Income Tax: The Last Six Months
Of Federal Activity

About

This Report

This is a computer-generated report that shows all of the federal activity with respect to the keyword "Income Tax" over the last six months. This is a demonstration of the power of our government relations automation software.

Hansard

House: 43 Speeches
Senate: 13 Speeches

House Senate

Bills

Active: 0

Regulations

Filed: 6
Proposed: 0

Regulations

The House

Ms. Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet (Hochelaga, NDP)

December 12th
Hansard Link

Private Members' Business

“...ir province's or territory's organ and tissue donation registry by providing their consent on their income tax return. (1805)

This legislative change will improve the consent rate and promote a culture of organ and tissue donation in Canada. Many health professionals and organizations support this bill and additional incentives for people to consent to organ and tissue donation. All it takes is a little political will.

I would also like to take this opportunity to speak directly to everyone tuning in and strongly encourage them to sign up for organ donation using whatever procedure their home province or territory has in place and, most importantly, to discuss their wishes with their family members.

I really want to emphasize that last point because, unfortunately, even if a person has made the choice to be an organ donor, family members have the final say. According to a 2016 Ontario study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, families vetoed the donor's wishes in one in five cases, which is huge.

I would also like Canadians to keep in mind what I said earlier, and that is that one donor can save up to eight lives and improve the quality of life of 75 people through tissue donation. What is more, age does not prevent people from becoming donors. In fact, the oldest organ donor in Canada was over 90 years old, and the oldest tissue donor was over 100. Medical history also does not prevent people from registering as donors. People with serious illnesses can sometimes donate their organs or tissue. Each potential donor is assessed individually.

If this bill is passed, Canadians will have a new way to consent to donating their organs and tissue. They will be able to do so via their income tax return and by consenting to allow their personal information to be shared with their prov...”

Mr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC)

December 4th
Hansard Link

Business of Supply

“... in all sectors impacted by the toxic medley of carbon taxes, higher payroll taxes, higher personal income taxes, tax increases on local businesses, and costly and burdensome regulations; and (b) call...”

Mr. Dan Albas

December 4th
Hansard Link

Business of Supply

“...all sectors are impacted by the toxic medley of carbon taxes, higher payroll taxes, higher personal income taxes, tax increases on local businesses and burdensome regulations. All of these things are ...”

Mr. Sean Fraser (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.)

December 4th
Hansard Link

Business of Supply

“...k at trade, we have secured NAFTA, CETA, CPTPP. The Conservatives suggest there are higher personal income taxes. The reality is the middle class is paying lower taxes today and the 1% is paying more....”

Mr. Dean Allison (Niagara West, CPC)

December 4th
Hansard Link

Business of Supply

“...oming in January, which will make it more expensive for businesses. We also have increased personal income taxes. I am never sure why any government thinks working people should be paying over 50% in income tax. I do not understand why, at the end of the year, we pay up to 53% and then throw on the ...”

Ms. Brigitte Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP)

November 30th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...way to reducing poverty. (1235)

To tackle the root causes of inequality, let us overhaul the income tax system to better redistribute wealth to the most vulnerable groups. To reduce poverty, we...”

Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.)

November 29th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...to 9% effective January 1, 2019.

In 2019, the combined federal-provincial-territorial average income tax rate for small business will be 12.2%, by far the lowest in the G7. Several federal departments and agencies, including the Business Development Bank of Canada and Export Development Canada, are working hard to help these important job creators succeed and thrive.

This overall positive outlooks reflects Canada's many competitive strengths, including a highly-skilled labour force, preferential access to global markets and a strong research and start-up capacity in emerging fields. We know that nurturing and expanding these competitive strengths demands policies that keep the focus on people and gives every Canadian the means to contribute fully to our society and our economy.

Wage growth is outpacing inflation for the average Canadian worker, as I mentioned, and we could see that growth mark one of the strongest years of wage growth in a decade.

Overall, as we consider this legislation that would implement measures from budget 2018, it is important to note that our economy is strong, healthy and growing.

I would like to briefly describe the essential pillars of Bill C-86.

The legislation includes an important measure to further stimulate economic growth, namely the new Canada workers benefit. The Canada workers benefit is an improved version of the current working income tax benefit. It is designed to encourage people to enter and stay in the workforce.

Und...”

Hon. Larry Bagnell

November 29th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...reasing financial assistance to the poorest families and, in the most recent budget, increasing the income tax credit for working people that will help over two million lower-income Canadians. When mo...”

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.)

November 26th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...rk. The new Canada workers benefit is a more generous benefit that will replace the current working income tax benefit as of next year. The CWB is designed to encourage more people to enter and stay i...”

Ms. Yasmin Ratansi

November 26th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...rowth and the number of things we are doing simultaneously, it is important to note that we cut the income tax for the middle class by 7%. Despite that, we have invested in infrastructure.

The C...”

Hon. Larry Bagnell (Yukon, Lib.)

November 26th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...me in shock when it came to the tax time of the year and found that she had to pay a huge amount of income tax on the child tax credit, which she was not prepared for at all.

The credit has been...”

Hon. Larry Bagnell

November 26th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“... given all of the investments I mentioned and the 500,000 new jobs. All of these workers are paying income tax and the businesses are paying taxes, and all of that is going into revenue.

Low-inc...”

Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.)

November 21st
Hansard Link

Routine Proceedings

“Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of ways to amend the Income Tax Act, the Income Tax Act regulations and explanatory notes.

I ask that an order of the day be designated...”

Mr. Greg Fergus (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

November 6th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...to enable the Canada Revenue Agency to offer this rebate to eligible taxpayers when they file their income tax returns. (1225)

In closing, we must all do our part to reduce greenhouse gas emiss...”

Mr. Lloyd Longfield (Guelph, Lib.)

November 6th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...nment introduced the new Canada workers benefit, CWB. This is a strengthened version of the working income tax benefit and will put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, giving people a little extra help they need as they transition to work. The new CWB will encourage more people to join the workforce and will offer help to more than two million Canadians who are working hard to join the middle class. It will also raise some 70,000 Canadians out of poverty by 2020.

Starting in 2019, the government proposes to make it easier for people to access the benefit they have earned by enabling the Canada Revenue Agency to calculate the CWB for any tax filer who has not claimed it. That would make the process automatic. Allowing the CRA to automatically provide the benefit to eligible filers would be especially helpful to people with reduced mobility, people who live far from service locations and people without Internet access. With the passage of the bill, an estimated 300,000 additional low-income workers would receive the new Canada workers benefit for the 2019 tax year.

By improving access to the Canada workers benefit and providing for more generous benefits under the program through the first Budget Implementation Act of 2018, the government proposes to invest almost $1 billion more in new funding for this benefit in 2019, compared to the year before. This will be a very good investment since we estimate that the new and enhanced Canada workers benefit will directly benefit more than two million working Canadians. It can then contribute to our economy even further.

Mr. Speaker, another important part of the bill is the measures it contains to improve tax fairness in Canada. In this budget implementation act, no. 2, the government is following through on a commitment to allow charities full ability to pursue their charitable purposes by engaging in non-partisan political activities and the development of public policy. Charities play a key role in Canadian society and provide a valuable service to all Canadians. They also provide perspectives that enrich public debate and help shape the formulation of public policy. (1235)

Under these proposed changes, charities would have a much broader scope to engage in public policy advocacy that advances their charitable aims. The proposed amendments accomplish this by removing the existing limits on non-partisan political activities from the Income Tax Act, including quantitative limits.

In the first Budget Implementation Act of 2018, the government stood up for our men and women in uniform. We extended tax relief automatically to all members of the Canadian Armed Forces and police officers deployed on international operational missions, determined by the Minister of National Defence, regardless of the level of risk associated with their mission.

