44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I have to say to the hon. minister that I am very disappointed that we are once again seeing time allocation in this place. In the days of the previous Parliament from 2011 to 2015, when the Conservatives had a majority, we began to see time allocation used in a routine fashion and we knew at that time, as did the Liberals, who were then in opposition, and I, as the Green Party leader in opposition, that the constant use of time allocation for limiting debate was wrong, wrong in principle and wrong for parliamentary democracy. I do not doubt for one second the frustration, and legitimate frustration, on the government side at delays in legislation, but this place, Parlement, c'est pour parler, to be able to debate. This is an enormous bill. Now we are at report stage and we should have time to debate and discuss it.
I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary and minister to please consider that there are other ways to make sure that bills are dealt with expeditiously in this place without constantly using this bâillon, this guillotine, on debate. I urge the government party to rethink this.
I will definitely be voting against time allocation on Bill C-19.
211 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I begin by acknowledging that I speak today virtually from the traditional territory of the WSANEC nation. I raise my hands, and in the language of the traditional peoples of this land I say Hych'ka Siem.
I am speaking today at report stage of Bill C-19. I cannot help but reflect on the debate we just had on the application of time allocation to this bill. I would like to point out to the House and put on the record that, of course, I voted no to ending debate in the fashion that has become entirely too routine under the current government and the Conservative government before it. Having been used routinely under the administration of Stephen Harper and now under the current government, it is unlikely to ever return to what it was before 2011, which is to say that the House will suffer a permanent loss of normal, democratic debate under our standing orders for bill after bill.
In this case, Bill C-19 was tabled for first reading following the April 7 budget. It was tabled for first reading April 28. That is not that long ago in the life of this Parliament. This is not like Bill C-8, the fall economic statement bill. That was tabled in December 2021 and only passed in the last few weeks in this place. Bill C-19 has been dealt with quickly and sharply. It went to committee for reports, and it is already, and this is an important point that I wish to make, in prestudy before the finance committee in the other place.
The question of delay in handling this bill and allowing for proper debate at this stage is rather wrong-footed by the fact that, even though we will finish with it very soon in any case, despite the obstructive activities by the official opposition, there was ample time to get it properly debated at report stage and third reading and sent to the other place, where prestudy has already begun. It is a significant bill. For those who may be observing our deliberations today, let me just point out that this bill is hundreds of pages. It is an omnibus bill. It is not an illegitimate omnibus bill, as it deals with all the measures that were flagged in budget 2022 on April 7. It is not one that has extraneous measures crammed into it, which would make it an illegitimate omnibus bill.
This legislation is lengthy. There are 32 separate divisions, with hundreds of pages and over 502 sections. I cannot propose for a second to think that I could comment on all of them, even those with which I agree. However, the scope is enormous. We deal with everything in this legislation from safe drinking water in first nations communities, which of course nobody would want to have anything but speed apply to, to something called the “lunar gateway” and Criminal Code offences related to an agreement we have with the United States for events that may take place on the moon, as I understand it, to changes in the Criminal Code that raise some civil liberties concerns. They are in division 21 and would extend jail time up to two years for people who are denying the Holocaust, for which there is no defence. It is appalling and will now have a criminal sanction of up to two years in jail.
I think it is worth considering the scope of this bill, because it covers so many different measures, including ones I support, like the application of Magnitsky sanctions and being able to act to further sanction Vladimir Putin's cronies in order to apply pressure so that we get to peace talks as quickly as possible in the horrific and illegal war that is now occurring in Ukraine. However, we have a lot in this bill to discuss, and I put it to the House that the application of time allocation that just occurred in this place is inappropriate.
There are things that I would like to discuss in more detail. I agree with my colleague from the Bloc who spoke ahead of me. The employment insurance regime needs a lot more review. We have some measures in this bill that are good, but we have not begun to get to the work that needs to be done to consider, in particular, people in regions of the country where it is harder to find employment and people in seasonal industries where their employer makes the decision to lay them off seasonally and bring them back. Workers in those categories need to know that they can count on their insurance employment benefits, or what we used to call “unemployment insurance”. It is past time that we do a full review to make sure that unemployment insurance—employment insurance, as it is now known—is available to Canadians who have paid into it and who need it.
