Debates of March 7th, 2017

Opposition Motion—Tax Fairness

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie. I would like her to know that the Conservative Party is all for creating wealth and the possibility of providing social programs. It is a balance that we must work toward achieving. I think that is important. I appreciate the hon. member mentioning that we in the Conservative Party are committed to success and economic prosperity.

Before I go on, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague who represents a riding in the beautiful greater Quebec City region, the hon. member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. We make a very good team in the Quebec City region. It is a very prosperous region because it has the lowest unemployment rate. It is mostly represented by the Conservative Party, the official opposition. I am not sure if that is a sign, but people have access to social programs. We take good care of the entire population.

According to the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, the government has to come clean and disclose all the details in this affair and others like it.

I would like to welcome my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, the riding I just spoke highly of. He does excellent work. He is currently going around to talk to businesses. Once again, we in the Conservative party look after the economy. My colleague does so in his riding.

The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie added that our economy should benefit everyone, not just the minority at the top.

The affair he is referring to is the KPMG scheme and the role of the Canada Revenue Agency. We find ourselves today with this NDP motion to address tax avoidance.

Yes, the public's confidence in our institutions has been undermined. Yes, we must tackle tax evasion. All 338 MPs from all parties probably agree with this statement. However, how do we do that?

We cannot support this motion. Why? Simply because Canadians pay too much in taxes. Whether they are individuals or businesses, Canadian taxpayers are being gouged. We know that high tax rates hurt Canadians who are trying to build a good life for themselves and their families.

I was singing the praises of the riding represented by my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, but my riding, which has a shorter name, has its own vibrant economy. I am very proud to rise in the House to represent the 105,000 residents of my riding.

Thousands of people in my riding get up every morning and go to work. They work very hard, just like people all across this country. They need a little hope and a little help.

Tax rates also hurt businesses whether they are small, medium-sized or large, because they have to compete locally, nationally, and globally. Conservatives understand this and are committed to making sure that Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money for themselves.

The motion presented by the hon. member, the NDP finance critic, ignores the heavy burden placed on Canadians. That burden has been getting heavier since the Liberal government came to power.

The NDP cannot say it wants a Canadian economy that is good for all Canadians if it thinks the only battle worth fighting is the one against tax evasion. Vision is vital here. Fighting tax evasion on the one hand while bleeding taxpayers and businesses dry on the other is not good enough because it is not really tackling the problem.

We need to be more pragmatic. We need a balanced policy. We need to ensure that companies will want to set up shop here and that Canadians will see their dreams of starting their own business as achievable, that it is possible to start a business that will be viable and prosperous for the long term.

People have the right to make money here in Canada. That goes without saying. When people make money, it creates wealth and the government benefits from that. I hope this government will manage public funds better than it has done. Only then will we be able to provide social programs to everyone who needs them.

On the one hand, the government says that it cares about the well-being of the middle class. On the other hand, it did not keep its promise to lower taxes for the middle class. Day after day, this government breaks its election promises and misleads Canadians.

The Liberals promised to lower the corporate tax rate to 9.5%, but that has not happened. They promised a “modest” deficit of $10 billion. In my view, $10 billion is huge, but for the Liberals, that is modest. Plus, they said that we would return to a balanced budget by the next election, which will be in 2019. What are the forecasts? If nothing changes, that will not happen until 2055. In 2019, during the next election, Canadians should make the right choice. Everyone knows that we have hit a wall when it comes to public finances.

As for the NDP, it does not understand and does not see, or worse does not want to see, that tax evasion is just one part of the equation. The NDP supported not a single one of the tax cuts for small and medium-sized enterprises proposed by the previous government, that of Stephen Harper. The Harper government saw to creating a healthy fiscal environment for businesses thanks to its tax cuts which brought the general corporate income tax rate down from 22% to 15%. It lowered taxes for small businesses and created measures to attract businesses and make them more prosperous, which is the least we could expect, in my opinion.

When we acknowledge that small and medium-sized enterprises play a key role in our economy, it becomes clear that the government has to see to stimulating the creation of SMEs and to allowing them not only to survive, but to grow, create jobs, and contribute to the economic growth and prosperity of our great country.