In recent years, Canadian police officers have increasingly been deployed on international missions that are independent of missions overseen by the Department of National Defence. Accordingly, in this act, the government is now proposing to allow the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness to determine international police missions that would qualify for the tax deduction for Canadian Armed Forces members and police officers. Allowing international police missions to qualify for the tax deduction would ensure the same tax treatment for Canadian police officers deployed on international peace and stability missions as for those who are internationally deployed on missions determined by the Minister of National Defence.

I would now like to talk about other measures from this bill that would improve tax fairness by ensuring that everyone pays their fair share. The bill contains an amendment to the Income Tax Act that would preserve the integrity of Canada's tax base by ensuring that non-residents cannot use partnerships or trusts for tax planning techniques to inappropriately extract profits from their Canadian subsidiaries free of Canadian withholding tax. No one should be able to inappropriately extract profits from Canadian corporations tax-free and move the money offshore.

It is also known that taxpayers have engaged in aggressive tax planning in which they artificially combine their investments or activities with those of other taxpayers into one offshore entity, in order to inappropriately reduce or defer paying Canadian income tax. Taxpayers who use such tax planning strategies seek to artificially avoid having legal c...”

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

November 6th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...budget bill since the last election. It is 850 pages long and includes 70 pages of additions to the Income Tax Act, yet there is not one word about tax havens. Three years, six bills and 4,500 pages o...”

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC)

November 6th
Hansard Link

Oral Questions

“Mr. Speaker, the current government has raised income taxes on middle-class families by $800 per year on average, while taxing the wealthiest 1% $4...”

Mr. Len Webber (Calgary Confederation, CPC)

November 5th
Hansard Link

Private Members' Business

“...o think of a way to get registration up, and what better way than to target Canadians through their income tax form. Most Canadians do their income taxes, so I thought it would be a good idea to just ask them on the form. It makes sense to me and I hope it makes sense to everybody in this room. I truly believe that the bill will significantly raise our registration rates and also create awareness.

I would also like to thank my health committee colleagues, a number of whom are here today, including our chair, the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester. We completed a study on organ donation, as he mentioned. I know that I cannot hold up a prop, but I do have the study here.

I want to indicate one specific recommendation in the report that was brought forward earlier by the hon. member for Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam. The recommendation states, “That the Government of Canada identify and create opportunities for Canadians to register as organ donors through access points for federal programs and services in collaboration with provincial and territorial organ donation programs.”

The income tax form is an access point that reaches all Canadians. This legislation will do wonders to i...”

Ms. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.)

November 2nd
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...anada workers benefit, which will come into force in 2019. It is an enhanced version of the working income tax benefit.

This new benefit will put more money in the pockets of low-income workers. It will not only increase benefits for those who received it for their employment income, but also expand the income range to make more workers eligible. For example, with this new benefit, a low-income worker who earns $15,000 per year will collect up to $500 more in benefits in 2019 than in 2018.

That is the kind of real help that will benefit over two million Canadians. Most importantly, we believe this measure will lift about 74,000 Canadians out of poverty by 2020. That is not all. In budget 2018, our government also increased the maximum benefit provided through the Canada workers benefit disability supplement by an additional $160 to offer greater support to Canadians with disabilities who face financial barriers to entering the workforce.

This benefit will also be issued automatically, which is good news.

However, it is possible to do even better. The bill that we are discussing today will make it easier for workers to access the benefits they are entitled to, as our government promised in the last budget.

Accordingly, the bill proposes to make changes that will allow the Canada Revenue Agency to calculate the benefit for any taxpayers who did not apply for it on their income tax return.

It is not a problem if people forget or fail to complete the benefit schedule of their income tax return. The Canada Revenue Agency will still do the calculation. If the person is entitle...”

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)

November 2nd
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...ces as possible. We started off with the middle-class tax cut, which was a significant reduction in income tax for middle-class Canadians, and in a very courageous political move, we increased the rat...”

Mr. Joël Lightbound (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Lib.)

November 1st
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“... CWB.

Starting in 2019, the new CWB will represent an improved version of the current working income tax benefit. The CWB is designed to encourage more people to enter the workforce and to help ...”

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC)

November 1st
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...targeted modest and middle-income Canadians with higher taxes.

Let us start with the issue of income tax. The Prime Minister started his campaign to raise taxes by calling people “too rich” and therefore claiming they needed to pay more. We did not find out until after the election who he was talking about. We thought he was talking about himself, a multi-millionaire who inherited a trust fund, or maybe the finance minister, whose family business was worth $1 billion.

It turned out he was not talking about those people. It turns out the people he thought were too rich and needed to pay more income tax were moms and dads who have kids in soccer and hockey, students who are spending money on textbooks and tuition, and passengers on public transit. They are the ones who saw their taxes go up. They paid more for kids' sports, because they lost the children's fitness tax credit. They paid more to ride public transit, because the transit tax credit was eliminated. Students paid more for the cost of their education, because they could no longer claim their expensive textbooks as an education expense and the education tax credit itself was eliminated.

Those were the people that the Prime Minister was talking about when he said that the rich needed to pay more. He said that if people could put their kids in hockey, they are rich and get to pay higher taxes. If people go to university or college, they are rich, too rich and should pay higher taxes as well. If people take the bus and do not take a limousine like the Prime Minister, they are rich, too, and therefore they should pay higher taxes as well.

All of this is a little rich coming from the recipient of a multi-million dollar trust fund account from his family. It is also rich coming from somebody who spent most of his life living in publicly funded mansions, and driving around in government-funded limousines. However, according to the Prime Minister that is beside the point. It is also a little rich to say that moms and dads have too much money when the Prime Minister forces those same moms and dads to pay higher taxes so that they can fund his $30,000 of free nanny services every year that he uses in his household, while Canadians have to pay for their own child care with their own money.

That is the final stage. He started with insulting moms and dads, calling them rich. Second, he raised their taxes, forcing them to pay more for transit, textbooks, kids' sports and more. Third, of course, is the hypocrisy where the Prime Minister ensures that he gets taxpayer-funded child care services that no one else in the country would receive as part of their employment package.

Again, we have insults, tax increases, then high-tax hypocrisy.

Now we move on to small businesses. Remember when the Prime Minister said, in the last election, that small businesses, according to him, are merely vehicles for rich people to avoid paying taxes. We know that he was referring to plumbers, pizza shop owners, landscapers, shopkeepers and other middle-class people who mortgage their houses to start businesses and employ people in our community. He said that those people are all just tax cheats, and they needed to pay vastly more in order to keep their businesses up and running.

He brought in new penalties. That was the insult. Then came the tax increase. The Prime Minister decided to penalize family businesses for sharing the earnings and work of their business with family members. He then brought in new penalties for small business owners who save for the future within their company. If people keep some money in their company for a rainy day, sick leave, maternity leave, retirement or for a future investment, they would be penalized for any interest earned on that money in the meantime. (1145)

The most recent iteration of that penalty is that a small business can lose its small business tax deduction if it has more than $50,000 in investment income within the company. It is a massive tax increase targeted again at the middle class. There is the second step in the cycle. The Prime Minister starts by insulting the small business owners, then he moves to raising their taxes.

Finally, the last stage is high-tax hypocrisy. Who was not taxed more under the Liberal plan? The Prime Minister was not, to start with. There were no new taxes for his multi-million dollar trust fund inherited from his grandfather's petroleum empire, and no new taxes on the speaking fees he collected from charities while he was a member of Parliament and ought to have been giving those speeches for free like other members of Parliament do. There were no new taxes on those speaking fees, which he earned by the way while having the third worst attendance record of any member of Parliament. He is skipping out on his publicly paid duties to be here in order to give paid speaking engagements that most members of Parliament do on their own time and without charge, and there are no new taxes on any of that.

There we have it again. The Prime Minister started with insulting small business people, then he moved to raising their taxes, then he engaged in high-tax hypocrisy by protecting his own interests from any new costs. He extends that hypocrisy to his finance minister, whose $1-billion family business saw no tax increase whatsoever under the proposed changes to small business tax rates. His company is big enough to be on the stock market, and all stock market trading companies were excluded from the tax increase altogether.

