Alain Giguère

[The Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member on the quality of her French. It is always nice to see that language courses and the bilingual skills of our political staff are improving.

That was a very nice and pretty speech, but my problem is that it regrettably reflects too much of an agenda. It is part of a strategy to determine what the history of Canada should be.

The government does not want to give Canadians a picture of Canada's history, it wants to impose its own history. It wants to destroy the Canadian Postal Museum although the post office is a historic institution that was instrumental in building our country.

How can the hon. member reconcile the two?

[The Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to see that many of my colleagues on the government side are passionate about history. What a pleasant surprise.

They might want to control history, but they are nevertheless passionate about it. I too am passionate about history; history is fun. It is all well and good to want to ensure that our history, our museums and all of our artifacts are readily available to all Canadians. However, to make that possible, do we really need to destroy an institution that has not only proven itself across Canada, but is also internationally renowned? This is significant.

The Canadian Museum of Civilization is a work of art, and works of art must be carefully preserved. Is the government member capable of understanding that? I am asking him to meet me halfway. There are some crucial things in that museum. The Canadian Postal Museum is excellent. It represents an important part of our history.

Can the member explain why it should be sacrificed?

[Canadian Museum of History Act, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing a museum of Canadian history. Our country was built on two great institutions: the railway and the Royal Mail. It is impressive to see this government, which boasts about promoting Canada's history, gut two institutions: public rail transportation and Canada Post.

Could the member comment on the fact that one of the first things to be sacrificed in this new museum policy will be Canada Post?

I can see a member who has the gall to laugh about the disappearance of a Canadian institution like the post office. It shows just how un-Canadian he is.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, May 28th, 2013]

That is 12 years of tax evasion, 12 years of aggressive tax planning. After 12 years, they are fixing the situation. You must be kidding—

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, May 28th, 2013]

Is he reading us a political leaflet or is it Bill C-48? I would point out that this bill has been in the making for 12 years—

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker,when I started as a young tax specialist, I was told—funnily enough—to interpret the law my way, namely in the manner most favourable to my client. I was told I should then contact various Revenue officials and send the file to the one who was most likely to agree with me. That is how it was, and how it still is, unfortunately.

The law is so complex that if you talk to different officials, you will get different answers. Will this bill change that?

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, American multi-billionaire Warren Buffet said that it makes no sense that his tax rate is lower than that of an entry-level secretary at his company.

That is tax inequity. That is the problem with our tax laws. People say that when the rich get richer, they reinvest their riches. Well, unfortunately, under the George W. Bush regime in the U.S. and the Conservative regime in Canada, the idiotic application of this theory does not work.

The investments are just not there, since wealthy people do not reinvest in their own country simply because it is good to them; instead, they invest their money wherever they will make the most money. Clearly, in this case, they decided that that place was not Canada.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple and most unfortunate.

Tax fairness has never been a priority for the Liberal government or the Conservative government. Tax unfairness does not bother them in the least. That is why it took them more than 12 years to introduce tax legislation. Everyone knew it, there were red flags, and yet they did nothing. It is not because they did not know or could not do anything about it, but simply because they did not want tax fairness.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, May 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, what economic progress is he talking about?

There are more unemployed workers today than there were before the recession and even during the recession. There has been absolutely no progress made. They say they created 900,000 jobs, but they are forgetting about the 600,000 jobs lost during the recession. That leaves 300,000 jobs. What is more, jobs that paid $25 to $30 an hour have been replaced with jobs that pay $12 or $13 an hour. Is that economic progress?

Average Quebeckers have been impoverished. They have too much debt and now have to rely on food banks. With much of the Canadian population living so precariously, we cannot talk about economic growth.

[Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012, May 28th, 2013]

Yes. The Liberals were in office.

The Conservatives have not done much better. They were in power in 2007. They have had six years to introduce a bill to make technical amendments to the tax law. For a government that claims to be tough on crime, that is pretty bad from the perspective of regulation-making, red tape and bureaucracy. What is more, it is never-ending.

We will support this bill because we no longer have any choice. We have to do so. We also believe that the government should amend the tax law every year in order to update it so that everyone can understand it.

This is a complex 1,000-page bill that tries to reduce a backlog of 400 technical amendments. This means that as soon as a problem comes up, the accounting bills start piling up. An accountant does not come cheap.

It can also be expensive for a company that is teetering on the brink and wondering whether or not this law applies to it. In theory, ignorance of the law is no excuse; however, the law is unintelligible to the average person, and unfortunately, Canadian tax laws are no exception.

In 1917, Canada's first tax law, the Income Tax Act, was 50 pages in length. Those 50 pages covered everything.

Now, there are tens of thousands of pages of jurisprudence and as many doctrines. We can get a sense of our tax situation. It is clear why many business owners are telling us that their businesses are overburdened with accounting bills.

Taking over 10 years to make formal changes to the law opens the door to risky operations and aggressive tax planning. It opens the door to tax risk. A company may be able to pay a tax expert $500 an hour to solve tax problems, but the average person cannot. That is a problem.

The more complex tax laws are, the more they benefit the rich. People who do not have the means to hire a tax expert do not have the means to open a foreign bank account, build a family trust or incorporate in order to evade taxes. That is a problem.

We are talking about tax fairness. Obviously, this is still not the case. Unfortunately, I think we will have to wait until 2015 for a change like this.

However, I need to hammer home three main points and mention that the NDP by no means disagrees with this bill. In spite of everything, we feel that we need to fight tax avoidance and tax evasion, while preserving the integrity of our tax system. In short, our tax system needs to fulfill its main function, which is to enable the Canadian government to have the revenue it needs to cover its expenses.

At close to 1,000 pages, this document is a perfect example of an omnibus bill. If the government had done an act-by-act study, for example, of the GST act, the Income Tax Act and the legislation on certain trusts, it could have reduced the number of pages and members could have had a clearer idea of what is involved.

However, with this 1,000-page document, as I have said, I challenge any Conservative member to rise and say that he or she will vote entirely in favour of this bill because he or she understands it completely, has read it in full and knows it inside and out.

As we can see, a great many volunteers from the Conservative Party are rising and saying enthusiastically that they understand the bill. Actually, that number is a big, fat zero.

The business community is being penalized with similar changes. Our economy is also being penalized. Not only does this let people avoid paying tax, meaning that those who do pay have to pay even more, but those who pay more tax have to pay for an accountant and a tax lawyer on top of that. What joy, what luck. To think that this government claims to be effective.

There are some important parts to this bill. Part 1 covers non-resident trusts. That is very important because it is a significant tax loophole. Parts 2 and 3 deal with the taxation of foreign corporations. Globalization has enabled companies to transfer their profits to tax havens. We need to put an end to that practice. Part 4 is essential. Canada has common law, but Quebec has the civil code. This type of bijuralism requires us to correct the situation.

Clearly, this bill had to be drafted and, to be effective, this exercise should be carried out every year. An NDP government will commit to that.

I will yield the floor to my hon. colleague after questions.