House of Commons Hansard #211 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was businesses.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Before I go to resuming debate, there was some question as to how I went to the government side for a second question. I want to remind members that the Deputy Speaker also raised this issue in the House on November 3, 2016. He indicated that:

...we recognize that the time for questions and comments is often the most valuable time for an exchange between members. In accordance with the procedures and practices, we will do our best to ensure that time is generally afforded to the members of the parties who are not associated with the member who has just spoke but not to the exclusion of that party...

This is the way we will do it. We will also be attentive to members who are particularly present during the day.

The leader of the official opposition had spoken. Usually in a 10 minute period, the member of the party who has made a speech will get one question within that 10 minute period. Within the five minute period, normally we will allow at least three questions to go to the parties that have not spoken.

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate that point, but I also want to point out to the House that the rights and privileges of members in the House to speak, to ask questions, and to provide comments do not accord to the parties of the House but to individual members.

In light of the fact that there are a lot of members in the House on both sides of the aisle that needs to be taken into account rather than giving recognized political parties in the House these kinds of rights.

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I appreciate the comments made by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. I will certainly discuss it with the other Speakers and we will get back to the House on that.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Louis-Hébert Québec

Liberal

Joël Lightbound LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak about our government's plan to address the problem of tax planning using private corporations and about what we are doing to help the middle class and reduce inequality.

As many of us in the House already know, yesterday the government concluded consultations on its tax fairness proposals. As part of the consultations, we heard from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I myself had the chance to meet with a great many Canadians to talk about these proposals. Just last week, I was in Regina, Saskatchewan, where I met with owners of small and medium-sized businesses, farmers, and representatives from the agricultural industry.

On behalf of the Minister of Finance, I would like to thank the many stakeholders who participated in this discussion, because the issues we are to consider today are very important ones. What is the best approach to achieving strong economic growth that benefits the middle class? How do we level the playing field when it comes to tax fairness?

The government wants to get a wide range of views on these issues, and that is why we launched consultations that enabled us to hear from Canadians across the country.

However, it is clear that there is now a lot of false information out there about our government's intentions and the impact of the tax fairness proposals. That is quite evident from the comments made here as well as the content and tone of the motion tabled today.

First and foremost, I would like to assure you all that our government is committed to guaranteeing a healthy, business-friendly economic environment, as well as protecting the ability of Canadian businesses to invest, grow, and create jobs.

Our government wants to ensure all Canadians are set up for success in our fast-changing economy. From the beginning, one of our government's main priorities has been to level the playing field so that every Canadian has a chance to succeed.

Allow me to underline and outline key achievements of our government to bring about this increased fairness and to help support middle-class Canadians.

When our government came into office two years ago, it made a commitment to invest in Canada's middle class. We started by lowering personal income taxes for the middle class and raising them for the top 1% of income earners. In so doing, we reduced taxes for nine million Canadians, a measure the opposition voted against.

We introduced the Canada child benefit, which puts more money in the pockets of nine out of 10 families. The CCB is better targeted to the families who need it most, low- and middle-income Canadians. With payments delivered to eligible families every month, the CCB is helping lift approximately 300,000 children out of poverty in Canada. That represents a reduction of approximately in 40% in child poverty in 2017 from what it was just back in 2013. The introduction of the Canada child benefit represents the most significant social policy innovation in a generation.

The Canada child benefit is complemented by other initiatives to support children and families, such as the multilateral early learning and child care framework signed with the provinces and territories on June 12, 2017.

The government has also prioritized the movement of people and goods by investing in infrastructure. The government invested for the long term in our infrastructure because we saw infrastructure investment as critically important to the future of our country and our economy. Recognizing the important role infrastructure plays in building strong communities, creating jobs, and growing the economy, budget 2016 provided $14.4 billion for public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, infrastructure at post-secondary institutions, and for rural broadband.

In addition, budget 2017 laid out our long-term plan with an additional $81.2 billion over 11 years. This money is going to support public transit, green infrastructure, social infrastructure, transportation that supports trade, Canada's rural and northern communities, and smart cities, improving the way Canadians live, move, and work. Transit investments will allow Canadians to benefit from shorter commute times, reduced air pollution, access to more good, well-paying jobs, and stronger economic growth.