Between 2006 and 2015, Stephen Harper's government lowered taxes 180 times. That is a fact. We brought taxes down to their lowest point in 50 years. That is what Canadians need.

Where are we today? Nearly two years later, the Liberal government is asking Canadians to tighten their belts even more. In budget 2016, the Liberal government rushed to eliminate the tax credits created by the Harper government to help Canadian families. That is not all. Who is going to pay off this massive debt? It is Canadian taxpayers, our children, our grandchildren, and even our great-grandchildren.

Where is the Liberal government's much-talked-about plan, the one it promised during the election campaign? Has Justin Trudeau's economic plan gone up in smoke? It is something that has to be asked. However, in my opinion and that of the Conservative Party, which I am very proud to be a member of, the answer is very clear. The government not only needs to put a stop to tax avoidance by ensuring that all companies and Canadians pay their fair share of taxes, but it also needs to stop gouging Canadians.

Between 2006 and 2015, Stephen Harper's government took decisive action to close over 85 tax loopholes, which saved billions of dollars.

I would like to review the parties' positions on eliminating tax havens in the 2015 campaign. The Liberal Party said absolutely nothing. We have become accustomed to the Liberals saying words that mean nothing. It has no plan. As for the NDP, it believes that this could be worthwhile. However, it did not come up with a budget or a plan. As for the Conservative Party, it said that it wold not tolerate white collar crime. It put that in writing. I would remind members that the economic action plan allocated $5 million a year over five years to the Canada Revenue Agency to step up its research.

I am very proud to have risen in the House today. I invite my colleagues to ask questions. I will be pleased to answer them. It is important to create wealth in order to be able to provide social programs. We must see the big picture.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I remind the member that he should not refer to members of the House by name. When he referred to the Prime Minster, he spoke his name. The member must ensure that he does not do this again in his speeches.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague's opposition to the motion comes as no surprise because when I look at the Conservatives' record on fighting tax evasion, the numbers speak volumes.

I am very eager to see if the numbers keep declining like that. In 2006-07, the Canada Revenue Agency referred 214 cases to its criminal investigations program. The Public Prosecution Service of Canada was then able to secure convictions against 213 taxpayers.

In 2015-16, 17 cases were referred to the criminal investigations program and taxpayers were convicted. The number of cases went down from 214 to 17, and the number of convictions from 213 to 50. That was on the Conservatives' watch. The main reason has to be the Conservatives' massive cuts to the Canada Revenue Agency. Those cuts prevented the CRA from following up on many cases and getting convictions.

The numbers took a nosedive under the Conservatives. There were fewer convictions every year, less money was recovered, and fewer fines were imposed. The numbers speak volumes.

What does the member think of the Conservatives' record on this?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

I would love to know the NDP's record, but unfortunately it has never been in power. Of course, when we create wealth and increase revenues, there are more players. Now we have to look at the problem as a whole. We must not be selective and insist on attacking people who create wealth.

I have a question for my NDP colleague.

Does he want to get rid of those who generate prosperity in Canada? If so, that is fine. Let him move a motion to that effect.

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

Madam Speaker, this allows me to answer my colleague.

No, I do not want to get rid of job creators. I just want everyone in Canada to pay their fair share. For everyone to pay their fair share, for the average taxpayer to pay their taxes every year, and the rich to also pay their fair share every year seems to be a foreign concept to the Conservatives. We might say that it is a concept that escapes them. It might be an ideological problem on the Conservatives' part.

In any event, during their reign, we also saw that they actively participated in the race to the bottom. Global tax competition is a race to the bottom. Everyone takes turns and one day, there will be no more taxes anywhere in the world. Is that the Conservatives' ideology?

Can my colleague be honest and say that his ultimate goal is to eliminate all taxes and therefore all public services in Canada?

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find my colleague's comments pretty weak.

Since I do not hide from questions, I will answer his. Members should know that $13 billion were recovered last year. The minister said so during question period. The work that went into recovering that sum was not done last year. It was done while the Conservative Party was in power.

