Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2017

Opposition Motion--Consultations on proposed tax changes

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sure that many in this place have been receiving the same kinds of concerns from constituents. I have met with and heard from a great number of women physicians, many who have set up their own small medical practices and either had children or are wanting to expand their families but are concerned that they will not be able to afford to continue to pay to run their practice while they take maternity leave.

Could the member tell this place how they will address the concerns being raised by female physicians if they put through these changes?

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

Madam Speaker, people can continue to invest and hold money in a corporation. One of the misleading things that has been said quite a bit today is that somehow people will not be able to keep money within a corporation to do things with it later on. They can. They can continue to grow it, continue to invest it, and it is not until they go to use it for their own personal use that they will be taxed on it.

When we look at individuals who will be taking time off later, if they choose not to go down the route of benefits of some form to buy into—for example, if they are a business, they can be members of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and buy benefits from them—but if they do, then they can utilize what they have saved later on and effectively will be paying the same tax rate that they were always paying.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Madam Speaker, of course the opposition does not share the premise of the inequalities that the member is talking about. However, let us say that we do.

Instead of raising taxes on business, why does the government or the hon. member not advocate for lowering taxes on salaried employees to the level that the businesses have for their supposed advantage? Why, instead of raising taxes, does he not advocate lowering taxes to make everyone equal?

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

Madam Speaker, it is because we already did that. We did that when we lowered the taxes on the middle class and increased them on the one per cent.

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

Madam Speaker, I point out that only the Liberal Party could actually try to raise taxes and actually decrease revenues on the top one per cent by the tune of $1 billion.

Page 30 of the Liberal Party platform says, “We will make free votes in the House of Commons standard practice.” Will tonight's vote be a free vote? If it will not, if it will be a whipped vote, what will be the consequence to Liberal backbenchers for voting in favour of this motion?

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

Madam Speaker, it is a free vote to me. I know exactly how I am going to vote. It is a free vote.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to rise to speak to this motion today. I would just like to say where I am from, what I do, and what I have done in the past.

I am a small business owner, and I am also a tax lawyer. I used to teach tax at the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa, and I used to teach corporate tax at the Faculty of Management at Laurentian University. As well, my wife is a physician and is incorporated.

On July 18, many MPs and members of the general public were quite interested in the guidelines our party was going to release regarding the tax reform we want to bring in.

Considering my family background, I was very lucky to become a tax lawyer and to have studied the law, much like my wife. My father was a welder at the pulp and paper plant in Kapuskasing, and my wife's father was an electrician. We come from modest families, but we were lucky, because we managed to go to university back in the day. This dream is becoming increasingly harder to achieve.

That is why we need to take a closer look at our tax system to make sure it is fair and equitable. We need to determine whether looking into our social ladder is the right way to correct the inequities that exist in our society and give everyone a chance to fulfill their dreams. It is not easy these days. My party and I agree that we need to have a closer look at these growing inequities.

As soon as I found out what the reform was going to be, I sat down and read the whole document. I looked at the draft legislation as well. I had multiple discussions with colleagues, tax lawyers, tax accountants, and business owners across the country. I met with the chamber of commerce. I had town halls. I replied to many phone calls from people from different walks of life: small business owners, very successful physicians, very successful dentists, tax lawyers on Bay Street, and tax lawyers in rural areas of Canada.

At the end of the day, when we take a step back and look at what we have in Canada, right now we have the lowest small business tax rate of the G7 countries. It is 15%. The government could decide to raise it, and at the end of the day, everything would be fixed, but we do not want to do that. We want to continue having small businesses with the lowest tax rate. Why? It is because we want them to continue to invest. It is important that they continue to invest in equipment, grow their companies, and hire more people. In my opinion, that is the purpose of having a low tax rate.

A lot of people have made their plans and structured their companies legitimately, and the Minister of Finance has said this multiple times. Everyone has the ability to follow the rules and do this legitimately. However, I certainly believe that there is reform to be made in the Income Tax Act.

Right now, people can use what we call surplus stripping. If there is a high amount of cash in a corporation, one can do a fictitious transaction by using a family member or by incorporating another company, and after signing a few documents, one can convert what would be a dividend into a capital gain and reduce the tax rate by 20%.

