Take heart, taxpayers: Even as you’re frantically digging through your files to assemble the necessary paperwork to file your yearly reckoning with the Canada Revenue Agency, the New Democrats are planning to make the Liberals spend a full day on the defensive over the “billions of dollars” lost to tax loopholes, deductions and shady offshore tax shelters.

Last week, the New Democrats served notice that they intend to use their upcoming opposition day – currently set for Tuesday – to pressure the government to “take aggressive action to tackle tax havens” and turn a critical eye on legal tax measures that, in the NDP’s view, “mostly benefit the wealthy.”

The motion, which was tabled in the names of New Democrat finance critic Murray Rankin and ethics critic Alexandre Boulerice, calls on the government to tighten the rules for “shell companies,” negotiate tax treaties that would allow Canada to “repatriate” corporate profits and abolish the “penalty-free amnesty deals for individuals suspected of tax evasion.”

It will also hit the House floor just days after a joint investigation by the CBC’s the fifth estate and Enquete shared new details about what the program describes as “a tax dodge for the wealthy dreamed up by one of the biggest accounting giants in the world,” as well as a “secret amnesty deal” between the firm in question, KPMG, and the Canada Revenue Agency.

In a statement issued Sunday in response to the program, Revenue Minister Diane Lebouthillier attempted to “clarify” her government’s handling of “the KPMG file,” noting that the CRA “continues to take action on a number of fronts, including actively seeking further information through the courts.”

She also challenged the characterization of the agency’s efforts as an “amnesty” — while nevertheless pointing out that decisions on whether to go to court to enforce a compliance order are made on the advice of the Department of Justice.

“Early dispute resolution, where appropriate, is in the public interest,” she added.

While the NDP motion doesn’t explicitly reference the CBC broadcast, it’s a good bet that it will come up during the ensuing debate — and since the reference to “amnesty deals” seems to guarantee that the government will use its majority to defeat it when it goes to a vote later this week, that is probably exactly the outcome on which the New Democrats are counting.

This is, after all, pretty much a textbook example of an opposition motion crafted to leave the government no option other than to vote it down.

This undoubtedly will lead some observers (mostly, although not exclusively, those of the big-L Liberal persuasion) to lament what they’ll insist on dismissing as a waste of Commons time — as though by not putting forward a proposal with at least fair-to-middling odds of winning the approval of a majority of MPs, the New Democrats are somehow falling down on the job.

But that’s not how opposition motions work. At least in theory, they’re not supposed to be supportable by the government of the day — the reason for which becomes obvious when you remember that the days on which those debates take place are also known as “supply days,” and are tied to the supply cycle.

The whole idea is to give the opposition parties regularly scheduled opportunities to make the case as to why supply — which, in this context, means money — should not be granted.

In recent years, the parameters have blurred: Opposition parties will now occasionally endeavour to come up with a motion that can win the unanimous (or at least all-but-one party) backing of the House, usually so they can issue a press release taking credit for making Parliament work.

But as the third party in the House, the New Democrats are operating at a distinct disadvantage. Out of the 22 days allotted to supply per year, they’ll likely get only two opportunities to put forward motions during supply period, with the rest going to the Conservatives.

Given those limitations, there’s no point in carefully designing a motion to be so utterly non-contentious that the government of the day would be happy to sign on to it. (If it’s that universally endorseable, just try to get it through by unanimous consent.)

By spending the day demanding that the Liberals get tough on tax crime, the New Democrats are fulfilling their parliamentary duties — and for that, at least, taxpayers can be thankful.