I would like to spend a few minutes talking about Canada's economic performance, and more specifically our impressive economic performance over the past two years.

Ours is currently the fastest-growing economy by far in the G7. Our economy is growing at an impressive 4.5%, the highest growth rate since the beginning of 2006. In the two years since we came into office, 400,000 jobs have been created, most of them full-time. Thanks in part to strong economic growth and our government's prudent investments, our fiscal position is better than forecast in March. For the fiscal year that ended on March 31, we had a budget deficit of $17.8 billion, which is $11.6 billion less than was forecast in 2015.

We are the first to recognize that small businesses are the cornerstone of our economy, and it is thanks to them that our economy is thriving today. Our goal is to encourage businesses to grow and create jobs. That is why we have the lowest combined federal-provincial-territorial average tax rate for small businesses in the G7. Canada has a combined general corporate tax rate that is 12 percentage points lower than that of our largest trading partner, the United States, and those rates are going to remain low.

We also have a lifetime capital gains exemption of more than $835,000 for capital gains realized by individuals on the disposition of qualified small business shares. The exemption is $1 million for qualified farm and fishing properties.

All of these things add up to Canada being a great place to do business, which is all good news, yet business investment in Canada is not as strong as we would like. Canada's business sector labour productivity growth has generally lagged that of the U.S., on average, over the last 25 years. Part of the reason is that American businesses invest more than double, on average, on things like information and communications technology. These investments lead to higher productivity and create more growth and jobs.

In Canada, we have a system that encourages wealthy individuals to incorporate just to get tax advantages not accessible to the vast majority of middle-class Canadians. We do not think it is fair and we will take action to level the playing field. We understand that setting up a private corporation offers hard-working middle-class business owners the ability to sell shares, raise capital, and limit liability. As I mentioned earlier, it also gives them access to the lowest small business tax rate in the G7.

However, we know that for some, incorporation offers something different. That is what we want to address. In some cases, it can allow a high-income incorporated professional to be taxed at a lower rate on his or her personal income than a salaried Canadian.

During our consultations on tax planning using private corporations, we wanted to hear from business owners on how we can encourage them to invest in their active businesses to help create more growth and even more jobs. After all, that is what Canada's low and competitive tax rates are meant to do: they are meant to support and encourage active business investment to spur productivity, growth, and job creation.

Creating growth is one thing, but we also want to work to ensure that growth and prosperity in this country is inclusive. We need an economy in which all Canadians, not just the wealthiest, can participate and take advantage of economic opportunities.

There is work to do to ensure fairness for middle-class Canadians. That is what we are talking about when we talk about improving our tax system: ensuring that everyone benefits from economic growth, not just the wealthy few.

From the very beginning, we have been perfectly clear about our goal. We want to create an economy that works for the middle class and all of those working hard to join it. At the heart of that goal is a very simple premise: every Canadian needs to pay his or her fair share.

Before I wrap up, I also want to correct some of the false information that is out there. First of all, we did not raise the small business tax rate. SMEs in Canada will continue to benefit from one of the lowest small business income tax rates in the G7.

The government wants to make sure that these proposals do not impact the ability of SMEs to save for business purposes. The tax fairness proposals will not impact the ability of individuals to incorporate. They will also not prevent business owners from hiring family members. The proposed changes do not in any way target middle-class Canadians.

For example, in order for passive investment income to be more beneficial than the savings plans offered to all Canadians through RRSPs and tax-free savings accounts, or TFSAs, a company must make over $150,000. According to the Coalition for Small Business Tax Fairness, two-thirds of businesses in Canada earn less than $73,000 a year. We are also aware that business owners and professionals have saved and planned for their retirement under the existing regulations.

I want to be very clear on this point and reassure everyone that the changes we are proposing with regard to taxing passive income will apply only on a go-forward basis. Our intention is to ensure that neither existing savings nor investment income from those savings will be affected. Lastly, we have heard from many women entrepreneurs and professionals who face unique challenges. We want to thank them for bringing their concerns forward, and we are particularly interested in better understanding how these changes could affect women differently than men.