We have one focus. In our 2015 election platform we stated what we would do about tax avoidance. Of the three main parties in the House of Commons, we were the only one to put our plan down on paper, to describe it, and to assign a dollar value to it. It is easy for the NDP to say that everyone deserves social programs and everyone should have their piece of the pie, but we have to be responsible.

I invite my colleague to table a plan; then, we could compare them.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have to ask my colleague a question. He suggests that collecting the taxes owed to the government by wealthy Canadians would not be responsible. He suggests that our efforts today are to close loopholes in the scams of which we know. The ones we know of total in the hundreds of millions and billions of dollars in forgone revenue every year, which could pay for the things Canadians want, like affordable child care, perhaps pharmacare. Somehow it is wrong to close the loopholes, catch the tax cheats, and make them pay their fare share. That does not sound like Conservative ideology to me. It sounds like something else. I do not know if I am allowed to use the words in Parliament for what that ideology is.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will try to be brief.

Perhaps my colleague did not listen to my speech. I started by saying that we are against white collar criminals. The 338 ridings are all represented by honourable members. I presume this is true because I do not wish to speak for the 338 members. However, I am convinced that the vast majority, if not all of these members do not support tax avoidance. We have to find the means to combat it. Let us put measures in place and look at the big picture. The NDP is focusing on a small detail, but we should look at the big picture. Unfortunately, the NDP does not have a record because it has never been in power.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, for his speech on the NDP motion on tax evasion that is before us today.

Like all Canadians, we are concerned about the individuals and companies that try to dodge their obligations to our country and pay as little as possible in taxes. Everyone is affected by this. Like my colleague just told the House, clearly, all 338 members condemn this practice and are outraged that some individuals take steps to avoid paying taxes or to pay as little as possible.

That is why, from 2006 to 2015, the Conservative Harper government took concrete action to deal with the problem. I am talking about initiatives such as the requirement for financial institutions to report funds transfers of $10,000 or more to the Canada Revenue Agency, and the extension of the reassessment period so that the CRA has more time to reassess when certain provisions were not respected, for example, the mandatory reporting of foreign assets. We also implemented the stop international tax evasion program, which encourages Canadians to report fraudsters and even offers incentives when the information provided leads to the recovery of unpaid tax dollars in Canada.

Those are all measures that we brought in, not to mention the legislation to close 85 tax loopholes between 2006 and 2015. This allowed the previous government to recover billions of dollars, and therefore, it also allowed the minster to stand up in the House today to proudly say that she recovered $13 billion last year. The Liberals were elected a year ago, so it is not thanks to any policies they have put in place that the minister can say such a thing; it is thanks to policies that we put in place to combat tax evasion. It also allowed the previous government to recover billions of dollars and to balance the budget without increasing the tax burden on ordinary Canadians. We cannot say the same thing about the current government, which is taxing us more and more.

The Canada Revenue Agency, which receives notices regarding transfers of large sums of money from other countries, can verify whether a taxpayer has properly declared all income earned abroad, and if he has not, the agency can knock on his door and ask him to explain where the money came from.

By encouraging people to report fraudsters, the CRA can now target its investigations thanks to information that would otherwise not have been found. People boast about earning money under the table or hiding money in tax havens all the time. Such individuals say their illegal acts are okay because they already pay enough tax. Well, as they say, loose lips sink ships, and it is now easier for ordinary citizens to report fraudsters thanks to the former Conservative government.

I encourage Canadians who have relevant information to call the investigators using the tip line we set up a few years ago at 1-855-345-9042. Ordinary Canadians who witness things they want to report because they feel they are being robbed when others do not pay their taxes can call that number.

Tax evasion costs us all dearly, and we can all do our part to discourage and report it. That said, we have to understand that it is human nature to want to hold on to what we have and try to pay as little tax as possible. Like all Canadians, we always look for the best price on the things we buy. Our initiatives over the past 10 years have borne fruit, but they are just part of the solution.

