Shelly Glover

[Infrastructure, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say how proud I am of this government for all of the budgets it put forward in the economic action plan. It has led to over 900,000 net new jobs created, and we are going to continue in that vein with budget 2013. But I have to tell my Liberal colleagues that they are just going to have to wait, because we are not going to speculate on what is going to be in the budget. A few more sleeps and they will know exactly what is in it.

[Taxation, February 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is this government, this side of the House, that has reduced Canadians' taxes 140 times since it came into office.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, our government has put $3,100 in the pockets of the average Canadian family. We will continue to implement our plan in order to reduce the taxes of all Canadian families.

[The Budget, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, it was the NDP that Canadians were disappointed with, because they voted against so many good measures to maintain the job creation we have. Here I might cite that we have created over 900,000 net new jobs since the recession in July 2009.

Canadians were disappointed that the NDP did not support a number of measures. Let me continue to cite those measures. One is the opportunities fund, which would have helped a number of disabled people get into the job market. Thankfully, our Conservative government voted in favour of that budget to put that forward. However, the NDP, of course, voted against it.

[The Budget, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the 2012 budget focused on job creation and the long-term prosperity of our economy.

Obviously, we are going to continue in that same vein.

I want to be clear when I say that we were very disappointed in the NDP when it voted against many measures such as the small business hiring tax credit, improvements to the youth employment strategy, improved economic opportunities for young aboriginals and so on.

I hope that they will support these sorts of measures in the 2013 budget because they will help Canadians.

[Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, January 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming quite clear that the NDP leader suffers from a common NDP problem: he has trouble with basic numbers. Yesterday the leader of the NDP stood here in question period and simply got it wrong on income inequality. The NDP leader stated:

Over the past three decades the income of the richest 20% of Canadians has increased, while for the other 80% net income is in fact down.

That is absolutely false. According to the Canadian socioeconomic database from Stats Canada, incomes for Canadians across all five quintiles are in fact up.

I will be sending a copy of its chart over to the leader of the NDP, and I am hoping when he begins question period today he will stand in his place and apologize for his extreme misrepresentation of all of those facts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question and welcome him back to the House of Commons too.

As I said before, our government is committed to simplifying this law. We have listened to what Canadians and the experts have to say about this. They want clarification. They were the ones who asked us to introduce a bill that would put an end to confusion about things that were announced in budgets over the past 10 years but that were never implemented at the legislative level.

Once again, I would like to reassure my colleague that our government is making an effort to work with experts and Canadians to create a simplified tax system that will protect them, a system that is fair and efficient.

I hope that my colleague will support our efforts. We will see when it comes time to vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary sits in committee, at times for hours and hours, trying to ensure she serves the people in her riding and all Canadians in an effective way. This is just another example of how the parliamentary secretary has been very involved in trying to ensure this technical tax bill moves forward. Her expertise on this issue has been very much appreciated, so I want to thank her publicly for all she has done in this endeavour.

With regard to her description of the grey pages in the book that was presented in committee, let me just describe for Canadians at home how that looked to all of us on the finance committee as the CGA representatives explained the complexity of those grey pages. They produced a book, the Income Tax Act, which is about the size of a bible. My family bible is fairly large. They were very disturbed that almost every second page in it contained what was a grey page or a grey section. The grey pages or sections are those parts that have been announced as measures to be changed but have not been enacted. This caused a complexity because the tax professionals had to keep track. Every budget, for over a decade, that announced a measure that would change went in as a grey section and they had to keep track of them year after year to ensure they followed comfort letters or followed the intent, even though legislation clarifying and detailing the measures was not enacted.

One can imagine a book the size of a bible with almost every second page having a grey paragraph or a grey page. It is time to fix this. I am glad to have the support of members opposite to ensure it is done quickly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague from the Liberal Party back to the House. I find it a bit odd to be standing here answering the question. Although I have tremendous respect for my colleague from Winnipeg where I reside, it was the Liberal Party and the official opposition that put forward a number of amendments to the Budget Implementation Act, which passed before the Christmas break, to go against any desire to close tax loopholes.

I am glad he and the Liberal Party have come on board to try to ensure that tax loopholes are closed, because that is what consumers want to see. They want to see tax fairness. I can assure the member that consumers and tax professionals will be well served by getting through this backlog. If they look at the Income Tax Act and all the grey pages in the book that governs how to deal with income tax issues that many tax professionals use, it is so complex that this technical tax bill would eliminate many of those grey pages and make it simpler.

I thank my colleague for coming to the table and I hope he will be supporting this in a timely fashion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to welcome my colleague, the finance critic for the NDP, back to this wonderful House. It leads me to believe that the NDP members are excited about the bill and that they want to see it move forward quickly because they have asked a question about how we will progress in the future.