We can assure the House that the measures we are taking will help, not hinder, women's success. We also commend small business owners for reminding us of the undeniable fact that what they do takes guts, and that the risks they take are very real. The changes that the government proposed to make to the tax regime during the consultations on tax planning using private corporations will in no way detract from businesses' ability to invest, compete, and grow.

Our proposals focus on the tax treatment of passive investment income, not money that is invested in the business. They target money that is taken out of the business to make sure that it is taxed fairly. We heard from thousands of Canadians across the country who took part in this important discussion during our consultation process. They shared their thoughts during open discussions, round tables, live online events, and meetings held from Vancouver to St. John's.

The Minister of Finance also met with parliamentarians, specifically members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. A fair tax system helps all Canadians. It allows hard-working small business owners to be compensated for their work. It helps small and large businesses develop and create jobs. However, when it benefits certain individuals at the expense of the vast majority, it needs to be changed. The government asked Canadians for their help in order to get this right. We have listened.

Again, the government will not raise tax rates on businesses or make it more difficult for them to incorporate. Business owners can continue to have family members actively involved in and appropriately compensated by their business. As I have already mentioned, changes to passive income taxation would only apply on a go-forward basis; the changes would not affect existing savings or investment income from those savings. The government will take no actions that would impair a business owner's ability to invest, to compete, and to grow his or her business.

Canadians have made it clear that they want a fairer tax system, and that is what we are going to deliver. As the economy grows, Canadians need to know and deserve to know that their tax system is fair. Right now, such is not always the case, and we can do better.

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Conservative

Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC

Madam Speaker, I was very interested in what my colleague from Quebec City had to say.

I just cannot for the life of me figure out why the member, who is from the same part of the country as us, is not hearing the same cries for help we are. We have talked to everyone. We have met with tax experts, farmers, and small business owners from all around Quebec City, and I have to say that Quebec is standing up for our businesses.

What we just heard from that member bears no resemblance to what we have been hearing from people, and I hope he can be candid enough to tell us that he has been hearing the same things we have. We get hundreds of letters a day from small business owners who are scared. This crisis is bigger than Quebec; it is national. People are writing to us and coming to see us in droves. I stand before you today not as a Conservative MP, but simply as an MP speaking on behalf of the people in her riding who are scared about this reform.

We have met with a number of tax experts. What I want to hear from my Quebec City colleague is the truth, not party lines. Can he honestly tell me that he has not heard the same concerns we have?

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from the Quebec City region for the passion she puts in her work and for her question.

I can tell her that I heard many concerns expressed by different sectors. That is why we held consultations for 75 days. We listened to people from all over Canada. I can also tell her what I heard. I heard employees, ordinary Canadians, and even doctors say that it was unfair that some people could incorporate and save the equivalent of the average annual salary in Canada by splitting their income, while the vast majority of Canadians cannot.

Someone who makes $300,000 can incorporate and save $48,000. I have heard several people tell me that this is where they want to see more tax fairness. The current system has certain inequities at its very core, and that is what we want to address.

I have also heard a lot of misinformation from my colleagues from the Quebec City region regarding the consequences of these proposals. It is almost as if they neither read nor understood them.

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

NDP

Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to what my colleague was saying, and what I did not hear was anything about reducing the small business tax, which was promised by all three parties in this House. What I did not hear was any talk about real tax fairness, or talk about the NDP motion brought forward this year, which the Liberals supported. That would have eliminated tax havens and closed the stock option CEO loophole.

The question I have is the question I am getting in my riding, and it is being asked by a lot of progressive people as well. Why is the scope of this so limited?

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:55 a.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Madam Speaker, perhaps it is worth reminding members that, in budget 2016 and budget 2017, we invested close to $1 billion to identify money that is going to tax havens. It has allowed us to identify $13 billion and to recoup something like $5 billion.

It was mentioned by the former minister of national revenue, Jean-Pierre Blackburn, recently in the media that under the Harper government this was not a priority. Going after tax evasion was not a priority.