Over the last 60 years, the Department of Finance has been trying to address this problem in the Income Tax Act. Actually, in the 1980s, when the Conservatives were in power, they brought in the general anti-avoidance rule, or GAR, to address surplus stripping. However, after 30 years, clearly the courts have not followed.

Therefore, there needs to be a fix. Every tax lawyer and every tax accountant I have talked to says that this needs to be done. The minister has talked about unintended consequences. There are other issues that have arisen in the draft legislation and in the discussion paper, which is why the minister has said that there are issues, we have heard from people, we are listening, and we need to address them.

The other thing I find unfair, and I am surprised that the Conservatives are not talking about it, is the fact that if people set up their affairs properly, right now, with the current rules we have, if they sell their business, they can actually have their child, two months old, get a capital gains exemption of $830,000. A child who cannot even contract but is a beneficiary of a trust can have a capital gains exemption of $830,000. Are you saying that is fair? I do not think so—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I ask that the member address the question through the chair.

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know that the Conservatives believe it is fair. I do not believe it is fair.

As well, one of the things that has come up in the draft legislation is whether these rules would be retroactive. What happens after July 18? Are people going to be affected by these new rules? Again, the minister has said that these rules would not be retroactive. However, if we read the draft legislation, there appears to be some retroactivity. That is why we need to listen. I have had a lot of documentation sent my way by different groups. Yesterday it was the Canadian Bar Association. They want to help us address inequities in the system. Certainly retroactivity is a major issue that needs to be addressed.

The party opposite wants us to vote tonight to extend the consultation, which I find a bit ironic. Earlier today someone said that there is uncertainty right now. Business owners do not know what the rules are, yet they want to continue this until January 31. What I am hearing on the ground is that business owners need to know what the rules are before they can make decisions.

A month ago, I talked to an old friend of mine who said he needs to draft his will and he is not sure what to do, because he is not sure how the rules will end up. The longer we continue this, the less certainty there will be in the markets. There need to be assurances, because when we are in consultations, the Minister of Finance cannot make pronouncements. He cannot give direction to the Canadian population, to business owners, and to the House. Now that the consultation period is done, he can do that, but before he can to that, he needs to take into consideration all the comments. Many good suggestions have come our way.

The debate will continue, even though the consultation period stopped yesterday. I will meet again with my constituents. I am returning phone calls. I want their suggestions. I am addressing these with the Department of Finance, with my Liberal colleagues, and with members in the House to try to make it right. As the Minister of Finance said, we are going to get this right. We want to make the system more fair to address the inequities that exist right now in the Income Tax Act.

When we talk about passive income, I know a lot of the comments from members of the opposition are about the whole issue of a 73% tax. Right now that is hypothetical. We have a discussion paper. There is a discussion paper that has provided certain hypothetical scenarios. We do not have draft legislation. The sooner we have draft legislation to study that we can question and improve, the better off small businesses will be.

I have had a few calls from concerned people who have saved money to invest. They are being told that they will have to pay an inordinate amount of tax on that money. I am telling them that this is not the way I am reading the draft legislation. That is not the way I am reading the discussion paper. However, before people do anything, they should wait and see what the results are to have certainty. That is normal. There will always be uncertainty in the law until we draft and bring a bill to the House to discuss and vote on.

I am very happy that the consultation period is over. The discussion will continue. It has to continue. On a go-forward basis, we need to address a lot of what is in the draft legislation and the discussion paper and how this will be rolled out.

I am very proud that we are tackling this issue and talking about tax fairness in our system. I have heard from many entrepreneurs and doctors who are very concerned about their situation. At the same time, obviously we want these entrepreneurs to succeed, reinvest their money in their business, and create the best possible lifestyle for themselves. We will continue to reinvest and give them opportunities to reinvest. We will not stop, and I am very glad that we are going to carry on with this plan.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way claimed that the goal is to remove advantages for some taxpayers that are not available to others. However, the solution put forward by the government with respect to the taxation of passive income actually would create new imbalances and new biases in favour of some taxpayers over others. For example, a multi-millionaire CEO of a publicly traded corporation would pay a total tax of 55% on passive investment earned within his or her company. A pizza-shop owner earning just $75,000 a year would pay almost 60% on passive investment earned within his or her company. That pizza-shop owner has no choice but to save within the company, because an RRSP has withdrawal rules that prevent him or her from pulling it out in case it is needed.

