44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 22, 2022 10:00AM
- Mar/22/22 1:26:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it quite interesting to listen to members from across the way, and this member in particular who is a neighbouring colleague of mine, refer to making sure that we do not talk about this or provide empty rhetoric. I think those were her words specifically as they relate to the challenges that Canadians are going through and the reality of what they are facing. A quick search in Hansard comes up with a question from this member in the House on December 16, when she said:
Mr. Speaker, while working Canadians struggle to make ends meet, the finance minister continues to mislead Canadians by arguing that our economy is strong. That may be the case for some, but the conversations around the kitchen tables in rural Canada tell a very different story. Bills are piling up and credit cards are maxed. “Just inflation” has Canadians at their breaking points financially...
I am curious. When the member speaks of empty rhetoric, is she referring just to empty rhetoric from across the way, or is she referring to the comments that she herself made on December 16 during question period?
194 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 1:54:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, through the discourse today and even through the first question and answer, I cannot help but be reminded of how, whenever the Conservatives talk about energy, they talk about energy as if there were only ever going to be one source of energy and it comes from fossil fuels.
The reality of the situation, as we know, is that different types of energy, renewable energies, energies that are created in a much more sustainable fashion than extracting fossil fuels from the ground, are just gaining more and more popularity. As a matter of fact, in Alberta itself—
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 1:55:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was going to say that, in Alberta itself, the renewable energy industry has been employing more people for the last number of years than the fossil fuel industry. It is a signal that we are moving forward, and they are heckling that.
I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could provide his comments as to where he sees the future as it relates to energy—
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 4:21:32 p.m.
- Watch
It is not the size of your riding that counts.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 4:25:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to speak to the opposition day motion that has been introduced by the Conservative Party.
I just want to start by saying that I am glad to see such a motion being put forward today. It is a motion that actually addresses policy. It is a nice departure from what we typically see coming from across the way, which are motions that are geared more toward personal attacks on the Prime Minister or a particular minister. Rather, this is a motion that is actually discussing policy and putting forward a policy idea. Notwithstanding the fact that I disagree with this particular course of action, I am very grateful for the fact that what has been introduced by the Conservatives today through this opposition motion is of substance and can actually allow us to have a very good wholesome debate about a possible policy to implement in Canada.
When reading the text of the motion, the first thing that popped out to me was the issue in the motion with respect to GST, HST and the QST. The reason is that QST is the Quebec sales tax. It is a tax levied by the Quebec government. I am not sure how my Bloc Québécois colleagues feel about this, given that they stand up routinely for Quebec sovereignty in this House in terms of its ability to manage its own finances, but I find it perplexing that the Conservatives would bring forward a motion that would somehow allow the federal government to inject itself into the jurisdiction of Quebec, namely by creating options to rebate some sales taxes that are collected by Quebec. Perhaps that was not the intent of the motion. Perhaps the idea that the drafter of the motion had was something different, but at the end of the day that is certainly how it presents itself, at least in my reading of it.
I also find it very interesting that, for the six years I have been in the House, I have heard time and time again the Conservative Party criticize the government, quite often blaming the price of oil in Canada squarely on the Prime Minister as if it was his fault that the price of oil was so low that Alberta and other western provinces were not able to extract efficiently more oil out of the ground. Now, suddenly, they seem to be in a position where they are basically advocating that gas, which is made from oil, be now subsidized or the funds that are collected by the government with respect to that increase should now somehow be turned back over, basically criticizing the fact that the price of oil is now so high.
I think the issue I have the biggest concern with, as it relates to this opposition motion, is one that brings me back to my time as a city councillor and mayor of Kingston. One of the things that we relied upon quite seriously when building infrastructure in the city of Kingston was being able to rely on what was at least then called the gas tax, which is now called the Canada community-building fund. This is where a portion of that HST that is collected at the pumps is actually taken by the federal government and distributed right back to municipalities so that those municipalities can spend it on very important infrastructure projects in their communities. There are more than 650 community recipients of various different municipalities and jurisdictions within Ontario alone that receive funding through the former gas tax and now the Canada community-building fund, which totals roughly $816 million annually in Ontario alone.
It is very concerning that we might reduce, even just for a short term, the amount of money that can be collected and turned back over to municipalities to invest specifically in infrastructure. A lot of the time, at least in Kingston, we spent a lot of that gas tax money on improving the infrastructure within our transit network, everything from road rehabilitation right through to public transit, quite often relying on tourism perspectives to get people in and out of our community. We relied, as a municipality, quite heavily on that funding. I know a lot of municipalities throughout Ontario do that.
The AMO, the Association of Municipalities Ontario, does a very good job for the federal government of tracking exactly where that money is spent. We can go to its website to see where money from the gas tax, now known as the Canada community-building fund, is being distributed throughout the province of Ontario and know exactly how that money is being applied.