We need to combat not only tax evasion, but also its root cause. Why do people want to pay less taxes? It is because they pay too much or feel as thought they are paying too much. The goal should be to make it useless and redundant to seek out ways to avoid paying taxes. Just look at the new carbon tax, which has just been introduced by the Liberal government. This tax will be applied to all products, because it basically applies to energy and shipping. It will therefore inevitably have an impact on the products and services ordinary Canadians buy every day.

I am talking about the issue of economic competitiveness, which was one of the previous Conservative government's focal points and the key to Canada's success before the Liberals came along.

Under our leadership, the corporate tax rate dropped to 15%, one of the lowest in the G7, making Canada one of the best countries in the world in which to do business in the G20, according to Forbes magazine.

Under those conditions, companies were discouraged from going elsewhere to pay less taxes. At the same time, this also encouraged foreign companies to come and set up shop here.

One of the last, but certainly not the least, examples is Burger King Corporation, which announced in 2014 that it was merging with Tim Hortons and moving its head office to Canada. It would therefore pay taxes here. Why did it decide to put the head office of this new merged firm here in Canada? Because we have competitive tax rates.

This money serves to provide benefits and social programs to all Canadians, as my colleague put it so well earlier. This means more revenue for the state in order to meet the needs of the people, as well as more job opportunities for all Canadians.

I find it a bit ironic to see the NDP, through the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, move a motion to denounce tax evasion when its policies would do the opposite. The NDP has always said that it would increase taxes in order to be able to provide more services to all Canadians. That would inevitably make businesses flee.

While our government constantly tried to make businesses more competitive, the NDP kept voting against these tax cuts over the past 10 years. In its electoral platform, the NDP even wanted to increase the corporate tax rate from 15% to 17%, and more one day.

Does the hon. member not believe that businesses would want to leave if the NDP formed the government? I have little doubt about it, myself.

The Conservative Party absolutely agrees that we must ensure that Canadians pay their fair share of taxes and that the law is upheld. Everyone agrees with that.

What does the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie hope to accomplish with a motion that is purely symbolic? A motion is a good thing. It allows us to have a discussion and share our points of view with the House. However, the reality is that a motion does not change much in the House of Commons. If there are tax loopholes that need to be closed, will the hon. member introduce a private member's bill that identifies precisely which section of the Income Tax Act needs to be amended, repealed, or added? Is he going to propose amendments to the Criminal Code in order to eliminate the practice of penalty-free amnesty?

These are all things that the member could do by introducing a bill in the House. I understand that the member has good intentions, but he is not a journalist at TVA whose job is to criticize without providing solutions.

With all due respect, that is the basic difference between two parties that have the opportunity to form a government and lead a country, and a third party that is relegated to being the opposition that criticizes instead of providing real solutions by introducing new legislation.

If a bill with concrete measures were introduced, as good legislators we would definitely take the time to carefully read it and to evaluate its merits.

I find it difficult to support a symbolic and nebulous motion, which makes reference to loopholes and tax deductions and exemptions without identifying them, and which seems to confuse tax avoidance and tax evasion, which are two completely different things.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

However, I found the attack against us rather odd. He said that we move motions, but I have lost track of how many motions the Conservatives have moved to date. What does that mean? Are the Conservatives planning to let us take their turn when the time comes to introduce motions because they no longer want to do so and they think it is unnecessary and that motions serve no purpose in the House? I look forward to them letting us take over their opposition day. That would be great because there are certainly very specific things we would like to ask the government to do.

I am even more surprised that he is accusing us of wanting to take money from fraudsters to pay for more social and government programs. He is accusing us of wanting to do that. I am rather surprised to be attacked in that way because we do indeed want everyone to pay their fair share. We want fraudsters to pay their share and to stop evading taxes because that would allow Canada to continue to offer quality services.

What is his ideology? Does he want us to continue the race to the bottom? Does he want all of the countries in tax competition to participate in a race to the bottom by offering tax breaks left and right and lowering taxes until there are no more taxes and no more public services? Is that his ideology?

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

Madam Speaker, of course no government would set out to completely eliminate the taxes people pay for the services they receive. I think we need to strike a balance. Balance is the key word here. What I said in my speech is that tax avoidance is a problem in Canada.