It has been a priority for us since day one. It is all part of this plan to bring equity to our tax system. That was part of our ambition when we raised taxes for the wealthiest one per cent and lowered them for nine million Canadians. That was part of our ambition when we modified the Canada child benefit to make it more fair and more progressive. It is a child benefit that will lift hundreds of thousands of kids out of poverty, because we have made it more fair and more progressive. That speaks to being progressive across Canada.

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Conservative

Bernard Généreux Conservative Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, at 7:30 this morning, we met with four representatives of the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec. They are absolutely astounded at what they are seeing and hearing from this government. It makes no sense.

First, the consultation period lasted 75 days, from the middle of summer until yesterday, but everyone knows that farmers are in the field from mid-July until now. They did not have time to learn about this tax reform that is going to affect them specifically. This reform is going to affect not only every farmer, but every business, directly or indirectly, contrary to what the government is saying.

The Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec is calling on this government to at least extend the consultation period, make structural changes to the reform, and go after those who truly benefit the most from the current tax system.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether or not the government will extend the consultation process to ensure that everyone can truly learn about the effects of this tax reform.

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

We will continue to listen, as we have been for the past few months, to ensure the changes do not have any unintended consequences.

I will also be meeting with representatives of the Quebec federation of chambers of commerce this afternoon. We want to hear what they have to say. We have heard from chamber of commerce representatives from across the country. When we were in Saskatchewan last Thursday, the president of the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce explained their concerns to us, and that is why we are listening, so that we can get these changes right. As for the objective and principle of improving the fairness of our tax system, the broad consensus among the Canadian public is that it is the right thing to do.

We are also listening to farmers. Family members will be able to keep working on family farms. We support the family farm model, and we will always stand behind our farmers.

I thank the member for his question.

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague could provide some of his thoughts or reflections on the statement that I would make: that the Liberal government, in its very first budget, gave a tax to Canada's wealthiest one per cent, and it also gave a tax break to Canada's middle class. I was very proud of that particular budget.

Then we can look at what we are proposing now, which is to ensure that there is a higher sense of tax fairness. Could the member provide his comments on the two points, and how they enable Canada's middle class?

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Madam Speaker, the member's question speaks volumes about the ambitions that we put forward when we campaigned in 2015, saying we would be the government that works for those who have been neglected for 10 years—that is, middle-class Canadians and those who seek to be part of the middle class.

When we see that the former revenue minister under the Conservatives said that tax evasion was by no means a priority under the Harper government, while on the other hand, we have made investments to go after tax evasion and tax havens, it puts into contrast our perspectives and who we work for.

When we look at some of the last things the previous government did, we see it doubled the TFSA limit to $11,000. How many Canadians contribute and max out their TFSA at the current level of $5,500? It is 3% of Canadians. It begs the question. Who are they working for? The American who originally designed the TFSA said it was madness.

We know who the Conservatives work for. We work for the middle class and those seeking to join it.

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, whom I hold in great esteem.

However, as critic for culture and heritage, I have to say that, if you are hearing what people are saying in your consultations, then you are not really understanding them.

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I would remind the hon. member that he is to address the Chair. The question must be brief.

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

NDP

Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

My question is, will you at least extend the consultation period? That is what everyone wants.

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

Again, I would remind the hon. member once again that he addressed the member, not the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary for a brief response.

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

Joël Lightbound Liberal Louis-Hébert, QC

Madam Speaker, the consultations are done. That said, as early as last March, we had already mentioned these three aspects of our tax system in budget 2017; we said we planned to take a close look at how we could make them fairer.

It is so interesting to see the NDP position itself on both sides of the fence on this issue. Is that party for tax fairness or against it?

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

There is a point of order.

The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC

Madam Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition had the floor earlier, you called on the government and the second opposition party, saying that it was at your discretion and that you would not exclude the party associated with the member who just spoke, but that is what you did when the Leader of the Opposition had the floor earlier.

I rose, and you gave the floor to a government member. I am a little confused about what happened there. Can you help me understand how you decided that?