I want to turn some attention, in the time I have today, to the luxury tax, and I am thankful that the Liberal Party's allocation of speeches has allowed me to speak to this bill.
I initially liked the sound of a luxury tax. It sounds like we are striking for equity and fairness against the notion that there is the 1% and then the 99%, who are, relatively speaking, less represented and do not use resources to the same extent, obviously, as the 1%. However, I have come to the conclusion, somewhat reluctantly, that the luxury tax is more about pandering in public relations than about really dealing with income inequality in this country.
This luxury tax would not deal with income inequality. What the luxury tax would do is apply a tax on any car or aircraft that costs more than $100,000 or boats that cost more than $250,000. It is an additional tax on the cost of buying the luxury items, at the point of sale.
In reflecting on this, I looked at the work the Parliamentary Budget Officer has done. When looking at the luxury tax, we find that it would bring in $170 million in 2024-25. That $170 million is a lot of money, but in the context of the federal budget, it is sort of spilled corn flakes at the morning breakfast table. It would not bring in substantial money. It would take a lot of Finance Canada's time, both in application and at the point of sale. It would also add to a lot of people's transactional costs to even establish this tax.
The PBO also found that while it would bring to the Government of Canada an additional $170 million, it would reduce the sales in those categories by $600 million. I do not think it adds up that applying this tax is worth the financial cost to the Government of Canada and the economy of Canada, given that we would lose $600 million in sales, particularly in the case of boats and airplanes, and luxury cars too if they were made in Canada. They provide Canadian jobs and a positive impact to the Canadian economy and the communities where those luxury items are made.
Far more important would be to adjust the personal income tax rate. At this point in Canada, once a person is making over $216,511, the personal income tax rate is the same. It is 33%. That is our highest tax bracket. We certainly would do more to address income inequality were we to create a higher personal income tax bracket for people making, say, over $500,000 a year. I remind colleagues in this place that when the United States experienced its highest levels of economic growth and economic activity post-war, its highest personal income tax bracket was well over 90%.
We should also be looking very immediately at excess corporate profits. A tax on excess corporate profits, as the PBO has found, could bring in $7.9 billion a year. I contrast that with this so-called luxury tax. It is $170 million going into our fiscal resources versus a tax on excess corporate profits that would bring in just under $8 billion. We should not be chasing the spilled corn flakes. We should be going after where the 1% hides their wealth and where the 1% earns so much more than the average working Canadian, who has to hold down several jobs to cover rent and food.
With those final thoughts, I close my remarks on Bill C-19.
1437 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am sure that in devising this luxury tax the current government and its political leadership were looking to something they knew most Canadians would support, which is the idea of a luxury tax. What I am saying is that the way this is constructed, it is merely pandering to the idea that the government is tackling income inequality without actually doing it.
I think it is critical, when we talk about $170 million being a lot of money, as the parliamentary secretary just did, to realize it is not a lot of money compared to the billions the government continues to insist we waste on the climate-killing Trans Mountain pipeline. There are places where we should stop spending money, and supporting fossil fuels is an urgent cancellation. We have to urgently cancel the fossil fuel subsidies, instead of pretending we are dealing with income inequality through a luxury tax.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am deeply indebted to the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South for suggesting I have relative youth. I turned 68 this week, and I find his comments absolutely charming.
However, I will say that he is right. The purpose of the Parliament of Canada is to study and respectfully debate in a civil and collaborative effort to improve legislation. It is the case that I sympathize with the Liberal House management that some or most legislation is being needlessly obstructed by the official opposition, but in this the member is absolutely correct that the point of debate is to improve legislation.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member for Windsor West is absolutely right. We are not doing enough to promote electric vehicles. One of the things we should do is regulate to ensure that not too far in the future the purchase of internal combustion engine vehicles becomes illegal, we move sharply to electric vehicles and provide more supports to Canadians who want to buy them.
However, the biggest gap in this area in the federal budget 2022 is the absence of a national goal for a fully integrated electricity grid between Manitoba and Ontario, and between Quebec and the Maritimes. We lack the ability to move renewable energy across borders.
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 3:38:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put on the record my support for the proposal for an emergency debate from the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona and that the urgency is—
31 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
