Debates of Nov. 2nd, 2016

Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is quite rich, coming from the members of the opposition who spent 10 years, the vast majority of which, delivering deficits and accumulating a $160 billion debt. What did they have to show for it? What projects did they bring in that they can show for it? No, they do not even have jobs to show for it.

The decisions from this side of the House, in terms of implementing and adding to the deficit, are for real opportunities and real job creation. The projects that will be put forward will be ones that genuinely will get the economy moving again.

I find it quite rich to hear members from the other side of the House talk about deficits and trying to lecture the government on deficits. What do the Conservatives have to say about the $160 billion of debt they added to this country? What are they going to say to the future generations about that?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, had the member actually been paying attention in the last 10 years, he would know that the Liberal Party was demanding that we spend more and that we borrow more money.

We had a plan to get back to a balanced budget, and that is what we did. The independent parliamentary budget officer confirmed that the Conservative government left a surplus. We also left something else, a surplus of 1.3 million net new jobs. That is as opposed to the record of the government, which has borrowed $30 billion and has negative 6,000 jobs to show for it.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to say thanks to all the Olympic athletes and Paralympic athletes who were here today. It was quite an honour to see that. For 15 minutes, the whole House kept applauding. It was great to have had them represent us in Rio the way they did. I want to give a special shout-out to Olympic boxer Mandy Bujold and Paralympic swimmer Alexander Elliot, who live in my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler.

During last year's election campaign, I spoke confidently to the residents of my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler about our plan to grow the middle class and revitalize the Canadian economy by doing three things.

First, I talked about our plan to reduce income taxes on the middle class and those aspiring to join the middle class. Lowering taxes means leaving more money in the pockets of those who need it most and having more money to spend on goods and services in our economy.

Second, I explained our plan to implement a tax-free, means-tested Canada child benefit to replace the patchwork of existing programs. The Canada child benefit will assist families with the high cost of raising their children.

Third, I talked about our plan to borrow at current historically low interest rates to make very large investments in both physical and social infrastructure.

As I spoke to people, I stressed that these programs would not only help individual families that were struggling after years of stagnant growth but would grow our economy, generate economic activity, and create jobs by way of what economists call the multiplier effect.

As I spoke with people at the door, I did so with confidence, because I believed that our plan offered immediate help to those who needed it most. It set an ambitious long-term approach for growth by strengthening the heart of Canada's consumer-driven economy, the middle class.

A strong economy starts with a strong middle class. When middle-class Canadians have more money to save, invest, and grow the economy, everyone benefits. A strengthened middle class means that hard-working Canadians can look forward to a good standard of living and better prospects for their children. When we have an economy that works for the middle class, we have a country that works for everyone.

Judging from the reaction I got from people throughout my riding, the message I was delivering resonated with voters. The results of the election speak for themselves. Our message of hope caused voters across the country to raise us from a distant third place in this House to a majority government. On election night, Canadians saw the merit in our plan, and Canadians chose a plan to invest in our future for generations to come.

Our plan increased again, when legislation to reduce personal income tax rates, as promised, was introduced by this government last December as the second piece of legislation proposed in Bill C-2.

The hon. Minister of Finance tabled the government's budget in Parliament on March 22 this year. A budget is more than a mere forecast of expenditures and revenues. A budget is a financial strategy to fulfill what a government sets as its mission. A budget is a comprehensive plan of action designed to achieve the policy objectives of the government. A budget is a financial blueprint for action. A budget will remain only a blueprint unless there are the workers, materials, coordination, skills, and activities necessary to construct it.

Real change will remain only a vision unless there is legislation to implement the budget that flows from that vision. Following quickly on the heels of the budget, Bill C-15 was the first legislation introduced by the government in April. It was the first budget implementation bill. It turned the second major promise I made to the constituents of Kitchener South—Hespeler, as I went door to door during the election, into a reality.

Bill C-15 brought in the Canada child benefit. Simpler, tax-free, and more generous, the Canada child benefit replaced existing child benefits. Bill C-15 passed quickly through this House and the Senate and received royal assent in the third week of June.

Immediately afterwards, in July, the Canada child benefit payments started flowing to families to fulfill their financial responsibilities in raising the next generation of Canadians.

The Canada child benefit is a social program of unprecedented generosity. Since July 1 this year, families can receive up to $6,400 per year for each child under six and $5,400 for each child aged six to 17. Nine out of 10 families are better off. They are receiving higher monthly benefits, and hundreds of thousands of children will be raised out of poverty.