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

In my comment earlier, I clearly explained that, in a 10-minute period of questions and answers, which is what the government had, government members would have the opportunity to ask a question if someone rose.

There were two questions from the official opposition, two questions from the second opposition party, and only one question from the government.

When the Leader of the Opposition rose, it was during a five-minute period. There was no opportunity, during that period of time, to have a question from this side.

As mentioned, I will confer with the other chair officers and we will make our decision known to the House.

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madame Speaker, I would first inform you that I will be sharing my time with my illustrious colleague from Essex, whom I commend on her excellent work. She has been an excellent addition to our team since her election.

I would like to begin by taking a moment to go over the Liberal platform and all of the Liberal promises that have been broken in the first two years of this government's term. They said they wanted to help the middle class and support middle-class families, but one of the first things they did was to adjust the tax rates in such a way as to completely leave out those earning less than $45,000 a year. That is the Liberal Party of Canada’s definition of middle class. They are completely out of touch; they rub shoulders with the rich and powerful, with Canada's most elite familes, and with folks from Bay Street, who do not consider people earning $30,000, $35,000 or $40,00 per year to be part of the middle class. These people will get absolutely nothing. It is not rocket science. Those earning over $180,000 per year, however, benefitted the most from the Liberal Party's tax changes. That is the difference between what the Liberal Party says and what it does. I would love it if the Liberals actually went out there and told people earning $20 or $21 per hour that they are not part of the middle class and that they do not need any help. I think those people would tell them, to their faces, that their position makes no sense.

They also told us that small and medium-sized businesses are very important and that they would drop their tax rate from 11% to 9% to help them out. Surprise! Nothing was done. This government has been in office for two years, and it has yet to take any action to help small entrepreneurs, families who set up small companies to earn living and support their families.

I know the situation small and medium-sized businesses are in. In a riding of 11 square kilometres, there is no room for big businesses. There are only small businesses, all crowded together.

I will try to stick to tax issues, because that is what we are talking about today, but in terms of broken promises, we could also mention electoral reform, the fight against climate change with the same plan and same targets as the previous government, and the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia.

Back to business, and no, that was not a bad pun. Back to the fact that the Liberal Party had also promised to launch a broad review of all tax measures that make tax avoidance or tax evasion possible. It was part of their program. That is what the Liberals told us in the last election. Surprise! They are doing something else entirely. Their review only addresses one aspect of the situation and the problem, the one that involves small and medium-sized businesses and health care professionals.

New Democrats are not saying that we should not look closely at those aspects of the problem, but we do believe there are others we need to look at.

Curiously, a whole bunch of people, companies, multinationals and banks will remain unaffected, even though they represent considerably more lost revenue than the people targeted in the Department of Finance's discussion paper following this summer’s consultations.

New Democrats recognize the contribution of small and medium-sized businesses. We find it unfortunate that, in its statements claiming to attack major tax cheats, the government paints all SMEs as cheats who abuse the system, even though the vast majority of them are not, as I will explain later. Most SMEs make little money, their profit margins are slim, they do not make enough to use the tax measures the Liberal government is currently targeting.

It is like using a bazooka to kill a fly. There may be collateral damage. SMEs create jobs in our communities. They are therefore important and must be nurtured. Currently, several aspects of the proposed reform, or “pre-reform”, raise concerns. I will come back to that.

In the NDP, we support the principle of tax fairness, which is at the heart of our entire political agenda and our social-democratic vision. It is a matter of not allowing the rich and large companies to avoid paying their fair share, which would normally enable us to take care of each other.

Let me explain. A certain Mr. Holmes, not Sherlock, said something important that I very much like. He said that taxes are what we pay for a civilized society. What he meant is that we give ourselves the means, all of us together, through our social programs, to build a better society where no one is left out. In other words, when everyone pays their share, the middle class, salaried workers, SMEs, health care professionals, banks, and millionaires, we can have useful things, like a free and accessible universal health care system. It is an integral part of our identity as Canadians and Quebecers to ensure that we have access to a doctor so we can be cared for within a reasonable time. Such things can be achieved through tax fairness and wealth redistribution. Taking the money from where the money is enables us to pay for programs that are absolutely essential. We can talk about, for example, health or post-secondary education. Why is tuition so much cheaper here in Quebec and Canada compared to the United States? Because everyone pays their share.