The result of these proposals would mean a higher tax for that middle-class pizza-shop owner earning $75,000 a year than for a super-rich multi-millionaire CEO of a public company. How is that neutral and fair?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to passive income, and I mentioned this in my speech, right now it is a hypothetical situation, because it is a discussion paper. We have heard a lot of comments from tax lawyers and tax accountants from across the country about ensuring that we are looking at this issue. They are asking whether it is the tax-policy result we want.

Right now, certain business owners can take out money from their corporation and pay only 15% in tax. Is that the situation we want? The corporate tax rate is 15%. If they pay it and pay a dividend, and have no other income, they can pay themselves a $40,000 dividend without paying any other taxes. That is a rare situation, but again, it is hypothetical, just like their examples are hypothetical until we have draft legislation we can deal with. Then we can move on with it.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member claims that a business owner can pay himself a dividend after only having paid 15% in corporate tax. We have a fully integrated system on the taxation of business owners. They pay 15% tax on their original earnings inside the company, and then they pay the rest of their marginal tax when they receive the money in the form of a dividend. Therefore, if their tax rate is 50%, they pay 15% inside the company and 35% outside the company. For the member to suggest that business owners are getting off with a 15% total tax rate on their earnings betrays a total lack of understanding of how our integrated tax system works. It spreads misinformation about the amount of tax businesses pay. Will the member not admit that we have integration in this country, and as a result, our small-business owners pay the same marginal tax rate at the end of the day as they would if they were taking the money in the form of wages?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I said was that that is the system we have right now, and that is one of the things that can happen.

What the member did not mention is that, right now, a child under the age of 18, who cannot even sign a contract, can receive tax-free capital gains of up to $830,000 on the sale of shares. The Conservatives think that is okay and they want to keep allowing exactly that.

In our view, however, we need to rethink a system that allows a child under 18 to receive $830,000 in capital gains on the sale of shares. That is why we have to reconsider our system and continue the conversation. This is a good conversation to be having right now.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

I am fortunate to rise to speak in the House regarding the Liberals' proposed changes to the taxation of private corporations in Canada. I received hundreds of phone calls, emails, and letters from my constituents, most from small business owners, expressing their deep concerns about how these changes would affect their ability to run their businesses.

The Prime Minister and Minister of Finance want Canadians to believe this tax hike is about fairness for the middle class. I fail to see what is fair about a family farm having to pay more tax, while the Prime Minister's self-proclaimed family fortune will be unaffected. The same goes for the finance minister, whose multinational family business, worth millions of dollars, will not be touched by these changes.

These policies are going to hurt the very people they were supposedly designed to help, the middle class. That is why the members on this side of the House will fight this tax hike every step of the way.

My riding of Souris—Moose Mountain is a rural riding in the southeast corner of Saskatchewan. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy there, with ranchers, farmers, and family farm operations making up a good chunk of those businesses. These farmers and their families work hard to feed Canada and the world, and they deserve the utmost respect for the hard work they do.

The Prime Minister does not seem to agree with that, however. The timing of the consultation period for these tax changes showed a blatant disregard for farmers as it fell during harvest, one of the busiest times of the year for the agriculture industry.

I have had farmers calling me from their combines, while sitting in the middle of a field, to voice their dissatisfaction with the proposed changes. I find it incredibly short-sighted that the government thought it was wise to initiate a very short, very limited consultation period during the time of year when one of the most affected groups, farmers, would be unavailable to submit their thoughts and opinions. If the minister did not know, then it shows an even greater disregard for our farmers. It is yet another example of how out of touch the Liberals really are.

I would like to set out just how the proposed tax hikes will affect farmers and their operations in my riding. Later I will touch on the effects to other small businesses, but for now I would like to speak more about farmers and the negative impacts these tax changes will have on their livelihoods.

