2013-02-15

Government Orders
Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from January 28 consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the subject of Bill C-48, which is now before the House. The bill could be termed a housecleaning bill, which does not mean that it is unimportant because it is important to keep one's house clean and in this case we are talking about the cleanliness of our tax system. The bill enacts into law previous comfort letters and other statements by the Department of Finance, which have already been enacted by CRA but which are not yet enshrined in the law. 
As I will indicate, the Liberal Party will support the bill. Our only complaint is that it is far too long in coming. There have been massive delays to the point where the bill is almost 1,000 pages long with, I believe, 40-something amendments. This has caused great cost and great uncertainty to the tax system. We believe that it is simply bad public administration that the government should have delayed so long in bringing the legislation forward.
The last housecleaning tax bill passed by Parliament was in 2001, almost 12 years ago. We believe as a matter of course such bills should come before the House every year, so that the complexity of the tax system would be alleviated and taxpayers would have a clearer idea of what their rights and obligations are.
Let me begin by going through a little bit of the sad, lengthy history, which has led us from 12 years ago when the last bill was passed to where we are today. As I said, in 2001, a tax housecleaning bill was passed, 12 years ago. The Liberal government prepared another one but then was defeated. The Conservatives made two attempts but both failed. Because of an election or because of prorogation, those bills simply did not get through the House and were dropped. 
The next event that is of some importance is the Auditor General's report of 2009. The Auditor General made it crystal clear that there were major costs imposed by not acting more expeditiously in this area. I would like to read a few of the key recommendations that were made by the Auditor General in 2009.
She said:
 For taxpayers, the negative effects of uncertainty may include 
 • higher costs of obtaining professional advice to comply with tax law; 
 • less efficiency in doing business transactions; 
 • inability of publicly traded corporations to use proposed tax changes in their financial reporting, because they have not been “substantively enacted”; 
 • greater cynicism about the fairness of the tax system; and 
 • increased willingness to use aggressive tax plans. 
She continued:
 For the tax administrator, the negative effects may include 
 • higher costs for providing additional guidance and interpretations to taxpayers and tax auditors; and 
 • higher administrative costs for reprocessing the tax returns after an outstanding legislative amendment is enacted and for obtaining waivers to extend the limitation period for reassessment. 
These points are extremely clear. The Auditor General makes it very clear that the absence of housecleaning legislation presented promptly imposes major costs on taxpayers in terms of their ability to understand the law, their need for professional advice and also imposes greater delays on rulings by CRA, which further reduce the efficiency of the system. 
Following the Auditor General's report, the parliamentary committee on public accounts met and I would like to read its recommendations, which were published in the year 2010:
 RECOMMENDATION 1 
 That the Department of Finance Canada facilitate the elimination of the backlog by ensuring that bills making technical amendments to the Income Tax Act only relate to technical tax matters. 
 RECOMMENDATION 2 
 That the Department of Finance Canada not wait until technical amendments bills are passed by Parliament before releasing further proposed amendments to the Income Tax Act for comment. 
 RECOMMENDATION 3 
 That once the current backlog of technical amendments is passed, the Department of Finance Canada should prepare annual technical amendments bills for consideration by Parliament. 
 RECOMMENDATION 4 
 That the Canada Revenue Agency provide by 31 March 2011 a progress report to the Public Accounts Committee on actions taken to address the recommendations contained in Chapter 3 of the Auditor General’s November 2009 Report. 
It is clear as we stand now, in 2013, that these recommendations of the public accounts committee were not followed. It called for this housekeeping legislation to be presented on an annual basis. It called for a reduction in the time that CRA took to give its tax opinions or directions. This has not happened. The time has gotten longer, not shorter. Again, I would argue that this is a case of really bad public administration in an area that is not particularly exciting to the public but is, nevertheless, critical to the good functioning of our economy.
Now, one would think that accountants, of all people, would love tax complexity because they are paid for helping people to complete their taxes. If the system is more complex, they are needed even more and they would make more money. However, quite to the contrary, both the chartered accountants and the certified general accountants have recently been arguing very strongly in favour of expeditious passing of the legislation as well as a more general reform of the tax system.
I would like to read from both the recommendations of the chartered accountants and the certified general accountants on these issues. In 2010, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants said:
 Reducing complexity in Canada’s domestic tax regime is crucial to easing the regulatory burden placed on Canadian businesses and attracting investment. Simplifying our tax system would make the country more competitive and allow both individuals and business to prosper. According to The Global Competitiveness Report 2010 – 2011 issued by the World Economic Forum, tax regulations are among the top four most problematic factors cited by business executives for doing business in Canada. Many aspects of Canada’s tax system have become much too complex. We recommend that the government establish a national consultation process to examine tax simplification measures. 
This is a government that talks all the time about caring only about the economy, about being competitive, about attracting foreign investment, and yet tax complexity is number four on the list of negative factors, according to companies, investors. The government has done nothing since these recommendations of 2009-10 until three years later, today, notwithstanding the pleas from the accountants, the Auditor General and the public accounts committee, to act expeditiously.
Let me now read what the certified general accountants said:
 Modernize Canada’s tax system – make it simple, transparent and more efficient 
 Introduce and pass a technical tax bill to deal with unlegislated tax proposals 
 Implement a “sunset provision” to prevent future legislative backlogs 
 Appoint an independent panel of experts to recommend steps to reform Canada’s tax system 
That statement about a sunset provision is interesting because it would say that when Finance issues a declaration or a comfort letter that effectively changes the system, unless it is placed in law within a certain time, such as a year or two years, it sunsets. It disappears. This would be a good change to the system because it would be an incentive for the Department of Finance or the government to implement these housecleaning bills annually or expeditiously so as to reduce this growing complication of Canada's tax system.
However, as members will have heard from these quotes, the issue goes further than simply these housecleaning bills. It has been 12 years since our last housecleaning bill and close to 50 years since our last full-scale examination of Canada's tax system. The last time that was done, I believe, the report was issued in 1966 and it was done by the Carter commission. The accountants and I say that it is high time we have another overall study of Canada's tax system with a view to simplifying it and making it more competitive, less complex and more fair. This would be a major undertaking, and since it has not been done in almost 50 years, it is high time that we do it.
One obvious unfairness, which would become apparent if such a study were done, is the operation of our tax credits. The government offers tax credits for young soccer players or young violinists. Some economists would prefer that such measures be put into overall cuts in income tax, but that is another issue. My point is that these tax credits are grossly unfair because they deliberately exclude those people whose income is not high enough to pay significant tax. Therefore, low-income Canadians' sons and daughters might want to play soccer or the violin just as much as a child of a higher-income Canadian, but because their income is low and they do not pay tax or much tax, they are excluded from the benefit. That is a gross unfairness. Item number one in reforming our tax system would be to make those tax credits refundable so that they are available for all Canadians and not just for well-heeled Canadians. 
That is just one tiny item in the overall scheme of things. We need an overall review of our tax system, which has not happened for nearly 50 years, and it is high time that this was done. We do support the bill. Our complaint is that it is far too late in coming. 
I will go over a few of the provisions of the bill. I obviously cannot cover in detail the nearly 1,000 pages of changed legislation. One of the problems with it is that it is just too much to absorb correctly all in one bite and to analyze appropriately. However, I will mention some of the things that would be changed.
There would be changes to the foreign affiliate rules, which would probably be the most important changes for business. These changes would generally be considered to be relieving for business, although they also would increase the complexity of meeting those tax obligations. 
On income trusts, the bill would affect how debt would be treated when an income tax trust is taken over by a corporation after the infamous 2006 income trust tax announcement. 
There would be a change for employment insurance. Now that self-employed individuals can contribute to EI, Bill C-48 would ensure those contributions would be deducted from annual income for taxation purposes in the same manner that an employee's contributions are deducted. 
On GST, first nations would be able to choose to levy a sales tax on reserve by allowing the Canada Revenue Agency to collect and administer the tax. All money collected would be returned to the band council. Bill C-48 would allow Revenu Québec to fulfill that same function.
On labour-sponsored venture funds, in 2010 the Province of Ontario announced it was phasing out its tax credit for labour-sponsored venture funds by 2014. Many of those funds are no longer attracting the capital they need to continue as labour-sponsored funds, and the fund administrators have asked that they become mutual funds. However, the Income Tax Act imposes some severe federal penalties for making that switch. Bill C-48 would waive those penalties in recognition of the Ontario government's change. It would also allow shareholders to sell their shares to other investors instead of back to the fund.
 Finally, on airlines, provinces and taxes, this clarifies the allocation of miles flown over certain territorial waters for the purpose of provincial taxation.
As we will see from that list, none of those items is likely to make a headline, but cumulatively, when added together, the absence of such provisions in our income tax law adds complexity and costs and reduces the competitiveness of the Canadian economy. That is why the Liberal Party, while supporting this bill, would also make a plea to the government that the next such housecleaning bill be introduced in the House approximately one year from today.
Mr. Colin Carrie (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, CPC): Mr. Speaker, from my colleague's speech, I take it that it is a certainty that he will be supporting the Conservatives in moving forward with these amendments to close loopholes. However, I am wondering if he could clarify the position of the Liberal Party.
His colleague from Kings—Hants, I believe, put through 3,000 amendments. Some of the amendments would actually stop us from closing some of these loopholes. In the best interests of Canadians, would he clarify what the Liberal position is? Would he and the Liberal Party be working with us to make sure that this is expedited and moved through as quickly as possible?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member would have to consult the member for Kings—Hants to get clarification on that point. 
My own view is that these measures are far too late, perhaps 11 years too late. My view is that if they can be passed, they should be passed as quickly as possible. As I also said, I hope we have another much smaller set of technical amendments, perhaps a year from now.
Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, NDP): Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are certainly interested in closing tax loopholes. I was very interested in the parliamentary secretary's comments on amendments introduced by the Liberals that might prevent us from closing tax loopholes. 
The hon. member talks about this being 11 years late. However, during the first five and a half years of that 11 years, his party was in government, and I believe that he was a minister. If he believes that these should be introduced every year, what happened during those five years when the Liberals were in government? 
It is important that we update our tax code and that businesses have a clear idea of what is expected.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that the Liberal governments of the past were in every respect 100% perfect. However, I think we were certainly much better on this issue than the current government, because we introduced changes that took effect in 2001 and other changes that would have taken effect under a Liberal government in 2005. When we were defeated, the Conservatives took over those changes, and they dropped the ball until today. 
I think there is scope for improvement on the part of all Canadian governments. I do not think any of them have brought in changes as frequently as once per year. In the intervening time, since the Auditor General's report of 2009 and the accountants' reports I quoted earlier, it has become clearer to all that once per year would be the ideal frequency of these housekeeping bills.
Mr. Hoang Mai (Brossard—La Prairie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will continue in the same vein as the hon. member opposite.
In committee, the Liberals moved amendments to try to delay the application of the rules to close the loopholes.
My Liberal colleague said that the Liberal governments of the past were not perfect—clearly not. However, it is strange to listen to them talk out of both sides of their mouths. Today, they are saying that they want to close the loopholes, but they are not doing so. What is more, when they were in power, they did nothing to stop tax evasion or simplify taxes.
The Liberals often say that taxes need to be simplified and that nothing has been done since the Carter commission. Why did they not do anything about tax simplification and tax evasion when they were in power?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we passed a tax housecleaning bill in 2001, and we drafted a second bill in 2005.
We tried, but then the Conservatives took power. The Conservatives have now been in office for seven or eight years, and it took them that long to introduce a bill in the House. That is far too long.
Ms. Hélène LeBlanc (LaSalle—Émard, NDP): Mr. Speaker, since we are all wondering about it, I would like to ask my colleague how it is that he is proposing an annual review.
Could he explain why? Could he explain the background on this? How is it that this was not done between 2001 and 2007-08? Are there really problems? Is it realistic for him to request annual reviews? Can he explain why this was not done under the Liberal government?
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the idea of annual bills even existed before 2009, and we were not in power at that time. Accountants had the idea.
As far as I know, no one made that suggestion when we were in office. It is a much more recent thing. Given the problems that this 12-year delay is causing for us today, this would be a feasible and practical reform, even though no one did things this way in the past. This is a relatively new idea that we can examine in the future.
Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I do not want to belabour the point about what the Liberals did when they were in power. That was a while ago, and it will be a lot longer before they have the opportunity to not do things. I think we will all be better off for that.
I want to ask the member, who spoke quite eloquently about what the Conservatives have not done, a question. I do not disagree with the member and will make some of the same points myself later on this morning when I have the opportunity to speak to this bill.
In response to an earlier question, I noted that he said that the Conservatives had not moved on the need for annual updates and annual legislation to update the tax regime since 2001. In fact, we have had Auditor General reports. We have had submissions from tax experts, certified general accountants, before the finance committee for many years. They have advocated just that thing.
I wonder if the member could perhaps explain why it is that his government failed when it had the opportunity. I know that it will be the last opportunity for many years. Perhaps the member could try to give us a better explanation of why the Liberals were not able to move forward. That will help us in weighing the veracity of their complaints against this government.
[Interjection]
John McCallum: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the hon. member's first statement that it has been some years since the Liberals were in government. I think his second statement that it will be many years before that happens again reflects a certain arrogance in the assumption made by some members of the NDP that they have God's will to become the next government. On that point, I disagree.
It is my understanding, and I might be wrong, that this proposal for annual housecleaning bills began after we ceased to be the government, which was from 2006 onwards. I know that the quotes I read were from 2009, 2010 and 2012. It is possible that such recommendations were made before 2006. I do not deny it, if that is true. I am simply not aware that this was the case.
Ms. Rosane Doré Lefebvre (Alfred-Pellan, NDP): Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord.
I am rising in this House today to speak to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation. This bill affects many pieces of legislation.
We in the NDP believe that this bill will have a positive impact on revenues and will generally discourage tax avoidance. Frankly, a technical tax bill was overdue. I am pleased to see that Parts 2 and 3 of Bill C-48 deal with the taxation of Canadian multinational corporations with foreign affiliates. These changes reflect the proposals made in the budgets of 2007, December 2009, February 2010, August 2010 and August 2011, and I am pleased to see that they seek to ensure the integrity of the tax system and discourage tax avoidance.
The NDP is in favour of cracking down on tax evasion and tax avoidance. That is why my colleagues at the Standing Committee on Finance have been pushing the committee to complete its study on this.
As an aside, I want to thank our official opposition finance critics: the senior critic, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park, and the deputy critic, the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques. Over the past few months, they have done tremendous work on finance bills, including the omnibus budget bills and the current omnibus tax bill. I thank them. Their work is much appreciated, and it helps us to better understand the bills that are being introduced.
I am also pleased to see that this bill makes changes in order to reduce tax evasion. What is more, it seems that the committee will continue its study on the matter this year.
It is quite something to think that it has been 11 years since a bill like this has been passed. Tax practitioners have said time and again that Canada is very far behind because this government has taken too long to legislate these technical changes.
In a report released in 2009, Auditor General Sheila Fraser noted that: 
 If proposed technical changes are not tabled regularly, the volume of amendments becomes difficult for taxpayers, tax practitioners, and parliamentarians to absorb when they are grouped into a large package. 
We could also see that the Department of Finance Canada had at least 400 technical amendments that, unfortunately, had not been enacted. I believe it is crucial that this type of delay does not happen again.
I also agree with the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, which, during prebudget consultations, proposed to the Standing Committee on Finance that Canada's tax system be modernized to make it simpler, more transparent and more efficient. The association also proposed that a technical tax bill be introduced and passed to deal with unlegislated tax proposals. Finally it suggested that a sunset provision be implemented to prevent further legislative backlogs.
It is also true that the complexity of tax legislation makes this task extremely difficult. Our seniors, our youth and those who do not consider French or English as their first language would obviously prefer a simpler system that is easier to understand. Being a responsible, honest Canadian should not be so complicated.
This huge bill makes things even more complex. We know that this government is a great believer in omnibus bills, as it has demonstrated over the past year with Bills C-38 and C-45. Luckily, this time, I can see that the bill proposes technical amendments to a small number of closely related laws and not laws in other areas. The other two bills, on the other hand, amended laws related to environmental protection, government accountability, immigration, employment insurance and so on.
I still find it ironic that this government is introducing a bill that is so long when it did not hesitate to denounce such a practice before.
During the debate on Bill C-22, Income Tax Amendments Act, 2000, in the 37th Parliament in 2001, my colleague from Calgary Southeast, who is now the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, had this to say:
 Let me say at the outset that the bill before us is a classic example of what has gone wrong with parliamentary oversight of legislation, particularly with respect to taxation. The bill before us has some 513 pages of technical amendments. I can say with a fair degree certainty that not a single member of this place, let alone the parliamentary secretary who just spoke or the minister he represents, has read or will read. It is a bill that exercises enormous power over the lives of Canadians through the Income Tax Act which in itself has coercive powers delegated to it by this parliament. The some 500 pages of amendments in the bill are amendments to a tax act which runs over 1,300 pages long. 
I think the same observations apply to Bill C-48, especially since it is twice as long as Bill C-22.
I believe that Canadians deserve to be represented by parliamentarians who make sensible decisions when it comes to taxes and spending. Canadians want accountability, and rightly so.
When we see things like the Parliamentary Budget Officer having to take the government to court to get information about how tax dollars are being spent and what cuts are being made to the services Canadians need, I think the public is entitled to ask some questions and to admit that they have lost confidence in this government. 
Out of respect for Canadians, a government should be accountable and transparent. Frankly, that should be the very least they can expect.
Since I was first elected, not a day goes by without someone from my riding of Alfred-Pellan contacting me to share their concerns about this government. They are worried about how transparent it is, and if you ask me, they are right to be worried. 
In closing, I am thrilled that this bill has been introduced, even though it took a while, because it implements over a decade's worth of highly technical changes to Canada's tax system.
Before I finish, I want to reiterate that the people of Alfred-Pellan contact me often about the omnibus bills. I recently received letters from some of them that I would like to share in the House so that everyone can understand that the public does follow what is going on in Parliament and that it is important to listen to them.
I will quote some of my constituents from Alfred-Pellan. First, Mr. Nadeau said that the Conservative Party is running the country with its own members in mind, and Mr. Nadeau is against the massive bills introduced by the Conservatives. According to him, they are using these bills to try to push through all of their ideas en masse, and it is very sad to see these bills being introduced. 