There we have it: insult the taxpayer, raise the taxes and then engage in high-tax hypocrisy to protect himself and all his friends. That is the three-step approach this Prime Minister takes to every single tax hike.

Now we see it one more time with the carbon tax. The Prime Minister starts off with the insult, which is to call people polluters. Be careful, the polluters are not who we think they are. In the eyes of this Prime Minister, the polluters are grandmothers trying to heat their homes in -40° weather, soccer moms trying to take their kids to soccer practice and single moms trying to take care of their kids or drive to work. Generally, suburban commuters, anybody who has to purchase gas to move themselves around or to heat their home is, in this Prime Minister's view, a polluter. There we start again with the insults by calling everyday suburban Canadians “polluters” in order to justify raising their taxes.

The second step in every Liberal tax increase is to raise the tax itself, and so the Prime Minister has increased taxes on gas, home heating and other basic energy people require in our modern way of life to survive. These costs will roll out throughout every aspect of human life. If we want to heat our homes, drive to work or buy products transported by truck, train or ship, we will pay for more for all those products. If someone is a small business person who has to heat or energize their factory, they will pay more for that tax as well.

We have the insult, then we have the tax increase, and the last step is the hypocrisy, the high-tax hypocrisy. Who is not going to pay this tax? Large industrial emitters, the big corporations with the smokestacks on the top of their factories. Those enterprises would be exempt from the Liberal carbon tax. Just this week, we learned that coal-fired plants would be exempt from the Liberal carbon tax. In New Brunswick, the Belledune coal-fired plant would be allowed to emit 800 tonnes of greenhouse gases for every gigawatt of electricity absolutely tax-free.

Now, the government admits those coal-fired plants will be in operation for at least another 12 years, and that is if we would believe its promise that one day after it is long out of office that it will be able to shut down those coal-fired plants over a decade from now. In the meantime and in between time, those factories would operate without any carbon tax. (1150)

The same is true for large cement plants and other large industrial emitters. They will be exempt from the tax increase.

It is all well and good to exempt those corporations that have powerful lobbyists that influence government, but we have asked why the Liberals have not provided the same exemption to small businesses, to families and to others. We still do not have an answer to that question. Of course, that is the high-tax hypocrisy. We have again the three steps of every single tax increase: insult, tax hike and then high-tax hypocrisy. Those are the three steps that we can count on the Liberal government engaging in every single time it wants more of Canadians' money.

What motivates this three-step approach to increase taxes? The answer is it is to fund out-of-control Liberal spending.

Spending has grown at 7% a year since the Liberals took office. That is about three times the combined rate of inflation and population growth, depending on the year. In other words, spending is vastly outpacing the need. Those 7% a year spending increases have to come from somewhere. The government has to source that revenue. It started to do so by borrowing. The government's deficit is three times what the Prime Minister promised. Instead of balancing the budget next year, as the Prime Minister promised while putting his hand on heart during the election campaign and saying it would be gone, now Finance Canada says the deficit will continue until the year 2045, under which plan, the debt will grow by nearly half a trillion dollars until then.

This is all happening in a time when the government's own documents admit it has been the beneficiary of enormous short-term good luck. In the government's annual report, which came out about two weeks ago, the government admits that its revenue is higher by about $20 billion because of factors outside of the government's control: record low interest rates, higher than usual oil prices, a booming U.S. economy, a stronger than normal world economy, a housing bubble, which is slowly coming to an end in Toronto and Vancouver, all of which generate more revenue for the government. In other words, good fortune has fallen out of the sky onto the government's lap. The Liberals admit that in their own financial documents.

If they have an out-of-control deficit that is three times the size they promised in times of good fortune, how big will the deficit become when the luck runs out? The Liberals have not answered that question. I have asked the finance minister, at times painfully, 14, 15, 16 times in one committee session, when the budget will be balanced. He utterly refuses to answer. The Liberals have not told us under what conditions would a government ever balance a budget.

It does not matter what one's economic philosophy is, everyone agrees that there should be some point in the business cycle when the budget is balanced. I believe we should ascribe to have a balanced budget all the time, but even if one is a Keynesian economist, one ought to believe that at least when the world economy is roaring and commodity prices are high and interest rates are low, at that point in an economic cycle, for God's sake, the government ought to have a surplus to squirrel away for when times turn bad. However, even under that Keynesian thinking, the government is not living up to the obligation to balance the budget when times are good.

What are the consequences of having these massive deficits? The answer is that, in the short run, we start to pay higher interest costs. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that by the year 2023, our expenditure on debt interest will go from about $24 billion to $40 billion, a two-thirds increase in about half a decade. This means we will be spending more on debt interest than we currently spend on health care transfers. That means more money for bankers and less money for doctors and nurses. Canadians will pay taxes to get nothing in return except to pay off the wealthy and privileged bond holders and bankers that lent us the money and therefore own our future tax receipts. (1155)

When I ask residents of my riding what they want their tax dollars spent on, they say roads, hospitals and other essential services that allow them to live their lives. They never tell me that they want to spend it on enriching bankers and bond holders. That is exactly the consequence of government decisions to pile up new and unnecessary debt on the current generation and on generations yet unborn.

That is the immediate consequence of higher spending, but there is the medium-term consequence which of course is higher taxes. Those consequences are already starting to become known. Middle-class Canadians are already paying $800 more in income tax than they were when the Prime Minister took office.

As I said earlier, small businesses are paying higher taxes to support the government's spending habit with new penalties for saving within their companies or for sharing income and work with family members. Those tax increases are in addition to the new ones that take effect on January 1, that is, higher payroll taxes for workers and small businesses and of course the carbon tax itself. Deficits today mean higher taxes tomorrow. That is exactly what the government is delivering, both higher taxes and deficits at the same time.

That is the underlying motivation for the three-step Liberal process for raising taxes. We will see it again and it will not be long. Soon there will be another billing which the Liberals will actually give a name to. They call moms and grandmothers polluters. They call small business people tax cheats. They call people who put their children in sports or who take the bus wealthy. Then they proceed, after having demonized those patriotic Canadians, to raise their taxes.

The last step is always to look at the fine print and how much the Prime Minister will have to pay for this tax increase. Oh, he will pay nothing. How convenient. Of course, we could not possibly allow a multi-millionaire trust fund recipient to have to bear any extra burden at all. Life is already too tough living in a government-funded mansion with government-funded nanny services. He and his friends and those who have influence on him are always protected from the costs that they impose on middle-class Canadians.

I propose a different three-step plan: first, control spending; second, balance the budget; and third, lower taxes for all Canadians. That sounds like a three-step plan we can all get behind.

On that optimistic and exciting note, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions in the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018, and other measures, since the Bill fails to address the fact that deficits are three times what the Prime Minister promised, that the Department of Finance admits that the budget will not be balanced until 2045, and that the average income tax bill for middle-class families has increased by $800, not including new carbon taxes and ...”

Hon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC)

November 1st
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...y way of a rebate.” That is what he called it, “a rebate”. Canadians would get it right after their income tax forms were filed.

The Prime Minister went further and he promised the taxpayers wer...”

Mr. Kerry Diotte (Edmonton Griesbach, CPC)

October 30th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...rtificate, certificate of Canadian citizenship, a bank statement, government statement of benefits, income tax assessment, residential lease or sublease, a utility bill, a label on a prescription cont...”

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

October 30th
Hansard Link

Oral Questions

“Mr. Speaker, Canadians have seen the egregious holes in our income tax system with the paradise papers, the Panama papers, the Isle of Man scam and offshore tax...”

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC)

October 16th
Hansard Link

Oral Questions

“...re that the millionaire finance minister and Prime Minister were excluded from any new taxes. Their income tax increases actually only applied to the middle class, which is paying $800 more per family...”

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC)

October 15th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...hat the governing side has some expertise on this. We have a finance minister who, after increasing income taxes that took effect January 1, 2016, deliberately carried out a massive sale of shares jus...”