This government has taken a long-term approach to helping families, who will be able to count on extra help now and for years to come. When Canadians look towards the future and think about planning, they know that the Canada child benefit will be there to help fulfill their financial responsibilities.

Today before the House is Bill C-29. It is the second of two pieces of legislation intended to implement the budget tabled in the House in March. Bill C-29 is the second act to implement this year's budget. It contains a number of consequential housekeeping amendments to various acts, such as the Employment Insurance Act, the Canada Education Savings Act, and the Canada Disability Savings Act, to replace references to “child tax benefit”.

However, for most Canadian families, the most important part of Bill C-29 is the introduction, as promised, of indexation of the Canada child benefit. Bill C-29 would implement the budget by indexing to inflation the maximum benefit amounts and the phase-out threshold under the Canada child benefit, beginning in the 2021 benefit year. This means that the benefits will increase if prices increase, and thus the purchasing power of the benefit will remain the same after 2020.

I would now like to turn to a couple of articles.

The first article is from The Economist, which said, “Canada is in a better position than almost any other rich country to take advantage of low rates”.

With the historically low interest rates, this is the time to invest in Canadians, in our future, and in the young generation to take advantage of these low interest rates.

The second article I want to refer to is from CBC News:

The IMF head [Christine Lagarde] said economic growth has been “too slow for too long” and the IMF advocates a “three-pronged approach” from governments trying to kick-start the global economy.

She said the [Liberal] government is following that approach with monetary, financial and structural reforms that will mobilize the resources of the state to increase growth.

For those reasons, I would therefore encourage all members of this House to support Bill C-29.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the child tax credit and all the things being done for youth. Can he explain to the House why removing the tax credits for arts programs, sports programs, and text books for students is actually helping our youth?

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the new Canada child benefit plan is more inclusive. It is helping those who need it most. We made sure that the child benefit plan, the tax plan that is coming to middle-class families, goes to the ones who will get the most, and we decreased and eliminated it for those who have a family income of more than $200,000. This is going to directly impact families who need it most.

Also, our government has put in a policy that students who graduate and make less than $25,000 do not have to pay back interest on their loans.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague a question related to his comments near the end of his speech. It related to the necessary measures to bring Canada from a low-growth situation to a path to greater prosperity.

Does the member have a particular thought on the types of investments and how we could ultimately amplify the proposed investments in the budget implementation plan in terms of what the Minister of Finance announced with respect to the infrastructure investment bank? Does he think that amplification by using private capital will help accelerate growth?

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Kitchener South—Hespeler and the greater Waterloo region, we are getting light rail transit. This is an infrastructure project that is going to help our region move goods and services to market quickly, and we will be able to move people quickly around the city. Light rail transit, for our region, is going to increase the number of jobs in the skilled trades in our riding. Literally every street in my riding is closed down. There has been bit of controversy with some of the councillors, and we poke fun at them.

It is short-term pain for long-term gain in our region. I am really thankful for the infrastructure plan we have put in place.

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned being out in the community and talking to members of the community. I am curious to know if, while he was out knocking on doors, he heard that a carbon tax is the answer or that moving from a $10-billion deficit to a $30-billion deficit is the answer.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in my region of Waterloo we had a consultation on the environment. A lot of people in my riding were concerned about the environment, and they wanted to make sure that the government was taking positive steps. I received many emails after the consultation and after we announced it in the House. There was really good feedback on the approach we are taking, which is balancing the economy while maintaining the environment. The constituents in my riding know that we need to balance both, and we are doing that.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House on the debate on the implementation act 2016, the complete measures we have introduced in budget 2016.

We have completed more than a year in the Government and have brought the changes we promised to Canadian during the last year election.

I was successfully elected as the first member of Parliament from the newly-formed riding of Brampton Centre. The mere reason for our success in the election was because our constituents believed us and the policies we gave to them. I believe we all must listen to Canadians, otherwise we will not be here the next time.

During my door-to-door campaign, I met many Canadians who told me stories of their economic condition. I was told that they were working hard, trying to make their life easier, but things were not working because of the bad economy and lack of jobs. People were struggling to make ends meet. They were working hard, but were unable to cope with their own expenses.

People were concerned about their children's care and maintenance, their education and then about their employment. They were worried about their jobs. We came across issues of employment insurance, affordable housing, and senior poverty anxieties. They were worried about how they would be able to better care for their kids and grandkids.