Anyone who knows a farming family knows that running a farm involves everyone, from young children, to teenagers, to parents and grandparents, and sometimes great-grandparents. It is expected that all will help out with whatever tasks need to be done at any given time.

The government's tax hike proposal will now impose a reasonableness test to determine if family members are earning their income. This means there will be higher compliance costs for farmers and other small business owners as this reasonableness test will only serve to increase the administrative burden these small businesses already face. It is clear that the Prime Minister and his government have no regard for what this means for farmers and small business owners, especially since large businesses, such as the one owned by the finance minister's family, will be unaffected.

Another tax planning measure that will have an impact on farmers is tax on passive investments. When money is saved inside of a corporation, it is for business investment purposes. This is extremely important for farmers whose ability to generate income depends heavily on variable and unpredictable factors, such as weather and expensive equipment costs, like $500,000 for a combine.

Farmers are not trying to shield massive sums of money within their operations. They are not trying to cheat the system. The so-called loophole they use is what allows them to plan for their retirement.

Passive investment income is a necessary hedge against economic uncertainty for these small business owners who get no sick leave, no vacation pay, no health care, and no dental plan. Now the government will tax small business owners twice, once inside the company and again when paid out to the owner. Again, I fail to see the fairness in this when big corporations will not be subjected to this change.

I have a number of century farms in my riding of which I am very proud. These families have been farming in the area for over 100 years and have passed their operations down through generations. This, however, may not be an option for them any longer. Under the Liberal tax plan, the government will tax the proceeds of asset sales to non-arm's length buyers at the higher dividend rate rather than at the lower rate. This means farmers could face a significantly higher tax rate selling their farms to their children than if they sold them to a multinational corporation. This is not supporting local small business. This is killing local small business and killing the jobs they create.

I have heard from a number of constituents who are now afraid they will need to sell their century family farms as their best financial option rather than to pass it on to the next generation. How can the Liberals support tax changes that will effectively kill small businesses like century family farms, an important part of Canadian heritage?

Farmers face a lot of adversity in their day-to-day lives. They need their government to support them in every way possible, but these tax changes will do exactly the opposite. On top of this, the forced carbon tax will hurt farmers even more, despite the fact the reports show that hitting farmers with a carbon tax will not reduce emissions faster. As I have said before, and will say again, the government is simply out of touch and rural Canada is paying a price for that.

The Prime Minister talks a lot about the need for innovation in our country. I am not sure he realizes this but small businesses are at the very heart of innovation. The tax hikes that the government wants to impose will only act as a disincentive for those people looking to start a small business in Canada. This means a lack of innovation, which in turn means economic growth is stifled.

It is not just the farmers in my riding who have serious concerns about the tax hike. Small business owners and a number of different industries have been in contact with me, asking me to be their voice on this matter since the government clearly refuses to be. These include veterinarians, insurance brokers, small oil and gas companies, doctors, store owners, and even rural municipalities. I have never seen such an extensive response from the people of southeast Saskatchewan than I have on this issue, and the government needs to pay attention.

I would like to ensure that the Liberals understand the level of risk small business owners take on when deciding to operate a business. They hire employees and manage their overhead. They pay CPP and EI for those employees. They do not receive any health care or dental benefits, and have to pay out of pocket when these expenses arise. They are not entitled to any kind of vacation or sick leave, so they do not usually take time off. They do not get overtime. They are wholly responsible for financially planning for their retirement. Most of the time they have invested a significant amount, if not all of their savings, into the business and if it fails, this is lost. They take the chance, they take the risk.

I say all of this because the tax planning measures the Liberals hope to change actually help to mitigate some of these risks. There will be no benefit for small business owners to take those risks. Instead, they will encourage people to stay in employment rather than pursue entrepreneurship. Why? Because employees often get benefits with their pay. This means that no new jobs will be created and innovation and economic growth will be slow. Why? Because employers, the risk takers, cover these benefits for their employees.

These people are not the 1%. Many of them are firmly middle class and are offended by the notion they conduct their business in a dishonest way. If the Prime Minister truly wants to target the richest Canadians, as he says, then perhaps he should look to his right, where the finance minister sits in the House, instead of looking at the barns and pastures of our farmers or at the books and back offices of our small businesses.

