44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 3, 2022 10:00AM
- May/3/22 1:54:27 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, frankly, I thought that was a rather strange speech. The member spent a lot of time talking about the official opposition instead of his government's bill. That was an interesting choice to make.
Since my colleague encouraged the opposition to support the bill and tried to get the support of a majority of opposition members in committee, I want to ask him how this works now that one of the opposition parties is systematically supporting the Liberals.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the House for granting its consent, which gives me the opportunity to say a few words today. I hope to use this time to make some relevant remarks.
Let us get one thing straight. The member for Winnipeg North tacitly accused my colleague of finding excuses, false reasons and pretexts for voting against Bill C-19. Let me be perfectly clear. We will be voting in favour of the principle of the bill. We will work hard in committee to rework the bill, but we will vote in favour of its principle.
Incidently, I would encourage my colleague not to applaud me too quickly. I would be concerned. Several things need to be addressed. The only reason we are voting in favour of the bill is to amend it, and quite extensively in certain areas.
Let us talk about the process first. We are dealing with a bill that is a real juggernaut. It is a thick tome of some 500 pages with about 60 measures that amend 37 laws, along with several concurrence amendments. The summary alone is eight pages long. This is a bit of a kitchen-sink bill. It includes budgetary measures, non-budgetary measures, minor measures, as well as apple pie measures, as we say back home. At the same time, it also includes much more substantial things. I think a distinction should have been made between minor legislative amendments or small measures and much more substantial and profound measures that should have been examined separately. It includes measures to update certain things, as well as provisions from three bills that presumably would have died on the Order Paper.
That is the issue we have with this government and this parliamentary culture. We are constantly having these tomes forced on us and have to live with “all or nothing”. We have to agree with it all or reject it all. What we call a parliamentary monarchy is a bit of a paradox that way. We are told that, in this system, Parliament is the ruler. However, we are still in a system where, as the word “monarchy” implies, transparency is sorely lacking and where, all too often, a parliamentarian's purpose is to rubber-stamp mammoth bills, legislative monstrosities, like the ones that have been surreptitiously foisted on us.
What it boils down to is that the Bloc Québécois opposed the budget statement. As everyone knows, we voted against the budget. However, we are prepared to live with the principle at this point. I said “principle” because we are not ready to commit to supporting it to the full extent, unlike a certain other opposition party. We will see what happens next, when it is studied in committee, but we are willing to live with the principle because we think that many of the bugs that were in the budget are not in this bill. For example, the budget announced massive oil subsidies, including for carbon capture. There was also the issue of small nuclear reactors, and the budget contained major conditions and major intrusions on the health care systems of the provinces and Quebec. Fortunately, none of that is in this bill.
In addition, there are a few urgent measures that have been mentioned and on which we agree, particularly with regard to EI. My colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville explained that well, and there are some significant grey areas that were well clarified in the last speech.
There are also some measures that look interesting on paper and several that require closer inspection. One that I find particularly interesting is the obligation for federally regulated pension fund managers to disclose climate-related information. That is a first step towards what we call green finance, which is an important issue for my colleague from Mirabel. What we need to do is reorient our banking and financial systems toward supporting the energy transition instead of the energy of the past, fossil fuels. That calls for political will.
Some things look interesting on paper. One of those is aerospace, which is a very important file.
Bill C‑19 includes a tax on select luxury items. This was already in budget 2021, which reads as follows:
... it is also fair to ask those who have prospered in this bleak year to do a little more to help those who have not. That is why we are introducing a luxury tax on new cars and private aircraft [manufactured after 2018 and seating up to 39 passengers] worth more than $100,000 and pleasure boats worth more than $250,000.
Here is another excerpt:
If you've been lucky enough, or smart enough, or hard-working enough, to afford to spend $100,000 on a car, or $250,000 on a boat – congratulations! And thank you for contributing a little bit of that good fortune to help heal the wounds of COVID and invest in our future collective prosperity.
When we read that on paper, there is no problem. The Bloc Québécois is fine with the wealthy contributing more. The division of wealth takes political will as well. It is too bad there is not as much will to combat tax havens, but that is another story. The Bloc Québécois agrees with the division of wealth because it is a social democratic party. We have no problem with that.
Now, the problem is that, unfortunately, the devil is all too often in the details. The way the bill is written, all new aircraft designed after 2018, including planes, helicopters or gliders with a maximum capacity under 40 seats, including corporate aircraft, will be subject to the tax. Aircraft usually used for commercial activities, like the ones equipped for carrying passengers or designed exclusively for transporting goods, are excluded.
As I was just saying, the Bloc Québécois agrees in principle. The idea of a tax on luxury items and luxury jets sounds good.
However, we do have major concerns about the negative impact of the tax. As described in Bill C‑19, it is a tax on the Quebec aerospace industry. I can say that we have had various meetings with the aerospace industry, which is a key sector. The late Jean Lapierre used to say that aerospace was to Quebec what the auto sector was to Ontario.
Quebec is the third-largest aerospace cluster in the world, after Seattle and Toulouse. These three clusters are in three different countries. Canada is the only country with such an important cluster that does not have an aerospace policy, and Bill C‑19 does nothing to fix that.
I want to come back to the luxury tax. We have had meetings on this. I have had meetings with several industry players. Both the unions and the companies, including Bombardier, are concerned about this, as are the associations that represent small and medium-sized businesses in the industry. Obviously, when we think of aerospace, Bombardier immediately comes to mind, but there are a lot of very innovative, powerful and dynamic SMEs in the greater Montreal area, especially in Longueuil and on the north shore. There are a lot of them. Everyone is worried. Generally speaking, workers' associations can hardly be said to favour seeing the bosses line their pockets and not getting a share of the income and wealth, so when workers' associations, SMEs and large companies are in agreement, it is a sign that there is a real consensus on the fact that this tax must be reviewed and reworked. As it stands, it will fundamentally harm an industry that has not gotten the policy it deserves.
Last November, my colleague from Mirabel and I issued a statement. We would have liked to see the government get involved in aircraft salvage. North America is a huge aircraft graveyard right now. Given that Airbus has announced that it intends to accelerate aircraft recycling by creating partnerships with several regions in the world, we would have liked to see Ottawa hurry up and seize this opportunity.
We therefore reluctantly support this bill, but the Bloc Québécois will be extremely active when studying it in committee in order to fix its many problems.
1397 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member raised many points and I wonder which one to respond to and how. Like the 500-page bill, there are both good and not-so-good aspects. Let me try to summarize.
I recognize that Manitoba has an aerospace sector, as do other provinces. However, it cannot be denied that this industry's main hub is in the greater Montreal area. Trying to make this distinction, or watering down this interpretation, plays into the fact that there is no aerospace policy or concrete strategy.
With regard to that aircraft, the problem with this tax is how it is applied. Why does it apply to the aircraft, not the travel, and why is it based on criteria that often focus on the number of seats? That creates problems.
We spoke to Bombardier, which estimates that the impact on its cash flow could be in the range of $50 million to $150 million per quarter. That is huge. The government is carving up our cherished aerospace industry. It took generations to build, but the government's actions will destroy it all in just a few years.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