After over a year in government, we have brought many of the changes we promised Canadians. As a government, we are proud of our first budget. As we promised, the government will take solid steps to bring real changes for the betterment of the middle class, and for those working hard to join it. We know the middle class is the backbone of Canada. If the middle class is strong, Canada is strong. When middle-class Canadians have more money to save, invest and spend, everyone benefits.

The budget implementation act 2016, No. 2 complies with the implementation of the outstanding measures we introduced in budget 2016. It will build a strong economy for Canada. It will give the middle class and those working hard to join it more money in their pockets to save, invest, and to grow the economy.

I firmly believe that we as a government are focused on exactly the right things. We are focused on people and growing the economy for the long term in a way that will benefit all Canadians. Canada's middle class will drive our economy forward.

The following are a few important steps taken by the government toward helping families regain their confidence in the government.

To meet our platform promise, we told the 1% of wealthiest Canadians to pay more taxes, and we gave tax benefit breaks to those who earned less to help fund the middle class.

In budget 2016, we introduced the new Canada child benefit. This benefit will help parents better support what is most precious to them, their children, by putting more money into the pockets of families with children. The Canada child benefit will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. Nine out of 10 families now receive more money than they did under the previous system. The Canada child benefit is simpler, more generous, and also tax-free. Its attractiveness is that it helps those who need it most in our society. It will put extra money directly into the hands of families to buy school supplies, groceries, and warm clothes for the winter.

The Canada child benefit will help parents cover the growing cost of raising their children. Families can count on this extra assistance today for years to come because this Canada child benefit will be indexed to inflation.

Further, budget 2016 makes post-secondary education more affordable for students from low and middle-income families. It will be easier for them to repay their student loans. The increase in Canada student grants for students from low and middle-income families and for part-time students is a big incentive for them to join the workforce. It will also help young Canadians gain the much-needed experience, the income they need and to find good jobs after graduation.

Working toward poverty reduction, budget 2016 also improves the employment insurance regime. Canada's employment insurance program provides economic security to Canadians when they need it most.

Whatever the circumstances, no Canadian should struggle to get the assistance when they are in need. To ensure Canadians get help when they need it, several changes are being proposed in the EI system. Changes to eligibility rules will make it easier for new workers and those re-entering the workforce to claim benefits. The waiting period will also be reduced from two weeks to one week. This improvement in employment insurance will provide money to unemployed workers with hundreds of dollars more at the time they need it most.

In budget 2016, we increased the monthly payment for the most vulnerable seniors. The government reverted the pensionable age to 65 and will index seniors' pension.

Restoring the eligibility age for old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefit to 65 will put thousands of dollars back into the pockets of Canadians as they become seniors and look to retire.

This second budget implementation bill would amend the Old Age Security Act to make the program more flexible. When couples who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement and the spouse's allowance must live apart for reasons beyond their control, each of them will receive benefits based on their individual income.

By extending this treatment to couples receiving the guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowance, the government is improving fairness for seniors and helping them live with the dignity they deserve and need in retirement. That is the right thing to do.

The government realizes that our veterans have dedicated their lives to the defence of our country and they deserve our unwavering support. We owe them. It is a sacred obligation that we must meet with respect and gratitude.

Budget 2016 has provisions for the measures to support Canadian veterans. The Government of Canada has a social covenant with veterans and their families.

Yesterday, in the House, our Minister of Finance highlighted in his fall economic statement and stressed that our government wanted to tell Canadians that we believed we should be focusing on making investments for today and for tomorrow that will allow us to have a higher level of economic growth in our country, and we are doing it in a fiscally responsible way.

As we promised Canadians, we will make an historic investment in green transport as well as in social infrastructure. We have already started making record investments, which will help the middle class grow and prosper today, while delivering economic growth for years to come. Infrastructure investment will shape the economy and make Canada economically strong.

I have my personal news announcement regarding infrastructure spending in my riding, which I want to share with—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for South Surrey--White Rock.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about his government being a responsible government. Part of that responsibility includes having a plan to balance the budget. Could the explain to Canadians what that plan looks like?

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, people told us to do things that would help them and their families, and to grow the economy. We intend to do just that.

We have plans to help the middle class. We started by providing them with income tax breaks. We are reducing the tax for the middle class and asking the wealthiest 1% to pay more.

We made improvements in the Canada child benefit. Nine out of 10 families will now get the benefit. We have also given benefits to seniors. This is what Canadians want us to do.