Mr. Prejent said that it is impossible, or at least very difficult, to meaningfully challenge a particular issue. It is becoming clear that this approach allows the government to pull a fast one on the opposition, and by extension the Canadian public. 
To Mr. Prejent, I would say that the Canadian public is not affected by extension. This affects the Canadian public directly and the opposition by extension. We see these kinds of things every day.
One of my other constituents, Mr. Jetté, is not happy about these omnibus bills. He said that the Conservatives should talk with the opposition before bringing in such bills, and that it is arrogant and a bit too self-serving not to. He apologized for saying such things, but it is what it is.
I also heard from Mr. Bergeron, who said it was unbelievable that in 2012, the government forgets and fails to listen to the Canadian people. 
People are not happy that such bills are being introduced, and I understand. I know how important these amendments can be, especially when things have dragged on and on with this government and also with the Liberals in the past. So it is important to deal with these issues, but we must be cautious. We must also ensure that these laws are useful to the public, because it is extremely complicated to make so many changes in one fell swoop. We must be cautious about the complexity of the law, especially when it comes to taxes.
I think that everyone, in all ridings, just wants to be able to properly fill out their tax returns. We need to give them the right tools. We must make their lives easier and make things as simple as possible.
As parliamentarians, we have a duty to ensure that Canadians trust their government and trust that it is transparent when it manages taxpayer money. Unfortunately that is not always the case with the current government. But I am happy to be part of a team that, in 2015, will show that it is possible to have a government that works fairly, efficiently and transparently.
Hoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech and also on the baby she is expecting.
My colleague has raised some very good points about the fact that the current government is introducing omnibus bills. 
In this case, these are important technical amendments relating to taxation. 
 Nevertheless, we are wondering why this has taken so long and why the government waited so long before introducing a technical bill. This kind of bill should actually be drafted on a regular basis. Furthermore, the fact that they waited so long has an impact on the government’s transparency and the public’s understanding of the bill.
 Does my colleague believe that this government is transparent with regard to its bills?
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie for his very accurate comments about the transparency of the Conservative government.
There is more to the story. The government often talks about how very responsible it is with regard to the economy and prosperity. So I find it sad that the Conservatives have taken so long to bring in tax measures, all the while claiming to be champions of the economy. However, I am pleased it is being done.
Regarding transparency, we could go over it again. This is precisely what angers my constituents in Alfred-Pellan. I assume that my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie has also noticed that his constituents feel the same way. 
People are angry about the lack of transparency. They get in touch with us every day to tell us about the government’s lack of transparency, primarily with regard to the omnibus bills that it brings in for the various budgets.
Unfortunately, there is a double standard here. It is a good thing that these measures are being introduced, but I still have many questions about the fact that the bill is omnibus in nature. 
It is sad to see that the Conservatives have to pass this kind of bill in order to get their message across.
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the NDP for finally taking this opportunity to think about Canadian taxpayers' pocketbooks.
Obviously we disagree on what we should be doing for Canadians. Our government lowered the GST, from 7% to 6% to 5%. The NDP voted against that. We have lowered taxes for Canadian families by $3,000 since we have been in government. We have actually cut taxes over 140 times. However, the NDP voted each and every time against that. 
Now it has new-found thoughts for Canadian's pocketbooks. If we look at its platform, the NDP has promised $65 billion in unfunded tax promises. These are promises for things it would do if it ever had the opportunity to form government. We know it has a $21 billion carbon tax, which is huge, but there is still a huge shortfall in income to pay for $65 billion in unfunded promises. Therefore, I was wondering, where is the NDP going to be making up the difference? Is it going to raise the GST too? Canadians would like to know where the NDP is going to come up with that difference, over $40 billion in unfunded promises. 
[Interjection]
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary.
As he knows, a budget involves choices. According to the latest study from the Department of Finance on the budgets presented by the different parties, the most balanced and the most reasonable budgets come from the NDP. Next come the ones presented by the Conservatives, and trailing far behind are the budgets by the Liberals, unfortunately.
Budgets involve choices. We can talk, for instance, about their attacks on employment insurance, the hidden taxes they pass on to consumers and the fees imposed on small businesses. We could talk for quite a while about that.
However, I find it interesting that we agree on the principle in the House today. It is nice to work together on a bill.
I hope this co-operation will continue during the committee’s consideration of the bill and that the Conservatives will listen to the official opposition, which does not just whine for the sake of whining. Constituents do not agree with the decisions being made by this government, and we represent them. The government must listen to Canadians.
Mr. Jonathan Tremblay (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, NDP): Mr. Speaker, to show support for my colleague following that last question from the government, I would like to say that we on this side will always oppose omnibus bills that directly attack the economies of our regions or certain segments of the population, even though an omnibus bill may contain some decent measures. There are always negative measures and, unfortunately, they overshadow the rest.
I am pleased to speak to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation.
Generally speaking, bills should not be this lengthy. But since it should have been introduced years ago, we can understand why it is so large. It contains amendments that should have been made long ago and that must be made now.
I would like to congratulate the minister on finally introducing this bill, given that the last time Parliament passed a technical tax bill was in 2001. I believe we can say that this is long overdue.
In her 2009 fall report, the Auditor General at the time, Sheila Fraser, said this:
 No income tax technical bill has been passed since 2001. Although the government has said that an annual technical bill of routine housekeeping amendments to the Act is desirable, this has not happened. As a result, the Department of Finance Canada has a backlog of at least 400 technical amendments that have not been enacted, including 250 “comfort letters” dating back to 1998, recommending changes that have not been legislated. 
How is it that the last technical tax bill was passed in 2001, when the government acknowledged the need to introduce such a bill every year? Perhaps those were simply meaningless words from the minister. It happens all the time with bills. This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened with a bill.
 A few months after he came to the position, the Minister of Finance introduced the first version of a bill to make technical reforms to the tax system. I say “introduced” rather than “enacted” for a reason.
 It was not possible to enact that bill, and not because it had not gone through all the necessary steps in the House; rather, it was because the government decided to throw everything out and prorogue the first session of the 39th Parliament, in 2007. The bill was reintroduced, but it must be noted that two elections and three prorogations later, no legislation has yet been enacted. 
 It is all very well to recognize that a bill like Bill C-48 needs to be introduced every year, but let us not forget to pass it. Let us hope that in the case of this bill, the Conservatives are not preparing us for another prorogation.
 Bill C-48 implements about 200 technical amendments to the tax system, spread over more than a decade. It is therefore essential that we pass it, because ultimately, these changes to the system will have a positive impact on revenues and will deter tax avoidance.
 We in the New Democrats have long spoken out against tax avoidance, unlike former governments. We believe that we must fight tax avoidance and tax evasion, while preserving the integrity of our tax system. For that reason, I will be supporting the changes made by this bill. It does not solve everything and we will have to do more to deal with tax evasion, but this kind of bill needs to be passed.
 I would now like to talk about how thick Bill C-48 is. In the last year and a half, we have learned how fond the Conservatives are of giving us a lot to read. But they do not give us figures, testimony, scientific studies or exhaustive data to read—just a lot of different laws in a single omnibus bill.
 It is not reasonable for one bill to lead to so many changes to so many laws. For once, at least, the laws are closely connected. I will therefore not accuse the minister of putting everything but the kitchen sink into one bill, this time.
 I simply want him to understand that if he had done his job properly and each year we had passed a bill like this one, we would not be having to consider a brick like this. The work of Parliament would then be much more effective, and more importantly, much more transparent, not to mention the fact that we would have a good administrator for a government. This government is unfortunately proving that the opposite is true.
 The massive size of the bill proves that there is still much work to be done in order to transpose these kinds of technical changes into legislation. If the job is not done, it will penalize the business community and complicate the process of the evaluation that Parliament must do.
 However, I would like to reassure the minister: he is not the only one to blame. He did introduce a similar bill in the past, but we might say that his boss did not think it important enough to be passed. He preferred to keep opening Parliament and shutting it down.
It is difficult for a bill of this magnitude to get through the whole legislative process. We must not forget that the Liberals are also partly responsible. They were in power for the first five years after the last such bill was passed in 2001. What is more, some Department of Finance comfort letters date back to 1998. I am not an accounting expert, but according to my calculations, fifteen years have passed since 1998. The government should have been doing this work regularly every year for a long time now.
There were also warnings when the Liberal government was in power. For example, Marlene Legare, former senior chief of the sales tax division of the Department of Finance, said the following when she appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce on September 20, 2000:
 Until now, the choice has probably been more in favour of combining measures so as to put forward fewer bills. I think the lesson that we learned from this experience is that it may be preferable to change the balance somewhat. That may mean putting forward smaller bills which would contain measures that would be enacted on a more timely basis. 
Yet, here we are 12 years after the most recent technical bill. The idea of a greater number of “smaller bills” does not apply here. At this very moment, as we debate this bill, there are still 200 more changes announced in comfort letters, which are agreements approved by Parliament. As everyone knows, in Canada, Parliament passes laws. That is the case even though we sometimes get the impression that some people would prefer that it be done another way.
Bill C-48 contains a number of positive changes. I would like to mention three changes that have not yet been pointed out by the government. First, some income tax restrictions have been removed to help labour-sponsored venture capital corporations address transition issues resulting from the elimination of the support program for such corporations.
Second, the formula for allocating the taxable income of air transportation companies has been changed to ensure that the income generated by taxing these companies is allocated to the provinces and territories where the company is permanently located.
 Finally, there is the implementation of a measure concerning the tax treatment of shares held by short-term residents, for the purposes of the air transportation tax, according to the comfort letters dated 2003 and 2007. The bill is not a step in the wrong direction. I simply want the minister to understand that in the future, it should not take so long to get this through.
To conclude my speech, I would like to quote Denis St.-Pierre, chair of the tax and fiscal policy advisory group of the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada:
 First, the government must introduce a technical tax amendments bill. The last time a technical tax bill was passed by Parliament was over 11 years ago. Literally hundreds of unlegislated tax amendments to the Income Tax Act—which I showed this committee last year by bringing the Income Tax Act, if you recall—have been proposed, but not yet enacted, which brings uncertainty and unpredictability to the process. Second, we strongly feel that implementing a sunset provision would ensure that tax amendments are legislated... 
 He went on to say that it was necessary and healthy for our economy to introduce amendments annually or on a regular basis.
Mrs. Sadia Groguhé (Saint-Lambert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech.
Unfortunately, the Conservatives took a long time writing these technical amendments into law. In a report tabled in 2009, the Auditor General at the time remarked that the Department of Finance had accumulated at least 400 technical amendments that were outstanding.
Can my colleague tell us about the actual scope of such a bill? 
[Interjection]
Jonathan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the actual scope of such a bill is important because legislation must be amended. The bill we have before us now is Bill C-48.
However, there is a problem because while this bill is being debated, other amendments that need to be passed pile up. This bill already contains a huge number of amendments. So, the process needs to be undertaken regularly. It is good for our economy and will combat tax avoidance. It is necessary and, in the future, it must be done every year.
Mrs. Shelly Glover (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have been listening carefully to my NDP colleague and I would like to know, in clear terms, how the NDP will vote on this bill. Moreover, I would like to know whether we can count on the NDP regarding the measures we have put forward to reduce Canadians' taxes.
Obviously, in the past, the NDP said that it wanted to increase the GST. Twice, the New Democrats voted against the cuts proposed by this government. However, today, things are clearer and the NDP members are perhaps ready to say that they will support tax cuts for Canadians.
[Interjection]
Jonathan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, the NDP will always be in favour of reducing the tax burden on Canadians. Still, we are talking here about all Canadians. It is not true that the NDP would decrease taxes on large corporations without requiring that they reinvest in their communities, as the Conservatives have done.
We can all agree that tax reductions were provided to large corporations without any conditions. They simply put the money in their banks. That was money belonging to the Canadian people, which has not been redistributed throughout the society and which is not making any contribution at all to the economy. That is not good economic management.
Hoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech.
When we talk about technical amendments to the Income Tax Act and other complex acts things are not always obvious, especially when the bill has some 1,000 pages. The issue is not necessarily the number of pages in the bill, but the fact that it has taken so long to be introduced. 
 When we talk about technical amendments, we know that it is a good idea, not only to clarify the law governing income tax and related matters, but also to reassure the entire business community.
 What does my colleague think about the government taking such a long time? This is really a long time, because the amendments in this bill date back to 2001, more than 10 years ago. What impact will this have on ensuring that the public is well aware of the bills that affect us all?
[Interjection]
Jonathan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, it tells me that up to now we have been governed by poor administrators who have created uncertainty in the economic sector and among the general public. If we suddenly bring in tons of amendments to the statutes that affect the economy, the transition will be much more difficult than if a few laws were changed each year.
Thus, we have some poor administrators and they must realize that there are important things to be done, and that a bill like this should be introduced at regular intervals, and not once a decade.

Statements by Members
Festival du VoyageurShelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, I am excited to return to Saint Boniface this afternoon for the start of our world-class winter celebration called Festival du Voyageur. 
This 10-day Métis and Franco-Manitoban event celebrates the joie de vivre of the voyageur and fur trade era. The Festival du Voyageur was founded in 1969 by a group of entrepreneurs from Saint Boniface and has become one of the premier annual celebrations in my home province of Manitoba.
People from around the world come to experience the Métis and Franco-Manitoban history, culture and dance.
 The festival includes snow sculptures, delicious French-Canadian food and Métis games. As a Métis woman, I am very proud to celebrate our roots along with the rest of the country. I invite everyone to put on a colourful sash and join me for a trip to the past, to discover the world of the voyageurs and the Métis fur trade. 
 I would like to send a huge thank-you to the organizers, volunteers and participants. 
Hey Ho! Meegwetch!
Government SpendingMr. Tarik Brahmi (Saint-Jean, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I recently had the very distinct privilege of awarding the Diamond Jubilee Medal to Michel Fecteau, the founder of SOS Richelieu, and to the mayors of five municipalities affected by the historic floods of the Richelieu River.
Ironically, at the same time, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence was saying, in a CBC broadcast:
We have the power to recoup costs, not only from the provinces and territories but also from other departments when the Department of National Defence provides them with a service.
That statement caused a public outcry in my constituency, which is located in a region that had already called in the army for help in 1998, during the ice storm. Quebeckers will categorically refuse to pay a second time, through their municipal and provincial taxes, for the assistance provided by the army, because they already paid for it once with their federal taxes.
This absurd proposal shows once again just how much the Conservatives improvise and then back down. More importantly, it shows how insensitive they are to the plight of flood victims who lost everything.
The Great LakesMr. Rick Dykstra (St. Catharines, CPC): Mr. Speaker, since Canada introduced new ballast water rules in 2006, there have been no new invasive species found in the Great Lakes. By taking a balanced approach, we have established a strong environmental record while helping the economy.
I am glad that the Great Lakes communities have advocated for a balanced approach to protecting our Great Lakes, unlike the proposed regulations that the state of New York abandoned last year.
Last year, Great Lakes communities in Canada and the United States, from Leamington, Ontario to Oswego, New York joined St. Catharines in calling for sensible and technologically achievable ballast water regulations.
As a member for a Great Lakes community, I call on the governments of Canada and the United States to do what is right and take a balanced approach to helping our communities promote jobs, economic growth, and the long-term environmental health of the Great Lakes' ecosystem.
Pink Shirt DayHon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind Canadians that Pink Shirt Day is Wednesday, February 27.
Pink Shirt Day started several years ago after a Nova Scotia high school student was bullied for wearing a pink polo shirt. The next day, many of his classmates showed up to school wearing pink shirts to stand up against bullying. The event has grown since then, and last year 6.4 million Canadians took part. 
We all know that bullying can be a major problem and, unfortunately, we know the devastating impacts it can have.
I would like to acknowledge the wonderful work done in promoting this day on Prince Edward Island by Joe Killorn, son of Dr. Leo Killorn, a man who certainly helped me get my life in order.
I am sure that my colleagues in the House will join me and encourage everyone across this country to take a stand against bullying.
Status of WomenMs. Michelle Rempel (Calgary Centre-North, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have made gains in Canada in electing more women to all levels of government across our country. However, as new communications media, such as Twitter, change how we talk to each other and as more women choose to run for office, we must continue to stand vigilant against sexist vitriol geared to objectifying and belittling women in office.
I want to congratulate Ms. Diamond Isinger for her blog project Madam Premier, the purpose of which is to shed light on these types of comments.
I also want to thank my colleagues in this place who have reached across party lines to stand up for one another and me when this type of language comes to their attention, which, sadly, still occurs with some frequency.
Judge us on our policy and judge us on our performance. On behalf of all of my colleagues, all of the women in my life who have supported me in this journey—and this one is for them—all the women who have fought for our right to be here and all the women I certainly hope will follow us to this place, I know that together we will not tolerate those who seek to belittle us based on our gender.
We should name it and shame it.
St. Anthony of Padua ChurchMr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to St. Anthony of Padua Church in Ottawa Centre, whose congregation is celebrating 100 years in 2013.
This beautiful church at Booth and Gladstone is a touchstone and a beloved landmark in Little Italy. It has survived two fires, and it holds a century's worth of memories. St. Anthony's has been at the heart of Ottawa's Italian-Canadian community, with its numerous parish associations, like the Sons of Italy, the Ladies' Aid and St. Anthony's soccer club. Who can forget Father Jerome who helped so many Italian immigrants settle in Ottawa during their first years in Canada?
I congratulate St. Anthony's clergy and staff, the Servite community and parishioners. We join them in celebrating 100 years of this proud Ottawa institution, and we look forward to the next 100 years.
Queen's Diamond Jubilee MedalMs. Kellie Leitch (Simcoe—Grey, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to recognize individuals in my riding of Simcoe—Grey who have demonstrated true community service and volunteerism, individuals who are receiving the Queen's Diamond Jubilee Medal. This commemorative medal is a way of Canada honouring Her Majesty's 60 years of service and serves to honour significant contributions by Canadians.
Camille-Marie Boucher, a member of the 3rd Canadian Ranger Patrol Group, has dedicated a significant amount of time advocating for first nation people in northern Ontario.
Second Lieutenant Daniel Copeland, a veteran of the Canadian armed forces, is a local businessman who spends extensive time with the Royal Canadian Air Cadets, Scouts Canada and the Alliston Volunteer Fire Fighters.
Honorary Colonel Kenneth Hedges has served in various regions around the world and was awarded the distinguished Polar Medal. He is a physician in northern Ontario and the Northwest Territories. He is currently a member of the Honourable Guard of the Grey and Simcoe Foresters.