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

October 15th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“... in the first year after these tax changes took effect, the wealthiest 1% paid $4.6 billion less in income taxes while middle-class Canadians paid $800 per family more. How did they pay more? They los...”

Hon. Pierre Poilievre

October 15th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...r, the struggling middle class.

We cut the GST from 7% to 6% to 5%. We brought in the working income tax benefit, which gives a 25% pay raise to people who earn between $3,000 and $11,000 a year. We raised the personal exemption so that one million of our poorest working people would no longer pay income tax at all. We lowered the payroll tax, which is one of the most regressive taxes that target...”

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

October 15th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“Mr. Speaker, I will begin by telling the member about the so-called middle-income tax break. For Canadians earning $48,000, the tax break was $81.44. If we include an increase...”

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

October 15th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...ot doing that. We have been doing the opposite for the past three years. From this so-called middle-income tax cut, a Canadian who is earning $48,000 is saving $81.44 off their taxes. If we include carbon taxes, increased payroll taxes, depending on the provincial jurisdiction, where they are probably paying higher provincial taxes as well, costs are rising, including the costs of everyday essentials.

There are think tanks that say that the number one item on the average family's pay slip is taxes. They are paying more for taxes than for the essentials of life: rent, food, electricity or natural gas. For the first time ever, the average family is having to pay more in taxes than for anything else. We do not spend enough time talking about how to create more wealth and to broaden the base that has been a way of ensuring that more Canadians and corporations are at least paying a little bit into the system. When we pay into the system, it makes us part of it. There is a certain ownership in what the Government of Canada and what the Parliament of Canada do on our behalf. When we have to put a little money into it, we really do care what is being done with it. (1255)

The Liberals said in their campaign platform that a so-called tax hike on the top 1% would bring in $3 billion more. The Department of Finance then produced an estimate, saying it would bring in an extra $2 billion. The government actually lost money in its first year; $4.5 billion to $4.6 billion less money being brought in. Those are not my numbers. Those are Statistics Canada and CRA numbers, which say the government is bringing in less money than it did before.

The top 1% of income earners pay 20% of all taxes. The top 8% of income earners, including every member in the House, every cabinet minister, are paying half of all taxes right now. That is an incredible amount, just in the share of national revenue, that we are asking an increasingly smaller group of people to pay. It also speaks to the administration and the idea of taxing the rich, fleecing the rich, on a personal income side, which has been a total failure of the government.

Now we have Bill C-82, in which the Liberals want to go after multinational corporations and big business, and I am all for it. It is a fantastic idea. We have a tax treaty of tax treaties. It should be done right. I am glad we are at this point where we can talk about it.

However, where are we talking about the wealth creation to get small businesses and entrepreneurs to start creating more jobs, to want to invest? We had the aborted attempt by the Minister of Finance's department, and by him as well, to tax small businesses more because they were not paying their fair share. I heard loud and clear from general practitioners and small business owners in my riding who were just trying to make ends meet. They wondered how they could keep growing their small family businesses and eke out an existence to pay for the schooling for their kids and to continue living.

Calgary continues to have the highest unemployment rate in Canada. The reason for that is that the Government of Canada is in no way interested in ensuring that the energy industry of Alberta continues humming along. Most high-income earners come from Alberta. The Government of Canada has made changes to the tanker ban on the coast of British Columbia and the introduction of Bill C-69, which has passed through the House and is in another place. Every regulatory and legislative measure that the Government of Canada has been able to use to constrict and put the energy industry of Alberta into a pretzel, it has done it. The Liberals have succeeded in reducing our incomes. They have succeeded in undermining the ability of Albertans and Alberta families to make a living. They are not helping to create the wealth that they want to tax. We should be starting the conversation with how we can ensure people can create wealth for themselves and the Government of Canada can tax a reasonable amount from them to pay for common, public services that we all get to enjoy.

For multinational corporations, what we are talking about in this tax treaty is base erosion. They are using a digital economy to shift around so-called profits, and this is primarily used by big businesses. The ability of small businesses to do this is very limited because they need access to high-paid tax lawyers, lobbyists and accountants who know the details of these tax treaties, who can read the different tax treaties between different countries and take advantage of specific provisions in them.

After the paradise papers and the Panama papers, I think there is a general understanding among parliamentarians in both houses that something has to be done. It is not just in North America and in Canada that base erosion and profit-shifting for large multinationals is getting out of control. It is happening in European and developing countries as well. With the digital economy and the ability to cite their so-called work locations almost anywhere they wish, it has become profitable for companies to engage in this type of tax avoidance.

We also have to remember that they are trying to avoid taxes, sometimes punishing taxes, that limit their ability to continue working, to continue generating a profit for shareholders. If they are co-operatives, it limits their ability to provide a return to the members of the co-operatives. It goes back to the notion of whether we are creating an opportunity to create wealth. Instead, we usually talked about how we can tax more.

Another example is that during the whole cannabis decriminalization and legalization, the discussion primarily in the public was about how much taxes the Government of Canada would generate through the legalization provisions it had introduced. Oftentimes we did not talk about the potential for wealth creation through these businesses, through legalizing this one sector of the illegal economy, the black market that already exists. (1300)

The United States will not be a party to these international tax treaties that Canada and many other countries have, to this multinational effort on the base erosion of profit shifting, although it would be in its best interest to do so because it stands to gain quite a bit from it as well.

Canada's competitiveness is further eroding. We do not participate in measures such as this. The provisions in our federal corporate income taxes and the tax rates in comparison to those in the United States make us not competitive. ...”

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

October 15th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...personal exemption. We increased the amount of money that a Canadian could earn before they pay any income tax. All of our tax measures were targeted on the income tax side and were targeted at those who needed the relief the most. We are very proud of that...”

Mr. Kelly McCauley (Edmonton West, CPC)

October 5th
Hansard Link

Private Member's Business

“...d introduced Bill C-399,, the fairness for persons with disabilities act. This bill would amend the Income Tax Act to reduce the threshold for the number of hours necessary for an activity to be eligi...”

Mr. Arif Virani (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

October 4th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...d territorial child support laws require parents to disclose specific income information, including income tax returns, and set out penalties and consequences if a parent fails to disclose this inform...”

Mr. David Tilson (Dufferin—Caledon, CPC)

October 4th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...hat specific example in mind, there are many people who are self-employed, and just providing their income tax return does not reveal what their actual income is.”

Mr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC)

October 4th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...ress some of the ways individuals are avoiding payments, such as by working for cash and not paying income tax so that none of it is reported to Revenue Canada? If it is under the table, it cannot be ...”

Ms. Jennifer O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Youth Economic Opportunity), Lib.)

September 28th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...nce. We are proposing rules to prevent taxpayers from inappropriately reducing or avoiding Canadian income tax through treaty shopping and other transactions or arrangements.

Canada is active in...”

Mr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC)

September 28th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...o be paid. Moderate estimates indicate annual losses of anywhere from 4% to 10% of global corporate income tax revenues, or $177 billion to $425 billion annually. In Canada, we are looking at somewhere between $3 billion and $6 billion annually in taxes that could go to pay for any number of important programs or projects to benefit all Canadians. It might even buy us a pipeline or maybe pay off a third of the annual deficit, if the Liberals were so inclined.

Leaders of the OECD and G20 countries, as well as over 60 other countries, jointly developed 15 actions to tackle tax avoidance, improve the coherence of international tax rules and ensure more transparent tax regimes. The purpose of the MLI is to allow signatories to swiftly implement tax treaty related measures to prevent BEPS. The goal of implementing the measures in the MLI is to end treaty abuse and treaty shopping by transposing, in existing tax treaties, these jurisdictions' commitment to minimally include in their tax treaties tools to ensure that these treaties were used the way the signatories initially envisioned. Once implemented, the MLI would modify up to 75 existing bilateral tax treaties with, at minimum, the adoption of the OECD treaty-abuse and improved dispute-resolution standards.