Therefore, as a political party on the left, as New Democrats, we support this principle of tax fairness and we will always want to pursue that goal, because we know that it is part of the solution to have sufficient revenues, the programs we need, affordable social housing and health care for indigenous children in the communities and reserves that need it. We also need those funds to invest in a green shift, to be less and less dependent on carbon as a source of energy, particularly coal and oil. Therefore, there can be good reasons to address inequities.

According to a recent study, tax avoidance through the use of private corporations, the government’s current target, is practised by people among the richest 0.01% in the country, or individuals earning more than $2.3 million per year. If that is the problem, why are the Liberals not targeting just those people rather than scaring everyone? Not everyone will be affected.

According to Statistics Canada, two thirds of SMEs earn less than $73,000 annually. The majority of SMEs would therefore not be affected by the proposed changes. However, the government is unable to assure them that that will not be the case and there is a pile of conflicting information and a lot of confusion on the ground, which is why we are in this mess. We get the impression that the government and the Minister of Finance were incapable of being crystal clear and addressing the real problem, namely tax avoidance by the wealthiest 0.01% of individuals who use private corporations to lower their tax rate.

However, perhaps there is a reason that the government is unable to explain its position properly and that it seems to believe that all SMEs are potential cheats. Let us not forget that the Prime Minister himself has used no less than four numbered companies to lower his tax rate over the years. That is part of the problem.

What we are saying is that there needs to be more consultation and we must address the real cheats who engage in tax avoidance and tax evasion. I am talking about the banks, millionaires, CEOs, and friends of the Liberal Party.

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, one thing is very clear. The fact of the matter is that the average tax rate of unincorporated professionals making $230,000 a year would be 36% after it is all factored out. The effective tax rate of police officers—good, hard-working, unionized members of the police force—making $98,000 a year would be 22%. Incorporated individuals whose spouses do not work and have two adult children can effectively sprinkle their income to their family members, and their average tax rate would be 20.5%, less than police officers.

Does the member think that is fair, and if not, will he vote with the government on this?

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very legitimate question, one that we have recognized from the beginning.

A salaried worker who, I would hope, is unionized, as my colleague pointed out, does not have the same opportunities as someone who is incorporated or owns a private company. Indeed, we need to come up with a solution, because the options available to these two individuals are not the same.

However, what this government is proposing goes much further than that. It is creating a great deal of fear and confusion at this time among many health care professionals and farmers. We feel that the current proposal is not the way to go.

What I would ask the hon. member is to be consistent in his position on tax havens. The Liberals voted in favour of the NDP motion to crack down on tax havens. Then they signed a new agreement with the Cook Islands, which has a 0% tax rate for companies that send their money there.

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, the fact is that the NDP and Conservatives voted against the tax increase to Canada's wealthiest one per cent, and the fact is that the NDP and Conservatives voted against the tax break to Canada's middle class, and it appears today that the NDP will be joining the Conservatives in voting against tax reform that would make the system fairer, which would benefit all Canadians—in particular, Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it.

What do the NDP or Conservatives have against Canada's middle class, the class that is generating the jobs that Canada needs? The healthier the middle class, the healthier Canada is.

Opposition Motion—Consultations on proposed tax changesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, which gives me an opportunity to reiterate one of the first things I said in my speech.

The Liberals' tax plan for the middle class does absolutely nothing for anyone who earns less than $45,000 a year. According to the Liberal Party, people who earn less than $45,000 a year do not need help. The people who need help are those who earn between $150,000 and $180,000 a year. They are the ones who benefit the most from the Liberals' plan to change the personal income tax rate.

If the Liberals really wanted to stand up for workers and people in the lower middle class, they would have given a helping hand to those who earn $30,000, $35,000, or $40,000 a year. The Liberals decided not to do that, just like they refused to close the tax loophole currently enjoyed by CEOs that costs us $800 million a year. That is another one of the Liberals' broken promises.