Our government has also relaxed student grants, which will give students a chance to go to college or university and pay their debt at a later stage when they are employed.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his eloquent speech. I have a question for him about the Canada child benefit, which he mentioned a number of times in his speech.

He forgot to mention the glaring mistake that Canadians and experts noticed right away. The Canada child benefit is not indexed, and as such it will not be worth as much over the years. At the end of the day, it will be worth less than the benefit that the Conservatives came up with.

The Liberals listened to reason and announced that they were going to index the Canada child benefit, but not until 2020. I wonder why they chose 2020 to start indexing and why not 2019, 2018, 2017, or even this year so that the benefit does not lose value by 2020 and can continue to grow. Canadians' expenses keep growing, while their salaries, unfortunately, continue to stagnate.

[Ramesh Sangha, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member wants to know why indexing was not done at the first stage and was considered later on. I would like to bring to the attention of my friend that whenever the government works on any plan, it works through the Advisory Council on Economic Growth. The council provides advice, not decisions. Decisions are made by the government at a later stage. A recommendation was prepared and given to the government, and it is up to the government to accept it or not.

We have helped Canadians. We are trying to boost the economy. We want to work with Canadians and give them what we promised them.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-29 aims to implement a series of budget measures and tax changes in budget 2016, which was tabled in Parliament on March 22 of this year. We have heard from the government over the course of this year how going into debt would help the economy and would create jobs. We also heard from the government how increasing taxes would help the economy and the middle class and create jobs. We heard from the government how the tax-free savings account was not for seniors and not for students and not for people trying to save and get ahead, and therefore, it could be cut in half and it really would not make any difference.

Then we heard from the Prime Minister on September 8, 2015, while he was being interviewed by Peter Mansbridge, “a large percentage of small businesses are actually just ways for wealthier Canadians to save on their taxes”. Now even though there are 1.14 million small businesses in Canada, employing 8.2 million people, plus another 2.3 million people employed in medium-sized businesses, those small businesses did not get the reduction in taxes as promised in the platform by the Liberal government and to be clear, the promise was to reduce the small business tax from 11% to 9%, to assist with job creation. However, that did not happen.

Instead, the Liberals increased the CPP contribution so that workers would have to pay more and see less of their paycheques, and employers will also have to pay more, which goes against the internal documents from Finance Canada. Those documents show that financial officials advised the minister that higher CPP premiums will reduce job growth until 2035. That advice was ignored.

The government decided to implement the so-called tax cut for the middle class and then announced to the general public it was going to be revenue neutral. The plan is not revenue neutral. A report from the parliamentary budget officer puts the cost at $1.7 billion, which is now added to the growing tax burden for Canadians.

However, it gets better. The Liberal government told taxpayers that for a tiny small deficit of $10 billion, infrastructure projects will grow the economy and create jobs. The Liberals burned through a $1-billion surplus and created a deficit that is over $30 billion, but it still gets better. With all these job-creating measures the government has come up with, one would think that jobs were really being created. This is not so. A report just released last week by the parliamentary budget officer states that job creation over the past year was half of what it was over the past five years and that there have been no net new full-time jobs.

The Liberal job creation plan is simply not working.

Let us just recap. We have a $30-plus billion deficit, $7.1 billion spent overseas, $2.9 billion committed to an Asian infrastructure bank, new housing rules that will cost the economy $6 billion by the end of 2018, a national carbon tax that will increase the cost of heating, groceries, and gas, and just announced yesterday by the Minister of Finance was that he has spent the $6-billion contingency fund and is borrowing another $32 billion. As well, $15 billion is being put into a newly created infrastructure bank and the $15 billion “will be sourced from the announced funding for public transit, green infrastructure, social...and rural and northern communities”.

We already have a structure in place with $1.3 billion available and it is called P3 Canada. It was specifically set up to leverage private sector dollars. Pension funds can invest anywhere they choose; they do not need an infrastructure bank. That was stated by the CEO of the largest pension fund in Canada.

Let us hear from the experts. Craig Alexander, chief economist at the Conference Board of Canada stated, “The part of the fiscal plan that hasn't shown up is the infrastructure spending”. Stephen Poloz, Bank of Canada governor, said that in the data “there are no signs yet” of a boost to grow. Benjamin Reitzes, senior economist from the Bank of Montreal, said, “It's certainly very fair to say that impacts were overestimated”. The TD Bank and the Bank of Montreal projected that the government spending plan would add less to growth in 2016 than the finance department or the Bank of Canada had estimated. They have now publicly called on the government to halt additional spending.