It is important to note that there are scales on which Canada can adopt the 15 actions included in the MLI. Its treaty-abuse standard consists of two parts. First is an amended preamble, suggesting that covered tax treaties are intended to eliminate double taxation without creating opportunities for non-taxation or reduced taxation through tax evasion or avoidance. Second is a broad anti-avoidance rule, referred to as the principal purpose test, or PPT. Under the PPT, any tax benefit could be denied where it was reasonable to conclude that one of the main reasons for the transaction was to avoid paying taxes unless it was established that granting the benefit would be in accordance with the object and purposes of the relevant provisions within the treaty.

The other minimum standard is the adoption of mandatory binding arbitration to assist in resolving treaty-based disputes in a timely and efficient manner. Initially, Canada took a conservative approach toward the MLI, agreeing to implement the minimum standards. However, recently, the government has shifted that approach and has announced its intention to remove some of its initial reservations on optional MLI provisions, namely, those pertaining to dividends, article 8; capital gains, article 9; dual residency tie-breaker rules, article 4; and relief from double taxation, article 5.

I believe that this is an important factor to consider, because following ratification, Canada would be unable to add any reservations. However, signatories could withdraw or narrow a reservation following ratification.

The provisional MLI position of each country indicates the tax treaties it intends to cover, the options it has chosen and the reservations it has made. Signatories can amend their MLI positions until ratification. After ratification, countries choose to opt in with respect to optional provisions or to withdraw reservations. This makes the debate and analysis of Bill C-82 very important at committee stage. (1030)

Make no mistake, the Conservatives do support, in principle, Bill C-82. We want a full vetting at committee and we want to ensure the bill will meet the expectations of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I think everyone in the House would agree we must get this right.

I would like to turn our attention now to the four additional provisions added to Bill C-82.

The first addition is to implement a one-year holding period to access treaty-based withholding tax reductions on dividends under a covered tax agreement. A covered tax agreement, or CTA, is an agreement for the avoidance of double taxation enforced between countries to the MLI and for which countries have made a notification that they wish to modify the agreement using the MLI. Double taxation is a taxation principle referring to income taxes paid twice on the same amount of earned income. It could occur when income is taxed at ...”

Mr. Matthew Dubé (Beloeil—Chambly, NDP)

September 28th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“..., when we have an opportunity to speak with constituents at various events held in our ridings, the income tax act and the tax agreements signed with other countries may seem like issues that are not top of mind. Our constituents are focused on daily life, sending their children to school, looking after their health and managing their own budgets.

The thing that stands out to people is the fundamental inequity of this situation. People pay their taxes and the Canada Revenue Agency chooses to relentlessly go after single mothers who may have simply misunderstood a form or whose situation may have changed—maybe they separated from their child's father for example. I personally know individuals who have gone through shameful situations. I am not sure if my colleagues have had the chance to read the letters that the CRA sends those people. Even as members of the Standing Committee on Finance, I wonder if we would be able to understand the pages and pages of text and wording that is so complicated it has no meaning. We should not have to hire an accountant or, in some cases, a lawyer, because of the actions of an agency that is supposed to be a sound manager of taxpayers' money.

This situation is bad enough, but it is even worse when we consider that CEOs, the wealthiest individuals and unfortunately quite often friends of those in power, benefit from all these exemptions, all these poorly drafted laws, all these agreements that do not go far enough. Unlike the single mother, to continue with that example, they are able to take vacations in Barbados. Then they leave their money there while they are at it. It is unacceptable.

As a society, we cannot accept that. Our collective wealth, the social contract in which we are engaged as citizens of a society by paying taxes, and the work we call on the government to do on our behalf with our money, is one of the most fundamental aspects of our society. When we consider that some people do not want to fulfill this contract, do not want to meet this commitment, then we realize that we have failed somehow. Somewhere the government has failed in one of its basic duties.

These policies, these failures, are opening up a deep, dark gap of inequality between the rich and the not-so-rich. It is odd, because the Prime Minister loves talking about the middle class and those working hard to join it. In reality, when I am in my riding, I do not see a middle class and people working hard to join it. What I see is that certain citizens are honest and hard-working, and others do not need to lift a finger because they know full well that they will always enjoy the favour of the people in power. That is what is deplorable. (1210)

In my riding, there are some people who are relatively well off. They are the kind of people the Prime Minister loves to go after and brand as cheats. They are business owners running small and medium-sized companies, and to some people, they may appear to belong to a more privileged class. They have earned a good living and worked very hard on their businesses, but they are not the ones who should be targeted.

There are also people in my riding who struggle to put food on the table and can barely scrape together their rent or mortgage payments. In terms of means and lifestyle, these people could not be further apart. However, they have one thing in common, and it is what motivates me as an MP. They are all honest, and they all believe this: (1215) [English]

“A rising tide raises all ships.”[Translation]

The idea is that we live in a society where the wealth we share should benefit us all. They agree on that. The issue is the wealthiest 1%, which sometimes means literally 1% of the population but sometimes means Liberal Party donors who are friends with the Minister of Finance. They are the ones benefiting from a system that is totally broken.

Let us dig into the substance of the bill. Kudos to the member for Sherbrooke, who has been doing excellent work as our national revenue critic. He is doing amazing work on this extremely complex issue. Some people find this hard to believe, but he is Canada's youngest ever federal MP. His hard work got him re-elected, and he is so up on his issues that he can handle this extremely complicated file.

I also want to give a shout-out to the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who is doing great work as the NDP's finance critic. That is our job, after all.

We moved a motion in the House in this regard and so did our colleague from Joliette. We are calling on the government to do more and to solve the various problems and failures related the system that I just talked about a few moments ago in my speech.

The bill before us seeks to implement multilateral instruments and to address the fact that some of our agreements with other countries are expiring. These instruments are an important step that will enable to make changes to our multilateral and bilateral agreements more easily.

People need to understand that agreements, accords and conventions that Canada has signed with other countries often exacerbate the problem. We are being told that all of these agreements are being signed to prevent double taxation. For example, a business or individual would have to pay taxes in Canada or another country. However, the legislation and other aspects of the legal framework need to be updated because they facilitate tax evasion and tax avoidance, even though ideally they should not.

We will support the bill because we think it contains good measures that are a step in the right direction. However, let us be clear. Our support for this bill at second reading is not a blank cheque. We are far from supporting the Liberal government's approach, which has failed to date. The fact that we are supporting this bill also does not excuse the fact that the government has not taken action on any of the other issues related to tax evasion and tax avoidance that are of concern to us.

Let us look at subsection 95(1) of the Income Tax Act and section 5907 of the Income Tax Regulations. Dividends from a foreign subsidiary are exempt from taxes in Canada. That means that there are companies that are making a lot of money and they are even doing business with Quebec and Canadian consumers. They are making their money here but inflating their profits because they are exempt from paying taxes in Canada.

Closing loopholes is just a matter of common sense. We are not talking here about companies that do 95% of their business in other countries and 5% in Canada. We are talking about companies that do the opposite. We are basically talking about companies that conduct most of their business in Canada or the United States but that have opened a bank account in another country where they do almost no business at all. That is a major shortcoming, and the government has still not updated the legislation, even though it would have been quite easy to do. The bill that we are debating contains elements related to tax evasion and tax avoidance, but it does nothing to address the relevant aspects of the law.

It is funny, because earlier today, I heard a Liberal member say this has been one of the government's priorities since its first day in office. The Liberals have been in power for three years now, and nothing has been done despite pressure from civil society, prominent members of society, and even some former Liberal Party candidates. So many Quebeckers have called for action on this. We and our colleagues from other parties have been proud to speak on their behalf. Échec aux paradis fiscaux and the non-partisan Réseau pour la justice fiscale Québec are just two great examples of groups that are standing up and speaking out.