These select individuals are a true testament to the service and dedication represented by Her Majesty. They have given so much to Simcoe—Grey and to our country. I want to congratulate them on this tremendous honour.
JusticeMs. Kerry-Lynne D. Findlay (Delta—Richmond East, CPC): Mr. Speaker, restoring the confidence of Canadians in our criminal justice system continues to be an ongoing priority for this government.
Ever since we were first elected in 2006, the government has passed over 30 measures aimed at keeping our streets and communities safe. These include ending early parole for murderers, tougher penalties for impaired driving, raising the age of consent, and eliminating the use of house arrest for serious crimes such as sexual assault and kidnapping.
According to the Department of Justice, between 1994 and 2004 the number of review board admissions increased by 50%. This is partly why we have introduced the not criminally responsible reform bill. We are acting to ensure that public safety is given paramount consideration. 
Canadians and victims have expressed significant concerns that such individuals could be released back into the community. We are taking action to ensure that public safety comes first. We will continue acting to strengthen Canada's justice system. I hope that for once we can count on the support of the opposition parties in our efforts to stand up for victims and all law-abiding Canadians.
Lunar New YearMr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House to bring to all members' attention the celebration of Lunar New Year by millions of Canadians. Among these, I want to pay particular tribute to Canadians of Chinese and Vietnamese descent, for whom this time of year is especially meaningful.
Chinese New Year and Vietnamese Tet represent more than 4,000 years of history. They are the grandest and most important festivals in these cultures. They are times of worship and gratitude, remembering ancestors and honouring family, and wishing good fortune, new beginnings and hope for the future.
This is the Year of the Snake. The snake symbolizes intelligence, capability, calmness, astuteness and wealth. As we wish these qualities for every Canadian, let us also hope that these may characterize our deliberations in the House.
I want to thank all of those who celebrate Lunar New Year for sharing this wonderful festival with all Canadians. Their gifts of culture enrich our nation.
2013 Scotties Tournament of HeartsMr. Daryl Kramp (Prince Edward—Hastings, CPC): Mr. Speaker, rock on.
This weekend, Kingston Ontario's K-Rock Centre will be host to a different kind of rock as Canada's best women curlers compete at the national curling championships, better known as the Scotties Tournament of Hearts.
I know that Canadians from all across the country will be watching as defending champion Heather Nedohin's team faces challenges from the likes of Manitoba's Jennifer Jones, Nova Scotia's Colleen Jones, and from my own home province of Ontario, one of the top young exciting teams in the tournament, skipped by Rachel Homan, who hope to continue their own success following their undefeated roll through the Ontario women's championships last month.
It will not take long for Team Ontario to show that Homan is where the heart is, as they hurry hard to victory, but of course I know that all of us here in the House wish all of the teams from across the country the best of luck. We know that whoever wins the Scotties will represent us all well at the 2013 worlds in Latvia.
Women and PoliticsRosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, although women represent 50% of the population, their participation in our political institutions often remains marginal. In our federal Parliament, for instance, out of a possible 306 seats, only 76 women were elected on May 2, 2011.
The Table de concertation de Laval en condition féminine, or TCLCF, has been examining this issue. Do women have their rightful place in politics? Can women in politics really change the world? 
Like the inspiring women in Laval who have been debating these issues, I say “yes”. In Laval, we have some wonderful examples of influential women who care deeply about their community.
The TCLCF decided to shed some light on political life for these women through some informative workshops. I had the good fortune of meeting many participants and sharing my own story.
I learned recently that many of these women have decided to run in the next municipal election as a result of these workshops. I wish them all the best of luck, because we need more women at every level of government.
I wish to thank the TCLCF for igniting these passions. As Eleanor Roosevelt said, the future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.
National Flag of Canada DayMr. John Williamson (New Brunswick Southwest, CPC): Mr. Speaker, today marks the 48th anniversary of Canada's national flag, our distinctive red and white maple leaf. On this day in 1965, it was raised over Parliament Hill and hundreds of communities across Canada.
Our flag, and all it represents, is cherished by Canadians and admired by people in every corner of the world as a symbol of freedom, democracy and human rights. 
The National Flag of Canada Day provides us with a unique opportunity to reflect on what it means to be Canadian and to acknowledge the people, accomplishments, history, institutions and values that have helped shape our national identity.
As we approach Canada's 150th birthday in 2017, let us continue to celebrate all the things that make Canada a united, strong and free country, the country we enjoy living in today. I encourage Canadians to join together to celebrate this treasured national symbol on National Flag of Canada Day, today and every day.
Hon. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in September 1964, Prime Minister Pearson and opposition leader Diefenbaker agreed on the creation of a special committee on the flag. On October 29, the committee tabled a report with a recommended option. A lengthy and vigorous debate ensued. At 2:15 a.m. on December 15, a free vote was held in the House. The result was 163 for and 78 against. A royal proclamation was given on January 28, 1965 and on February 15, 1965, 48 years ago today, our beautiful flag was first raised over Parliament Hill and across the country. 
Prime Minister Pearson firmly believed that the adoption of a new flag would strengthen national unity. He was right. We love our flag and proudly fly it in front of our homes, schools, community centres, hospitals, government offices and just about everywhere. 
One of the members of the multi-party parliamentary committee on the flag was John Ross Matheson, a former Liberal member of the House. Mr. Matheson is now 95 and lives in Kingston, Ontario. We thank him and all those involved in giving us such a powerful and respected symbol.
TaxationMrs. Susan Truppe (London North Centre, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we made a promise to Canadians in 2006. We promised to lower taxes, and that is exactly what we have done. We lowered the GST by 2% and introduced countless tax credits. Thanks to our measures, Canadian families now have $3,000 more in their pockets each and every year. 
Our government will continue with our low-tax plan for jobs and growth. We will continue to deliver on our promises and ensure that Canadians keep more of their own money. 
In contrast, the NDP leader made a promise in his platform to impose a carbon tax that would generate billions, a carbon tax that would raise the price of everything Canadian families pay for. 
We delivered on our promise to keep taxes low. Will the NDP deliver on its promise and implement a hefty carbon tax that would cost Canadians billions, hurt families and damage the economy?
The SenateMs. Élaine Michaud (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when the former Reformers look in the mirror and see Liberals, they must feel a little queasy.
In the 1990s they were on their high horses, calling for change in Ottawa. There were too many partisan appointments, too many members of Parliament taking liberties. There was too much of the Liberal culture of entitlement, not to mention their aversion to the Senate.
“Too expensive,” said some. “Undemocratic,” added others. “A relic of the 19th century”, added the Prime Minister, who was an ordinary member of Parliament at the time and still had some principles. 
 Alas, many years later, they have settled in comfortably and their principles have flown out the window. Now they fight tooth and nail in defence of Senator Wallin and her enormous spending—at taxpayers' expense—on travel to campaign for the Conservative Party.
The senator from Nunavut has a phony residence, but he is exempt because the Senate is a “complex file with many facets”. No wonder even Conservative Senator Hugh Segal is calling for a referendum on the future of the Senate. He admits himself that the Senate has no legitimacy. 
 We in the NDP are clear: we will abolish the Senate. And, unlike the Conservatives, we will keep our promise.
Leader of the New Democratic Party of CanadaMr. Richard Harris (Cariboo—Prince George, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the NDP is full of contradictions. The leader of the NDP says he supports western Canadians, but then turns around and calls the industries they work in a disease. The NDP claims to support trade, but it has opposed every single free trade deal brought forward by our government and even sent an anti-trade mission to Washington to advocate against Canadian jobs.
Yesterday it tried to claim that it was standing up for Canadian taxpayers, but the NDP has a plan to impose a new $20-billion carbon tax on everything. The NDP leader's new job-killing carbon tax will raise the price of gas, groceries and electricity. This new NDP leader's job-killing carbon tax will kill jobs and stall the economy.
Our government will stand up against the NDP leader's job-killing tax, and we will continue to lower taxes for all Canadians.

Oral Questions
The EnvironmentSadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of the Environment said for the umpteenth time in seven years that greenhouse gas emissions regulations for the oil sector will be announced soon.
The Conservatives made the same promise in 2011.
Therefore, it is not surprising that Canadians and our largest trading partner, the United States, have doubts about whether the Conservative government really intends to fight climate change. 
When exactly will the regulations go into effect? How much will it cost businesses to comply?
Hon. James Moore (Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this has already been put on the table. We have already implemented reforms to protect our environment and the climate. Our government has policies to combat this global problem.
However, we are against the NDP's proposal to create a new $21 billion carbon tax. It is right there in black and white in the NDP platform. We are against it. Our reforms and policies have already met with success.
Just today, we announced new programs to combat greenhouse gas emissions across Canada that will build on our success.
The EconomySadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, when promises are made but not kept, people lose confidence.
The latest economic data from the manufacturing sector are extremely disturbing. It is reported that the sector has declined by 3.1%, and that will cause considerable downward pressure on our GDP.
Eighty-two per cent of businesses report a drop in sales. They are losing $1.5 million a month. That is the largest drop since the 2009 recession.
When will there be a growth plan for all economic sectors?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, we already have put real programs on the table—real programs, real policies and real investments in our economy. And we have had real success.
As an example, here is what the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters said about our programs: “The government's policies with respect to taxes, technology, trade, training and transformation are extremely important at setting the stage for growth of advanced manufacturing industries in Canada.”
We have put our programs on the table. We have had success. We are creating jobs in every part of the country because we ignore the NDP's suggestions that run counter to the needs of our economy.
The EnvironmentMr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): The result, Mr. Speaker, is that 300,000 more Canadians are looking for work. Canadians deserve better than that.
The government has been repeatedly warned that failing to protect the environment will have economic costs. Now it is being challenged by our closest ally to take action on climate change.
How many jobs will Canadians miss out on while Conservatives get their act together? How many countries will shut their doors to our resources because of the government's irresponsible policies? When will the Conservatives stop stalling, defend the Canadian interest and take real, effective action on climate change?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, of course we have taken action on climate change, and as a matter of fact, we are already halfway toward our goal to reduce emissions by 17% for 2020. The action is before us. As a matter of fact, the Commissioner of the Environment made very clear testimony about the fact that he has confidence in our government's approach.
What Canadians do not have confidence in, of course, though, is the NDP way, and we know what the NDP way is, which is to tax and to regulate into the ground industries and whole economies of this country. We know that the leader of the NDP thinks that Alberta's energy sector is a disease in the country. We know that the NDP supports a carbon tax. We will continue to fight them and stand up for the environment at the same time.
Peter Julian: The NDP way is to get the job done, Mr. Speaker.
What the Conservatives have done against the environment, they are doing against manufacturing. This government has been the worst government in our nation's history for loss of manufacturing jobs. They have lost 500,000 family-sustaining jobs on their watch. The latest figures are even worse: a 3.1% further decline in manufacturing sales. That is the largest decline since May 2009.
Will they start fixing what they have broken? Will they change their policies in the next budget to get back the manufacturing jobs they have lost?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, what we will do in our budget is what we have done in our previous budgets, of course, which have seen success for the Canadian economy.
I do not know where he gets his job numbers from, but the truth, through Stats Canada, is that the Canadian economy has created 900,000 net new jobs since the worst part of the recession. Our plan is working.
When he talks about the manufacturing sector, here is what the Canadian Manufacturers &amp; Exporters Association has said:
 The government's policies with respect to taxes, technology, trade, training, and transformation are extremely important in setting the stage for growth of advanced manufacturing industries in Canada. 
They are the experts. They agree with us. The NDP members do not know what they are talking about.
EthicsPeter Julian: Mr. Speaker, Canadians know what they are talking about. While they are losing their jobs, the Conservatives' never-ending gravy train in the Senate is continuing. After Senator Duffy and Senator Wallin, now Senator Patterson, of Nunavut, cannot say where he lives. He calls it a complex matter with many facets. It is not complicated. He is required to live in Nunavut, yet he claimed a homeowner's grant for B.C. residence. 
It is a simple question of disclosure. Will the government now demand the disclosure of already completed audits into the expenses of Senator Wallin, Senator Duffy and other senators?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, Senator Patterson is a former territorial premier. He is a former MLA for Iqaluit. He, in fact, was involved in a 20-year fight to create the territory of Nunavut. Northerners know that he is a northerner. He has a residence in the territory. He has fought long and hard, indeed, for the people of the north. He always has. 
However, what is really laughable is not just this attack on Senator Patterson but also, frankly, the NDP's approach to Senate reform, which is to express a sentiment but to have no plan whatsoever. They have never tabled reforms before the House. They have opposed all of our reforms. They do not even run candidates in Senate elections when we hold them in Alberta, and now they pretend to actually have a plan. It is truly laughable.
Government ServicesHon. Dominic LeBlanc (Beauséjour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' mismanagement of the economy is having a real impact on all Canadians. Whether it be the closing of immigration and Service Canada offices or unacceptably long telephone wait times to discuss income taxes, all Canadians are being hurt by these Conservative decisions. Now we hear that regional post offices may be closing. Even more Canadians will be paying the price.
Why must so many people suffer because of the Conservatives' financial incompetence?
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians want our government's top priority to be the economy. That is why, 18 months ago, Canadians elected our government, a majority government that has made the economy its main concern.
And we have already had some success: 900,000 net new jobs have been created, at the lowest point of the recession. Our government is focusing on the economy to provide Canadians with the services they need. We will continue focusing on the economy and on reducing taxes in our next budget. In that way, we will be able to have a strong economy, which is necessary in order to provide services, where people need them, in the regions.
Canada Post CorporationDominic LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the minister forgot to mention rural post offices. Whether it is the closing of immigration offices, Service Canada offices, or unacceptable wait times people face to try to talk to someone on the phone at Revenue Canada, Canadians are being punished by Conservative economic mismanagement. 
We now learn that rural post offices in communities like Bayfield, New Brunswick, which I represent—the minister would know it well; it is close to the Confederation Bridge, which goes from New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island—are now threatened by further cuts from the Conservative government.
Will the minister stand and say that they will maintain Jean Chrétien's moratorium of 1994—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage.
James Moore: Mr. Speaker, we, of course, understand the importance of having a strong economy. It is so we can have those essential services on which Canadians rely, but there are two important pieces of information here that my colleague is neglecting to mention in the House. 
First of all, usage of the post offices is down by 20%, just in very recent years. On top of that, Canada Post, just last year, lost $250 million. These are services where there is a differing relationship between Canadians and the service over time. We want to make sure the service is there for Canadians when and where they need it, but we also want to make sure that service is done in a way that is reflective of the needs of the regions and is maintained at a level that is, of course, corresponding to demand.
Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are hearing from the minister the government's favourite line: Blame somebody else. The fact of the matter is that Canada Post is taking its lead from the government. It is piling up debt, running deficits and now cutting services. 
Instead of ministerial spin, will the minister just admit that the government is discussing closing rural post offices? Will the post office be in Hunter River? Will it be in Cavendish, the alleged address of Senator Duffy, or maybe will the one to be cut be in Bonshaw?
Why should Canadians who depend on Canada Post pay for the financial incompetence of the government with closed rural post offices?
Hon. Steven Fletcher (Minister of State (Transport), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the only incompetence that is present is the logic behind that question. Our government is committed to universal, effective, economic and reliable postal service for all Canadians. That is why we introduced the new Canadian postal service charter. We are protecting rural mail delivery by banning the closure of rural post offices.
Foreign AffairsPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Minister of Foreign Affairs was asked directly whether the government had been asked to extend the C-17 deployment in Mali. He replied, “Not at this time”. Then yesterday, the Minister of National Defence told reporters that in fact Canada had received such a request “a few days ago”. Not consulting properly before announcing decisions is a worrying tendency by the government.
I have a very simple question. Why did the minister fail to inform the committee about this request?
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in response to direct requests from the French government, Canada has provided heavy lift aircraft and we have extended the support until March 15. Parliamentary hearings have been taking place where some witnesses have suggested that there be a Canadian combat mission. Let me be very clear that this government is not considering a combat mission and neither would it train Malian forces.
Citizenship and ImmigrationPaul Dewar: Mr. Speaker, we are just asking for a little communication on this side.
Over 70,000 people have been killed in the Syrian war and 400,000 are living in refugee camps. As war rages, Syrian Canadians have asked the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism for a meeting hundreds of times, but the minister has stonewalled them. None of us in the House would want our families left in these conditions. 
It is a simple request. Will the minister meet with representatives from the Syrian Canadian community?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have to look too far down the list of things the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism has committed to on a weekly basis. Every single weekend he is out and meeting with people in communities at all ends of this country. If a meeting is required and it needs to happen, there is no other minister who is prepared to sit down, listen and work with those in need and who in fact need to sit down with him.
Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the situation in Syria is worsening every day.
Many Syrians have even risked their lives to escape Syria and are now spending the winter in overcrowded refugee camps. Canadians of Syrian origin are concerned that members of their family are caught up in this conflict.
The government agreed to expedite the reunification of Syrian families weeks ago.
Why have no real measures yet been taken to address this matter?
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, if we are going to talk about the file in respect to immigration, let us look at Bill C-31 in terms of the refugee reforms in this country, or Bill C-43, the faster removal of foreign criminals act. We can look at the work that has been done within this ministry time and time again to get backlogs down to ensure that those who have high skills and need to work in this country are going to get here on a much faster basis. All of those backlogs are down. We are doing what is right for the Canadian economy in terms of how we are focused on immigration and we are going to continue to do that.
EthicsMr. Alain Giguère (Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are trying to downplay the Senate expenses scandal, but Senator Wallin's $350,000 in travel expenses would be enough to pay old age security for some 50 Canadians.
Of the entire group of unelected and illegitimate senators, she is the one who wastes the most money on travel “other” than between her pseudo-residence and Ottawa.
Will the Conservatives continue to defend the $25,000 she took from taxpayers to campaign in 2011?
Do they know what they are? They are just a bunch of Liberals.
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to talk about elections because we have a bill that provides for elections to select senators.
Unfortunately, the NDP is opposed to this plan. At every opportunity, it tries to stop our plan to democratize the Senate. If the NDP is serious about reform, let it support our bill for real Senate reform.
The SenateTarik Brahmi: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives may continue defending their senator friends and their indecent privileges. We in the NDP will continue defending Canadians.
The situation has become so serious that even a Conservative senator is calling for a referendum on the future of the Senate. Senator Segal says he has too much power and no legitimacy.
It is hard not to come around to the NDP's arguments when you see the repeated abuses.