Clearly, the west has yet again been forgotten about under the Liberal government. While we believe that higher taxes help no one, and we continue to be the voice of the small business owner in Canada, we call upon the government to extend the consultation period on these measures until January 31, 2018.

The Prime Minister visited a Saskatchewan farm in April and spoke to farmers on issues they were facing in their line of work. It was clear to me that was just a photo op. He targeted our farmers and instead of helping them, he basically insinuated the constituents were tax cheats.

I would like to conclude by reading a quote that was sent to me by one of my constituents, a veterinarian and rancher who is also an employer within his community. His letter to me stated the following by William B. Boetcker:

“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong....You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich....You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.”

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for bringing his concerns forward. I imagine we disagree on quite a bit. However, if his point is that this will be a disaster, will he stand before the House today and commit that should the Conservatives form government, they would repeal these changes and give these tax benefits back to the wealthiest Canadians?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member points out an issue that he seems to think has some traction. The measures he is proposing will affect my constituents, my farmers and my ranchers. He is right. We have sat down and talked with our constituents. We have met with chambers of commerce. We have met with the people in our constituencies. We heard what they have had to say, and they want these things changed. We will listen to what they say and we will continue to listen to what they say.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, in response to the question my Liberal colleague just asked, does he not find it absolutely ridiculous that the only defence a Liberal member of Parliament has against the hundreds of thousands of people who have, across party lines, spoken out against this issue is to ask if the Conservatives will repeal it? Would my colleague not think that a better response would be for the Liberals to not do it in the first place? Would he care to comment on the fact that the Liberals' only response to this is to ask what a Conservative government would do better with respect to taxes? Does he not find that to be possibly the most ridiculous thing ever said in the House of Commons?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill is exactly right. The only response they had for me was how I would challenge this and what would I do. I listen to what my constituents have to say and I respond to them in a manner they want. I come from a rural riding. which has many farmers and ranchers. We will continue to stand up and support them every which way we can.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I thought the question posed by my colleague was fairly astute. Let me ask this of the member across the way.

An aspect we are talking about is the sprinkling of income. A vast majority of Canadians would argue that this is unfair, that they are unable to have the sprinkling of income because they work on a factory floor, or are firefighters, or police officers, or work in health care. It is a legitimate question to ask. Hypothetically speaking, if the Conservatives were back in power 10 years or 15 years from now, would they want to again put in place tax advantages over others? Would they be committed to doing that in the future?

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member is always in the House, so I know he has listened to my speech. He is always attentive. I always appreciate his comments because he is the only one in the House I can hear. Even though I am deaf in one ear, I can still hear him in the House.

With respect to the sprinkling of income, we are talking about people who are business owners or are starting businesses and creating jobs. The jobs they create employ people. Oftentimes by employing those people, they provide benefits that many times employees take for granted. That is part of what goes on. However, we do not see that with our farmers and our ranchers. They do not have the same ability as those small businesses to do the exact same thing.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to clarify for people who are watching that the motion before us today states:

That, given the proposed changes to the taxation of private corporations as outlined in the Minister of Finance's paper “Tax Planning Using Private Corporations” will have a drastic negative impact on small and medium sized local businesses, the House call on the government to continue, until January 31, 2018, its consultations on these measures.

Many of my colleagues today have made the point that they have heard that this proposal would be detrimental to small business and the middle class in Canada, but I want to focus on the substance of the motion and hopefully convince some of my colleagues to vote for it, because I do think that a reasonable motion to extend the consultation period is something that would cross party lines and that many Canadians watching this today would find reasonable. I will try to go through all of the reasons.

The government cannot and has not communicated the actual impact of this tax hike on the Canadian economy in real terms. The Liberals have not communicated the impact of this on small businesses that will not of this be able to take on new projects, that is, the small businesses that will not be created, or the employees that will be let go because of these measures. They have not calculated that or communicated it. They have not talked about the resulting drain on our social assistance programs when people who have put in place retirement savings under this tax regime right now would have to draw upon social assistance if they cannot access their retirement savings, thanks to these draconian tax measures.