There is a way to stimulate the economy and create the environment for job growth and job creation. The Liberal way is just not that way. Governments do not create jobs. Governments create environments in which job creation either flourishes or it stagnates. Unfortunately, what we are seeing from the current government is stagnating the environment for job growth through out-of-control spending, deficits, higher taxes, red tape, and frankly, not knowing what job creation really means.

Creating the environment for job growth means low taxes, less red tape, working with all levels of government to create livable cities, transportation to move people and goods to market, and fiscal responsibility to pay down any debt and balance the budget. In the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the Conservative government had the lowest taxes in 50 years, balanced the budget, completed over 7,500 infrastructure projects, and created the environment for 1.3 million new jobs. That is how it is done.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Rothesay, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand back and I marvel at times at the Conservative Party's view that it was such a steward of the economy. We certainly saw over 10 years what regressive policies have done for the country: two recessions and a budget that was balanced at the last moment via the shell game I talked about yesterday.

The party opposite is so big on saying that our grandkids are going to have to pay for this and that we are mortgaging our children's future. However, it was the Conservatives' own finance minister, when they doubled the TFSA or tried to, who said that Stephen Harper's grandkids could pay for that.

I am going to ask the member opposite how she squares that her own former finance minister, in the past, said that Stephen Harper's grandkids could pay for the Conservatives' promises, yet for us it is the opposite. I wonder if the member can comment on that.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague marvels at us Conservatives.

We will talk about the TFSA because in my riding I have a lot of seniors, and one thing they really wanted was to have the contribution amount left at $10,000. Unfortunately, it was the Liberals who went on this rant that nobody had $10,000 just hanging around. That was not what it was for. It was for seniors. It was for students. It was for people who were trying to save. That is exactly what we put in place. We had the lowest taxes in 50 years and created 1.3 million jobs. I am sorry, but I do not know how that is wrong.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague and I both share concerns about the huge debt that families are seeing. Especially over the last year, families have been carrying enormous debt. With that, we are seeing a significant increase in the rate of child poverty in Canada, which is estimated to be as high as 11.2% by the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development. In my riding of Courtenay—Alberni, in Alberni itself one-third of the children living in Alberni Valley are living in poverty, and one in five children in Courtenay are living in poverty.

I know the member cares a lot about child poverty so I want to ask her this. Why did the child poverty rate become so high under the Harper government? Maybe the member can answer some of the questions I have around that.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, actually Statistics Canada shows the child poverty rate went down overall. However, I would also admit that was not in all communities.

As the former mayor of the city of Surrey, we created our child poverty reduction plan. We have to look at each community in a different way. As we look at the country as a whole, there are measures we can put in but we have to work together with communities to make sure we are taking care of those left vulnerable. I am sure the member knows from his community the great work of Clyde Hertzman, who had a benchmark that looked at all the indicators that were causes of child poverty. We cannot take our foot off the gas on this issue. We have to continue to ensure that our kids and our communities are resilient, and that our kids are school-ready when they get into kindergarten.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I met this morning with a particularly troublesome constituent to speak about the debt the Liberal government is accumulating. My two-year-old daughter wanted to know whether or not the member agrees that saddling her generation with multiple billions of dollars of debt and $10 billion to $15 billion more in debt financing charges is fair to her generation, and our children and grandchildren.

[Dianne Lynn Watts, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have met the member's beautiful daughter, and it just breaks my heart to know that child is going to grow up with that kind of debt.

When we see a government that has absolutely no plan to pay down the debt or to balance the budget, that it is not even on the horizon, this should be troublesome to every single Canadian across the country, because it will come back to haunt each and every one of us, our children, and our grandchildren.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

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 Nanaimo—Ladysmith, Status of Women; the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, Health; the hon. member for Saskatoon West, Indigenous Affairs.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Joliette.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating the second and last budget implementation bill. Unfortunately, the needs expressed by Quebec citizens and organizations are still not addressed in the budget. With respect to the health, education and social service transfers, the cuts announced by the Conservatives have not been reversed. In short, Quebec still gets nothing.

Our students' education and textbook credits were cut and they have not been adequately offset. In the case of Quebec students, for example, we are talking about a net loss of $120 million. They have been shortchanged, and the bill does nothing to address the situation. That is very disappointing. The government has really disappointed us. There is nothing for our strong economic sectors such as the green economy, high technology, aerospace, and informatics, nor is there anything for our farmers and unemployed workers.