What will the government do to stop this annual waste of $90 million?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says the NDP is on the side of Canadians. However, it will not even let Canadians have a say in who represents them in the Senate.
 We have legislation before this House that it has opposed at every opportunity, to let Canadians pick who represents them in the Senate. Yet, the NDP has ensured it does not pass and does not get adopted.
I call upon the NDP, if it is serious about respecting Canadians, if it is serious about reforms, if it is serious about seeing a better Senate, to support our reform proposals to democratize and deliver a truly accountable Senate, one that Canadians choose.
EthicsHoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, once again the Conservatives will continue to defend their privileged Senate friends, and we will continue to defend all Canadian taxpayers.
A few days ago, Conservative senators stated categorically that they would not make public reports on the excessive expenses of some senators in the so-called upper house. However, they have ultimately changed their minds to avoid disaster.
Will the government ensure that the Senate tables all previous reports on spending abuses, particularly those of Senator Wallin?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the government expects that the results of the reviews that are taking place, and the audits, will of course be disclosed publicly.
However, the question is why the NDP stands here and postures that it is defending Canadians when it does not even trust Canadians to have a say in who represents them in the Senate. It has a bogus plan that it knows it cannot pass. The last time it had an opportunity, when it was in coalition discussions, it was planning who to appoint to the Senate.
We have been appointing people who have been elected. We have legislation to get more people elected to the Senate, to give Canadians a say in who represents them and to deliver a truly accountable Senate, but the NDP stands against it every step of the way.
Mr. Mathieu Ravignat (Pontiac, NDP): Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives defend the privileges of their unelected and unaccountable senators, we in the NDP will defend taxpayers.
The most recent senator to abuse the system is Senator Patterson, who is supposed to represent Nunavut. According to media reports, he in fact appears to live in Vancouver. He explained the situation by saying, and I quote, “This is a complex matter with many facets.”
Did the Conservatives know this senator was not living in Nunavut? Will they make public the previous expense review reports on their senators? A little accountability and transparency, please.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The Hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, apparently the NDP does not know too much about Nunavut. If they did, they would know that Senator Patterson is actually a former territorial premier; that he fought to establish the creation of Nunavut; that he represented, as an MLA, the constituency of Iqaluit and that he has a residence in Iqaluit. This is what the NDP thinks is unacceptable.
What we think is unacceptable is the NDP effort to resist reform that would deliver a truly democratized, accountable and reformed Senate. It has resisted every step of the way. It should instead support our reasonable practical reforms to let Canadians choose who is representing them in the Senate so that they are truly accountable to Canadians.
Mr. Dan Harris (Scarborough Southwest, NDP): Mr. Speaker, to quote Senator Hugh Segal, “The reason you get collective judgment about all senators is because...the body itself does not have core legitimacy”.
Four out of five senators under investigation were appointed by the current Prime Minister. Four out of five dentists will tell us that rinsing will not get that bad taste out of our mouth. 
Why are Conservatives defending a $90 million institution that even senators are calling illegitimate? When will they get our money back?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, there is right now only one proposal before this House of Commons to reform the Senate. In fact, in the last three Parliaments there has only been one proposal, a proposal from the Conservative Party of Canada.
The NDP has simply resisted that effort to democratize the Senate, every step of the way. If it wants to know why we have an unelected Senate that is not as accountable as it should be, they are the reason. They have blocked an elected Senate. They have blocked an accountable Senate.
Dan Harris: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has appointed more senators than Brian Mulroney. That is the Conservatives' record.
I guess senator Dennis Patterson forgot to read Mike Duffy's book, “A Quick Exit Through Kitchens for Dummies”, because he was cornered in a room with no exits. When asked point blank where he lived, he replied, “It is a complex matter with many facets”.
How many more complex senators is the Prime Minister hiding and when will he get our money back?
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, the track record of the Prime Minister is clear. Where every opportunity has presented itself, he has appointed a senator elected by Canadians: Senator Brown, Senator Unger, and most recently Senator Black, from Alberta. In every case where that has happened we have taken action, and we have taken action with a real plan to reform the Senate to allow Canadians to have a say. 
The NDP does not think Canadians are mature enough to have a say in who represents them in the Senate. That is why the NDP does not trust Canadians to do that. That is why NDP members have opposed Senate reform legislation every step of the way. It is time for them to get serious. If they want to see reform, they should support our legislation. 
Fisheries and OceansLawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, DFO's new rules on muzzling science and restricting the release of information have sent shock waves throughout the country. Now the Conservatives are trying to silence American scientists, as well, on the giant Arctic project in the north. 
DFO's new publication procedures are an unprecedented measure of political control of information. This is unacceptable. When will the government learn that muzzling science and information is an absolute shameful action that will cause our country a lot of harm?
Mr. Randy Kamp (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Fisheries and Oceans is a science-based department. Our scientists give thousands of interviews a year and publish hundreds of papers, some of those in partnership with other non-DFO scientists. 
We understand that regional officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans advised scientists to seek approval before allowing external partners to publish articles that may include government intellectual property. That was done without political direction or the knowledge of the minister. 
Lawrence MacAulay: Mr. Speaker, for the scientists who are left at DFO after the government's fire sale, morale is at rock bottom. The department is in tatters, and stress and uncertainty are far too common. The timeline to implement the destructive Fisheries Act changes keeps getting pushed back because the staff is simply not equipped to deal with the government's agenda.
Will the government finally learn its lesson and reverse this destructive agenda?
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, no, we will not, because the common sense changes we are making to the Fisheries Act allow us to focus on commercial, aboriginal and recreational fishers in a way that the previous government was not able to do, and we are continuing on that path. 
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is not true. It is all about big business for this particular government.
Let us look at the turbot fishery. Last year, the turbot fishery was overfished by up to 60%. A major culprit, of course, was foreign overfishing. Now we have a situation where sources say that an agreement has been worked out between Ocean Choice International and a Japanese company, allowing it an international quota to be fished inside the 200-mile limit in 3K, which affects the smaller independent fishermen. 
Why is the government favouring big business over the smaller independent fishermen in 3K?
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, of course, none of that is true. 
I would be happy to relay those comments to the minister. However, the member will know that the changes that Canada has made to NAFO, for example, have strengthened our ability to combat overfishing. We are continuing to work in that area and are pleased with the results we have seen. 
Correctional Service CanadaRandall Garrison: Mr. Speaker, this week, at the ongoing inquest into the tragic death of Ashley Smith, correctional officers testified they were given orders from upper management not to intervene in Ashley's self-harm incidents because “there were too many use of force reports being filed”.
Since Corrections Canada ordered a policy change in July 2001, what has the Minister of Public Safety done to make sure necessary changes have been implemented so incidents like the death of Ashley Smith will never happen again?
Ms. Candice Bergen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. We are all very concerned and very saddened. We never want to see what happened to Ashley Smith happen again. We are in agreement with that. That is why our government has introduced changes.
 Correctional Services Canada has led the way in many of the changes it has made. We have ensured faster mental health screening. We have created a mental health strategy for prisoners. We have extended psychological counselling and we have improved staff training. 
Certainly there is more to do and we want to keep working on this together, but we have addressed the problem and we will continue to address this.
Public SafetyRosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives intend to do nothing about tragedies like the case of Ashley Smith.
 Major changes need to be made to the RCMP to address the issue of harassment and bullying. Yesterday, the report released by the RCMP public complaints commission confirmed the need for an independent and more transparent process in which members of both the RCMP and the public can have confidence.
 Will the minister follow the zero tolerance recommendations of the commission in order to create a healthy working environment that is fair for everyone?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, that hon. member is incorrect. We are all very concerned with what happened to Ashley Smith. It is despicable that she would have just made that comment. We never want to see that happen again.
In regard to the report the member mentioned, the report came out yesterday from the Commission for Public Complaints, the independent commission. We appreciate that report. It is good to note that this report shows there are not systemic harassment issues within the RCMP, but any kind of harassment or bullying would never be tolerated and should not be tolerated within the RCMP.
That is why we call on the opposition to support Bill C-42, which brings greater accountability and a process whereby the RCMP can deal with these kinds of issues.
Fisheries and OceansRobert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, on February 11, I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans a question about silencing scientists. He told me, “there has been no change in DFO policy with regard to scientists”. Now we learn that managers at DFO in fact emailed scientists on January 29, warning them to keep their mouths shut unless they had approval from DFO. Muzzling scientists is wrong; so is trying to mislead the House.
 I want to ask the minister to do the right thing, let scientists tell the truth to Canadians and apologize to the House.
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, DFO is a science-based department and it engages in science, some of that in partnership with other non-DFO scientists.
What happened in that case is regional officials at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans advised scientists to seek approval before allowing external partners to publish articles that might include government intellectual property. This was done without the minister's knowledge.
Ms. Laurin Liu (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Conservative efforts to muzzle scientists are so unacceptable that international scientists are now refusing to work with Canada.
American researchers, who have been working with us in the Arctic since 2003, are now required to agree to bizarre new policies prohibiting them from publishing their research without the minister's approval. They have rightly rejected this form of censorship.
When are the Conservatives going to stop hiding disturbing facts? When will they let the scientific discoveries speak for themselves?
Randy Kamp: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased with the fact that DFO is just one of our science-based departments that publishes hundreds of papers and gives thousands of interviews and lectures around the country.
In this case, as I have mentioned, when we partner with external scientists, then we need to ensure what the rules are with respect to the intellectual property that is the property of the crown.
The EnvironmentMr. Merv Tweed (Brandon—Souris, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there is smog of policy misinformation coming from the other side of the House.
After travelling to Washington to push the NDP's job-killing policies, the member for Halifax had the gall to stand in the House and ask what we were doing to reduce emissions and protect the environment. The NDP continues to deny its $21 billion carbon tax, despite all evidence to the contrary.
 Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment update us on the progress our government is making?
Michelle Rempel: Mr. Speaker, under the Liberals, greenhouse gas emissions rose by 30% and under the NDP, I am fairly certain that unemployment and tax rates would follow the same type of curve.
Today our government will table the federal sustainable development strategy report that shows our government is getting the job done when it comes to balancing environmental policy with economic growth. Air quality in Canada is among the best in the world. Our Great Lakes are on their way to being restored. Greenhouse gas emissions are being reduced.
We are making clear progress on environmental sustainability, while the NDP and Liberals continue to blow hot air.
Aerospace IndustryHélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, three months after the Emerson report on the aerospace industry was released, the Conservatives are still sitting on their hands. Even though the industry is losing steam in Canada, the Conservatives are doing nothing to create a long-term strategy. The fact is that the aerospace industry represents over 150,000 direct and indirect jobs. It has internationally recognized expertise and is a source of pride for our country.
The next budget is approaching. What concrete measures will the Minister of Industry be proposing to comply with the recommendations in the Emerson report and support the aerospace industry?
Hon. Christian Paradis (Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), CPC): Mr. Speaker, nothing could be more wrong. The reason we commissioned a report by Mr. Emerson was precisely to ensure that Canada could position itself and remain a world leader. Canada ranks fifth among the major aerospace manufacturers. Canada has a favourable tax environment and good support programs, such as SADI.
I urge the NDP, instead, to start working with us and abandon its absurd ideas, like the idea of a $21.5 billion carbon tax. That carbon tax would kill the aerospace industry; it would kill the manufacturing sector in general, and would have serious repercussions for Canadian families.
Employment InsuranceMs. Manon Perreault (Montcalm, NDP): Mr. Speaker, sometimes it is hard to find the grain of truth in these replies.
 According to the Service Canada guidelines, refusing employment can lead to disqualification from benefits. There are three types of refusal, including not taking advantage of an opportunity for employment. Situations of this type can include a contemplated move to another area or pregnancy.
 Can the minister explain why pregnancy can lead to being disqualified from benefits? 
Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, CPC): Mr. Speaker, there are several forms of employment insurance. The program includes benefits for new mothers and fathers. Those are the parental benefits. If there are no jobs in a region, employment insurance will be available for the unemployed, as always.
Jonathan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, unemployed people must have access to employment insurance.
The Conservatives are not content to lay waste to employment insurance; they are also leading the charge against workers in seasonal industries. The Service Canada guidelines force these workers to accept any kind of job under any conditions, even if that means they must abandon their seasonal employment. If they refuse, their benefits are cut off. We may be facing regional shortages of specialized workers.
Will the minister finally admit that her reform is an absolute disaster, both for the workers and for our regional economies?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. We want to help full-time workers and seasonal workers find other jobs. However, if there is no work in their field and in their region, employment insurance will be available, as always.
Mr. Pierre Jacob (Brome—Missisquoi, NDP): Mr. Speaker, not only do the Conservatives want to drag us backwards, not only do they not want to help us, but with employment insurance reform, pregnant women will be encouraged to lie to potential employers for fear of being seen to refuse employment and thus losing their benefits.
The Conservatives not only want to reopen the debate on abortion, they also want women to stay at home, just like in the good old days. That is not just discriminatory, it is despicable.
Can the Conservatives admit, once and for all, that there is nothing good about this reform?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing good about that question, since it contains no facts.
Maternity and parental benefits are still available to workers. What we are doing is helping people find new jobs. They are healthier when they work than when they do not work. However, if there is no work in their field and in their region, employment insurance will be available, as always.
Co-operativesMauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry recently made comments that may lead people to believe that the Business Development Bank of Canada, the BDC, is about to invest $10 million in a capital fund for co-operatives in Quebec, or that it has already invested that amount.
However, bank officials say that it is not the case, because the bank's current mandate does not allow them to invest in such a fund. The Senate has already proposed, in a report, a change to the bank's mandate. Bank officials would like the mandate to be changed, and co-operatives across the country would also like it.
My question is very simple: when will the BDC's mandate be reviewed and revised? 
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member raises the issue of co-operatives. We agree that co-operatives are an economic engine in our country, and that they create jobs. That is why we followed up on the report's findings and repatriated the co-operatives branch in the Department of Industry.
As for the BDC, it was a major player in the support plan, when the time came to inject accelerated funds, during the financial crisis. The BDC is still providing support. Funds are available, both for co-operatives and for technology. The BDC is undergoing a review process, which will be properly carried out, as it should. 
Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Speaker, this is empty rhetoric.
The question is on BDC's mandate. The act requires that the mandate be reviewed as of 2010. If I am not mistaken, the review process began in July 2010. Section 36(2) of the Business Development Bank of Canada Act provides that the minister must report to this House within one year after the review is undertaken. That was in July 2010 and this is now February 2013. It has been more than two years.
Therefore, why does the minister not comply with the legislated deadlines imposed on him? Why does he not comply with the law of Canada? 
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, many reforms and initiatives were announced in recent months. 
Canada is now positioning itself as one of the best countries, when it comes to the economy in general. We were the last to enter the recession and the first to come out of it.
Over 900,000 net new jobs were created since the recession. The BDC has indeed played a role in this. It continues to do so, and the review is ongoing.
Airline IndustryMr. José Nunez-Melo (Laval, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canada lags far behind the United States, Europe and Asia when it comes to protecting passengers against the shoddy practices of airline companies.
The bill on the air passengers' bill of rights would ensure that Canadians' vacations are not ruined by airline companies in the wrong. Some Conservative members have openly said that they will vote against the air passengers' bill of rights. 
Why are the Conservatives abandoning Canadian travellers?
Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we support a competitive system that serves the interests of passengers. We support a system that gives passengers a choice of airlines so they get better service and a good price at the same time.
The NDP is proposing a horrible regulation that will increase costs for passengers and workers in the industry.
I would add that the cost of fuel is also significant in this industry. Therefore, a carbon tax will also hurt passengers.
LabourDon Davies: Mr. Speaker, workers at the St. John's airport have been on strike for almost six months. They just won their case at the labour board, proving they are bargaining in good faith. Now they want their employer back at the bargaining table. 
With the Minister of Labour attending a management luncheon in St. John's today, will she interfere in yet another labour dispute by crossing a picket line at the St. John's airport or will she do the responsible thing and respect this legal strike at this critical time?
Kellie Leitch: Mr. Speaker, both I and the minister have been disappointed that we have not found an opportunity for these two parties to come together. The minister continues to monitor the circumstances and the federal mediator remains involved in assisting both parties in coming to a reasonable solution. We encourage both parties to work together to come to an accommodation in the best interests of Canadians and the Canadian economy.
Financial InstitutionsMr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to standing up for small businesses, especially in their dealings with credit card companies. That is why we introduced a code of conduct to ensure that small businesses and other merchants were treated fairly. The same goes for their customers.
 While the NDP voted against the code, we have continued to work with small businesses and retailers to ensure their voices are heard.
Could the Minister of State for Finance tell the House how the code continues to respond to the needs of small businesses?
Hon. Ted Menzies (Minister of State (Finance), CPC): Mr. Speaker, our government has released new guidelines to better protect small businesses from unfair trading practices when it comes to credit cards for merchant fees. We are committed to making this code flexible and responsive to the needs of small businesses.
 Let me read a quote from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business as it applauds this move. It states, “Going forward this is going to be a huge change. The saving for businesses is going to be massive”. 
However, shamefully, the New Democrats voted against the code. I am not sure what they were thinking when they were opposing small businessmen.
Veterans AffairsMr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Defence strangely claimed that he stood up for veterans against their own lawyers. Was he standing up for veterans when more than five years ago he refused to even negotiate for them? Was he standing up for veterans when he argued all the way to the Supreme Court that they should not even have the right to bring their case forward? Was he standing up for veterans when he fought them in Federal Court to deny their pensions and failed?
When the minister said that he was standing up for veterans, did he really mean he was standing up to them?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), CPC): Mr. Speaker, the minister was clear yesterday. As soon as the court decision was rendered, our government took action.
In January the government announced an $887 million agreement had been reached with the veterans' counsel, which we can all agree is a tremendous assistance to the veterans and their families. The government believes that legal fees of $66 million or $13,000 an hour is grossly excessive. We would rather have the money go to the veterans and their families.
TelecommunicationsMs. Charmaine Borg (Terrebonne—Blainville, NDP): Mr. Speaker, although the Conservatives have decided to scrap their horrible Bill C-30 on Internet snooping, we wonder if they will manage to plant their controversial measures in another bill.
Bill C-12 contains hidden measures that would allow the government to obtain personal information without judicial oversight.
If the Conservatives are really serious about abandoning their Internet snooping bill, then why did they not withdraw Bill C-12 as well?
Christian Paradis: Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, Bill C-12 will better protect the personal information of consumers.