The minister cannot say how much net revenue it would create and on what assumptions the Liberals are basing that revenue. The fact that they have not been able to communicate how much revenue this would generate is problematic. We need to consult Canadians to make sure that they buy into a tax hike from which the finance minister and Prime Minister cannot even say how much revenue would result from it. We also do not know how much it would decrease tax revenue for the government. We know that in our former Conservative government, we saw the lowest federal tax burden in over 50 years, yet something interesting that happened was that government revenue went up. That is because the economy was growing. What is concerning for me is that today we heard from the Macdonald–Laurier Institute that we have had the fourth straight month of weak growth. Their report was done by senior and lauded economists. If we look at the federal budget this year, we see an increase year over year in deficit spending and debt, and a decrease in projected economic growth.

The fact that the finance minister cannot say what this would do is a problem. He also cannot say how much this would cost the government. We do not know how much government revenue would decrease and we do not know how much this would cost to administer. How many more bureaucrats will we have to hire for the CRA to chase small business owners as a result of these punitive new tax measures?

The government has also not explained why it is raising taxes. The Liberals use vague, very discriminative, very terrible, divisive terms like “tax cheats” and “tax on the wealthy” to describe hard-working small business owners who form part of the middle class, but they cannot tell them why they would take this money from them. There is no discernible benefit for the Canadian economy from their deficit right now. It is over $30 billion, and for what? I have not seen any increases in growth. In my province, the economy has certainly continued to worsen.

In sum, the Liberals cannot say how much revenue the government is going to bring in from this and why they are doing this. Why are they taxing Canadians? Why are they bringing this up? The fact that this has not come out begs the question of more consultation.

The Liberals also cannot explain why they broke their promises to small business owners. Not only did they break their promise to not increase the small business tax rate, but they are also raising taxes on small businesses. The reason we need more consultation is that the Prime Minister should be able to explain that broken promise to the many small business owners who gave him the benefit of the doubt in the last election.

I also think that the Liberals have not explained why they are raising taxes on the middle class instead of getting their spending under control. I am the official opposition critic for citizenship and immigration. This year alone, not including social assistance payments, any sort of welfare scheme, or deportation, just the cost of processing people who are legally crossing the U.S.–Canada land border will be half a billion dollars.

The Liberals cannot explain how much revenue the government is going to bring in or how much this would hurt the Canadian economy. They cannot say how much this would benefit the Canadians whom they are taking this from and they cannot explain why they are not getting their spending under control.

I could list hundreds of other measures the government has taken in which it has just blown the federal budget, and on what? Liberals should be talking about this and explaining their lack of spending controls to Canadians before they go back to them to try to raid their pockets for more money.

The government should extend the consultation period because people are furious and this is not a partisan issue. This is about people who voted Liberal in the last election, who hoped in the Prime Minister and are now saying, “No, I do not think so”, because the Liberals broke their promise and are now not even listening to the people. The Prime Minister owes it to these people who gave him the benefit of the doubt to hear their concerns.

I have had over 1,000 Canadians write to me or contact me at my office, either by email or phone. I had over 300 people who showed up at a town hall with virtually no notice. I have had tens of thousands of messages on social media. In a one-month period, over 43,000 Canadians signed a petition that I sponsored, e-1239, against these tax measures. That is unheard of. People are furious and the Prime Minister owes it to them, given his lack of detail on this, to hear them out because this is the future of the Canadian economy.

A further consultation period would also create an opportunity for the Liberals to correct their divisive, insulting rhetoric about small business owners. That is something that I have heard in virtually every email that has come into my office. They say: “Why is the Prime Minister calling me a tax cheat? Do you know how much extra I pay as a small business owner to employ tax lawyers, to prevent auditors from coming in and looking at me? And you are calling me a tax cheat? Now you are going to call me wealthy, like somehow he has no understanding that small business owners are actually part of the middle class.”

An extended consultation period would give the Liberals and the Prime Minister an opportunity to perhaps correct the record in this regard. It would also give us a further opportunity in the House to say what we value as a country. Are we going to punish small business owners for the fact they take on risk and create jobs without the safety net of sick days, vacation time and guaranteed pensions? Are we going to say to them that we as their representatives want to take away their entrepreneurial spirit, tax them, and change the rules such that they cannot see further out? That is something that could also be addressed in a further consultation period.