All of the members here want to find ways to prevent that as much as possible. The member talked about my record and said I was attacking him, but he attacked us just before that. Turnabout is fair play.

All those years, the NDP voted against Conservative measures. All we did was ensure that the minister could stand up in the House today and proudly announce that her department recovered $13 billion, but she is not the one who made that possible; it was the Conservative government.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

The entire time the Conservatives were in power, they were tough on crime. No matter what the opposition asked, the answer was always the same. However, that was not the case when it came to very wealthy people and corporations that manipulate our system in order to avoid paying taxes.

I find that bizarre. I think it should in fact be very simple: if there are millions and millions of dollars to recover, why did the Conservative government cut 3,000 jobs in the office responsible for going after money hidden in the Caribbean, in places like Barbados? The Conservatives became the opposite of tough on crime. They eliminated the positions of all the bureaucrats who could have made sure that everyone paid their taxes.

This is about justice. According to my definition of justice for all, the least we could do is ensure everyone pays their taxes.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and especially for giving me the opportunity to respond because this is really important.

The Conservative government made some very difficult decisions in the past. We had no choice to make them because we had to balance the budget after the worst economic crisis we had ever known. That is the reality. We made choices and we stood by them.

The reality is that all the policies we implemented made it possible to balance the budget, despite the fact that we cut jobs in all departments. Today, let me repeat that the minister boasts about having been able to recover $13 billion last year. That is certainly not because of the Liberals' policies. They just came to power a year and a half ago. They did not put those practices in place in six months.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

Last night a constituent wrote to me. She is a senior living in Victoria and had been reading about the CBC's investigation into the KPMG affair. She had heard of the NDP's call for a full investigation and felt the government was stonewalling. She said, “It seems that there's one law for the rich and another law for the poor in Canada.”

This motion is about answering her letter. It is about proving to her and to all Canadians that the Liberal government is committed to a fair and equitable tax system without golden loopholes for the super rich. The motion calls on the government to take two simple steps: first, keep its promise and limit the $1 billion a year stock options loophole; and second, tackle the multi-billion dollar problem of tax havens by tightening the rules for shell companies, closing loopholes for international tax treaties, and ending sweetheart amnesty deals for millionaire tax cheats.

Before I get into the details of the motion and the solution it proposes, let us talk about why it matters. This debate touches on two fundamental issues. First, it is about fairness. Specifically, it is about upholding a fair bargain between Canadians, between those who work hard and play by the rules and those who seek a free ride at their neighbour's expense. It is also about something even more fundamental. It is about maintaining and strengthening that basic social bargain that allows us to come together and work collectively for the public good. If we want to build a better, more just, and more prosperous Canada, if we are not content with the status quo, then we must uphold that bargain.

The motion is not just about our arcane tax law or fixing past mistakes; it is about the future. It is about how we can eliminate the deficit and kick-start a sluggish economy by offering working parents affordable child care. It is about how we can support seniors with a pharmacare plan and not outsource their care to Chinese corporations. That is what is at stake when the government lets big corporations and multi-millionaires walk right out the door without paying their bill, leaving ordinary Canadians to pick up the tab.

With this motion, the NDP is proposing solutions. First, the government can make good on its billion dollar broken promise to fix the stock options deduction loophole. It was originally meant to help start-ups take off, but the deduction has now become a free ride for the super rich. Ninety per cent of the benefits of this loophole go to those who make incomes more than a quarter of a million dollars a year. This costs all Canadians about $1 billion a year, and 75¢ of each dollar goes to 8,000 super-rich individuals who use it to trim their tax bill by an average of $400,000 a year. Clearly, there are better uses for this money.

In the last election, the NDP proposed limiting this deduction, protecting its legitimate use for start-ups. We suggested that every dollar saved, all $500 million, be put toward combatting child poverty. The Liberals made a similar promise, but they broke it in budget 2016.

