on a given bill.

At least twice in recent days, there have general agreements among the parties about proceeding with a piece of legislation in a particular way. When we have tried to convert those agreements into a form the House could endorse so that the House may govern itself accordingly, the NDP balks. It says we should simply trust the NDP.

I know that many members across the way are former union negotiators or union leaders. I would never imagine that they would go back to their membership and recommend approval of a deal when all management says is “trust us”.

With that in mind, and in the interest of securing agreement, I put forward the following motion before the House. There have been consultations with the parties, so it is my hope that there would be unanimous consent that on Tuesday, June 11, the House shall, during government orders, consider the third reading stage of Bill S-2, an act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, followed by the second reading stage of Bill S-6, an act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations, and followed, in turn, by the second reading stage of Bill S-10, an act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions; (b) during the consideration at the third reading stage of Bill S-2 when no member rises to speak or at the expiry of the time provided for debate pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 4, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), whichever is earlier, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith; and successively without further debate or amendment during the consideration at the second reading stage of Bill S-6 when no member rises to speak or at 5:30 p.m., whichever is earlier, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment; (d) during consideration of the second reading stage of Bill S-10 when no member rises to speak or at 10 p.m., whichever is earlier, every question necessary to dispose of the stage of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment; (e) when a recorded division is demanded it shall be deemed deferred in accordance with the manner provided in paragraph (b) of the special order adopted Wednesday, May 22; (f) upon the chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development or a member of the committee acting for the chair indicating on a point of order that the committee has ready a report respecting Bill S-14, an act to amend the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the House shall immediately revert to presenting reports from committees for the purpose of receiving the said report; and (g) upon the conclusion of proceedings on Bill S-10, the House shall take up adjournment proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. government House leader have unanimous consent to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

No.

Bill S-6—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) or through some other arrangement, as we just witnessed, with respect to the second reading stage of Bill S-6, an act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Bill S-10—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill S-10, an act to implement the Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege, at this point. When the hon. government House leader rises and tells the House that there have been attempts to consult all members to obtain unanimous consent, any reasonable person would conclude that by normal practice by now, which is normal practice, as a member of this House whose consent is usually requested for such unanimous consent motions, I would have been approached.

I have not been approached and I believe this misleads the House as to the extent of consultations. I have no idea whether what he said was true in relation to the official opposition or the Liberal Party, but it certainly was not the case regarding me.

I am more than open to talk to the government House leader any time about finding ways to move things forward. I was never consulted, Mr. Speaker.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was quite clear in my comments that this reflected discussion among the parties on the given bill at this stage. Normally, when we do get to an agreement between the official parties that are recognized in this House of Commons, then we do canvass the independent members of the House. We never got to that stage, unfortunately, here because of the inability to get consent from the NDP.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-17, An Act to implement conventions, protocols, agreements and a supplementary convention, concluded between Canada and Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland, for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with respect to taxes, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 2013

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech with great interest. We have been criticized on this side for raising matters other than those in the bill. We heard a great deal about matters other than those in the bill and matters that probably should be in the bill.

I have taken the time to go through some of these treaties, with which the quite short statute deals. It raises a number of questions for me. For example, if we look at the treaty with Poland, article 24(3), it says:

In no case shall the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 be construed... to carry out administrative measures at variance with the laws and the administrative practice of that...Contracting State...to supply information which is not obtainable under the laws or...to supply information which would disclose any trade, business, industrial...secret or trade process... information...disclosure...contrary to public policy...

I see the same kind of provisions in the Luxembourg treaty.

It raises the question for me as to what mechanism does the government use to go about enforcing this statute against these countries and what has its experience been in trying to enforce these provisions with the other countries, for example, China? Does it have such an agreement with China?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have six agreements in place at this time, with Namibia, Serbia, Poland, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland. Each of these is a bilateral agreement that has been established for multilateralists, as some of our colleagues opposite have referred to this evening. The goal is to enhance the quality of business in Canada for small businesses and to ensure that we grow our economy and investments.

The member opposite asked about China. Clearly the FIPA is designed to protect the parties on both sides of that agreement, in Canada and in China, and protect Canadian businesspeople doing business in China. It is new. We are hoping to have it completed shortly, but the reality is that it is designed to provide protection by Canadians for Canadians in their dealings overseas.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my comments until tomorrow regarding the government House leader's attempt to get unanimous consent of the House with regard to forewarning us about time allocation.

The member is fully aware that all political entities in the House of Commons will support the bill for the vote coming up. However, the larger issue is ensuring that we get the necessary additional financial resources or other resources to the Canada Revenue Agency to ensure we can avoid tax evasion. I used the example of $150 million under the Paul Martin government a number of years ago and the positive impact it had in dealing with tax evasion.

Why would the Conservatives, at this point, be cutting back on the resources going to the CRA?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tax evasion is something that we all abhor and would fight against. Clearly, as a government, it is something on which we are cracking down. My understanding is that the CRA is well within its resources to meet the demands and will meet the objectives of cracking down on tax evaders in our country.

[Mark Adler, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking my colleague from Don Valley West, who gave a very technical approach to this very complicated issue of tax treaties.

As my friend knows, Canada has been very aggressive in terms of negotiating tax treaties with other countries around the world. In fact, we have 90 tax treaties and 16 TIEAs that we have negotiated with other countries around the world. TIEAs, of course, are done in the absence of a tax treaty.

I would like to just raise a couple of ironies here and I would like to get the member to comment on them.

First, I would like the member to comment on the importance of individual Canadians paying taxes. I say that for two reasons. One reason is that I sit on the finance committee and we had the revenue critic for the NDP come before the finance committee and ask us to do a study on tax evasion. It turns out the member has not been paying his taxes.

Second, I would like the member to comment on the second NDP member who also has not been paying his taxes. He put forward a private member's bill to serve his own advantage in terms of averaging his income out over a number of years, claiming that he worked in the cultural industry and that it would be fairer to people who worked in the cultural industry to do that. In fact, he was doing it to benefit himself.

I would like to ask my friend if he could comment on the importance of what the NDP is claiming to be huge tax evaders, when the NDP has tax evaders within its own caucus. Could he comment on the importance of all Canadians paying their fair share of tax?