It would also be an opportunity for the Liberals to clarify the following egregious statement by the Minister of Small Business and Tourism: “The longer we're talking about this, the more people are concerned that they will be impacted, which is really raising a fear and not allowing people to be as productive as possible.” That is an old fearmongering canard. It is fantastical.

The Liberals have been taking so much heat on this that every single Liberal member of Parliament is getting called by everyone in their riding. What did the small business minister do? Imagine being a Liberal backbencher and watching the small business minister say that if we're consulting, we're fearmongering. It is kind of crazy. I would love to have a little more time for the small business minister to go out, correct the record on this, clarify what she meant, and perhaps take more heat from the small business community.

This also came out in the dead of summer when farmers were at their busiest. There were floods in Quebec and fires in B.C. The Prime Minister owes it to people in these communities to extend the consultation period. It would also allow us to fully examine the regional consequences of this proposal.

My province of Alberta has been struggling with the detrimental policies of the government with its changes to the rules for downstream regulations on emissions for our pipelines when the government does not do the same for Saudi oil. My province has been struggling with the minimum wage increase and municipal property tax increases. The government has made political decisions to block the build-out of northern gateway pipeline and has worked against the energy east proposal. This small business tax hike is kicking Alberta while it is down and I would love it if the Prime Minister came to my riding to hear how my constituents feel about it.

I wish I had time to read all the messages that were sent to my riding, but to anyone watching at home today, we need them to amplify their concerns and their voice. Canadians do not have a lot of time on this. They need to pick up the phone and call every single Liberal backbench MP and hold them to account for the fact that those MPs will be voting against something as simple as extending the consultation period. The Liberals are a government that consults on everything. Canadians should get out and call a Liberal MP.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on and get the member's comments about a concern of my constituents.

Kyle Salikin has owned Double K Meats in Chaplin, Saskatchewan, for eight and a half years. He lives in a little town and has been working very hard. He calls the Liberal tax changes back-breaking. His margins are tight and with the new tax changes coming in he is worried about the future of his business. He would love to hire more people in the near future so that his family time will not be sacrificed even more than it currently is. He asks why he is getting punished for trying to grow a small business.

How have the Liberals so misunderstood small businesses in this country that they think they can move ahead with these changes to punish people like Kyle, who is already working overtime, probably has his family in the meat business working with him, and is just trying to make a living?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I could speculate about Kyle's question of why he is being punished and say that is because we have a government that believes fundamentally that the state can run the country better than small business owners and individuals can. That is the macro level philosophy of the government. It is why it has increased the deficit to the point where I am not sure if we will ever, especially under a Liberal government, be able to pay it back or get it back to balance. It has done that without any discernible metrics or growth. All it has done is increase the size of government in and of itself. It feels that someone like Kyle should not have the independence and ability to run his own future. That is really what this tax is about. It is about stealing the entrepreneurial spirit of Canadians.

This is not just about farmers. This is about doctors, dry cleaners, people with small convenience stores, or someone who started a home-based business to stay at home with the kids and was super-excited that he or she was able to hire another employee. The fact is that Kyle was duped, because the government claims to stand up for the middle class, but what has it done instead? All it has done is punish the middle class.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will read from the Liberal platform from two years ago. It states, “For Parliament to work best, its members must be free to do what they have been elected to do”. At this juncture, I believe that eight Liberal MPs have spoken out against their own government's methods in bringing this forward. I am wondering if my colleague has any comments to that effect.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly do. For people watching at home, what they need to understand is that this motion will be voted on by all members and that the Liberals will likely be whipped by the Prime Minister. That means the Prime Minister will say, “Regardless of what your constituents are saying, even though this is not a confidence motion and it is only asking for an extension of the consultation period, I am so big-headed with my ego to get this passed that you should go against the views of your constituents, the thousands of calls you have been getting, and should vote against this.”

I would say to the people watching at home that I can promise Liberal MPs that when they vote against this motion, there will be tens of thousands of people who will be angry about this and that we will certainly do our best on this side of the House to help those people point that fact out to those MPs.