Failing to close this loophole cost almost $700 million in lost revenue last year alone. If the promise had been kept, the money could have been used, for instance, to make up the shortfall in child welfare services for aboriginal kids, without the NDP having to force the government's hand with an opposition motion like this one. It is long past time to limit this loophole and narrow it back to its original intention, which was to help start-ups attract their first employees. Canadians will be watching on March 22 to see if because of this motion in Parliament the government finally keeps its promise.

The second part of the motion is about tackling tax havens. Again, while Canadians are furious about the government's appallingly lacklustre response to the KPMG affair, the Panama papers, and other such revelations, it is important that they understand this is not just about multinational corporations and unscrupulous millionaires. It also affects small local businesses in our communities.

In Victoria, I spoke to the owner of a small coffee shop. He told me that his effective tax rate is much bigger than the big Starbucks on the corner. Why? Starbucks is able to access international tax havens and therefore pay an incredibly low rate of tax. As another constituent told me last night, there is one set of rules for the ultra-rich and another set of rules for the rest of us.

Refusing to take action against big corporations that break the rules hurts small businesses, which are the real engine of economic growth and job creation in our country. One solution proposed here is to tighten the rules for shell companies.

In 2014, I introduced a piece of legislation in the House that would enable the government and our courts to more effectively identify, pursue, and convict tax cheats. To do this, my bill would impose what is called an “economic substance test” on transactions. In other words, a corporation must prove that there is a legitimate business case for transactions beyond simply avoiding paying its fair share of taxes in Canada. There has to be an economic substance. Creating an economic substance test would recover significant uncollected revenue that could support better public services in Canada. When I bring that bill back into this Parliament, I hope the government will support it.

The bottom line is simple. There is no shortage of solutions if the government is finally ready to get to work. For instance, nearly four years ago, we worked with the finance committee to study tax evasion and the use of tax havens. In a supplementary report, the NDP members of the finance committee proposed solutions that should have been implemented then and must be implemented now.

At that time, the government testified that no effort was being made to measure the amount of the so-called “tax gap”. We proposed that it do so, and we called on the government to join the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other countries in measuring the existence of this tax gap. We also asked the Canada Revenue Agency to require corporations to disclose all taxes paid in other jurisdictions so that Canadians could monitor their operations in offshore tax shelters, and we asked the Auditor General to monitor the success of the Canada Revenue Agency in prosecuting and settling cases of tax evasion.

This is information that all Canadians deserve to know. For instance, can the government tell Canadians just how many people have been jailed for tax evasion? How many have been jailed for aggressive international tax dodges? How many prosecutions have been launched? To keep faith in the integrity of our tax system, the public must see that individuals who break the rules are caught and appropriately punished for seeking a free ride at the expense of hard-working, taxpaying Canadians.

We see carpenters and hairdressers named on the Canada Revenue Agency website, but I ask how many international tax cheats we will find there. The answer is zero. When tax cheats go unpunished, it puts a heavier burden on the backs of ordinary Canadians. We will not stand for that, and neither should the government.

In conclusion, I ask all members and Canadians listening at home to remember just how important this is to all of us. A recent Conference Board report estimated that the tax gap of lost revenue could be as high as $47 billion a year. Every dollar of that could be put to use, such as having an affordable child care program, helping seniors get the prescriptions they need through a national pharmacare program, creating new jobs in clean energy, building new infrastructure to ease congestion and support commerce, eliminating the deficit and easing the burden on future generations. However, none of this can be done if the government refuses to take real action, and if we continue to allow Canadians' faith in the fairness of our tax system to be eroded.

It is in that spirit, with an eye to the future, not just the mistakes of the past, that I urge all members to support this motion.

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

Madam Speaker, as this is my first chance to speak to the opposition motion today, I want to put on the record that I will be voting for the NDP motion. I think it is important and timely. The Green Party recently issued a very similar statement to the media calling on the government to keep its commitment and its promise to close tax loopholes, such as the ones that are in the motion.

I have a specific question for the member for Victoria. The Auditor General pointed out a number of years ago that the CRA was not using the software that it had to spot tax cheats and offshore tax havens. Instead, it appeared to be fixating on those lower-income Canadians who might owe much less money but were easier to catch. I am paraphrasing the Auditor General's comments.