We are trying to bolster consumer confidence in on-line shopping. Recommendations were made by the committee and we want to implement them quickly. If the NDP wants to vote immediately, we would be very pleased to move forward with this bill.
Foreign AffairsMr. Scott Armstrong (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the rogue state of North Korea has continued its provocative actions. They are truly a threat to international peace and security. Now we have credible reports that over 200,000 North Koreans are being held in political prison camps. There is no freedom in North Korea.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs please inform us whether Canada will support an international investigation into human rights abuses in North Korea?
Deepak Obhrai: Mr. Speaker, the situation in North Korea is appalling. Canada has raised concerns at the United Nations about the deplorable human rights situation in North Korea.
We have imposed sanctions and a controlled engagement policy. Some have called for a commission of inquiry. Canada will work with our allies to support any work that will shine light on the abusers in North Korea, and bring international pressure on this regime to give its citizens the rights they deserve.
Canada PostMr. Denis Blanchette (Louis-Hébert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the minister of state responsible for postal services was quite the jokester yesterday with his email comment, but he did not deny the possibility that they might reduce mail delivery from five to three days a week. Not to mention all of the post offices that are being shut down.
If the rotating strikes by Canada Post employees, who were calling for protection of their pension and better wages, were going to ruin our economy, could the Conservatives explain what will happen to the economy if we permanently reduce postal services?
Steven Fletcher: Mr. Speaker, this government is committed to quality mail service for all Canadians, no matter where they live.
If that member and his party were serious about mail delivery, they would not have blocked our attempts to restore mail delivery in the spring of 2011. Rather than help us, they lined up with their big union bosses and delayed the mail delivery, which had an effect on the economy and actually accelerated clients using other methods, such as email.
Employment InsuranceMr. André Bellavance (Richmond—Arthabaska, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives keep bringing in their ideological measures and are undermining the employment insurance system.
Even though 50% of unemployed workers are not eligible for benefits, the Conservatives keep adding restrictions. For example, workers are forced to accept lower-paying jobs further away from home, there are quotas to cut $40,000 a month, pregnant women could end up disqualified, and now the work-sharing program is becoming stricter. These are the kinds of tricks the Conservatives are using to make unemployed workers pay off the deficit.
How can the minister claim day after day that workers will still benefit from employment insurance while she is in the process of dismantling the whole program?
Diane Finley: Mr. Speaker, that is not true at all.
Here are the facts. We want to help people find jobs in their region and in their area of expertise. This will be better for workers, their families and their communities. If there is no position available in their region and in their area of expertise, employment insurance will be there, as always.
Aviation SafetyMs. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP): Mr. Speaker, I was passing through Kelowna, a beautiful area, recently and discovered that the RCMP presence in the Kelowna airport and also the Victoria airport in my own riding, which has been there for 10 years in a security agreement for medium-sized airports across Canada, will end at the end of March this year.
I do not know how much community consultation took place or what security arrangements were made instead. Certainly Kelowna is an area where local law enforcement worries about a drug trade that goes through the Kelowna airport, heading to northern Alberta.
Would thePrime Minister inform the House what security measures would replace those that are now being removed through cost-cutting in our airports?
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, the deployment of RCMP assets is an operational decision and certainly we do not involve ourselves politically in the day-to-day operations of the RCMP.
I do appreciate the question, though, because it gives me the opportunity to talk about the tools that we are giving front-line officers, including the RCMP, to do their jobs.
I would ask the member to support our initiatives, especially the one currently before the House, Bill C-42, which would enhance accountability, again, and give the RCMP and front-line officers the tools that they need.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is the hon. government House leader rising on a point of order?
[Interjection]
Peter Van Loan: Mr. Speaker, for the past two days we have seen a sudden show of enthusiasm from the opposition for one of our pieces of legislation, Bill C-12. I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House at this time that, notwithstanding any other element of the Standing Orders, Bill C-12 be approved at second reading and sent to committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Does the hon. government House leader have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.
 No.
Points of OrderHoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, today during question period, I was referring to Senator Wallin, but I said “William”. I would like to make a correction and say that I was speaking about Senator Wallin.
[Interjection]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): I would like to thank the member for his comment. It is not a point of order, but I am certain that the House appreciates the member's clarification.

Routine Proceedings
Global Centre for PluralismRick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the summary of the Global Centre for Pluralism's corporate plan for 2013.
PetitionsRandall Garrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table five petitions in support of the passage by the House of Bill C-279, the gender identity bill. These petitions contain over 600 signatures primarily from the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec, which urge the House to complete the human rights agenda and fill this gap in our human rights legislation.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions.
I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by residents of Victoria, Toronto and Winnipeg. The petitioners are calling on the government to pressure China on human rights issues. They are particularly concerned about the persecution of Falun Dafa, or Falun Gong, practitioners.
Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from residents of Prince George, Burnaby and Vancouver, British Columbia. As the vast majority of British Columbians, these petitioners ask for a permanent ban on supertankers carrying bitumen crude along the coastline of British Columbia.
Pierre Jacob: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition in support of Bill C-400, which would ensure safe, affordable, accessible, adequate housing for every Quebecker and Canadian.
Questions on the Order PaperShelly Glover: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Is that agreed?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed.

Government Orders
Technical Tax Amendments Act, 2012[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Manon Perreault: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie.
I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation.
First of all, I would like to point out that this is a huge bill. It is almost 1,000 pages long and contains many technical amendments. The bill is extremely complex and only adds to the complexity of our tax system, which says a lot. It is, without question, a real omnibus bill.
However, unlike the mammoth budget bills we have seen recently, at least this one contains technical changes to a few very closely related bills. So, this represents quite a change, since we do not have to focus on a range of topics that have noting to do with the bill. 
Nevertheless, the scope of this bill demonstrates just how much the government must do better to ensure the integrity of our tax system. Such a large bill can only complicate the work of parliamentarians and penalize businesspeople. Thus, it is imperative that the government do a better job managing our tax system, starting with introducing tax-related legislation on a more regular basis. 
That is exactly what the Auditor General recommended in her fall 2009 report, which said: 
 If proposed technical changes are not tabled regularly, the volume of amendments becomes difficult for taxpayers, tax practitioners, and parliamentarians to absorb when they are grouped into a large package. 
The purpose of Bill C-48 is to make some highly technical changes to our tax system that have been accumulating for a very long time. Most of these changes have been announced in press releases and comfort letters from the Minister of Finance and in budgets since the most recent technical bill passed over 11 years ago. 
These changes will definitely be revenue positive and, more importantly, help prevent tax avoidance. Accordingly, we strongly support the changes proposed in this bill. Tax evasion and avoidance are fundamental problems that we need to address.
 It is therefore high time that action was taken to stop tax evasion and tax avoidance that deprive the government of large amounts of revenue. Government revenue comes in large part from taxation, and we must protect the integrity of our tax system and ensure it is equitable. We cannot just forget about this tax revenue.
 While we support the amendments made by the bill, the government must make these changes in a timely fashion, instead of doing everything at the same time. The most recent technical bill was passed in 2001. Why did the government wait so long before taking legislative measures to implement the 200 or so technical amendments that were still pending?
 Canada’s Auditor General noted with concern in 2009 that there was a backlog of at least 400 technical amendments that had not been enacted. The report that she released in the fall of 2009 was nonetheless very clear about this and emphasized the fact that tax practitioners had expressed a need for the legislative changes that the comfort letters identified to be enacted.
 This is therefore very complex bill, and I will take this opportunity to go through some of its parts in detail, to draw attention to what it is we are discussing.
 Bill C-48 deals first with offshore investment fund property and non-resident trusts. Some of the proposals in the bill were in fact part of the 2010 budget and the budget of August 2010. The amendments in this part of the bill aim primarily at protecting the integrity of the tax system and preventing tax avoidance. For instance, there are measures that are meant to guarantee the taxation of Canadian residents’ worldwide income from all sources. This was not the case in the past, and this measure will have the effect of discouraging tax evasion.
 Bill C-48 also deals with the taxation of Canadian multinational corporations with foreign affiliates. Here again, the intent of these amendments is the same: to protect the integrity of the tax system and prevent tax avoidance.
 There are other measures to prevent tax avoidance, such as those relating to specified leasing property, to subject income trusts and partnerships to the same loss utilization restrictions as transactions between corporations, to limit the use of foreign tax credit generators in order to avoid paying foreign income tax, to clarify the rules on taxable Canadian property of non-residents and migrants, and to establish a tax avoidance information system.
 Any tax avoidance transaction, that is, any transaction that is intended to obtain a tax advantage, must now be reported, even if it is not abusive. Other reporting requirements will apply if the transaction raises questions as to its lawfulness.
 This is just a brief overview of some of the amendments included in the bill. While all of these changes are important and necessary, I would still like to point out that the government has taken too long to enact these technical amendments. Knowing that the most recent technical tax bill was passed in 2001, we can say that the time frame was far too long.
In the meantime, the government racked up hundreds of outstanding technical changes over the years. Some of the changes in Bill C-48 go back as far as 1998. These changes should have been made periodically and not through a massive 1,000-page bill. This bill includes a series of beneficial and necessary measures. The government must change its way of doing things. It must considerably improve the amendment process, which is far too slow, as we have seen. The ever-growing backlog of tax measures must stop.
In other words, the government must introduce a greater number of smaller bills, in order for their provisions to be enacted in a more timely fashion. That is precisely the view of the former senior chief of the Sales Tax Division at the Department of Finance, who said the following in September 2000: 
 Until now, the choice has probably been more in favour of combining measures so as to put forward fewer bills. I think the lesson that we learned from this experience is that it may be preferable to change the balance somewhat. That may mean putting forward smaller bills which would contain measures that would be enacted on a more timely basis. As I said, it is a trade-off between how many bills enter onto the agenda, and their size and timeliness 
Accordingly, in order to beef up our tax system, we must simplify tax legislation by making it clearer and more predictable. Obviously, that means incorporating tax policy changes into legislation on a more regular basis and therefore in a reasonable timeframe.
The complexity of our tax system creates many loopholes for businesses and individuals, which makes it especially difficult to achieve fairness in our system. I think we should seize the opportunity that this massive bill is giving us to debate the complexity and fairness of the system. 
We need to have a real discussion about taxation in Canada. For example, there are many non-refundable tax credits offered by this government. These credits can only be used by people who pay taxes and, therefore, they are not available to the people most in need, who earn less. I am thinking specifically of the disability tax credit. People with the lowest incomes are exactly the people most in need of this assistance, and they should be targeted by this program. Consequently, these non-refundable tax credits have a limited ability to foster income security.
In conclusion, we support Bill C-48. However, I would like to point out that the government must improve the administration of its tax laws, especially the process for making amendments. We fully support the amendments in this bill. It includes measures to eliminate tax evasion and avoidance, while preserving the integrity of our tax system. This is an important fight for the NDP as it attempts to ensure that our system is fair.
Hoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which provided us with a lot of information about the bill and how it came about. 
Bill C-48, which is before us today, contains over 1,000 pages, but the question I want to ask the member has nothing to do with the number of pages. What I want to know is why it took so long to introduce the bill and address these issues. As my colleague mentioned, this bill addresses a number of technical issues that should have been dealt with long ago. When the government takes too long to introduce legislation, it leads to insecurity in the business community. This government, therefore, is a laggard.
Can my colleague tell me why this government takes so long to address problems when solving them could help the business community?
[Interjection]
Manon Perreault: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
All I can say is that introducing a 1,000-page bill slows down its passage. If bills were more modest and not as big, they could be passed more quickly. More bills would be introduced, but it would not take as long to pass them.
Rosane Doré Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montcalm for her excellent speech on an extremely large bill. Quite frankly, the 1,000 pages is enough to make your head spin.
This morning, I raised my concerns regarding omnibus bills and the Conservatives' habit of introducing very large bills that affect a lot of legislation and take a long time to pass.
Often, my constituents in Alfred-Pellan, in Laval, voice this concern by mail or over the phone. They tell me that it is not logical to introduce omnibus bills because, often, they are duplicitous.
What feedback has my colleague had from her constituents regarding omnibus bills like this one, or the budget bills, such as C-38 and C-45, which were introduced in recent months?
How have the constituents in her riding reacted to the arrogance displayed by Conservative government in introducing this kind of omnibus bill?
[Interjection]
Manon Perreault: Mr. Speaker, that is an easy question to answer.
The residents of Montcalm often tell me that they wonder why such big bills are introduced as they undoubtedly contain hidden punitive measures that will affect their lives one day or another.
I tend to agree with them. I still read their messages and the same concerns keep being raised. 
When a bill is too big, the fear is that some things will be kept hidden and Canadians will suffer the consequences.
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
I heard my colleague from Alfred-Pellan say that her office had received a lot of correspondence about the previous omnibus bills. We are not talking about the current omnibus bill, which is nevertheless related to all that.
Has my colleague received any correspondence from her fellow citizens on the two previous omnibus bills, Bills C-45 and C-38?
[Interjection]
Manon Perreault: Mr. Speaker, yes, people are talking about them.
Everything voluminous is also highly complex. It is hard to explain such a long bill to our fellow citizens in a few words, and in a few minutes, and to show them the impact it will have on their lives. 
I imagine I will continue to receive messages about this. More and more constituents are writing to me. I get increasing numbers of letters at my office every time we deal with a bill such as this one.
Hoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about Bill C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation.
The title is long, and the bill is voluminous. It is a necessary bill that makes amendments, and thus changes. The vast majority of the measures it contains have been in place for several years now. This bill makes them law.
Many people wonder why it has taken so long to introduce this bill. It is true that it is highly complex. Having studied law, particularly tax law, I can say that reading this bill is quite a difficult task. Let us just say that no one will be reading it for fun. The right frame of mind is essential.
 I would like to thank the Department of Finance people who helped us during the briefing. They were very clear. They answered all our questions, unlike what the Conservative government is doing. The department's co-operation with us on this bill was good.
 As my colleagues have already mentioned, no technical changes or clarifications have been made since 2001. That is a problem because we need more constant and regular review to achieve a degree of credibility and stability so that we can clearly understand the laws. In this case, the Conservatives have been asleep at the switch. It is time for them to wake up and do their job.
 Sheila Fraser, the Auditor General of Canada, stated the following in her 2009 report:
 No income tax technical bill has been passed since 2001. Although the government has said that an annual technical bill of routine housekeeping amendments to the Act is desirable, this has not happened. As a result, the Department of Finance Canada has a backlog of at least 400 technical amendments that have not been enacted, including 250 “comfort letters” dating back to 1998, recommending changes that have not been legislated. 
Yet, of the some 400 amendments in question, only 200 are included in this bill. There is therefore a problem with the government's approach. The government needs to do some housekeeping. It is important in order to build some degree of stability and understanding.
In this regard, the Standing Committee on Finance—of which I was a member not long before I joined the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights—mentioned tax simplification in its report. Many organizations testified before the committee of its importance. Tax simplification was even included in the Standing Committee on Finance's recommendations.
What is meant by tax simplification? With this 1,000-page bill and the Income Tax Act, tax legislation is piling up and becoming increasingly complex. Tax professionals and tax lawyers are increasingly sought after in order to sort everything out. 
The more complicated this legislation gets, the more chances there are for loopholes or opportunities for evasion. Fortunately, this bills implements certain measures to close these loopholes.
The government is not doing enough to stop tax evasion. However, I am very pleased that our colleagues from the finance committee are currently examining the issue of tax evasion and tax havens. My colleagues know that I feel very strongly about this issue since I am the one who moved the motion. I am therefore very happy that the finance committee is moving forward on this. That being said, the government is clearly not doing enough from a practical standpoint. 
 In fact, the government has no estimate of how much money Canada is losing. Canada is losing billions of dollars, but they seem to be saying they are working on it. However, when we look at how the government is working on it, we see that there have been cuts at the Canada Revenue Agency and that the positions of people responsible for looking into tax evasion are even being cut.
 To come back to the bill, I will say that some measures tackle tax evasion, or rather what is called tax avoidance, to close the loopholes. That is very important.
 The bill is quite lengthy, but some parts are very worthwhile. As I explained, the bill is very technical and very lengthy. However, in order to understand the bill better and have a better idea of its scope, I am going to refer to a few aspects of it.
Part one deals with offshore investment fund property and non-resident trusts. The changes are aimed at taxing the worldwide income of Canadian residents.
 It is therefore a good proposal.
Parts two and three deal with the taxation of foreign affiliates of Canadian multinational corporations. Again, that is an interesting and important issue.
Part four deals with amendments to ensure that provisions that use certain private law concepts reflect both the common law and civilian law in both linguistic versions.
 It is quite technical, but it is important to make progress in this regard.
Part five of the bill implements a variety of technical elements.
 In this case, I will not go into too many details, because it is rather tough going. Generally speaking, it is quite technical, but these are necessary amendments.
Part six includes housekeeping changes to the Excise Tax Act, repealing a provision that has not been used since 1999.
 Once again, we see that the existing measures have not really been used, and that it takes a long time for the government to do something.
 Part seven talks about certain powers of the minister. Certain things relating to that are dealt with.
 Part eight says that Bill C-48 covers all of the amendments made in Bill C-45, which was introduced last fall. 
 To come back to what I was saying in relation to simplification and the fact that the government is not doing that enough, as I said a minute ago, I can tell you what people are saying about the need to make things simpler.
 For this I blame both the Conservatives and the Liberals, who talk about simplifying taxes and ask why nothing has been done since the Carter Commission, that is, for several years now. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have done anything in this regard. I find that quite deplorable, and I am not the only one. A number of groups, including the certified general accountants, a rather important group that has much to propose in this regard, feel the same way. I am going to read the recommendation made by that group in the pre-budget consultations.
 —we strongly feel that implementing a sunset provision would ensure that tax amendments are legislated, which ultimately will eliminate the ever-growing backlog of unlegislated tax measures once and for all. With this provision, if a tax policy change is announced and not incorporated into legislation within a reasonable amount of time, the measure would lapse. This would bring greater clarity and certainty to tax legislation, reduce the compliance and paperwork burden, and, perhaps most importantly, prevent any future legislative backlogs. Those are a few simple but important steps that would go some distance in improving and strengthening Canada's tax system. 
 Those are a few simple but important steps that would go some distance in improving and strengthening Canada's tax system. 
Again, the sunset provision is important; it should be a priority. It would keep us from having so many bills that go back more than 10 years, as has been mentioned, and whose tax measures have not been implemented. 