This government has indicated clearly that we intend to bring forward legislation in a timely fashion so we do not have this backlog repeat itself. It is this government that put forward an attempt to solve this backlog in 2008, and we continue to move forward in that way. I might add that part 8 has been added to the technical tax bill, which deals with some very recent tax changes.

Once again, I want to reassure all colleagues in the House that this government is set to continue to pursue tax legislation in a timely and considerate manner.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be back here in this wonderful House of Commons, where I am pleased to kick-off debate on this important piece of legislation, both for taxpayers and tax professionals, because it represents a major advancement in the simplification of Canada's tax system.

While admittedly it is technical, I should remind members of the many Canadians who helped craft its development over the years through numerous open and public consultations. In fact, the technical tax amendments act represents over a decade of miscellaneous tax announcements that have already been made public but have yet to be formally enacted, causing a significant backlog in our tax system. This backlog can be traced back to the fact that Parliament has not passed technical tax legislation in over a decade, something the Auditor General identified as a matter of legitimate concern.

I will read directly from the Auditor General's fall 2009 report, to provide members with further background on this issue. It states:

The last technical bill on income tax law received royal assent in 2001. Each year, more deficiencies are identified, contributing to an ever-growing backlog of needed technical amendments.

—The Department of Finance Canada alone cannot correct this situation, but it can do more to bring the urgency of the problem to the attention of the government and Parliament....

The Auditor General also articulated some powerful reasons to explain why clearing this backlog should be a priority for Parliament. Again, the report states:

Canada’s tax system relies on taxpayers to self-assess and pay the income taxes they owe.... [M]ost taxpayers will meet their tax obligations if given the proper tools and information.

Taxpayers’ ability to comply with tax legislation depends on their understanding of how the rules apply to their own circumstances. When the intent of the legislation is not clearly conveyed by the words, taxpayers may find it difficult to assess the income taxes they owe and this could foster tax avoidance. Uncertainty about how the law should be applied can also add to the time taken and costs incurred by tax audits and tax administration.

I strongly encourage all parliamentarians and Canadians watching at home who want to learn more about this issue to read the very comprehensive work of the Auditor General, available online at www.oag-bvg.gc.ca. Specifically, I suggest they look at chapter 3 of the fall 2009 report, which shows that the government agreed wholeheartedly with its findings and recommendations. Indeed, we indicated in a formal response included in the report that we recognized these concerns and would once again introduce technical tax legislation in Parliament.

To facilitate passage of the bill, we have consulted extensively with Canadians over the past few years in order to get as much feedback as possible before introducing it and so that we could proactively address any concerns that were raised.

We are now at the most important stage of the legislative process: the careful review of the bill in Parliament.

For many years now, as Parliament has tried to pass tax bills under other governments, Parliament has never managed to complete its examinations.

I think all members will agree that it is time to address this backlog of over 10 years, and that taxpayers should not have to live with the uncertainty of additional backlogs.

Even the all-party Standing Committee on Public Accounts agreed. In its 2010 study of the Auditor General's report, the committee issued the following statement:

The Public Accounts Committee believes that the integrity of Canada’s income tax system depends upon taxpayers and tax auditors having a clear understanding of the requirements of the Income Tax Act and its associated regulations. A lack of clarity can lead to increased costs for taxpayers who may need to seek out professional advice. As a result, it is of particular concern to the Committee that no income tax technical amendment bill has been passed since 2001.

I would also note that the all-party finance committee, of which I am honoured to be a member, has heard from diverse witnesses about the importance of addressing the technical tax backlog. These groups include the Real Property Association of Canada, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Tax Executives Institute, the Canadian Tax Foundation, and many more. However, perhaps the most vocal of these groups has been the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, sometimes known as CGA Canada.

While I know that all members would likely support the general principles of tax simplification, as well as ending uncertainty for taxpayers, we must nevertheless conduct a thorough study of this legislation, especially at the finance committee. In fact I have already consulted with my committee colleagues about holding multiple meetings on this legislation, and I am pleased to report that members are in broad agreement.

As some of the amendments included in today's act date as far back as the late 1990s, pre-dating both our government and the majority of sitting MPs, I think we can all appreciate the need to examine them closely in a non-partisan manner.

I will briefly go over the content of this legislation for those who are not familiar with this substantial bill.

As I already mentioned, this bill is about further simplifying Canada's tax system by making various changes to the Income Tax Act and other related legislation.

The CGA represents over 75,000 tax professionals and has appeared before various committees over the years to stress the need for Parliament to act to clear this backlog. As such, I would like to read at length part of the statement made by CGA Canada following the release of this legislation in November:

By tabling this legislation, the government is taking concrete action to deal with the backlog of unlegislated tax proposals....The new bill will provide more certainty to Canadian taxpayers and lessen the burden of compliance.