I would ask my colleague from Victoria if he has any concerns that we have the capacity to track tax cheats right now, but have not had the appropriate focus on the, for want of a better word at the moment, fat cats.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon member for her support of the motion.

The Auditor General did good work in pointing out that we have the tools to do the job, but what we lack in simple terms is political will.

I find it outrageous to look at the Canada Revenue Agency website and see that the hairdresser in Chibougamau has not paid her fair share of GST, the carpenters, the hairdressers, the others, a hall of shame, if you will. I ask members to look on the website for the international tax cheats who have found ways through fancy lawyers and fancy accountants to avoid billions of dollars that they should be paying to the Canada Revenue Agency every year. They will find no mention of them.

The government brags about $444 million in the last budget. Where is the beef? Where is the action on this? Where are we actually showing that we are measuring the tax gap, going after the fat cats whom the hon. member talked of. That is where we will see the difference between rhetoric and reality.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate some of the words that the member has put on the record, but other words, I somewhat question.

I think it is important as we get close to the end of the debate to recognize that this government has made tax fairness a major part of the 2016 budget. Part of tax fairness means being aggressive, and that is what we saw in the budget with $444 million, to which the member just made reference, in order to deal with the tax cheats, using the member's words, and tax evasion. These are all serious issues. This government has taken it seriously. This is one of the reasons that, in principle, we support the motion that is being advanced by the New Democratic Party.

The $444 million that was allocated, which the NDP voted against by the way, has in fact assisted CRA in tracking down tax cheats and recovering hundreds of millions, going into billions, of tax dollars. The jury is still out on how much more is going to be coming in on that. I think we need to be patient in terms of seeing some of the justice the member is waiting for.

Would the member not agree that sometimes it does take a little bit of time to achieve the type of results the member is espousing?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, $444 million over five years is interesting, but it has to be understood in the context of the Conservatives cutting 3,000 positions. Where is the beef? I want to know, in the last year since the Liberals did that, how many people they have put in jail. I would like to see how many prosecutions have been undertaken.

The Liberals think that by having a bunch of entry level people somehow they will be able to go after the people who have the sophistication of international tax firms like KPMG that have no trouble showing people how to hide money, or fancy law firms with experts in tax law that manage to find ways around the rules. Do members think they are going after those people? I do not see it. I see fancy ads in the Globe and Mail, and sponsored content in the Financial Post, but what I do not see is the political will.

I love the rhetoric. I give the government full marks as the Liberal government is great at rhetoric, but I want to see action.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Before I acknowledge the next speaker on debate, I just want to advise him that he will not have all of the time allotted, because unfortunately, we will be short on time.

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, if I had my full time one can only imagine the speech I would have given.

I thank my colleague from Victoria for splitting his time today.

I looked forward to this debate. We in the NDP chose to raise this important issue in one of what are called our opposition day motions. The context is important as we now learn that the government just a couple of weeks from now will unveil its budget to Canadians. A budget, as it is for any Canadian family, as it is for any business, as it is true for a government, is about making choices.

Liberal budgets have been awash in very large debt. It was promised at $10 billion but is going up to $30 billion or more. The budget is likely to be awash in red ink, as they say. One would think in a moment like that the emphasis on going after money owed to the government would be of the highest priority. Would it not be better to get the money from those wealthy Canadians and corporations that are cheating, that are just simply breaking the law? One would think that would be the government's first priority before heaping more debt on to the backs of future generations of Canadians.

We know from such credible sources as The Conference Board of Canada that the tax gap is enormous. It is hard to even comprehend an amount of $47 billion per year. Pulling back from that, we say we have a finance minister who prides himself on being the “minister of no”, rejecting money that would make up the funding gap for first nations education, not supplying sufficient money for clean drinking water for every Canadian, saying that affordable pharmacare for seniors and those on fixed incomes is not an option. The Liberals say it is not an option because they do not have money. Did they look? Did they check under the cushions on the sofa to see whether there might be something hiding there? Lo and behold, we know money is hiding.