 Bill C-48 is a good start, but we would like the government to be more responsible, both administratively and fiscally.
Jonathan Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting to hear the Liberals passing the buck earlier, saying that they had not done anything. In 2009, it was suggested that a bill like this be introduced every year. The first legislative amendments proposed in such a bill date back to 1998, almost 15 years.
I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that. What was the government's attitude towards our country's administration during those years?
[Interjection]
Hoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Today the Liberals were criticizing the Conservative government. Everyone is passing the buck. It is always the fault of previous governments. When one party is in opposition, it blames the party in power.
There is a way of doing things, especially in this case. We have a 1,000-page document. What is important is not the number of pages but the number of years it took us to get here. When the Liberals were in power they did not do much on this issue. Now they are saying that it should be done every year. They just happened to think of this solution. They did not do their homework to find the simplest solution.
Simplifying things makes it easier for taxpayers. Even tax experts are calling for simpler legislation that people can understand better.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.
In his speech, he said that the NDP thinks we must fight tax avoidance and tax evasion, while preserving the integrity of our tax regime.
In this case, could my colleague tell us what he thinks about the importance of compliance? This plays a key role in maintaining that integrity.
[Interjection]
Hoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.
Yes, in fact, for us in the NDP, the issue of tax evasion and tax havens is extremely important. This is why we were the ones who moved the motion to ask the Standing Committee on Finance to consider the matter. The NDP would also like to thank the other parties for agreeing to look into the whole issue of tax evasion and tax havens.
This is really all about fairness. It is about saving money. Corporations that use tax havens and avoid paying taxes should pay their fair share. This is completely normal and acceptable. However, in concrete terms, the government is not taking the necessary measures to address this scourge. This is why it took an NDP motion to make progress on the issue. 
Let us hope that once the Standing Committee on Finance has completed its study, the government will finally take action and force corporations to abide by every aspect of tax law.
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very carefully, but there is something I would like to hear a clear answer to.
In the House we often hear about the NDP's $21-billion carbon tax scheme. It has been in the NDP platform. Also, on September 14, in a Financial Post interview of the NDP caucus chair, he expressed his frustration that our government has rejected a carbon tax policy, which we do. We do not believe it would do anything to help our country.
Would the member please clarify this $21-billion carbon tax scheme, because it was in the election platform of the NDP.
[Interjection]
Hoang Mai: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know what that has to do with C-48, the issue on which I was speaking. This is an important bill. However, I would like to respond to my colleague’s question.
During the election campaign, we put forward the same idea as the Conservatives did in 2008, regarding what is called a carbon exchange. My colleague does not understand the difference. I would love to explain it but unfortunately I do not have the time. 
She should look at the her party’s election platform in 2008. There is a difference between a carbon tax and a carbon exchange. Perhaps my colleague should read about it and find out more about the issue. I would happily provide her with information about it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Before resuming debate, I would like to inform hon. members that there have been more than five hours of debate on this motion. Consequently, the maximum time allocated for all subsequent interventions shall be ten minutes for speeches and five minutes for questions and comments. 
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.
Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to weigh in, for a few moments anyway, on Bill C-48. I commend the member for Brossard—La Prairie, not only for his speech but also for the incredibly valuable work he performed as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance. Not to put too fine a point on it, he is a brilliant deputé and made an important contribution. I know that he will make a similar type of contribution on the justice committee, where he is now focusing his attention. 
We are dealing with a bill that is nearly a thousand pages long. As others have said, it deals with a huge number of needed amendments that have been outstanding for nearly 15 years. They were announced but were not enacted in legislation, creating great confusion and problems for tax practitioners and individual Canadians. 
The point made by one of the groups we spoke to, and that I am sure he heard from, Blakes, was that as a result of allowing this backlog of amendments to build up, the government has increased the complexity of the tax system. That flies in the face of everything the government has claimed it stands for as it relates to things such as reducing red tape and simplifying the tax system to make it easily accessible and understood by Canadians. That is another example of how the government tells Canadians one thing and goes ahead and does something else. 
We heard from other members of this caucus that the Auditor General, in 2009, reported to the House that there were upwards of 400 tax amendments that had been proclaimed and were being carried forward but they had not been codified and enacted in legislation. That was creating a problem, a sense of confusion and an added level of complexity. He said it was simply bad practice and was not the way to run something as technical and important as the tax system under the finance acts. 
Bill C-48, I understand, deals with about half of those. It does not deal with the additional ones that have been announced by the government since 2009. Therefore, even though we are dealing with a piece of legislation that is 1000 pages long and is extraordinarily complex, we will not have time to go through it in the kind of detail with which we probably should go through it. The government is still not dealing with all the changes in the tax system that have been enacted already but that have yet to be codified. 
That is why the experts, such as the Certified General Accountants-Canada and the Auditor General, have said it is so important. We have comments from Thomas McDonnell, from Thorsteinssons LLP tax lawyers, and others who have said it is important to make sure that, for the tax changes that are proposed, announced and put in place by the Minister of Finance or the government, whether at budget time or at other times during the year, the government should be introducing legislation annually in the House to make sure that happens.
In 2007 the Conservatives introduced Bill C-10, which was an attempt to try to catch up to the backlog. Members will know that in 2008, they pulled the plug, because they felt that they might be able to get a majority government at the time. Even though they were flying in the face of fixed-term legislation that the Prime Minister himself lauded, they went to the polls in the fall of 2008. As a result, Bill C-10 died on the order paper.
The point is that they should not be waiting years to take care of business that should be looked after on an annual basis. It would give legislators here and experts across the country an opportunity to take a small chunk of legislation and amendments and to have a full discussion about their implications. That would be a sign of good governance.
If Parliament were up to date on those kinds of legislative changes, and the government of the day decided to prorogue the House or call an election or whatever, we would only be dealing with one year of changes next time around and would not be participating in a buildup of a backlog. 
As everyone who knows about this system has said, it is extraordinarily complex. Allowing this backlog to build and bringing in amendments this way to an extraordinarily technical piece of legislation of almost 1,000 pages does not provide the clarity and opportunity for simplifying the tax system that we should be looking for. It is in the interest of all Canadians.
Since my time is winding down, I will make three points. I have said already that the bill is extremely technical. New Democrats think it does not need to be so technical.
 In respect of good governance and legislative management, it should be done on an annual basis. Let me be clear that we on this side believe in cracking down on both tax avoidance and tax evasion while ensuring the integrity of our tax system. We support these changes, but we want to ensure that they happen on a more manageable basis.
This is an omnibus bill of sorts, but as opposed to Bills C-45 and C-38, it does not bring 60 pieces of legislation together with nothing that ties them together. It deals with changes to closely related pieces of legislation. 
Finally, the massive size of this bill demonstrates that there is still work to be done in getting technical changes legislated in a timely fashion. As I have said and will reiterate, failing to do so hurts the business community. It makes it difficult for proper evaluation by Parliament. Ultimately, it impacts the economy of this country and individual Canadians who are trying to work with an increasingly complex tax system as they go about their business and their daily lives making sure they provide for themselves and their families and build stronger communities and a stronger country.
 That is our goal. Those are the measures we would like to see the government move forward with.
We will be supporting the legislation. I urge the government to ensure that this is done on an annual basis from here on in.
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
He did a good job of explaining why these measures should have been in place many years ago. It is clear that, over the years, several experts, including the auditor general of Canada, have raised the issue of considerable delays.
As the member clearly explained, we are now dealing with an extremely large and complex document, and conducting a thorough review of it is no easy feat.
Nevertheless, I would like my colleague to talk about the important provisions of Bill C-48 that the NDP supports.
[Interjection]
Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, let me say that the question of tax avoidance is an issue we take very seriously. It is something our colleague from Brossard—La Prairie focused on as a member of the finance committee. I know that our members of the finance committee will continue that initiative.
There are provisions in the bill that deal with tax avoidance, and we support them. Let us be clear. We want to close the loopholes. We want to ensure that people pay their fair share, that companies that are obligated to pay taxes to the Government of Canada in fact do so.
Mr. David Sweet (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I did not rise immediately after the member's speech, because I actually had to think about exactly how I would phrase this with dignity. 
I listened to the member's speech of balderdash for the entire time. He said very little about the bill but went back to 2008. It was kind of a cathartic exercise about how the election happened. Of course, he forgot to mention the fact that it was a minority government and that the opposition, actually, was in charge of having the government fall and having us go to an election. He also failed to mention that after the election, we actually were in government again.
At the end, he mentioned three issues and said his party would support the bill. He talked about how inefficient we were in getting these measures through and about wanting to do it annually. If that is the case, and they want to support it and make it happen, would they be prepared to go ahead, finish their speakers' list today, and move the bill into committee? Let us get it done. Let us work together as the loving partners we are so that we can get the--
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please.
The hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.
[Interjection]
Robert Chisholm: Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting intervention, with the member trying, again, to rewrite history. When the election was called in 2008, it was a decision made by the Conservative government, by the Prime Minister. It was not a decision forced by the opposition. 
However, the opposition did force the government to bring in a stimulus package, a stimulus plan, to deal with the economic troubles facing this country. In fact, the opposition put so much fear into the government that it prorogued the House. Let us not forget that the Conservative government prorogued the House. It ran in fear from this place, because it was afraid that it would be defeated democratically by this Parliament.
In answer to that question, let me say that we agreed that we would support this legislation. However, we are not going to give up our right to stand up and represent our constituents, my constituents from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, just because members opposite are in a hurry.
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, this is the time of year when Canadians are going to have to start thinking about completing their income tax returns. It is not something Canadians necessarily enjoy doing, but whether we like it or not, it is a tradition. Sharing wealth is also one of Canada's traditions. Doing so enables us to have social programs so that when people fall ill, they can seek the help of a doctor, go to the hospital, and receive universal health care that is both free and accessible.
Our taxes also provide us with programs such as employment insurance. This program ensures that if a person is unfortunate enough to lose his or her job or get laid off during a plant closure—as we have seen occur over recent years—the family will still have an income. Single people will still have a roof over their heads and be able to purchase essential items, such as groceries.
Our taxes and laws also make it possible to have shared programs with the provinces for infrastructure and public transport. All of this contributes to the common good.
I am very pleased, therefore, to rise to speak about C-48, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act and related legislation. 
This bill is large and contains over 1000 pages. I have often risen in this House to denounce large bills, including the omnibus bills that the government has introduced as so-called budget implementation bills. The NDP has taken a strong stand against this type of legislation because many of the measures are not necessarily related to the budget. They contain any number of amendments to various pieces of legislation, and there is not sufficient time to review the measures in committee. In any event, we have been denied the opportunity to study these omnibus bills in specific committees. We have voiced our opposition to this and we shall continue to do so as much as possible in the House.
The difference in this case is that the bill amends acts that are similar and that deal with related issues. The reason it is so bulky is that over the years—in fact, since 2001—previous governments dragged their feet. They did not follow the sound advice of the Auditor General to correct things. They should have acted, they should have amended acts, but they waited and let the years go by. That is why we now have such a bulky bill. Such changes should be done on an ad hoc basis, but we did not do our homework. We did not do what should have been done. 
The NDP supports Bill C-48 because it is important that this legislation continues to focus on compliance to guarantee the integrity of the tax system.
We say that tax loopholes must be eliminated in a timely fashion. This bill is very important to protect the integrity of our tax system and to have all the winning conditions.
I want to underline three points. We must fight tax avoidance and tax evasion while preserving the integrity of our tax system. This bill is a step in the right direction.
We support the changes proposed in this bill, including those that seek to reduce tax avoidance.
Again, this is a bulky bill. I explained why earlier. I believe we can do better, and Canadians deserve better. Over the years, it will be important to conduct regular and ad hoc reviews of the tax system.
Unlike the previous omnibus bill that brought major changes to all sorts of acts, this legislation proposes technical amendments to a number of acts that are closely related. We will have to ensure that ad hoc reviews are conducted.
In 2009, the Auditor General of Canada was concerned about the fact that at least 400 technical amendments had not been enacted through legislation.
Bill C-48 enacts more than 200 of these changes. There is still work to be done. It can be done, but we need to ensure that our tax system is fair and that all of the loopholes have been eliminated.
The bill has a number of parts. I would like to speak specifically about part 5 of the bill, which would implement various technical amendments, some from as far back as 2002. 
I am not going to go into the history of these changes, but part 5 includes anti-avoidance measures for specified leasing property, measures to ensure that income trusts and partnerships are subject to the same loss utilization restrictions as transactions between corporations, measures to limit the use of foreign tax credit generators for the purpose of avoiding foreign tax, and measures to clarify rules on taxable Canadian property for non-residents and migrants. It also provides an information regime for tax avoidance.
Any tax avoidance transaction, that is, any transaction that is intended to obtain a tax advantage, must now be reported, even if it is not abusive. Additional reporting will be required in cases where the transaction raises red flags about its legitimacy.
According to experts, the majority of these changes were already in place and should have been even earlier. We hope that this bill will provide effective measures for fighting tax evasion. A review mechanism should also be put in place so that we do not find ourselves with another bill of this size in 10 years.
Canadians will appreciate it and it will make our work as parliamentarians easier.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my hon. colleague on her speech.
Several members, including the member who just spoke, have mentioned the huge size of the bill. A great deal of legislative work remains to be done on this bill.
What does the member think of the repercussions this will have on both the assessment work and on the business community? 
[Interjection]
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, definitely, the fact that this bill is so huge implies a certain complexity. We hope that this complexity will actually lead to greater clarity, and that all taxpayers will find the system easier to understand. What we really want to emphasize here is the importance of establishing clear rules and preventing tax evasion.
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the NDP speeches throughout the morning.
 I want to thank NDP for supporting our government in trying to close these loopholes. However, I have not received a straight answer from the NDP as far as what it feels overall on taxes for Canadians and where it stands.
As members know, we have decreased the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%, and the NDP voted against that. We lowered taxes 140 times, and the NDP voted against it. We decreased taxes for families, $3,000 per year for a family of four, and the NDP voted against that.
The NDP has $65 billion of unfunded promises it made to the Canadian people. We have heard about the $21 billion carbon tax that the NDP wants, but that is still a $40 billion discrepancy.
Therefore, could the NDP let Canadians know where it is going to get that money? If the NDP really cares about Canadian families, when is it going to put its money where its mouth is and let them know where it is going to get the money?
[Interjection]
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for the question.
In fact, what I noted and what I would like to point out about this bill is the fact that it closes the loopholes in the current taxation system that people and corporations were using to avoid paying income taxes. Those individuals and corporations will now have to pay their share and comply with the Income Tax Act. I think this bill is a good way to settle these technical issues so that the Government of Canada can collect the taxes it is owed.
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, regarding these measures, does my colleague believe it would be appropriate for the government in power, regardless of its political stripes, to introduce a bill every year to correct shortcomings in the tax system? When does she think would be the ideal time? I would like to hear her thoughts on that.
We are examining this bill today, but we may not have time to complete debate before tax time comes around. When would be the ideal time to introduce this kind of legislation so that the measures it proposes would come into effect in time for the next income tax period, while also giving businesses enough time to adapt to the changes? 
[Interjection]
Hélène LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very pertinent question.
In my opinion, we should consult the experts on this. Unfortunately, I cannot say when would be the ideal time to do this. I believe that my colleague has raised a very important point, that is when would be the best time to introduce this type of legislation in order to properly inform all taxpayers, corporations and businesses about their tax returns.
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to support this bill on behalf of the people in my riding of Pontiac. A good housecleaning in this area can only help businesses in particular.
Bill C-48 implements over a decade of highly technical amendments to our tax system. I believe that these changes will have a positive impact on revenues and that they will generally discourage tax avoidance, which is an important element.
The very size of this bill shows that the government must manage the tax system in a more responsible manner. It must ensure in particular that it periodically passes legislation on proposed tax measures. Otherwise, there will be greater uncertainty for business people and tax experts, and it will be almost impossible for parliamentarians to deal with such lengthy bills.
I also want to point out the importance of guaranteeing the integrity of the tax system. Moreover, I believe that we must eliminate unanticipated tax loopholes in a timely manner. We must also consider the increasing complexity of tax laws and insist on the need to simplify them over time.
 Like my fellow New Democrats, I think we must fight tax avoidance and tax evasion while preserving the integrity of our tax system. That is why I support the changes being made in this bill, especially those that aim to stop tax avoidance. It is a significant loss of revenue for the state, and that revenue is essential to support our social programs, which reflect the values of all Canadians.
 Still, at nearly 1,000 pages, this bill is the perfect example of an omnibus bill. Fortunately, unlike the monster budget bills that contain badly designed and poorly conceived policies, this bill makes technical amendments to several closely related acts.
 This bill's massive size is proof that there is still some work to be done in transforming such technical amendments into legislation and, as I said, doing that with good speed. Not doing that penalizes businesses and complicates Parliament's tasks. And that has a cost.
 The harder it is for businesses to find their way around the country's tax laws and pay their taxes, the less effort they will make to pay their fair and responsible share of taxes. It is these taxes that the state uses to redistribute revenue and help the neediest people in our society and anyone who runs into problems.
 In the fall of 2009, the Auditor General reported that there were more than 400 technical amendments that had been proclaimed but had not yet been enacted in legislation. Bill C-48 will enact more than 200 of these changes, or about half, but the others will be left in limbo. When can we expect to see those 200 amendments become law?
 We may all wonder what is causing this delay. When the Liberals were in power, they, too, took some time integrating the technical amendments into tax law. The most recent enactment of a technical tax bill was in 2001, more than a decade ago.
 I wonder why the Liberals did not pass such technical taxation bills regularly after 2001. They may have an answer. The Conservatives, too, have taken their time transforming these technical amendments into legislation.
Bill C-48 is designed to implement more than 200 of these changes. However, it is crucial that the other 200 be enacted and that the integrity of our tax system be maintained. The Conservatives should try to do a better job of incorporating these technical amendments into the legislation.
Compliance is a key aspect of maintaining the integrity of our tax system. What is the government doing to ensure that people comply with the technical changes being made in the tax system? We have not yet had an answer to that question.
The official opposition has consulted tax professionals and lawyers, who have told us that the technical changes in Bill C-48 are largely beneficial and necessary, but that there are not enough of them. That said, there have been other attempts to pass technical tax bills.
For example, Bill C-10 was introduced in October 2007 and was quickly passed by the House of Commons, but it had not passed the Senate committee stage when the 39th Parliament was dissolved in September 2008.