I am not surprised that the Conservatives want to perhaps take this position on the issue. If we look back, historically Stephen Harper had an absolutely horrible record at providing infrastructure money to municipalities throughout Canada. This government has taken a much different approach that says municipalities throughout Canada are our partners and that we will partner with them to make sure we are building the infrastructure they need not only for today, but more importantly for tomorrow. That is what this money is all about. That is the importance of collecting and redistributing the gas tax, now known as the Canada community-building fund, back to municipalities throughout Ontario.
I recognize that the Conservatives might have a different approach on this, and I respect that. I respect the fact that when they bring forward a motion like this, they might be signalling back to that style of engagement with municipalities. However, it certainly is not the manner in which this government has acted in looking at that relationship to build infrastructure with municipalities over the last six years, nor is it in any way an indication, if we look at the language coming from the finance minister, of what our plan is moving forward. We genuinely want to be there with municipalities to get them the funding they need to keep building infrastructure, and a huge portion of that comes through the Canada community-building fund and the collection of HST at the pumps. If members think about that, it is the people using the roads who are contributing to this fund. They are the ones who will be putting money into the fund through that tax, which will go back to investing in and building on the infrastructure they are using.
There is no doubt, and I will echo a lot of what has been said in the House today, that what we are seeing here is a rise in the price of gas. Members of the opposition continually try to suggest that this and inflation are somehow the responsibility of the Prime Minister. Somehow they think the Prime Minister of Canada, somebody who they have criticized for years as being unable to do anything, suddenly has the ability to arbitrarily affect the price of oil and gas throughout the world, and inflation for that matter. However, this is a global problem. This is a problem that has come largely from the war that Vladimir Putin began with Ukraine. We have seen why this is happening, and it is a stark reality of the situation throughout the world. This is the reality of what happens when countries become dependent on fossil fuels, and energy in particular, from other jurisdictions around the world. They become dependent and reliant on those other jurisdictions, and that is exactly what we are seeing.
When we look at what the leaders in other parts of the world, in particular in Europe, are saying, they want to move at a faster pace away from fossil fuels and transition to more renewable, sustainable sources. This leads me to my last point. Once again, the Conservatives are bringing forward a motion that is entirely based on fossil fuels. They have this incredible addiction to and obsession with oil in particular. They are unable to realize and recognize that we are moving away from oil. The world is moving away from oil. This is not a Liberal thing. It is not an NDP thing. It is not a Bloc thing. It is not a Green Party thing. The world is moving away from oil, and the Conservatives need to get on board, figure that out and become part of it so that we can capitalize on our opportunities in Canada to ensure that happens.
Even in the province of Alberta, the growth in the renewable energy sector is far outpacing any growth in the fossil fuel industry. Members are laughing at it as though they are concerned about it. We can look at the stats from Statistics Canada that relate to that growth. It is happening, and it is time that we get on board and be part of it.
1481 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 4:37:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have two points on that. The first is that we are talking about taking away the ability of the Government of Canada to continue to invest in municipalities. What does that do? When we take money away from municipalities, we are forcing municipalities to raise their property taxes.
Let me get back to the last point the member made. He made a point about what is happening with the oil and gas increases. I note that he said over the next 10 to 20 years. Guess what? We do not build pipelines to look at the short term, in 10 to 20 years. We build pipelines and set up massive extraction operations of oil to look toward what we are going to be doing 30 or 40 years from now.
The member is absolutely right that we are reliant on oil right now. What I said is that we are moving away from it. Will we entirely get off it? I highly doubt that, but we will significantly move away from it and this will affect our desire to continue to extract oil from the ground.
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 4:39:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I reject the premise of the question. The member said that the motion has to do with inflation. Inflation is not mentioned in here once. Housing is not mentioned in here once. What is talked about here is the rise in the price of gas. That is the result of a war that is going on in Europe right now. This is not a result of inflation.
My comment to the member is that I hope the Bloc Québécois is reflecting on the fact that the motion specifically calls on the federal government to jump into Quebec jurisdiction by affecting the Quebec sales tax. Does the member from the Bloc want to stand by that?
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 4:41:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, again, I reject that. The member is saying that this is entirely based on inflation. The price of gas has gone up considerably higher than inflation. If we were to talk about inflation only, the price of gas would not be where it is today. The price of gas, although inflation has affected it, has substantially increased not because of inflation, but because of a war that is going on in Europe. I know the NDP member knows that.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 4:50:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this motion would essentially ask that all individuals get the exact same rebate when they are filling up for gas. I am very fortunate that I can afford the extra amount. Given the fact that I have a good job, I am able to do that. I imagine that this member is in the same position as me.
Does she not think that it would be better to take money that has been collected and make sure it is invested in those, like those she mentioned, who are struggling the most? Is that not what social programs are all about, which is the redistribution of wealth as opposed to giving breaks to individuals who might not necessarily need it, like me or, as I would suggest, like her?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member on the introduction of his private member's bill. It is always a great opportunity for members to bring forward policy ideas that they are individually extremely passionate about, and I am glad to see that this member has had that opportunity.