Some of the measures contained in today’s bill were initially proposed as early as 1999.... What’s more, since 1999 these draft rules have been re-released a number of times and revised by the government, making taxpayers uncertain.... With unlegislated tax measures, taxpayers and professional accountants must maintain their records and forms–sometimes for years–to be in a position to comply, even without knowing when and if these measures will be approved by Parliament and enacted. This uncertainty and unpredictability places an enormous compliance burden on taxpayers, businesses, professionals and their clients.

I will now walk through this legislation, piece by piece, to highlight key measures and their intended purpose. Although the legislation is highly technical, I will be brief in my remarks.

Let us start with part 1 of the bill. Our government is proposing enhancements to the Income Tax Act to better target and simplify the rules relating to non-resident trusts, taking into account comments received during extensive public consultations.

Parts 2 and 3 relate to the taxation of Canadian multinational corporations with foreign affiliates. Again, our government consulted extensively with stakeholders and the public on these proposals, some of which date all the way back to 2004. The result will be a simplified, fair and equitable tax system that will be easier to comply with and more straightforward to administer.

Part 4 of the bill will help ensure that its amendments will function under both common and civil laws. More specifically, these amendments will ensure that provisions that rely on certain private law concepts are bijural, such as right and interest; real and personal property; life estate and remainder interest; tangible and intangible property; and joint and several liability. In other words, the bill will ensure that they reflect both the common law and the civil law in both linguistic versions.

Part 5 of the bill will close certain tax loopholes and ensure greater fairness for taxpayers, measures on which we consulted extensively. These measures include closing tax loopholes related to a specified leasing property; ensuring that conversion of specified investment flow-through trusts and partnerships into corporations are subject to the same rules as transactions between corporations; preventing schemes designed to shelter tax by artificially increasing foreign tax credits; and finally, implementing a regime for reporting tax avoidance.

Taken all together, these measures will help crack down on the problem of tax avoidance and ensure that everyone pays his or her fair share.

Tax fairness is a basic principle that we have worked hard to respect ever since we took office. We are proud of our commitment to strengthening the integrity and fairness of the tax system and of our continued efforts to eliminate tax loopholes.

In fact, since 2006, we have introduced over 50 measures to eliminate these loopholes in order to guarantee that taxes are collected in a manner that is fair and consistent with their intended policy objectives.

Our efforts have therefore allowed us to collect nearly $2 billion on behalf of taxpayers. Canadians can be assured that in the future, our government will continue to take the necessary measures to ensure the integrity of the tax system, because eliminating tax loopholes helps to keep taxes low for everyone.

Before moving to part 6, I should also note that part 5 includes a number of technical changes designed to ensure that the income tax system functions in the way it was intended. Many of these changes are relieving measures and will address issues previously identified by taxpayers.

Part 5 also implements an amendment relating to the enactment of the Fairness for the Self-Employed Act. It extends the personal income tax credit in respect of employment insurance premiums to apply to premiums paid by self-employed individuals.

Part 6 of the bill implements technical improvements to the GST and HST, including relieving GST or HST on the administrative service of collecting and distributing the levy on blank media imposed by the Copyright Act.

Part 7, the final portion of the bill, makes administrative changes to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.

As all of these parts will be examined in greater detail by the finance committee, I will simply say that the underlying intent of each of these measures is to simplify the tax system and thereby ensure fairness and equity for all Canadian taxpayers.

In closing, I will quote from an op-ed originally published in The Globe and Mail by Tim Wach, a respected tax professional with the firm Gowling Lafleur Henderson, which speaks again to the importance of passing today's legislation. It states:

—there are only two certainties in life: death and taxes. While one cannot take issue with the first part of that statement, the second is increasingly coming into question. The fact that we have to pay tax is no less certain, but certainty in the detail of Canada’s tax laws arguably has been decreasing. This results from the increasing “legislative backlog”–the gap between the announcement of changes to the tax system and the legislative enactment of those changes.

This gap is making it increasingly difficult for Canadians to plan their affairs with confidence and certainty and to comply with their tax obligations. When taxpayers are uncertain about their obligations, their trust and faith in the system diminishes.

It continues:

—parliamentarians can bring a higher degree of certainty to our tax laws by moving forward swiftly, in a non-partisan, non-politicized manner, to enact outstanding changes. Let’s hope they do just that.

In closing, I encourage all members to listen to the advice of the Governor General and the appeals of the tax experts represented by CGA-Canada, as well as taxpayers, who have told us repeatedly that they want to know where they stand with the tax system.

Let us take this historic opportunity to move forward in a non-partisan manner to give this legislation the careful consideration and passage it deserves.

I look forward to any questions.