Just as an aside, not to be mean, but that is what happens when the 41 Liberal members from Quebec remain silent. When so many groups and individuals in Quebec are speaking up, those MPs come off as being not only silent, but also deaf because they are not getting their constituents' message.

I find it deeply troubling that no party that has ever been in power is blameless in this matter. I have only to come back to the example I mentioned earlier in my question to a Conservative MP. In the last Parliament, during debate on the bill on the free trade agreement with Panama, which was negotiated and signed by the Conservatives, I raised an extremely important point demonstrating that the issue of tax evasion and tax avoidance is nothing new. For years we have been talking about it, and for years the federal government has failed to take the necessary steps that Canadians expect.

To come back to the agreement with Panama, that country is known to be complicit in tax evasion and tax avoidance. The United States can hardly be called progressive, especially in light of recent events, but even they realized that when making free trade deals and opening up their markets to countries like Panama, it was vital to include a formal requirement demanding the return of any government or taxpayer money that had been stashed away by individuals who refuse to meet their obligations to our society. Through that agreement and other measures, the United States managed to recover some of the money, although there is still a lot of work to be done.

However, what has Canada done about this? We only raised the issue without even discussing the problems associated with environmental protection or labour conditions in Panama. We ignored these crucial issues. Even if we focus on just this one element, the government did nothing when we raised the issue.

This is very worrisome because the government keeps telling us that its negotiations will be based on progressive values and that it will discuss reconciliation with indigenous peoples, gender equality and environmental protection. Naturally, I agree with that. After all, the NDP are proud to raise these issues every day in the House of Commons. (1220)

However, when we have a progressive agenda, we must also promote fairness. We must take action to eliminate the gap between the friends of those in power, the people who can afford to vacation in Barbados and take their wallets with them, and the honest people working hard in our communities, the rich and the not so rich, business people, single mothers and everyone else who is harassed by the Canada Revenue Agency. That has to stop. I am repeating myself, but I have to.

I can only hope that when the government negotiates these agreements, it will recognize that we must continue on this path and demand better conduct from certain rogue international stakeholders. I may be suffering from misplaced optimism because this government has a bad track record on this.

When the Liberals came to power, they boasted that Canada is back, but what is Canada doing? It is allowing Netflix, Facebook, Google, and American multinational corporations to get away with not paying their fair share of taxes. Then it allows Liberal Party billionaire donors and friends of the Minister of Finance to do the same thing and shirk their obligations to our country. Then it allows environmental delinquents to evade their obligations. We do not even respect our own obligations. In addition, Canada keeps exporting arms to countries like Saudi Arabia. On that, we might say that the Liberals are trying to redeem themselves, according to media reports.

All of this is relevant to the debate on Bill C-82 because the bill talks about a multilateral instrument. If Canada really is back, then it should be showing some leadership in helping countries that want to combat tax evasion, tax avoidance and all the other problems I just listed. Instead, Canada is sheltering delinquent players and prolonging a situation that has existed for far too long.

I would like to explain why all of this is so important in a way that the people at home can understand. I do not mean to be condescending—far from it. When I myself get letters from the Canada Revenue Agency, my first reaction is often to wonder what it is all about. When people get these letters, they sometimes ask their friends if they are going to jail, because they cannot understand them. That is how single mothers, sick people and people with disabilities are treated when they try to claim benefits they are entitled to.

The member for Sarnia—Lambton said that this is criminal. She herself rose in the House of Commons to talk about diabetic people being targeted by the Canada Revenue Agency, which is totally unacceptable. However, the Minister of National Revenue keeps bringing up this $1-billion figure. She keeps talking about money, but unless the law and agreements are changed, we are just throwing money out the window. That is a very apt phrase in this case, because, after all, that is what the rich in our society are doing, and it is all the more laughable because this money is landing well outside the federal government's coffers. That is unacceptable.

I would now like to say a few words to all of my constituents. It is all well and good to debate the fiscal code of conduct and the Income Tax Act, but it is important to recognize that the government has consistently failed when it...”

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC)

September 28th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“.... That is exactly what has happened. The average Canadian middle-class family is paying $800 higher income tax today than when the government took office. That is before the carbon tax and before payr...”

Mr. Larry Maguire (Brandon—Souris, CPC)

September 26th
Hansard Link

Government Orders

“...ed with disabled people. It was also his government that expanded disability-related deductions for income tax purposes. Let us never forget that it was the Hon. Jim Flaherty who implemented the regis...”

Hon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC)

September 18th
Hansard Link

Oral Questions

“...lure for this particular government. We all know that middle-class families are paying $800 more in income taxes under the government, but we learned that the wealthiest taxpayers, the 1%, are paying ...”

Mr. Steven MacKinnon (Gatineau, Lib.)

June 20th
Hansard Link

Routine Proceedings

“...historic flooding. The petition calls on the government to consider the possibility of amending the Income Tax Act, specifically the section on RRSPs, so that victims of natural disasters can withdraw...”