This has been going on for years and the Liberals are aware of it. In the last election they said that at a time of high deficits and growing inequality between the richest Canadians and middle-class families this is a disproportionate benefit for the wealthy. What were the Liberals talking about? They were talking about this little tax loophole that costs the Canadian government $700 million a year in stock options. The Liberals also admitted in their election platforms in both 2011 and 2015 that this tax loophole overwhelmingly goes to the wealthiest Canadians. This is not about entrepreneurship and that go-getter attitude that we want to incentivize. That is not how this loophole is being used and that is what the NDP motion addresses today. We thought the Liberals were going to address this issue in their last budget. Why? Well, because they promised to address it. They said they would. They put a cap on tax avoiders who are aggressive with their taxes.

There seems to be a disturbing pattern with the Liberals. If one is well connected, if one is able to fork over $1,500 for a cocktail to rub elbows with the PM so to speak, if those individuals could be hosts at a private island then Liberal issues rise to the top. The finance minister has lobbied on this issue. Wealthy Canadians have asked him to please not take away this loophole because they love it, those wealthy Canadians who are able to forgo $400,000 a year on average in taxes. Not bad. I guess $1,500 for a ticket to a Liberal fundraiser is worth it if we did a quick cost benefit.

We also know, and we mentioned it in today's motion, that we want to aggressively get at the many tax evasions, the tax avoidances, that come under a number of rubrics, that Canada has become not famous for, but infamous for, that we saw in the Panama papers where the curtain was suddenly pulled back and all the international manipulation of tax regimes was exposed. What was Canada's role in that? What was our reputation? It is called snow washing, a new term we have come across. International accountants advise their international clients that if they do not want to pay taxes, they know that in Canada ownership of a company does not have to be declared but rather could go under a numbered account. If one does not live in Canada, then an individual can set up a company in Canada and declare its profits in another country. It is the perfect place if one wants to set up real action in Barbados, St. Kitts, or wherever it happens to be that income was actually declared because no tax will be paid on it. Canada's reputation just has to be used. These people and companies use the weak and vague laws that we have over corporate governance in this country to hide their money.

We saw this also in the KPMG scam, and there is no other word for it. Even Revenue Canada had the ability to call it what it was. For 13 years KPMG was advising its millionaire clients in Canada that if they wanted to pay taxes they could go ahead and do so, but if those millionaires did not want to pay taxes, they just had to cut KPMG a cheque and it would get their money to a little place called the Isle of Man.

The Isle of Man is famous for concerts and it is also famous for all the fake companies that get set up. Canadian millionaires hired KPMG to set up the scam. When it was finally uncovered and this was starting to unravel internationally, let us compare what happened in the U.S. to what happened here. The Senate called hearings. A half a billion dollar fine was put upon KPMG. It had to admit guilt. Three people were charged criminally and KPMG had to admit this was exactly what they did.

Let us flip it over to the Liberal-dominated committee here. For those who want to listen to the entire story, CBC's radio program, The Current, had this all playing out. It will drive people crazy, as it did my constituents. They wrote me to say that all they expected was basic fairness. When wealthy Canadians avoid paying their taxes, the rest of them, those who follow the rules, have to pick up the tab.

I will wager that every MP in the House has a horror story of some working-class Canadian, some middle-class Canadian, whom the Liberals are obsessed over, going through an interaction with the Canada Revenue Agency that ends very badly. Regardless of whether the person was in the right or in the wrong, the power of the CRA is incredible.

When this KPMG scam was exposed, no one denied it was going on. Hundreds of millions of dollars were being sent offshore and then gifted back to millionaire families. They are such generous people. They simply moved all their money to the Isle of Man, paid KPMG $100,000, and then were gifted back the money. What a wonderful world these people occupy where they make so much money they feel it is their right and obligation to not pay any taxes for the roads, the services, and the hospitals that we so cherish.

Through all of this, Liberals have said that they have put money into this and that they are getting at it. The Liberals need to back up the rhetoric and back up their promises with actual action, go after the tax cheats and get the money we are all owed so Canadians can finally have the services and the economy they deserve.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:24 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed will please say nay.