Governments have not been acting quickly enough. And that costs Canadian companies and taxpayers money. We want the government to act more quickly when it comes to tax changes, and we want these changes to be tabled more often. Many experts agree with us. For example, here is a quote from the Auditor General:
 If proposed technical changes are not tabled regularly, the volume of amendments becomes difficult for taxpayers, tax practitioners, and parliamentarians to absorb when they are grouped into a large package.... 
 In the 1991 Report of the Auditor General, Chapter 2, we expressed concerns that income tax comfort letters were given without public announcement. In response, the Department of Finance Canada stated that “the government intends to release a package of income tax technical amendments on an annual basis, so that taxpayers will not be subject to more lengthy waiting periods as in the past before amendments are released to the public.”... comfort letters have since been regularly released to the public... 
Denis Saint-Pierre, the chair of the Tax and Fiscal Policy Advisory Group for the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada, said the following in committee:
 First, the government must introduce a technical tax amendments bill. The last time a technical tax bill was passed by Parliament was over 11 years ago. Literally hundreds of unlegislated tax amendments to the Income Tax Act—which I showed this committee last year...—have been proposed, but not yet enacted, which brings uncertainty and unpredictability to the process. 
In its 2012 prebudget submission—not too long ago—the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada said:
 CGA-Canada strongly believes that the key to sustained economic recovery [the question was about economic recovery] and enhanced economic growth lies in the government’s commitment to tax reform and red tape reduction. 
It is clear that we must take action that is in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers, to develop a tax system that makes sense and serves everyone.
Christine Moore: Mr. Speaker, several Conservative MPs have spoken about my party's platform after hearing our speeches on the bill.
I would like my colleague to remind the House how much we would save by abolishing the Senate, which is unelected and spends money hand over fist. Could he remind Canadians how much money they would save by abolishing the Senate?
[Interjection]
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
We would start at $90 million, which is not chump change. We would also need to strengthen the tax system to ensure everyone pays taxes. I am thinking of big businesses, mostly. Too many big businesses in Canada do not pay taxes. This translates into lost revenue for the state, revenue that could be used to fund programs to help those most in need.
Colin Carrie: Mr. Speaker, the last questioner did remind me that I have stood in the House a few times to ask NDP members to explain their $64 billion in unfunded platform promises, so I thought I would give it a shot again. We have another NDP speaker.
First, we are encouraged and happy that the NDP is supporting the bill to close these loopholes, but NDP members voted against the GST when we lowered it from 7% to 6% to 5%. We have lowered taxes for families and businesses in Canada 140 times. They voted against that every single time. That is $3,000 less in federal taxes that families now pay as a result. 
The NDP have made $65 billion in promises but have not told Canadians how they will fund them. The question is very simple. We know about the $21 billion carbon tax, but there is still a big $45 billion gap that the NDP have not told Canadians how they would fund. 
Could the member stand up and give us a straight answer and let Canadians know what the NDP plan is for all its promises.
[Interjection]
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is founded on some premises that I would question. One of them is that somehow Canadians are largely benefiting from the tax credits provided by the government. However, when I ask people in my riding what they think about the majority of those tax credits, they say the credits either do not apply to them or “Oh, yes. Okay”.
That is not a solution. That is not a tax policy. That is not a policy that will ensure that the state has the revenue it needs to support those programs, the medical system, for example, which Canadians strongly support. We are not the ones who are cutting transfers to the provinces for these programs. 
[Interjection]
Ted Menzies: Nor are we. Try to be factual.
[Interjection]
Mathieu Ravignat: There is $31 billion less in the system.
We are talking about priorities. We have different priorities than you do. You want to give tax cuts to the largest corporations—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please. Just as a reminder to hon. members, when we start using the “you” word, invariably the tenor of the debate begins to go in a different direction. I remind hon. members to direct their comments and questions through the Chair.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.
Don Davies: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. Conservative member raised the issue of promises and party platforms, I would remind the Conservatives that they said in their 2008 platform that they would not export bitumen. They also brought in fixed election date legislation in 2006, which they violated in 2008.
In terms of tax policies, the federal government and the Conservatives in British Columbia brought in the HST in the latter province, a tax that was roundly opposed by 80% of British Columbians and rejected in a referendum. 
I am just wondering if my hon. friend would care to comment on some of the problems with the Conservatives' inability to keep their promises and their betraying the Canadian people as a result.
[Interjection]
Mathieu Ravignat: Mr. Speaker, if I had to enumerate all the promises the Conservatives have broken, I would be here all day.
Let us just start with the Senate, which is unelected, unaccountable and under investigation. It costs the taxpayer $90 million. That is respect for the taxpayer. Maybe we will finish at that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Before I recognize the honourable member for Portneuf, I should let her know that I will have to interrupt her at 1:30, at the end of the time provided for government business.
Resuming debate. The honourable member for Portneuf.
Élaine Michaud: Mr. Speaker, I must admit I am very disappointed to learn I will have so little time to talk about a matter that so fascinates people, as I have seen here today. However, I will nevertheless add my voice to those of my colleagues in speaking about Bill C-48, a new bill nearly 1,000 pages long that makes many highly technical changes to Canada's tax system, changes that have been piling up for over a decade.
As I have mentioned several times in this House, most of the changes contained in Bill C-48 have been announced over the 11 years since the most recent technical bill was passed in the many news releases and comfort letters of the Department of Finance and in the budget. These amendments have been brought into effect, but they have not been made the subject of a technical bill. Now the government seeks to enact them all more officially.
 In addition to the measures we already know of, Bill C-48 introduces three new measures never previously announced. First of all, it repeals certain tax restrictions to assist labour-sponsored venture capital corporations in addressing some transitional problems. It amends the formula for allocating the taxable income of airline corporations to ensure that taxable income stays in the provinces or territories where those corporations are permanently established. It also provides for the implementation of a measure respecting the tax treatment of shares owned by short-term residents of Canada for departure tax purposes.
 We in the NDP believe that the technical changes this bill will make to Canada's tax system will be beneficial and will generally have the effect of discouraging tax avoidance. That is why we will support this bill on second reading.
 Tax avoidance is a problem often criticized by people across the country, particularly in my riding of Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. These are honest taxpayers who pay their taxes and who see more privileged Canadians benefiting from privileges to which honest Canadians who pay their taxes do not have access. They want their members of Parliament to address this problem.
As representatives of these people, we have the responsibility to do everything it takes to minimize tax evasion and eliminate loopholes in the legislation. We must ensure that the state has all the resources necessary to guarantee that Canadians have the services and public institutions they depend on and deserve.
The Conservatives are offering all sorts of tax cuts and tax credits to oil companies without expecting anything in return. They are forfeiting revenue that the state needs and are never able to cut spending enough to lower the deficit. The Conservatives are using smoke and mirrors every day. They want us to buy the ridiculous idea that they are good managers of public funds, but they are unable to effectively and regularly implement the new tax measures that they are proposing to improve Canada's tax laws.
It is essential that the government quickly considers this problem and takes an effective approach to enact these technical amendments and thereby eliminate the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the current system. It is important for taxpayers, businesses and tax experts.
The government must act quickly to remedy this situation, which is problematic in a number of ways. We want Canadian businesses to be competitive so that they can perform well on world markets. They must have a clear understanding of the tax laws in effect and access to up-to-date information as quickly as possible. That is what we are asking from the government.
That is why we are going to support the bill at second reading; however, there is still work to be done. This government must do the work quickly in order to help all Canadian taxpayers and businesses.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier will have six minutes for her speech and five minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on the motion.
It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Private Members' Business
Citizenship Act[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from January 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-425, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (honouring the Canadian Armed Forces), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Hon. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate on Bill C-425, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.
This private member's bill, at present, makes two changes to the citizenship process. First, it reduces the time a permanent resident must wait for citizenship if he or she completes basic training and has signed a minimum three-year contract with the Canadian armed forces. I would just note here that if this were the entire bill, I think it might well be passed by unanimous consent and we would not be having this debate today. I wholeheartedly support this provision.
The second element of the legislation provides that a person is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of their Canadian citizenship or is deemed to have withdrawn their application for Canadian citizenship if they engage in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces.
What complicates and indeed invites today's debate are the public statements by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that he seeks to modify the bill to revoke the citizenship of those who have engaged in acts of terror. Regrettably, we do not have his legislative amendments before us in the House. We do not know the exact wording he proposes. This may make all the difference, not only from a policy standpoint but from a legal and constitutional perspective as well.
The minister has argued that the power to revoke citizenship in such cases is a necessary one. He is quoted in La Presse this morning.
The amendments that I suggested will finally make it possible for Canada to harmonize its approach with those of other liberal democracies and will strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship. This will send a clear message that Canadian citizenship has real meaning and is not just a pass that violent terrorists can use with impunity.
The rhetoric in this statement certainly resonates and appears compelling on its face. Indeed, a commentator on this point, Mr. Ibbitson from the Globe and Mail, said something to the effect that if nothing else, this is good politics, and the immigration and citizenship minister is certainly a good politician.
However, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been in this role since October 2008. He has, since then, introduced seven immigration acts, none of which have called for such a provision. Questions arise. Why now? Why this bill? Why in this way? 
What Canadians may not know, though the issue is drawing more attention of late, is that a key difference between a private member's bill, such as that which is before us, and a government bill, such as would be the case if the minister were to introduce stand-alone legislation in this regard, is that government bills require the constitutional approval of the Minister of Justice pursuant to the Department of Justice Act.
 In other words, by introducing such items through this private member's route, one circumvents the long-standing process by which legislative proposals are vetted for compliance with Canada's Constitution, including an assessment by the Department of Justice for litigation risk. This, of course, invites the question of whether there is an issue here of constitutional concern. As well, is there a related litigation risk?
Simply put, while we have a process allowing for the revocation of citizenship, as per section 10 of the Citizenship Act, in cases where a person obtains citizenship, for example, through false representation, fraud or knowingly concealing material circumstances, we do not have other ways of revoking citizenship at present. This new proposal, by way of a private member's bill, raises serious constitutional concerns given, inter alia, the Charter's guarantees in sections 6, 7 and 15, particularly where it engages matters of national or ethnic origin, or potentially the recognized analogous ground of citizenship.
Moreover, there are concerns with respect to the Canadian Bill of Rights, which reads in part, “no law of Canada shall be construed or applied so as to...authorize or effect the arbitrary detention, imprisonment or exile of any person”. The Bill of Rights also prohibits an act that would “deprive a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations”. I should note, however, that there is a notwithstanding process in that regard.
At its core Bill C-425, and this is the key point, goes to the heart of the question of citizenship in Canada, a concept that is actually quite fluid and flexible, perhaps more than most Canadians think, with attending constitutional concerns.
Indeed, it remains unclear under what circumstances the revocation of formal citizenship, as opposed to the denial of an application for citizenship by a permanent resident, would implicate charter considerations. It is for this reason that rigorous debate by the members in this place is so important with regard to the bill, as it would implicate our constitutional responsibilities as members of Parliament with respect to public oversight of the legislation, as well as trustees of the public with respect to any risk litigation.
Let me be clear. There is no question that an act of war against Canadian armed forces represents a repudiation of the values that we associate with the concept of citizenship, namely democracy, security, freedom, and equality. However, it is critical that we closely scrutinize any proposed legislation that would implicate rule of law considerations.
As I have noted, the concept of citizenship in Canada is flexible and the question of under what circumstances the government is entitled to revoke citizenship has perhaps not been fully yet determined by our courts. However, unlike questions of naturalization, the revocation of formal citizenship raises important questions pursuant to sections 6, 7 and 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Indeed, despite the repugnance of the crimes at issue, namely, the commission of an act of war or terrorism against one's own country, constitutional rights and the rule of law are not negotiable. Therefore, the fundamental questions we must ask, and it is our responsibility to address these questions, is to what extent these constitutional rights would be implicated by this legislation.
If the members in this place are to enable the revocation by the Government of Canada of Canadian citizenship in instances of criminality such as this, we must, simply put, ensure that such revocation is consistent with the rule of law, as defined by the charter and the related jurisprudence.
As I have mentioned, there are three distinct charter provisions engaging a panoply of rights that may be implicated by changes to the Citizenship Act such as proposed by this bill. These are sections 6, 7 and 15 and which together provide for a necessary starting point in discussing the constitutional contours of the legal concept of Canadian citizenship and the implications of such revocation.
Section 6(1) of the charter provides for the right of any citizen to “enter, remain in and leave Canada”. This is one of the charter rights that applies only to citizens, rather than to permanent residents, whose constitutional mobility rights are separately provided for by section 6(2). Certainly, the revocation of citizenship in a particular instance would result in the inapplicability or denial of section 6(1)'s mobility rights.
Accordingly, on this point, it is precisely for this reason that it is of critical importance to ensure that the revocation of citizenship is consistent with procedural due process requirements. Moreover, because the revocation of citizenship would result in the revocation of section 6(1)'s mobility rights, it would also raise concerns with respect to section 7 of the charter and the right to liberty. Indeed, the Supreme Court has determined that section 7 rights apply universally to anyone present in Canada, regardless of citizenship status. As well, it would implicate the rights of security of the person also in section 7. Therefore, we would have a panoply of rights here implicated. It is a central constitutional question that we cannot avoid addressing.
Finally, we must consider section 15 of the charter, which constitutionally prohibits the federal government from passing discriminatory citizenship laws. The courts have recognized that citizenship status is an analogous ground to the enumerated section 15 protected categories, thereby providing for constitutional protection against discrimination based upon citizenship.
Moreover, section 15 has been deemed to apply regardless of citizenship status. Therefore, by allowing for the revocation of citizenship, even in cases of commission of acts of terror, but only in cases where an individual is also a citizen of another country, Bill C-425 would raise section 15 equality concerns. Simply put, the bill would potentially discriminate against those Canadians who are also dual citizens of both Canada and another country.
Some may wonder why I raise the right to a fair hearing to which I referred to earlier. Since we do not know the language of the legislative amendments proposed by the minister, it could be that the proposed revocation of citizenship is automatic, thus, depriving one of a fair hearing. In the alternative, it could be that the proposal deems an application for renunciation to have been made by the person with respect to the person who has perpetrated the act of terror. The question then becomes one of whether the person could withdraw his or her deemed renunciation or make a further submission as to why the deemed renunciation should not be granted.
I raise these questions not as arcane procedural questions or trivial debating points but as serious considerations that need to be determined and debated in committee. Indeed, there is no question that the first time this revocation process is used, for whatever reason, it will be challenged in the courts, and the government will be obliged to defend it at taxpayers' expense. 
Accordingly, we must have—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Order, please.
We have reached well over the time allocated for the interventions. 
Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. 
Rick Dykstra: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of the member for Mount Royal. It sounded to me to be a somewhat speculative perspective on what may or may not be an amendment to the bill. I would suggest to the member that he would be wise to use his time to speak specifically to the bill in front of us versus speaking about amendments when he is not sure what they are going to look like or what they are going to propose. It is the process we use here in the House of Commons. 
Further, the citizenship, immigration and multiculturalism committee is going to be reviewing this private member's bill when it passes through second reading. He can rest assured that it will get the due process and time necessary. 
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to rise and speak to Bill C-425, which is the private member's bill introduced by the member for Calgary Northeast. It is not surprising to me that such a bill was introduced by a member of Parliament who is an immigrant to Canada. I have found that naturalized Canadians often have a more acute understanding of the meaning and importance of Canadian citizenship, having made a deliberate choice, and often great sacrifices, to attain it. It says a lot that the bill was introduced by this member of Parliament, an immigrant to Canada himself, and that his bill has received overwhelming support from new Canadians especially. 
I want to commend the member for Calgary Northeast for bringing forward a bill that is based on principle and on strengthening the value of our Canadian citizenship. In fact, no government has done more to strengthen the value of Canadian citizenship than our Conservative government. For example, we introduced the new citizenship study guide, entitled “Discover Canada: The Rights and Responsibilities of Citizenship”. The guide provides essential information for anyone preparing to become a Canadian citizen. This helps ensure that all newcomers have more knowledge of the country they are joining. 
 In our country, if someone sells 5,000 or 10,000 new books, it is considered a bestseller. What is interesting is that “Discover Canada” has literally been taken off the shelves across the country. Literally thousands of copies have been requested by individuals and schools. It is a testament to the fact that we actually have a document that shows that the honour of citizenship bestowed on an individual requires research, study and commitment from those who anticipate and expect Canadian citizenship.
 To add to that, it provides a much better overview of Canada's traditions, our values and our history, including our immigration history, than its predecessor. The old guide contained no reference, for example, to the Remembrance Day poppy and little mention of the stories and symbols that made us who we are, including the first and second world wars. We are pleased that it has been a tremendous success and is popular, not only with applicants who are seeking Canadian citizenship but with established Canadians as well. 
Furthermore, our government has taken action to crack down on citizenship fraud. We are ensuring that anyone who lies about who they are, their residency in Canada or hidden past criminal activities has their citizenship stripped. We have created a citizenship fraud tip line so that Canadians can anonymously report fraud. There are currently 11,000 fraud investigations underway, which include 3,100 Canadian citizens. We are sending a clear message that Canadian citizenship is not for sale. We are applying the full strength of the law to those who have obtained their citizenship fraudulently.
The first part of the bill should be something all members of the House can easily support, which is fast-tracking Canadian citizenship for permanent residents who serve in our Canadian armed forces. More specifically, Bill C-425 proposes to fast-track citizenship for members of the Canadian Forces who are permanent residents by reducing the resident requirement for citizenship by one year. This would be for Canadian Forces members who have signed a minimum three-year contract and have completed basic training within our armed forces. 
It is true that permanent residents cannot easily join the Canadian Forces, but if the forces have a position that requires skills and expertise for which a Canadian citizen may not be available, they can recruit permanent residents for that position. While it is also true that this would not impact a great number of permanent residents, it does not make it any less important. It is important recognition of the loyalty, service and willing sacrifice shown to our country by the individuals, regardless of how small or large that number may be. 
The second part of this bill has received quite a bit of attention recently. As currently written, it would result in anyone who commits “acts of war” against the Canadian Forces having deemed renunciation of their Canadian citizenship.
Recently the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism suggested that the bill could be expanded to include terrorist acts against Canada and its allies. The reaction from Canadians was perhaps not the same as from those who sit across from us in the House of Commons. However, certainly Canadians across this country responded to the recommendation. A poll commissioned by the member for Calgary Northeast himself on this bill found that almost 85% of Canadians agree or strongly agree with stripping Canadian citizenship from terrorists, and a petition posted on the minister's member of Parliament website was signed by an astounding 10,000 people in less than five days.