The Senate

Hon. André Pratte

December 4th
Hansard Link

Budget Implementation Bill, 2018, No. 2 Second Reading

“...he First Nations Land Management Act, to the First Nations Fiscal Management Act; amendments to the Income Tax Act in order for charities to play their legitimate role in public policy debate while keeping their distance from partisan involvement; amendments to the Income Tax Act so that the Government of Canada can provide the residents of Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and New Brunswick with a climate change rebate. All of these measures and others were conveyed in the 2018 Budget, or in earlier budgets, as part of what the government called a plan to deliver more prosperity and growth to Canadians fuelled by greater equality for all Canadians. Are omnibus bills ideal? No. We would all like parliament to have all the time in the world to study each and every bill that comes before us. However, I acknowledge a government has to face the political and parliamentary realities of the day and govern in consequence. What matters is that the government does not abuse the legislative vehicle of omnibus bills by introducing measures that bear no relation to the budget or to the government’s economic plan. It is also essential that it recognizes the particular legislative challenges that omnibus bills present and give both houses as much time as possible, in the existing parliamentary context, to examine the different provisions of the bill. That is the purpose in this house of the pre-study process. In this chamber, Bill C-86 was pre-studied by eight different committees. In all, 152 witnesses, including department officials, have appeared in front of these committees. Today we will debate the principle of Bill C-86 and meanwhile, the National Finance Committee is continuing its work on the bill. When this is completed, the committee will have heard at least 61 witnesses, including government officials, and spent more than 60 hours on Bill C-86. Thus there is no doubt the bill will have been examined in enough detail for us to have an informed view. In the end, we should judge a bill not by its size but by the fruit it bears. On that score, Bill C-86 contains several key measures that will help the Canadian economy become more prosperous, fairer and greener. Honourable senators, climate change is upon us. The position of deniers has become untenable. Not only is the science clear and solid, the climate is changing before our very eyes. In other words, the time for determined, clear-sighted action is now. As an energy producer, as a modern, wealthy, democratic society, as a nation deeply involved in world affairs, Canada has a moral, economic and political duty to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. There are three possible courses to address global warming: voluntary action, regulatory approaches or carbon pricing. The first two have been tried in Canada for 20 years by Liberal governments and Conservative governments alike. These approaches have failed. As you know, our GHG emissions are higher today than in 1990. The time has come for the alternative approach. According to at an economic study commissioned by the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, a well-designed carbon price is an indispensable part of a strategy for reducing emissions in an effective and cost-efficient way. Since carbon pricing lets the market decide how emissions will be reduced, a large number of businesses, including companies from the energy sector, are convinced carbon pricing is the way to go. Amongst the partners of the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition, we find well-known names such as British Petroleum, Cenovus Energy, Enbridge, Shell Canada, Suncor Energy. Therefore, no doubt is left that carbon pricing is the best policy to reduce GHG emissions in Canada and elsewhere in the world. Bill C-86 is not about carbon pricing. Carbon pricing was already voted on when we adopted Bill C-74, the previous Budget Implementation Act. The bill we have before us today is about compensating Canadians of the four provinces that lack an adequate carbon pricing system for the financial impact of the federal carbon levy. Pursuant to Bill C-86 and the four provinces concerned, 70 per cent of households will receive a climate action incentive greater than the cost they will incur from the federal carbon pricing system. To account for their particular circumstances, Canadians living in rural areas will receive a supplementary rebate equal to 10 per cent of their baseline entitlement. This, not the carbon tax, is what we will be voting on when we vote on Bill C-86. If we vote against Bill C-86, we vote against a climate incentive rebate. Colleagues, today Canadian women in the workforce earn between 8 per cent and 31 per cent less than men, depending on how you measure the gap. That such a situation persists is, frankly, revolting. This is why Bill C-86 introduces the pay equity act, as announced in the 2018 Budget. The pay equity act will ensure federally regulated employers calculate the wage gap between women and men for similar occupations and adjust women’s remuneration in order to close the gap within a maximum period of between three to five years. A pay equity commissioner will be appointed and provided with the authority to receive complaints, facilitate dispute resolution, issue binding orders and impose administrative monetary penalties. In committee in the other place, many witnesses described the pay equity act as a historic change. Indeed, pay equity is a fundamental right, internationally recognized since 1951 and enshrined in the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1977. The Budget Implementation Act No. 2 finally puts this principle in practice. Concerns have been expressed amongst stakeholders and senators who fear the new pay equity act might be flawed in some ways. After studying the bill and discussing with government officials personally, I am reassured. However, the issues raised are extremely important. I have suggested to the Minister of Labour that she provides us with detailed answers to the concerns expressed. My understanding is the minister will do so quickly. The fact remains this legislation brings forward a historic change that will be hugely beneficial to women working in federally regulated workplaces. Honourable senators, technology, international trade agreements and other economic and sociological factors have disrupted the way Canadians work. The world of stable 9 to 5 jobs, the world many of us grew up in, has given way to a world where many workers struggle to make ends meet with part-time and temporary jobs, unpredictable hours and few benefits. In this context, it is increasingly difficult to balance work and family duties. Part III of the Canada Labour Code, which establishes minimum working conditions in federally regulated workplaces, has not evolved in step with these changes. This is why, after in-depth consultations with stakeholders, the government is introducing a series of amendments to Part III of the Canada Labour Code. With these changes, Canadian workers, especially the most vulnerable, will benefit from better working conditions adapted to this new era. (1630) If Bill C-86 is adopted, workers will have a right to access certain benefits such as parental leave and sick leave, notwithstanding their length of service with an employer. They will also have a right to be advised of their schedule within at least four days’ advance notice, except in emergencies and unforeseen situations; a four-week vacation after 10 or more years of service; a new five-day personal leave, of which three days will be paid; protection from unfair practices if they are employed by a temporary help agency; and sufficient termination notice and/or compensation when their jobs are terminated. Taking into account the perspective of employers, the government has ensured the costs of these measures remain modest, between one-tenth of 1 per cent to five-tenths of 1 per cent of their annual payroll. This Canada Labour Code modernization, which is long overdue, will mostly benefit non-unionized workers who work in temporary or part-time positions, have low wages and little access to benefits. In an era marked by unacceptable and increasing inequalities, this bill will make the country’s workplaces fairer. [Translation] Colleagues, perhaps you will recall that two years ago the government proposed a new consumer protection regime in the banking sector as part of Bill C-29, a budget implementation bill. However, the Senate opposed that part of Bill C-29 and the government decided to remove it. The problem was not with the proposed consumer protection regime. On the contrary, it was good news. The problem was that the bill had a clause affirming the federal government’s supremacy over the provinces in that area, which resulted in a shared jurisdiction, according to a Supreme Court ruling. Ottawa went back to the drawing board and is now proposing a consumer protection code for bank customers, as announced in the budget, that respects provincial jurisdictions in this area. One of the new requirements imposed on banks is that communicating false or misleading information to clients or to the public will be expressly forbidden going forward. In addition, banks will have to ensure that their products and services are suitable for all clients, specifically taking their financial needs into account. The bill also includes measures to protect whistle-blowers. Furthermore, the fines imposed on banks found guilty of violating the code have increased considerably and can now be as high as $10 million. I know that, as mentioned earlier today, the Quebec National Assembly passed a motion to ensure that the parts of the legislation that affect consumer credit and insurance contracts will not apply to the province because those matters are already governed by the Quebec Consumer Protection Act. As a Quebecer, I was obviously receptive to the National Assembly’s request, but after studying the bill and discussing it with representatives of the Quebec and Canadian governments and a number of legal experts, I am convinced that Quebec’s concerns are unfounded. The government was very clear in its public statements on the issue. Ottawa has no intention of reducing the scope of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act. The Minister of Finance reminded us of that earlier. His statements in that regard will carry a lot of weight if this matter ever ends up before the courts. I am also convinced that acquiescing to the demands of the Quebec National Assembly would be detrimental to consumers, including Quebec consumers. In fact, if these amendments to the Bank Act are passed, consumers will be doubly protected by both the federal and provincial laws. In cases where the provincial law provides better consumer protection, consumers can resort to that act. Honourable senators, this new consumer protection framework for bank customers meets the federal government’s objectives without encroaching on provincial jurisdictions because of the Senate’s vigilance. I don’t say that to brag but so that senators realize that, by exercising our right to provide “sober second thought,” we can have an impact on government policies for the good of Canadians and the country. [English] Colleagues, Bill C-86 removes the constraints imposed on charities’ involvement in nonpartisan public policy dialogue and development, as recommended by the Consultation Panel on the Political Activities of Charities. Charities play a crucial role in the development of policy in a great number of fields. This was acknowledged by the previous government in Budget 2012, and I quote: Given their unique perspectives and expertise, it is broadly recognized that charities make a valuable contribution to the development of public policy in Canada. However, for years the language of the Income Tax Act had bred confusion as to what types of activities charities could engage in and to what extent. As conveyed in Budget 2018, BIA 2 proposes to amend the Income Tax Act so charities are allowed to engage in public policy dialogue and development. The 10 ...”

Senator D. Black

November 7th
Hansard Link

Oil Tanker Moratorium Bill Second Reading—Debate Continued

“...iage of oil continues from Alaska. Alaska is one of the wealthiest states in the union. They pay no income tax in Alaska, and each Alaska citizen gets, on an annual basis, a remuneration cheque from t...”

Hon. Stephen Greene

October 24th
Hansard Link

Canada-Madagascar Tax Convention Bill, 2018 Second Reading—Debate Adjourned

“...ry about paying taxes in two jurisdictions, and the simple answer is that generally they don’t. The Income Tax Act allows for various credits for foreign taxes paid based on global income, meaning a Canadian who receives income from abroad while residing in Canada is eligible to claim credits with the CRA for taxes paid elsewhere. But if a Canadian resident elsewhere received income sourced in Canada, the jurisdiction in which they are resident may not give credits for taxes paid to Canada. That is why successive Canadian governments have sought treaties with various countries to avoid the double taxation of Canadians. Canada is not alone in this endeavour. Many other countries seek double taxation avoidance treaties, so much so that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has a model tax treaty template. Ladies and gentlemen, this bill follows the OECD model template and sets out the parameters in which each country may tax income received from the other. And in the cases where Canadian tax rates, as set by the Income Tax Act, are higher, this new legislation would prevail. The average Canadian who receives in...”

Hon. Percy E. Downe

October 23rd
Hansard Link

Canada Revenue Agency Act Bill to Amend—Third Reading—Debate Adjourned

“...ved third reading of Bill S-243, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax), as amended. He said: I’m on a bit of a roll here. I’m wondering if we can pass it. I wo...”

Hon. Amarjeet Sohi, P.C., M.P., Minister of Natural Resources

October 16th
Hansard Link

Ministry of Natural Resources Carbon Pricing

“...’s economy is doing really well. They have used their revenue from the price on pollution to reduce income tax. (1540) In the case of my province of Alberta, they are using the revenue from pricing po...”