In short, we are disappointed that Quebec's needs are not among the government's priorities. However, that is not a big surprise. Canada and Quebec are such completely different nations that for years now millions of Quebeckers have understood that we would be rather better served by being masters in our own house.

This bill basically deals with two things. The first is the indexing of the Canada child benefit. It is reasonable and appropriate that it be indexed. The second is a host of small changes to close tax loopholes that allow tax avoidance. For example, the bill eliminates the possibility of claiming the small business tax credit multiple times. That does not make sense. Companies that own companies that own companies and so on down the line like nesting dolls will no longer be able to use this strategy.

However, if the government really wants to crack down on tax avoidance, it is missing the mark. It does not realize that, while it is trying to put out the fire in the recycling bin, the whole house is going up in flames.

When it comes to tax avoidance, the root of the problem lies primarily with the banks, the financial industry, and the multinationals that happily and legally send their billions of dollars to tax havens. That is shameful. For Canada's five big banks alone, we are talking about $6 billion a year in lost revenue for the governments, whether it be the federal government, the Government of Quebec, or the other provincial governments. That has nothing to do with the amounts announced in this bill. The Liberals have missed the boat.

What is more, we do not need to renegotiate international agreements to solve the real problem with tax avoidance. The government can take action right here and now.

I would like to remind members of a little known fact: no treaty or law authorizes the use of tax havens. For example, Canada's tax treaty with Barbados stipulates that companies entitled to any special tax benefit in Barbados, or in other words companies that are entitled to a ridiculously low tax rate of 0.25% to 2.5% rather than Barbados' usual tax rate of 25%, must pay taxes in Canada. It says so in article XXX of the treaty.

Tax avoidance is legal because of backdoor changes that have been made to Canada's tax regulations. Previous governments put these regulations in place without even allowing MPs to debate or discuss them.

I would like to make a positive contribution to the debate by suggesting one simple, practical thing that could be done to resolve an essential element of the problem of tax evasion. We simply need to get rid of two regulatory changes.

First there is paragraph 5907(11.2)(c), which invalidates article XXX of the Canada-Barbados tax treaty, a subparagraph that stipulates that taxes must be paid here. Thanks to that regulation, Barbados became a tax haven for Canada just over 20 years ago. That regulation passed quietly, and it might even be illegal.

That regulation was put in place without a vote in the House, and it made it possible for banks and multinationals to legally profit from tax havens. It is high time that we outlawed something that is unethical, in the name of justice and fairness.

We also need to get rid of the amendment to subsection 5907(11) that was passed in 2009. With the stroke of a pen in the regulations, the government opened up 22 other tax havens.

As soon as Canada has a comprehensive tax information exchange agreement with a tax haven, any profits that come back to Canada are tax-free, plain and simple. Once again, that amendment was passed quietly.

It can be found in a schedule to one of the mammoth budget implementation bills, tucked in the section “medical expense tax credit” even though it is totally unrelated. That shows bad faith, and not just a little.

Again, when it comes to tax avoidance, we have to tackle the root of the problem and make illegal what is unethical. Tax avoidance is a legal practice that puts enormous pressure on public finances. It is not right that people who are paying more and more taxes and user fees are seeing public services disappear, while big corporations and major banks shirk their responsibilities.

Inequality is growing and we have to change that. It is time to take action. However, we will have to start by changing the culture of Parliament and of successive governments. Even though Canadians generally deplore tax avoidance, as Quebeckers do, the banks have so much power that the government, the party in power, and the official opposition continue to wash their hands of the matter, just as Pontius Pilate did in a well-known story. The time has come for elected officials to start truly representing Canadians, rather than the economic interests of the giants.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I always enjoy his colourful speeches. I would also like to congratulate him on the work he is doing to fight tax havens, a serious issue facing our generation and one that the House must tackle as quickly and effectively as possible.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the part of the bill about country-by-country reporting standards for multinationals. If the bill passes and the OECD country-by-country reporting standards are implemented, multinationals with revenue in excess of 750 million euros will be subject to this new rule. What does my colleague think of that?

Also, what does he think of the 750-million euro threshold for country-by-country reporting, which would give Canada access to more information about the activities of multinational entities in all the countries in which they are present and trigger a more in-depth analysis of these companies and their activities?