Guy Caron

[Parliamentary Budget Officer, January 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about household debt and he is talking about a budget we voted against because it offered Canadian families nothing useful.

The Minister of State should realize that household debt has reached dangerous levels and that the Minister of Finance will be responsible for leaving Canadians buried in debt.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer's mandate is to review government spending and provide an independent analysis of public finances. Earlier this week, the Minister of Finance said that the budget officer's mandate should be changed.

Can he explain exactly what changes he intends to impose on this independent institution?

[The Economy, January 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, if the demand for new credit is at an all-time low, as the Minister of Finance and now the minister of state are saying, it is because household debt is at an all-time high and Canadians simply cannot borrow any more money.

For the first time ever, Canadian households are deeper in debt than our American neighbours. On average, each Canadian household owes $26,000 more than its income. We are headed for disaster. When interest rates go up, the minister will have to assume full responsibility.

Why did the minister allow household debt to reach this record high?

[The Economy, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the Minister of Finance himself criticized businesses for failing to reinvest profits made as a result of lower corporate taxes.

The most recent economic news is troubling. Canadian household debt is much too high and that was a significant factor in the decision to downgrade the ratings of six major Canadian banks. The Conservatives' laissez-faire approach to public finances is hurting our economy.

Will the minister replace failed policies with new initiatives to respond to the challenges faced by our economy, or will he just repeat his same old attacks on the NDP?

[The Economy, January 29th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about credibility. Every time the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report and the Conservatives publicly contradicted him, they had to do an about-face and admit that he was right.

The Conservatives want to get rid of the Parliamentary Budget Officer so he will not shed light on some of the Conservatives' bad decisions. Take the example of the Conservatives' corporate tax policies. They have obviously not had the desired effect because the profits resulting from these tax cuts have not been reinvested in the economy.

Why do the Conservatives insist on staying the course to the detriment of our public services and infrastructure?

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed my colleague's speech, especially her conclusion.

I found her comparison of the bill and the situation we are currently facing with our aboriginal communities particularly insightful. I found the connection quite relevant. In both cases, it appears that the government is waiting till the last minute to make any changes, despite how crucial they are. This is the eleventh hour, but we have no choice, since we are up to 950 pages.

It took the government 10 years to legislate technical changes recommended by the Canada Revenue Agency and other organizations and introduce this bill. Yet the situation decried by the Idle No More movement is the same: the government is waiting for a crisis to address a situation that should have been addressed long ago.

I wonder if my colleague could share her thoughts on how this government is governing. It always waits till the last minute and hopes that it can still manage things once they turn into a crisis situation, whether it involves aboriginal issues or fiscal matters. This bill, or at least certain parts of it, could have been implemented a long time ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a brief question. I realize that the hon. member was not here during the last Parliament or the previous ones.

I agree with him when he says that it is not possible to study all the elements of such a large and complex bill and vote on it with full knowledge.

We have already said that we would vote in favour of this bill, but the underlying problem is that we waited 10 or 12 years for all the technical elements to be put together as a law.

First, can the hon. member confirm that his party wants to have regular updates of the various technical elements of the Income Tax Act and other taxation acts put together as a law?

If so, I would like to know why his party, which was in government prior to 2006, did nothing during the last four, five or six years of its mandate?

I see that as a problem because, while the Conservatives have not done anything about this and have let things get worse, the Liberal government that preceded them did not do anything either during the five or six years it was in power.

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

Mr. Speaker, aside from the initial statement by the parliamentary secretary, it does not appear that many people on the government benches are prepared to defend and explain Bill C-48. I have a question for my colleague.

Given that 400 notices have been issued by the Canada Revenue Agency and other similar bodies, and that 200 such notices still remain to be integrated into the Income Tax Act and other tax legislation, we can expect to see another bill. It may not be as massive as Bill C-48, but it will be relative weighty nonetheless. The bill will be needed to integrate these technical aspects. This matter has been dragging on since 2001. Technical notices that needed to be presented in the form of legislation had been piling up for over 10 years.

I would like to know what my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou thinks about the government bringing in over 10 years’ worth of these measures in an omnibus bill, rather than tabling updates and amendments on a regular if not yearly basis, to tax legislation such as the Income Tax Act? If no one from the government can explain why this is not done on a yearly basis, then I would like my colleague’s opinion on the government’s response.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct what the member for Peterborough just said in the previous question to the effect that transfers to the provinces would remain the same, including health transfers. On the contrary, the government has already announced its intention to reduce from 6% to 3% the rate of growth of transfers to the provinces. This change shows already that these transfers are not a government priority.

Another priority found in Bill C-48 deals with closing tax loopholes, which is a complex issue in the Income Tax Act. Let us not forget that it is the first time in a period of over ten years that we have a technical bill amending the Income Tax Act. In the last three of four years of their term, the Liberals had the opportunity to introduce these changes, but they did not do it.

Since 2006, the Conservatives have let income tax changes accumulate and they did not introduce any bill like this one, with the result that we now have a piece of legislation that is 950 pages long. The result of this neglect is that Canadian businesses, among others, and citizens, are experiencing much greater uncertainty. The rules are not clear, nor are the government's intentions, until an omnibus bill of this magnitude is tabled.

I would like to hear my colleague on the famous priorities of the Conservative government and on how it can deal so flippantly with an issue as important as taxation and the Income Tax Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou for his very pertinent question.

The fact is that over half of all Canadians need help to file their tax return. That is very problematic because the Canadian law is based on the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse. It cannot be used as a defence. However, when we are dealing with the Income Tax Act, it is very difficult to really know all the ins and outs, and all the interpretations.

It is very problematic to have an act so complex that we cannot expect Canadians to know it thoroughly. Even tax experts do not know all the ins and outs of this legislation. Canadians must rely on softwares that are still relatively imperfect. Ultimately, if we want a tax adviser who can really help, it is going to cost us an arm and a leg.

Right now, there is a fundamental problem: citizens, and even businesses, are unable to comply with the act. They can easily and unwittingly violate it, because it is complex to the point of being incomprehensible.

This should prompt the House to reflect seriously on the complexity of the Canadian tax system and on how it could be made simpler.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 28th, 2013]

With regard to the Competition Bureau: (a) how many investigations have been launched since 2006, sorted by (i) year, (ii) economic sector of the companies under investigation; (b) how many indictments have been brought since 2006, sorted by year; (c) how many investigations have not resulted in indictments since 2006, sorted by year; (d) how many Bureau staff have been assigned to investigations since 2006, sorted by year; (e) how many interim injunctions have been issued since 2006, sorted by year; (f) how many convictions have resulted from Bureau investigations since 2006, sorted by year; (g) how many fines have been collected since 2006, sorted by year; (h) what measures have been implemented as part of the Anti-Bid-Rigging Program since 2006; (i) what has been the total number of Bureau employees since 2006, sorted by year; (j) how many employees have been assigned to the Anti-Bid-Rigging Program since 2006, sorted by year; and (k) when are the Bureau’s 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 annual reports expected to be published?