I wanted to address one thing that I heard the member say in his speech. If I heard him correctly, and I may have gotten it wrong and he can correct me if I did, he said that the cost of this would be approximately $50 million. My understanding from the PBO is that it would be over $750 million with the possibility of getting close to $1 billion. That is my understanding of what the PBO had reported on it.
Can the member either tell me that I misheard him or tell me what I and the PBO might be missing?
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today.
A lot of representation from Manitoba and from Quebec has spoken to this particular bill, and now I will lend my voice as the first Ontarian to speak to the bill before us.
I want to go back to the comment I made at the beginning of the question I asked the member who introduced the bill, which was how important it is that private members' bills have an opportunity to come before this House to advance individual ideas that members have that they are passionate about. I know this particular issue is not just important to this member but indeed to a number of members who were around when it was introduced in the 2015 budget of Stephen Harper. As pointed out by the sponsor of the bill, it did not get implemented due to the change in government, so I can recognize that there is a desire for this. Indeed, I can also recognize where the intent of this piece of legislation is coming from and why it can be looked at as very favourable.
I will be completely honest in that I am learning a lot about this initiative from reviewing the bill beforehand, forming some opinions on it and listening to what I heard in the House this evening. I cannot say that I have come to a conclusion as to how I will vote on it, but I am certainly interested in hearing more, and when we get to the second hour of debate, I will continue to listen to inform myself on how to vote.
I will say from the outset that I have a few concerns. Perhaps between now and the second reading I can have a conversation with the sponsor of the bill so that he can try to address some of the concerns, which I will put forward now.
The first concern is with respect to the fact that I see the legislation before us as being disproportionately in favour of those who are high-income earners, or those who are in a position to have shares in companies or real estate and have the ability to dispose of those towards charity. However, any taxing measure that seeks to remove tax from individuals who are high-income earners I generally look at as regressive forms of taxation because they would primarily benefit such a small class of high-income individuals rather than targeting the charitable organizations and the broader public.
This brings me to my next concern, which is that I do not fully understand how the benefit is going to flow from the tax incentive to charity. I have been thinking about this as I have been listening, and I realize that the bill speaks specifically to shares and real estate, so I thought of who would donate real estate. What pops into my head when I think of the times when somebody would donate real estate is that, probably more often than not, it is part of an estate settlement through somebody's will.
If somebody has a piece of property that they want to donate to a charity, that is something that would probably be willed, or the executor of an estate, through consultation with those named in a will, would come to a determination to donate a piece of property. However, the only recipient that I see as being a beneficiary to a tax implication on that is the actual estate in that case. The estate would save on the capital gains tax there, but that would not necessarily be transferred down to the charitable organization because in my example the charitable organization would have received that particular piece of real estate regardless of whether or not the capital gains tax was paid.
In order to properly look at this, I would have to assume that we are not necessarily talking about estate planning, or those who are willing property or shares for that matter, but those who are doing it while they are still alive, outside of their estate. The question then becomes this: How often does that happen? How often do people gift shares in companies or gift property to charitable organizations while they are still alive? I certainly respect the fact that it indeed does happen, and it happens quite a bit, but I still fail to see how the benefit will be transferred down to the charitable organization.
That is one of the big problems that I had with this. How does that benefit go from the individual who is receiving the capital gains benefit to the charitable organization?
The third and last concern that I would bring to the attention of the House is with respect to the cost of this particular measure. I know that it has been brought up by a few other colleagues. I had the opportunity to ask the sponsor of the bill a question about that and he indeed did provide some clarity to me with regard to the discrepancy between what the PBO was saying and what he said in his speech. It makes sense when he talks about it being over a five-year period. That certainly clears up a lot of that, but there is still a cost to it.
I guess I land on the position of trying to determine, personally, whether I see the benefit of the cost associated with this particular tax measure being of a benefit to society as a whole, and that is where I am a little concerned. As I indicated in my question, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that it would be in the neighbourhood of $750 million, as much as a billion, and depending on what the uptake on this is, it could even be more. I hope the sponsor realizes that this is a real concern of some of us in the House, particularly me.
I would also perhaps add that I do not think it is the regular practice of any government to allow a private member's bill to change our tax code specifically. The tax code is a very complex document. I know that there have been calls, many times over the last few decades, to relook at our tax code from square one, i.e., put everything aside and start to build a new one because of how complex the tax code is with the various different layers and parts that are inserted into it. I am concerned about what the implications of this might be as it indirectly or directly relates to the tax code. I know it sounds very straightforward, but as we have seen in other times, whether it be through government legislation, in particular, or private member's motions like this, changing the tax code could have other consequences that we are not looking at in advance when we are trying to study this as a whole.
Those are the concerns that I have. I certainly, as I indicated previously, will continue to listen to the debate. I want to hear more as this comes forward in the second hour for the next reading of this and then hopefully inform myself to the point that I can make a good, wise decision and cast my vote in this place.
1221 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