I know that since the introduction of this bill almost a year ago, the MP for Calgary Northeast and the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism have been speaking about ways to enhance and expand this section, despite what the opposition claims, as it tries to desperately find a criticism for such a popular proposal. It sometimes does leave me astounded. When a good piece of legislation is brought forward in the House of Commons that is stripped free of partisanship, the simple thing the opposition needs to do is to support it. 
There have been several examples in the past, unfortunately including very recently, when this has happened. The recent discovery that one of the organizers of a horrendous bombing in Bulgaria, which killed several innocent people, was a dual national Canadian citizen, disturbed Canadians across the country, including me, and I am sure all members of the House of Commons. 
The 1947 Citizenship Act actually included the power to revoke citizenship from those who were guilty of treason. The removal of this provision, in 1997, made Canada's citizenship law an aberration, as virtually all other liberal democracies have the legal authority to strip citizenship for such crimes as treason and terrorism. In Australia, for example, and the United Kingdom, a person can be stripped of citizenship if it is in the public interest, a much lower and more vague standard than the sponsor of this bill or the minister have suggested. France, New Zealand, Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands and Brazil are a few examples of countries that can strip citizenship for treason or terrorism, among other things.
The fact is that Canadian citizenship is already not inalienable, as it can be renounced voluntarily, or revoked, as I mentioned, from those who have obtained it fraudulently. Like the 1947 Citizenship Act, the premise of the bill put forward by the MP for Calgary Northeast is that citizenship is predicated on reciprocal loyalty. If a Canadian passport holder maintains another nationality while waging war against Canada, this should be construed for what is so obviously clear; it is a deliberate renunciation of one's citizenship. In other words, renunciation of Canadian citizenship should be possible, not just through the legal formalism of signing an application, but also a logical consequence of one's violent actions against one's country.
The question that has been raised is whether this principle of deemed renunciation of citizenship should also apply to Canadian passport holders who are convicted of serious terrorist acts. Given that Canada is an enemy of terrorism and proscribed terrorist organizations in particular, it is very reasonable to suggest that participation in terrorist crimes be considered a voluntary renunciation of one's loyalty to this country and consequently of one's citizenship.
To conclude, the member for Calgary Northeast's thoughtful private members' bill, and the amendments that have been suggested by the government, would finally bring Canada in line with other liberal democracies and would strengthen, again, the value of Canadian citizenship. It would also send the message that Canadian citizenship has real meaning and cannot be used as a flag of convenience by violent terrorists.
I hope the NDP and Liberals will listen to the vast majority of Canadians. If they do not want to listen to this side of the House, they should listen to the vast majority of Canadians and support this important piece of legislation going to committee for a thorough review and study. Our government is strengthening the value of Canadian citizenship. I hope the NDP and Liberals will work with us instead of against us in this regard.
If the NDP and the Liberals do not want to listen to this side of the House, they should listen to the vast majority of Canadians and support this important legislation going to committee for a thorough review and study. Our government is strengthening the value of Canadian citizenship. I hope the NDP and Liberals will work with us instead of against us in this regard.
Sadia Groguhé: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill C-425, introduced by the hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
First, it is important to mention that the main principle behind this legislation seems laudable, even though some parts have serious flaws that would also have serious consequences.
The hon. member wants to reward permanent residents who join the Canadian armed forces by speeding up citizenship approval, and the official opposition supports that idea. 
The suggestion to reduce from three to two years the required period of residence in Canada to grant citizenship to a member of the armed forces meets several objectives.
It would allow us to better recognize and value the contribution of the newcomers who join our armed forces. 
Our military make sacrifices. Sometimes, they even make the ultimate sacrifice. As parliamentarians, it is our duty to give them all the recognition they deserve. Therefore, acknowledging this exceptional contribution by speeding up citizenship approval would be welcome.
Moreover, this initiative would support the Canadian Forces' will to promote greater diversity in their ranks. 
Currently, visible minorities account for only 6% of the Canadian armed forces. That is clearly not enough, considering that, by the end of the decade, visible minorities will account for 20% of the labour force. If the proposed measure can promote greater representation for ethnocultural communities in our armed forces, we will be happy to support it.
After all, the Canadian Forces serve the community and act as representatives abroad. Therefore, it is essential that they reflect the diversity of Canadian society. 
That said, several aspects of Bill C-425 are quite problematic.
First, I am particularly concerned about the issue of renunciation of citizenship.
The bill provides that a citizen or a legal resident of a country other than Canada is deemed to have made an application for renunciation of his Canadian citizenship if he engages in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces. Also, a permanent resident who commits such an act would also be deemed to have withdrawn his application for Canadian citizenship. 
The fact is that there is no definition of the expressions “act of war” and “legal resident” in Canadian law.
Also, there is no mention in the text submitted by the member for Calgary Northeast of the processes that, for example, would follow an accusation of act of war. Consequently, the bill does not have the necessary legal basis for its implementation and it would be totally dependent on judicial interpretation.
The scope of the legislation proposed by the hon. member is very broad, unless benchmarks are included regarding its legal basis and the resulting processes. 
So, it is essential that the committee look at ways to define the terms used in the bill and spell out the process related to this possible renunciation of citizenship.
The operationalization of Bill C-425 is also problematic.
First, the basic requirement to join the Canadian Forces is to be a Canadian citizen. The only possibility for a permanent resident to join is to get an authorization from the Chief of the Defence Staff to fill a special need, or because of a significant lack of human resources, which is presently not the case.
 Only a very small minority will be able to take advantage of the bill’s positive aspects.
 As a matter of fact, during the discussions that have taken place at second reading, the sponsor of the bill has been unable to provide us with information about the number of people who might be affected by this measure.
 There is therefore some research that should be conducted on this point. In addition, we think it is fair to wonder whether the government’s real objective here is not the renunciation of Canadian citizenship much more than it is the recognition of military service.
 The delays in obtaining citizenship also deserve particular attention.
 Right now, nearly 300,000 permanent residents are waiting to be granted Canadian citizenship. Consequently, despite the good will of the bill’s sponsor, the reality is that departmental cutbacks have significantly reduced the pace at which files are handled at all levels.
 The handful of permanent residents who, according to the current version, will be able to take advantage of the proposed measure will not be much further ahead because of the huge backlog of applications.
 In addition, I am wondering about the way in which the government has prioritized its action. The minister announced cuts of $80.3 million in the last budget, he is shutting down visa application centres and scaling down client services at CIC.
 Delays in all immigration programs are escalating all the time. People are having trouble reaching staff members, and thousands of applicants are paying for the minister’s mistakes.
 There is therefore a dichotomy between the bill introduced by the member and the decisions being made by the current government. As the system is being gutted, my colleague is proposing to accelerate processing of citizenship applications for permanent residents who might be able to serve in the Canadian Forces.
 That being said, I agree with the bill’s principle and direction, and I think it necessary to support the bill at second reading, so that it can be reviewed in depth in committee. However, several elements that will make the bill acceptable in both its content and its implementation will have to be included.
The notions of “act of war” and “legal resident” should be defined in the bill in order to limit the potential for judicial interpretation. The process surrounding the renunciation of citizenship must also be considered. We will have to debate this part of the bill and flesh it out. It would be completely shameful for the government to create two classes of citizens without any debate or real consultation.
We must also consider the scope of the bill and potentially broaden it. It would be short-sighted to make legislative amendments that affect so few individuals.
In closing, I believe that we must consider Bill C-425. However, it seems clear to me that we must work together to limit its potential for abuse and optimize its application. This will allow us to come back to the House with a document that meets its original objectives.
Don Davies: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and speak to Bill C-425, which introduces three new grounds for citizenship, or its removal, under the Citizenship Act based on relations with the Canadian armed forces.
The bill introduces, first, a new ministerial power to shorten permanent residency requirements for members of the Canadian armed forces seeking citizenship. This would give a new power to the minister for the purpose of alleviating special and unusual hardship or to reward service of exceptional value to Canada. On application, it would also reduce the residency requirement from three years to two years for members of the Canadian armed forces seeking citizenship, so long as that member has both signed at least a three-year contract and has completed basic training.
Second, it contains a deemed application section for renunciation of Canadian citizenship if that citizen engages in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces and that same citizen is also a citizen or legal resident in a country other than Canada.
Third, there is a deemed withdrawal provision of an application for Canadian citizenship where a permanent resident who has made that application for citizenship has engaged in an act of war against the Canadian armed forces.
I must start by pointing out a classic bit of hypocrisy, which we often see from the Conservative side of the House, where the parliamentary secretary stood up and lectured the member for Mount Royal for bringing up the musings of the Minister of Immigration this past week of adding a section that would also allow the government to strip citizenship of those accused of terrorism. The parliamentary secretary berated the hon. member on this side of the House for bringing that up and considering that. He then proceeded to do the same thing in his own speech.
One wonders whether basic elements of consistency and principle have any traction on that side of the House. By the way, I want to compliment the member for Mount Royal on a thoughtful speech that points out what Canadians really want to see in their immigration policy and in policy in general, which is well-thought-out, rational, policy-based, evidence-based and constitutional legislation.
The background to the bill and the context in which it occurs is important for Canadians to remember. Since March 2008, over 25 major changes have been made to immigration procedures, rules, legislation and regulation. These have increased dramatically since the Conservatives formed a majority government. Among other changes, the Conservatives have used their majority to freeze parental sponsorships, to weaken family reunification, to punish vulnerable refugees and to increase the number of temporary foreign workers to meet the demands of their friends on the employer side of the equation. Most of these changes are politically motivated, invariably heartless, always without evidentiary basis and frequently unconstitutional.
Bill C-425 attempts to fast-track the time within which certain permanent residents may apply for citizenship. New Democrats think the government ought instead to be working to address the exceptionally long processing times for citizenship applications, which Citizenship and Immigration Canada currently reports is an almost two-year wait for processing. In other words, no one in this country gets their citizenship recognized anywhere near the time they are legally entitled to, and as such Bill C-425 is making a hollow and, I would respectfully submit, politically motivated promise.
Two years is the average. I have constituents waiting for citizenship, and I think every member in the House does, who wait between two and five years. These are permanent residents who came to this country, did everything they were asked of by this country, have worked hard, paid their taxes and want to become citizens so they can vote in this country, fully express their democratic rights and get a Canadian passport.
Instead of taking care of these unbelievably appalling and outrageously long lines, the government does nothing and instead fiddles with these relatively arcane issues that do not affect very many people at all. This private member's bill would get at an extremely limited number of cases as the circumstances under which a permanent resident would be able to enrol in the Canadian Forces are currently extremely narrow. 
The Canadian Forces website and the Canadian Forces Ottawa recruitment office have made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that a permanent resident may not enrol in the Canadian Forces. A permanent resident may only enrol when the Chief of the Defence Staff of Canada or such officer as he may designate authorizes the enrolment of a citizen of another country, which would only happen if he is satisfied that a special need exists and that the national interest would not be prejudiced thereby.
How many permanent residents do we really think are in the Canadian Armed Forces who have served three years, who have completed basic training, who are permanent residents, who are applying for Canadian citizenship and are residents and citizens of another country? However, I can tell the House how many permanent residents are waiting right now for their citizenship: hundreds and hundreds of thousands. One might ask, why would any member of the House target a bill that might affect six people, a dozen or a couple of dozen, instead of dealing with 300,000 Canadians? That shows misplaced priorities.
In terms of the other part of the bill, deemed stripping of citizenship, I want to repeat the remarks of my friend, the hon. member for Mount Royal, who points out the very delicate matter of stripping citizenship from people. 
It may be good policy, because I have noticed in the House that whenever the government gets in trouble, whenever one of its members gets criminally charged or is under ethical investigation or the government is having a bad week, the government turns to one of two things, a crime bill or an immigration bill. Invariably, it seeks to marginalize and attack a certain group. 
Right now we have a member from Edmonton who is charged for failing to take a breathalyzer test; we have Senator Brazeau who is charged with domestic and sexual assault; we have four senators now who do not seem to know where they live despite the constitutional requirement to reside in the province to collect their money. In fact, they are collecting money and per diems from Canadian taxpayers to live in Ottawa based on the fact they are away from their homes, but they have homes in the Ottawa area. 
Marginalizing and attacking certain groups is a constant theme of the government, but Canadians are not fooled. They are not fooled because if the government were truly interested in dealing with citizenship and immigration, it would be attacking the real problems facing people in this country, including appallingly long wait times to sponsor one's parents and unite one's family, for employers to get their workers here, and for skilled workers to immigrate to this country.
Right now, despite all the rhetoric and fast talk of the Minister of Immigration, the truth, as members will find out in talking to any immigrant community across this country from coast to coast, is that wait times are as long today as they were five years ago. There is no progress. People do not mind waiting six or 12 months, but wait times are now measured almost in decades. People wait 10 years to sponsor their parents.
I have a real case from one of my constituents in the armed forces, who is serving with distinction. He is from Vietnam. He applied in October 2006 to sponsor his widowed mother in Vietnam. The sponsorship was verified and first-stage approval was given in 2009 and it has been in transit for second stage approval, which was received in Singapore in 2009. The most recent status update that we did for this gentleman in December 2012 indicates that the application was received in 2009, that it is in queue and that there is a 49-month wait. 
Thus, there is a four-year wait from now, plus the three years' wait from 2009, on top of the wait from the time he applied in 2006. This member of our armed force, who is proudly serving our country, defending our interests, putting his life on the line and who wants to sponsor his mother, has been waiting since 2006, some seven years, and has another four to wait. This person will wait 11 years to sponsor a parent. He is not alone.
Is the government doing anything to speed up the process? No, it is cutting the number of officers around the globe. It is cutting funding for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and wait times will get longer.
While all the fast talking is being done by the minister, Canadians know the truth, that the government is using immigration as a political football, not trying to improve the process. 
I also want to point out that the parliamentary secretary said that the Conservatives had strengthened our Canadian citizenship. I ask, when was it weak? Who thought it was weak, because we on the New Democrat side of the House have always valued Canadian citizenship? We think all Canadians have as well. The Conservatives act as if Canadians took their citizenship lightly before 2006. In Vancouver Kingsway, consisting of some 70% new Canadians or at least second or third generation Canadians, these people take their Canadian citizenship extremely seriously. I do not know what kind of mind could conjure up the idea that someone is taking Canadian citizenship lightly, but it is surely no one on this side of the House.
I will conclude by saying that the New Democrats will support the bill's passage to committee, because we want to study the bill and pursue amendments. The idea of doing anything that might speed up citizenship for any member of our forces is an idea worthy of exploration, but let us be clear: Only a New Democrat government will ever bring in the kind of immigration reforms necessary to actually satisfy the needs of the immigrant community in this country. We will do that in 2015.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): Resuming debate. I invite the hon. member for Calgary Northeast for his right of reply. The hon. member has five minutes.
Mr. Devinder Shory (Calgary Northeast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all members for their contribution to this bill, as well as the thousands of Canadians who have given their active support since this bill's infancy. Once again, my bill is based upon three beliefs: more pathways to integration, that our troops deserve the highest respect, and that Canadian citizenship is a privilege which deserves the highest esteem.
As I said at the outset of this debate, I am a proud immigrant to this country. I believe that citizenship is enormously important. Citizenship is about our culture, our heritage and our loyalty, and there is no group that stands for these values more than our Canadian armed forces. They defend our nation and our values by putting their lives on the line each and every day. Joining the armed forces demonstrates a profound belief in, and commitment to, defending this country, which presents an excellent opportunity for integration, something this bill seeks to reward.
The second part of this bill is something that I sincerely hope will never be used. The same love for our country that inspired the first part of this bill necessitates the second part of this bill. Those who seek to harm Canada should pay for their actions. In the case of treason, perpetrators have shown they have no loyalty to Canada, and in fact find no value in Canadian citizenship. As such, they do not deserve the privilege of being Canadian citizens.
This bill is not unprecedented. Numerous western democracies, including the United Kingdom and the United States, already have similar laws that allow for the renunciation of citizenship for acts of treason. Furthermore, this law is simply a necessary step in widening Canada's existing legislation. Section 10 of the Canadian Citizenship Act already provides for the deprivation of citizenship and section 46 of the Criminal Code clearly identifies treason as a crime.
Until 1977, people who committed acts of treason would be punished by the removal of their Canadian citizenship. Citizens of Canada want this to be returned to law. My bill would expand existing laws to see that those who commit acts of treason meet proper justice, with all due oversight and rights of appeal outlined in the Criminal Code and the Canadian Citizenship Act. Of course, we would also uphold our international obligations and agreements.
We have an overwhelming mandate from Canadians who want this bill to succeed. I sent a householder survey to residents in my riding and the bill was supported by 87% of respondents. On October 30, the National Post reported on the results of an NRG poll of 1,001 Canadians from coast to coast to coast asking their opinion on the renunciation of citizenship. The poll showed that more than 8 in 10 Canadians are in favour of this bill.
Furthermore, the Calgary Herald editorial board, along with the Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama'at Canada, the Somali-Canadian Education and Rural Development Organization, Immigrants for Canada, the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform, the Muslim Canadian Congress, B'nai Brith Canada, and many more organizations, have endorsed my bill, demonstrating the wide array of support of Canadians from all backgrounds and walks of life.
I am optimistic that the opposition will choose to support new immigrants and will not oppose giving our armed forces the support and respect they so definitely deserve. I am sure members of all parties will continue to be as open-minded to having a real discussion on this important issue at the committee stage as members from both the NDP and Liberal Party stated they were in the previous hour of debate. In that spirit, I want to once again reiterate that I am open to any and all amendments that are in line with the aims and intent of this legislation.
 I want to do the following: create more pathways to integration, support the brave men and women who serve in our armed forces, and underscore the immense value of Canadian citizenship. The bottom line is that we should reward those who are willing to put their lives on the line for Canadians and ensure that those who would attack the men and women who put their lives on the line to defend our freedom pay for their actions.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Agreed. 
 No. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those in favour of the motion will please say yea. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Yea. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  All those opposed will please say nay. 
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Nay. 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bruce Stanton):  In my opinion the yeas have it. 
 And five or more members having risen: 
 Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 27, immediately before the time provided for private members' business. 
It being 2:15 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, February 25, 2013, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:16 p.m.)