Hon. André Pratte

October 16th
Hansard Link

Budget 2018 Inquiry—Debate Adjourned

“... to what the current situation requires. Both direct help to news organizations and a change in the Income Tax Act are necessary. The latter is required so that media organizations who choose the non-...”

Hon. Scott Tannas

October 4th
Hansard Link

Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued

“...den on the employer to resolve without the bargaining agent. In addition, Bill C-62 would amend the Income Tax Act to remove the requirement that labour organizations and labour trusts provide specifi...”

Hon. Percy Mockler

October 3rd
Hansard Link

Canada Revenue Agency Act Bill to Amend—Thirty-third Report of National Finance Committee Presented

“...o which was referred Bill S-243, An Act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act (reporting on unpaid income tax), has, in obedience to the order of reference of June 5, 2018, examined the said bill and...”

Senator Martin

September 26th
Hansard Link

Customs Act Second Reading—Debate Adjourned

“...on in any way poses a risk that Canadians wintering in the United States may become subject to U.S. income tax and more scrutiny as a result of information shared. Would you address that concern?”

Senator Coyle

September 26th
Hansard Link

Customs Act Second Reading—Debate Adjourned

“The question is whether they would be subject to U.S. income tax?”

Senator Martin

September 26th
Hansard Link

Customs Act Second Reading—Debate Adjourned

“I guess the risk of being subject to income tax with information about their travel. Some of the snowbirds or Canadians who may spend tim...”

Mr. Giroux

June 20th
Hansard Link

Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux Received in Committee of the Whole

“...t was very granular, and in the opinion of the agency, it would have contravened section 241 of the Income Tax Act, which prevents the disclosure of information that could identify a taxpayer, directl...”

Mr. Giroux

June 20th
Hansard Link

Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux Received in Committee of the Whole

“...initial request was 3,000 income ranges. So if you take all of the individuals who file zero dollar income tax returns, in a small jurisdiction — and you can think about any of the Atlantic provinces ...”


Filed Regulations

Estate of Laura Janet Brophy Remission Order: SI/2018-95

2018 October 31,
FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Gazette Link

“...nancial Administration Act footnote b, remits interest in the amount of $886 and penalties in the amount of $157, paid or payable under Part I of the Income Tax Act footnote c by the estate of Laura Janet Brophy for the 1994 taxation year.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the ...”


Mitchell Boyd Remission Order: SI/2018-87

2018 October 3,
FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT
Gazette Link

“...ncial Administration Act footnote b, remits tax in the amount of $7,050.02, and all relevant interest on it, paid or payable under Part I of the Income Tax Act footnote c by Mitchell Boyd for the 2007 taxation year.

EXPLANATORY NOTE

(This note is not part of the Order.)

The Order remits a portion of the income tax, and all relevant interest on that tax, paid or payable by Mitchell Boyd for the 2007 taxation year.

The amount remitted repre...”


Regulations for the Monitoring of Medical Assistance in Dying: SOR/2018-166

2018 July 27,
CRIMINAL CODE
Gazette Link

“...ions have been removed in favour of collecting the postal code for each patient, which will enable enhanced linkages with other data (census records, income tax records) held by Statistics Canada. Such linkages will give more reliable indications of socio-demographic information than those in the fo...”


Regulations Amending the Income Tax Regulations (Federal Crown Corporations): SOR/2018-160

16, 2018 July
INCOME TAX ACT
Gazette Link

“...Regulations Amending the Income Tax Regulations (Federal Crown Corporations): SOR/2018-160

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 152, Number 15

Registration

July 16, 2018

INCOME TAX ACT

P.C. 2018-989 July 16, 2018

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, pursuant to section 221 footnote a of the Income Tax Act footnote b, makes the annexed Regulations Amending the Income Tax Regulations (Federal Crown Corporations).

Regulations Amending the Income Tax Regulations (Federal Crown Corporations)

1 Section 7100 of the Income Tax Regulations footnote 1 is amended by striking out “and” at the end of paragraph (i), by adding “and” at the end o...”

“...assets and the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (the Project). The Agreement requires that the purchasing corporation be taxable. An amendment to the Income Tax Regulations (the Regulations) is required to provide for the taxability of the federal Crown corporation that will acquire and hold the Gov...”

“... holding the Government of Canada’s interest in the Pipeline and the Project, and their related assets.

Paragraph 149(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act (the Act) exempts federal Crown corporations from tax under Part I of the Act. The long-standing federal policy has been that federal C...”

“...ser corporation is exempt or taxable, the agreement with Kinder Morgan included a requirement that the purchaser corporation would not be exempt from income tax.

Objectives

The objective of amending section 7100 of the Regulations is to ensure that Project Deliver II Ltd. is a taxabl...”

“...II Ltd. as a prescribed Crown corporation under section 7100 of the Regulations. As a result, Project Deliver II Ltd. will be subject to federal income tax under the Act.

“One-for-One” Rule

Section 7100 is an existing provision of the Regulations and prescribing Proj...”


Cannabis Act (Police Enforcement) Regulations: SOR/2018-151

2018 June 27,
CANNABIS ACT
Gazette Link

“...cribed by the CDSA, irrespective of the Act of Parliament under which the overall investigation was launched. For example, an investigation under the Income Tax Act may require law enforcement to commit an offence under the CDSA (i.e. trafficking, importing or exporting, production) for the purpose ...”


Regulations Amending the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Regulations, 2007: SOR/2018-131

2018 June 22,
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
Gazette Link

“...d in determining entitlements.

Equalization is based on fiscal capacity measured across the following five bases:

(1) personal income taxes; (2) business income taxes; (3) consumption taxes; (4) property taxes; and (5) natural resources.

The Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangement...”

“... Description

The following four technical changes are being made to the Equalization and TFF formulae:

1. Refundable business income tax credits — Currently, refundable tax credits are deducted from business income tax revenues in the Equalization and TFF formulae. Under this change, these refundable tax credits will stop being deducted from business income tax revenues. 2. Cannabis — This change will clarify that all cannabis revenues will be equalized on the consumption tax base, regar...”

“...ption tax base; and stopping the netting of federal taxes (other than GST/HST) from the consumption tax base. 4. Personal income taxes — This change would exclude Alberta drug plan premium revenues from personal income tax revenues. “One-for-One” Rule

The “One-for-One” Rule does not apply to these amendments, as there is no...”

“... offset projected negative impacts of the changes on TFF entitlements over the course of the renewal period.

Rationale

1. Align business income tax revenues with accounting standards by no longer deducting refundable tax credits.

This change would improve the accuracy of the Equalization and TFF formulae by aligning the definition of business income tax revenues with Statistics Canada’s Canadian Government Finance Statistics standard, which Equalization and TFF generally follow. Under...”

“...edits are instead considered akin to program expenditures as they result in transfers to individuals and corporations. The change to measure business income tax revenues gross of refundable tax credits is consistent with a similar change made to the measurement of personal income tax revenues in the 2014 renewal.

2. Treat revenues related to the sale of cannabis similarly to revenues related to the sale of alco...”

“...ustment has little impact on the accuracy of Equalization payment calculations.

4. Exclude Alberta drug plan premium revenues from personal income tax revenues as they are considered service fees (user fees) for the purpose of the transfers.

This change will improve the accuracy of the measurement of personal income tax revenues. Service fees are excluded from the measure of fiscal capacity in Equalization and TFF. Alberta’s drug plan premiums are mor...”

“...ge. As such, they should fall outside the scope of the Equalization and TFF programs. With the amendment, they will no longer be included in personal income tax revenues. This is consistent with a change made in the 2014 renewal to remove voluntary Nova Scotia Seniors’ Pharmacare premiums from the measure of personal income tax revenues.

Implementation, enforcement and service standards

These changes will be implemented in the calculation of Equalizati...”


Was This Useful? Try Our Real-Time Alerts Product: Free Trial

Operated by Global-Regulation Inc.